Wednesday, November 24, 2010

בשאלת מהות איסור חזרה בשבת

במשנה בריש פרק כירה, דף לו: מח' ב"ש נוטלים אבל לא מחזירים (רש"י אומר כי מחזי כמבשל), וב"ה מתירים אף להחזיר. לח: ר' ששת אומר לב"ה, מחזירין אפילו בשבת.מח' בגמ' אם צריך עודו בידו ודעתו להחזיר, או מותר אף עם אחד מן התנאים. מיחם למיחם, תלה במקל, על מטה, תיקו.

- לרש"י, המשנה מדבר בליל שבת, וזה עיקר המח', ולכן דברי ר' ששת שמחזירין אפילו בשבת, מדובר ביום המחרת.הייתי חושב שבליל שבת מותר כי מוכח שאדעתה לאהדורי בשביל מחרת, אבל בשבת לא מוכחא מילתא, קמ"ל שאף ביום השבת מותר.לרש"י, לב"ש, מה שאסור זה ליל שבת.

- אבל תוס' אומר שפשטות המשנה מורה על עובדה שעיקר המח' זה בחול, לא בשבת. כל המשנה מובן יותר בקלות (במיוחד חלק הראשון) בערב שבת. לכן דברי ר' ששת "אפילו בשבת" מוסבים על ליל שבת. לתוס', מה שאסור לב"ש זה ערב שבת אם לא יוכל להרתיחו מבעוד יום. זה בעייתי לי, למה שיהיה אסור בע"ש, אף אם לא יוכל להרתיח מבעוד יום? איך זה שונה משהייה שמותר לפני שבת כדי שייגמר בישולו בשבת עצמו? איך חזרה זה אסור בגלל מחזי כמבשל אבל שהייה מותר?

- לענות על שאלתי, עיין רא"ש שמסביר. כמו תוס' הוא שואל כמה זמן קודם שבת אסור להחזיר? ועונה, 1 אסור היכא דנתקרר ואין שהות להרתיח מבעוד יום. אבל לא שמח עם זה, כי אז יש הבדל בין איסור חזרה בשבת לבע"ש, שבשבת אסור אף אם רותח, אבל בע"ש מותר אם כבר רותח. אז מסיק רא"ש וגם תוס' ש2 בע"ש אף אם רותח אסור כל היכא דאם היה קר לא היה יכול להרתיח עד שבת. ואיסור חול של חזרה זה כמו של שבת. בשבת כבר נתבשל ורק נמצא על הכירה להשהותה שם, כן נמי בע"ש, אסור להחזיר היינו אחר שנגמר הבישול ומניחה עומדת על הכירה להחזיק החום. ואם נטלה אז מן הכירה, אסור להחזירה, אטו שבת (אטו מחזי כמבשל שזה הסיבה שחזרה אסורה בשבת עצמה). וכולה חדא גזרה, כיון שלא מתבשלת עוד על הכירה זה כתחילת שהייה, ואם שרינן להחזיר מבעוד יום, יבוא לעשות כן בשבת. אבל כל זמן שלא נתבשלה כל צרכה וודאי נוטל ומחזיר כל הזמן, כי זה שהייה ולא חזרה. כל זמן שהוא עומד על האש בלא הפרעה ברציפות, זה שהייה שמותר. מיד כשמוריד מהאש, זה שובר את השהייה, ומייד כשיחזיר, זה ממש מחזי כמבשל, זה נראה כמו הפעולה של מבשל.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, A Summary

I have almost finished reading Bloom's Closing of the American Mind and, while I am sure I will have more to say in way of criticism and discussion in the future, for now I feel the need to summarize what he has written. The book is heavier reading than I expected, and I anticipate that the finer points may become blunted with the passage of time unless I commit his general thesis to writing while it is still fresh in my mind. Any corrections or comments are welcome.

Bloom argues that in modern culture, people have become homogenized; differences are shallow and culture presently contains only the most superficial elements of what culture used to mean.

Parents have lost control over their children's moral discipline with television and music replacing an anchored morality with relativistic moral theories. There are new morals for new times, and the old generation might get out of the way if they refuse to lend a hand.

Modern American interest in music, other people, relationships, religion, and love, lacks that which gave these things meaning and value. They are now immediate and appreciated for the most superficial elements they possess: love and Eros are really just sex; musical complexity, shades of meaning and passion are really just the heavy, brutish sexualized beat of rock. Making these sublime aspects of life immediately tangible and attainable by everyone, we have robbed them of their height; the ascent to the pinnacle of the mountain has been plowed to a plateau that is the lowest common demoninator.

American democracy has led to an egalitarian push to say that every child is creative, exceptional and genius. As soon as someone develops truly into these things, as a Beethoven or a Shakespeare, democracy pushes them back into the pack, because everyone standing out means no one really can.

In modern society's greatest success, the Enlightenment, Locke and his compatriots cast off the shackles of a social order led by a monarch (the type of society which put Socrates to death) who endangered the scientist/philosopher by trying to fit him into the social system and control his thoughts. They deliberately replaced monarchy with liberal democracy, which saw as the most protected, and the most sacred, the untouchable, the scientists and philosophers, who ultimately ran the society as puppeteers. However, natural science went its own way with its freedom, leaving the unifying meta-system, philosophy, in the cold. While Kant bridged the gap, giving natural science and reason its limits and providing a framework for everything else, Rousseau, and, later Nietzsche and Heidegger, saw the weakness of reason and the contemplative life. They saw action as superior to thought. Thus, in a backlash against the contemplative side of the scientist/philosopher, and against the Enlightenment in fact, they took advantage of the natural sciences and eschewed the historical consciousness called for by the Enlightenment (a prime example is the philosophical climate of the Soviet Union). Viva Activa was better than Viva Contemplativa. Values are relative, and there is no way for one to pass judgment other than action. It is this reaction that ushered in the collapse of the University as an independent, sacred ground for thinkers with true academic freedom. It is here that the University became simply another arena in which the cultural and political theories and parties acted out their battles.

And it is precisely this backlash against the Enlightenment that has come to the shores of America, decades after Heidegger's capitulation of the German University. In the American sixties, as in the twenties in Germany, the University has lost its sacred status as the source of contemplative thought and open, free discourse. The Black Power movement is only a powerful example of what is happening and continues to happen. Bloom quotes Marx, that "History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." In Germany, it was the right, here, it is the left, but it is the same dismantling of the University and the contemplative life in both cases. The professors are unable to defend the University because they have lost vision of its purpose. They try to give the public what it wants, because they have forgotten what it means to educate, to raise above the mundane and create a beacon of academic freedom and honesty. They strip core classes of languages, history, philosophy, and they thus turn their schools into vocational schools, not meant to educate and ennoble, but meant to give economical and political power to their charges.

In addition, a new interest in morality rose in the student body (which was indicative of general society). This was not the quiet morality of doing no evil, telling the truth and respecting elders -- the brand of morality that makes sacrifice every day, which Kant claimed is understood by the child but takes a lifetime of humble goodness to achieve. Rather, this new morality was the morality not of keeping laws, but of breaking them in the name of a higher law. It was a constant crisis, not acknowledging true morality, and seeing the moral struggle only in the epic, they type of struggle which in reality is truly rare. (We can see this today with University students championing the major moral causes as their own, while living personally amoral lives. They are "nice", they exude a childish veneer of pleasantness, but have lost Polaris in the search for truth.) Aside from its own problems, this morality had the unfortunate result of allowing students to blithely equate morally between the Beast of Belsen and the secretaries of the War Draft Board. (To my mind comes immediately the ridiculous assertion held on many University campuses and in society as a whole that Israel is as apartheid South Africa was, or that IDF commanders are Nazis. When we see things so starkly, and see our moral banners as the apex of moral struggles, we tend to blur the distinctions between situations, and judge passionately instead of rationally.)

The loss of purpose in the American university is mirrored by the inability of the students to see anything in life as worth striving for, as of higher moral or cultural value than anything else they see around them. The High Culture of society, embodied in the University has become lost and that institution simply reflects now the low culture of society.

The University has excelled at pigeon-holeing increasingly specific fields of knowledge, demonstrating an ability to split the atom, cure cancer, aggregate lexicons of lost languages, collate and study massive amounts of data in psychological studes. It remains, however, unable to define a basic path to a general education of its students. This path, Bloom states, is the concept of the Great Books. Reading these works without the historicism of the humanities, rather as living documents that speak to modern society, is the only way to provide a passion and interest in a holistic application of education to the students. However, most faculties ignore this method, or despise it.

The fact is that natural science sees itself as the sole posessor of true knowledge. It handles empirical fields, the ones that see matter as unified and humans as matter. They see the Great Books as a spiritual quest, but not immediately impactive of their study. On the other hand, the study of that which makes a human human, what is known in religion as the soul, this study is split into humanites, viewing it as an art (Rosseau), and the social sciences, which prefer to view it as a science (and itself as the next rung on the ladder after biology), and qunatifiable (Locke). These two disciplines disagree over their very subject matter. The latter views the Great Books as inapplicable to itself as they are in essence a science (desiring to attain the status of the natural sciences), while the former is embarrassed by what is exposed in the Great Books, rascism, elitsm and sexism.

The destruction of the University and the cheapening of the human experience is what America must struggle with. History will judge her, and we must act to provide the University with a reason for existence, and the student a true depth resultant from a true education. (I believe Bloom's statement here may be reflective of his feeling toward modern humanity in general, not just America.)

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

A Hauntingly Beautiful Song


השקט שוב צונח כאן משמי הערב
כדאיית דיה מעל התהומות
ושמש אדומה נושקת להט חרב
את הפסגות, המגדלים והחומות.

ראיתי עיר עוטפת אור
והיא עולה בשלל צבעי הקשת
והיא נוגנת בי כנבל העשור
ראיתי עיר עוטפת אור.

הנה זוחל הצל מבין גבעות האורן
קרב בסתר כאוהב אל השכונות.
ומול פניו קריצות, ריבוא עיני האור הן,
לפתע נפקחו אליו כנפעמות.

ראיתי עיר עוטפת אור...

בדממת אשמורת אחרונה נושמת,
ובקטיפת שחקים רסיס אחרון מחויר,
אך שחר כבר כיפת זהב שלה אודמת
למגעו החם, הרך של אור צעיר.

ראיתי עיר עוטפת אור...

(Words from here.) Yossi Sarig was born in 1944. After serving in the IDF, he studied music, which he taught and wrote until the Yom Kippur War. During this war (arguably the greatest threat to Israel's existence of all Arab-Israeli Wars), Yossi served as commander of a unit of tanks in the Golan Heights. It is there that he fell on 10 Oct, 1973.

One year before his death, Yossi was asked to write a song to celebrate five years of Jerusalem's re-unification. His song אור וירושלים, Light and Jerusalem, is performed above by הפרברים.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tearing "K'ri'ah" At the Kotel

Disclaimer: As in all halachik discussions, what appears below is not meant as ruling, but as discussion only. Please discuss any practical applications with an orthodox rabbi.

The Talmud (מו"ק כו:א) discusses the commandment of rending one's clothing in three distinct situations: the first is when learning of a relative's (or, under specific circumstances, even non-relatives) death. This is a commonly known law. However, less known is the law to 2) tear "קריעה" (rending) upon various pieces of bad news. An additional category of קריעה is 3) upon the desolate cities of Judea, and the remains of the Temple:

"אמר ר' אלעזר: הרואה ערי יהודה בחורבנן אומר ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע. ירושלים בחורבנה, אומר ציון מדבר היתה ירושלים שממה וקורע. בית המקדש בחורבנו, אומר בית קדשינו ותפארתינו אשר הללוך אבותינו היה לשריפת אש וכל מחמדינו היה לחרבה וקורע."

Cities that are under Jewish control would no longer be subject to this law (see שו"ע או"ח תקס"א -- it seems הכל תלוי בשלטון) -- such that we would no longer tear קריעה on Jerusalem, but we would on Bethlehem which, while given to us in the Six Day War by God, was handed over to our enemies by our own government later on. However, even while under Jewish sovereignty, the Temple Mount would still be subject to קריעה, as the tragedy is not so much its control by others, as its desolation and absence of the בית המקדש.

Codified by the Shulchan Aruch (יו"ד ש"מ ל"ח-ל"ט), the law is that one who visits the Temple Mount after longer than 30 days of absence tears his garment. (If one finds this law difficult to observe, he can give his shirt to a friend as a gift, and even while he still wears it, would be exempt from tearing it, since one may not tear a shirt owned by another. This gift must be true, and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed comments that one should at least tear a shirt over the desolation of the Temple Mount once in his life.)

The question that came up yesterday was, what if a person visits the Kotel for the first time in 30 days on חול המועד? On the Sabbath or full-fledged holiday, it is clear that קריעה is not done (שו"ע סע' ל"א). What of חול המועד?

As with the other two categories of קריעה, this would be subject to a rishonic dispute. According to the Mordechai and Ramban, one would tear as usual during חול המועד, but according to the T'rumat Hadeshen, one would refrain, as one does on a full-fledged holiday, unless the קריעה is on parents. The Shulchan Aruch declares that one would tear on חול המועד. The Rema rules as the T'rumat Hadeshen, and yet, in a place with no standard tradition, he rules as the Shulchan Aruch.

It would seem from this that the S'faradim would tear on Chol Hamoed, while the Ashkenazim would refrain. However, Rabbi Melamed mentions that in general, the מנהג is that on Chol Hamoed, one does not tear. (This combined with the especially festive atmosphere at the Kotel during Chol Hamoed make it seem particularly out of place for a person to tear קריעה in front of others at a time when even the laws of אבילות are only observed in private.)

The question that remains is, if one arrived at the Kotel on חול המועד and therefore did not tear, but then re-visits within 30 days, after the holiday, would he be required to tear since he did not fulfill his obligation on the holiday? Is the obligation to tear one that is simply נדחה, pushed off, during the holiday, and re-devolves upon a person immediately afterwards (as is the case in tearing over a death), or is the nature of the obligation different?

The answer can be inferred from the מגן אברהם in או"ח סי' תקס"א, where the law of tearing for the Temple is discussed again. He deals with a case where a person was raised in Jerusalem. As a child, he does not have a requirement to tear. However, upon reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah, although he has an obligation to tear, he is not in a position to tear, since he has seen the Temple area within thirty days! Such a person would never be required to tear, unless he were to leave Jerusalem for longer than thirty days. The ערוך השולחן rules so, as well.

It seems clear from this discussion that the requirement to tear is fundamentally one which requires the "newness" of not having seen the Temple area for thirty days. Only if this requirement is fulfilled would one tear. If one has seen the Temple Mount during a time of פטור, when he is younger than thirteen, it seems clear that he has nonetheless seen the area and is thus no longer obligated in tearing קריעה. Tearing over the Temple Mount is fundamentally different in its parameters from tearing over a dead relative.

It seems to me that this reasoning applies in completely the same way to seeing the Kotel on חול המועד. Thus, one who sees the Kotel on חול המועד and then returns to the site afterwards, would not tear on חול המועד, and would also not tear after the holiday, until having been absent from the Temple area for longer than thirty days. (I was pleased to see that Rabbi Melamed comes to the same conclusion as I do.)

May God help us rebuild his Holy Temple quickly. May these laws become theoretical discussions, and no longer practical, with the pilgrimage of the nation to the בית המקדש.

Again, the above is not meant as ruling, but as discussion only. Please discuss any practical applications with an orthodox rabbi.

Monday, September 06, 2010

Basics of Music

Apropos of not much, here is an outline sketch of what is colloquially called "Classical Music":

Early Period: Voice, Gregorian chant, Choral church music. until about 1400.

Medieval Period: More instrumentation, Renaissance period -- introduction of bass instruments and musical transcription. 1400 - 1600.

Common Practice Period:

Baroque Period: 1600 - 18th C. Continuous bass line, use of counterpoint (independent musical voices enunciated together that are harmonically interrelated), distinction of maj/minor motifs. More ensemble, chamber music. eg Bach, Handel.

Classical Period: 18th C - 1820's. Symphonies. More order to music, use of single reed instruments. eg. WA Mozart, Haydn.

Romantic Period: 1820 - 1910. Nationalist (eg Wagner, Dvorak). Less order, even as orchestras began forming for classical period music. Nocturnes, preludes -- free-form. Piano in present form. Romantic, emotional motives and themes. Grand opera. Eg. Beethoven (really straddles Classical and Romantic), Shubert.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Universal Kindness

In parashat Re'eh, the Jewish nation is poised on the banks of the Jordan, ready to enter the Promised Land. Here, at the threshold of their national destiny, Moshe their leader delivers an epic farewell oratory. The speech is more than a review of their past; it is a vision of their future. Moshe focuses upon the laws that have particular relevance to the national and civil aspects of communal life. It comes as no surprise that Moshe exhorts the Jews regarding laws such as charity. However, he also reviews the foods Jews may eat, and those from which they must abstain. How do the laws of kashrut relate to the nation as a whole?

The food we ingest becomes part of our bodies. In the most literal way possible, what we intake is the source of our energy. Every word spoken, every lifted finger, is powered by what we have eaten. And so, a Jew is careful of what he eats and how he eats it. The commentators discuss many kosher and non-kosher animals, pointing out traits that are desirable or undesirable, to help explain their kosher status.

However, Rabbi Wollenberg from England points out in an article on this week's parsha, one non-kosher animal seems to have a positive trait. The Talmud explains that the stork, called chasidah, is so named for its propensity to do chesed, kindness towards its own kind. This seems like an emulable trait; why is the stork forbidden?

The Kotzker Rebbe explains: the stork engages in acts of kindness towards its own kind. However, this kindness does not extend to those outside the stork's family. The rabbi from Kotzk says that it is not enough, and we may not ignore those outside our circles.

On the face of things, this answer seems like quite a beautiful lesson. However, if we examine the laws of charity, we find that (ב"מ ע"א) "aniyei ircha kodmim": when giving tzedaka, we are responsible first for our own families, then for our own town, then our own city. The laws of charity seem to agree with the kindness of the stork! How can the Kotzker call kindness directed towards one's own kind "unkosher", when that is precisely what the halacha seems to require?

The answer to this question can be found in a subtle distinction between the two. In the laws of charity, the closer circles to a person take precedence. It is not that one may cease to give charity after his own are satisfied. The halacha simply informs us of the proper order. Loving-kindness begins at home, but in no way does it stop there. The light and benificence of the Torah emenates forth and eventually envelops the world. This is in stark contrast to the stork, who the Talmud tells us, limits its kindness exclusively to its own.

It is one of the hardest tasks in our lives not only to do good, but to do ordered good. Order, seder, gives structure to our actions, and allows them to be, not only good now, or in an hour, but in twenty years. My father-in-law often tells me that this is a lesson he received from Rabbi Tessler, of blessed memory: ensure that the good you do is true good, not superficial good. When we order our priorities, we are able to ensure that no good goes undone, while at the same time, none is decayed by exaggeration or neglect.

In one of Rav Kook's pieces of poetry, his 'שיר מרובע', he describes the passage of a man from his concern over his personal redemption, to an interest in Jewish National redemption. From there, the protagonist finds a higher plane of redemption, that of all Mankind. Finally, he ends by finding the ultimate redemption, the redemption of the Universe, and the validation of Creation.

Rav Kook in this poem is not describing layers of consciousness that replace each other. He is rather speaking about maintaining four discrete views in harmony, allowing each to influence and vitalize the other properly. The song is of wisely choosing from a blending of the four perspectives that which best suits whatever situation one experiences.

In Moshe's time and today as well, the transition from desert to Israel is one in which the Jews are tasked with taking the physical and spiritual midbar and converting it to a gan Hashem. Upon entry to Israel, a group of individuals begin the task of building a healthy national home. The rights of the individual and the needs of the community will come into conflict more and more. How are we to properly provide each with their just desserts?

The only way to do this correctly is to maintain different perspectives, individual, national, global and universal. We may not stop at any point, as the stork does. We must recognize the priorities set, but not lose ourselves within their details and waypoints. Thus the chasidah gives way to true chesed, and the individual finds his place not by being erased or lost in the group, but by being given his proper place within the community.

Kashrut, then, provides deep lessons for a nation building a state. The teachings imparted certainly are relevant to the Jews at the doorway to Israel.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

בענין שהייה מטעם הטמנה

במס' שבת, לו: - לח. משנה: כירה (יש לו מקום שתיפת שתי קדרות ופיו למעלה) שהוסקה בקש וגבבא (שעושים אש חלש) מותר לשים עליו תבשיל. בגפת ועצים (שעושים אש חזק) חייבים לגרוף או לשים אפר על הגחלים קודם. (רמב"ם וטור: גריפה זה להוציא את כל הגחלים, ר"ן בשם רז"ה: להזיז גחלים לצד.)

- למה צריכים גריפה או קטימה? לרש"י זה משום תוספת הבל, וגו"ק ממעטת את החום. רעיון זה של תוספת הבל מובא ע"י רש"י מכד: שם מדובר בהטמנה. שם מבואר שאם ההטמנה מוסיפה הבל, אסור שמא יחתה. משמע מפה שרש"י אוחז שהטמנה ושהייה/חזרה הם אותו ענין. רש"י אומר בפירוש שזה אותו ענין, ואף שגו"ק מהני אף בהטמנה: "וגזרו אף בבישלה כל צרכה עד שיגרוף או שיקטום, והכי מסקינן בפרק כירה דאמר רבי: קטמה והובערה - משהין עליה חמין שהוחמו מבעוד יום כל צרכן." אבל תוס' מצטט ר"י שאף בגו"ק של שהייה עדיין מוסיף הבל אלא הסיבה לגו"ק הוא "דילמא אתי לחתויי". תוס' במז: מביא ר"ת שמסביר שיש הבדל בסיסי בין הטמנה לשהייה. בשהייה, שליט ביה אוירא, וחתוי מעט לא משנה הרבה. אבל בהטמנה, כל חתוי עלול לעזור לתהליך הבישול אם טומן בדבר המוסיף הבל (ואסרו כל דבר המוסיף הבל כגזירה שמא יסיק ברמץ, שזה מאוד חם – חשוב לזכור שמדובר בגזירה לגזירה לד:). זה מבואר בפירוש בתוס' שלנו, שבו ר"י אומר שדוקא בהטמנה רעיון "מוסיף הבל" מביא לידי איסור שמא יחתה. אבל בשהייה, לא תלוי במוסיף הבל כלל, אלא בהיכר לעצרו מלחתות.

- לרש"י, חשוב לציין שדין הטמנה כדין שהייה בזה שביז: מוסק שרק אסור שהייה במשהו "בשיל ולא בשיל". אבל אם בושל כל צרכו או נע, מותר

- ב"ש: כל ההיתר זה בחמין אבל לא תבשיל (רש"י: כי חמין לא צריכין בישול עוד ואין גזירה שמא יחתה, אבל תבשיל, ניחא בישולו ואתי לחתויי, או נתקיימה מחשבו, ומחזי כמבשל.) , וב"ה: גם בתבשיל.

- ב"ש: נוטלין אבל לא מחזירין לכירה, אפילו גו"ק, ב"ה: אף מחזירין.

- תנור (מקום לקדרה אחת) שהוסק בקש וגבבא אסור ליתן בו או עליו, כי התנור חומו יתרה הרבה. כופח, זה באמצע, חומו יותר מכירה ופחות מתנור, לכן אם הוסק בקש וגבבא, דינו ככירה, בגפת ועצים דינו כתנור.

- בגמ', שקלינן ותרינן אם המשנה מדברת על שהייה או החזרה. כחנניה, שרק בהחזרה בעי גו"ק, אבל בשהייה, מותר אף בלי גו"ק, וכל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי מותר לשהות, או דילמא המשנה מדברת בשהייה, אבל החזרה, אסור.

- רש"י ותוס' (בשם ר"י): יש סתמא משנה של נותנים חררה על גבי גחלים אם קרמו פניה, וזה משמע כחנניה, ועל זה סומכים אנו דמשהינן קדרה על גבי כירה. משמע מהם שהם לא חולקים על הסבר הרא"ש מהי מסקנת הסוגיא, אלא מתגברים על מסקנת סוגייתינו ע"י להביא סתם משנה שמשמע כחנניה. רא"ש: מסקנת הסוגייא היא לחומרא, שמדובר בשהייה, וההוכחה היא שהמשך הגמ' מניה ש"תוכה וגבה הוא דאסיר", משמע שהגמ' לוקחת כנתון ששהייה על גבה אסור בלא גו"ק. הרא"ש מסיים שרבו הדיעות בזה וישראל אדוקים במצוות עונג שבת, ולא ישמעו להחמיר, הנח להם כמנהג שנהגו על פי הפוסקים כחנניה. רי"ף מביא ראיות לחומרא.

- רמות בישול: 1) נע 2) התחיל לבשל 3) מאכל בן דרוסאי 4) מצטמק ויפה לו 5) מצטמק ורע לו. 5 נחשב מבושל כל צרכו. 4, טור אומר שלא נחשב מבושל כל צרכו. יש מח' אם 3 נחשב מבושל כל צרכו.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Hirsch and the Categorical Imperative

"It remains completely unknown to us what objects may be by themselves and apart from the receptivity of our sense. We know nothing but our manner of perceiving them; that manner...not necessarily shared by every being, though, no doubt, by every human being." (Critique 37)


With this revolution in epistemology, Immanuel Kant forever changes the direction of philosophy. After ensuring that all noumena are permanently and fundamentally hidden behind the veil of human perception and sense in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant finds religion and morality in quite a precarious position. However, in the Critique of Practical Reason, he discusses the saving grace, in his thought, of morality, an a priori and innate morality not derived from experience. Kant calls this objective foundation of "good", the categorical imperative. A necessary corollary of such an innate drive is a God. Thus, Kant, in his own mind, provides for the necessity of a God, and a general inborn human drive to be moral. This far comes Kant.

The purpose of this short post is not to point out the weaknesses in this theory. Kant's ideas were the turning point of philosophy, and the percussions of his ground-breaking theory of the ultimate reality, conceivable by thought and yet un-perceivable in experience, were felt everywhere. So, it is valuable to see how a Jewish philosopher might respond to this theory that rejects absolute knowledge of Godly command.

And indeed, Rabbi SR Hirsch praised Kant. He considered him one who reached the doorstep of Judaism, and by tragedy of ignorance, came no further. For Hirsch, the categorical imperative is not morality, for the moral universe is not what is, but what must be (Grunfeld LXXV). (Rabbi Hirsch makes this point in discussion of the Golden Calf: that the sin immediately after revelation is yet another indication of the Divine origin of the Law, a Law that is hoisted upon people by God who are not yet morally ready for it, as opposed to an organic moral progressive process of wise men in the life of the people.)The innate moral voice in Man is not the voice of morality, it is the yearning for morality. Man's sense of good and evil is not perfect, too much variation exists to be able to call it that. What is constant however, is the desire, the striving to a moral structure. Kant confused the homonomy (self-commanded law) with the desire for a formulated heteronomy.

By making this simple but crucial adjustment in Kant's theory of Practical Reason, Rabbi Hirsch supremely empowers the categorical imperative. No longer does morality hinge upon the sparse commonality of Man's inner moral voice. Hirsch's innate desire for a moral structure, as Kant's innate morality, posits a God. However, Hirsch's conception of the imperative also posits a revelation of Divine Will -- the definition of the heteronomous morality towards which the yearning innate in Man strives. For if humanity is to strive towards an ideal of morality, and if this yearning presupposes a God, then, taken together, these two ideas require a God-given moral code for Man to work towards. The categorical imperative then, for Rabbi Hirsch, is not the oracle of "good" carried personally in every man's breast. Rather, each man carries within him a piece of the morality puzzle, an innate reminder that there is a moral law that must be attained in this world, and that it must be available somehow.

Of course, this leads in to a discussion of the Torah and the scientific necessity to study it from within instead of from without. Perhaps more on that some other time.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Gaza Flotilla

The international media and world governments have reacted to Israel's boarding of the Gaza flotilla. The almost universal reaction has been the condemnation of Israel's boarding of a peacefully intentioned vessel in international waters.

I am not so naive as to believe that the truth will change the minds of the media and global leaders. I have seen enough to know that the world has lost its patience with the truth in Israel's case. The media and world organs have provided the Arab world with a mouthpiece, and have repeated the lies so often that they trump truth. The word "occupation" has been used so much, that the world forgets the armistance agreements in '67 and '73, agreements which define Israel's legally binding international frontiers, and provide the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli territory until Israel, Egypt and Jordan, draw up new agreements otherwise. The word "apartheid" is bandied about so that the true racial oppression of actual citizens in South Africa is forgotten. Israeli treatment of non-citizen terrorists is viewed as the mistreatment of law-abiding citizens. Israel's equality and democracy for its diverse citizenry is ignored. The terms "illegal settlement" and "illegal blockade" twist morally and legally acceptable actions into evil practices. And the final, perfect irony, the use of the term "Nazi", calling to memory the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, is used to describe the limited actions of a state surrounded and attacked on two sides, to handle actual terrorists intent on the murder of non-combatants.

However, I know that in the end, the truth matters. It matters to us, as we deal with attacks from every side. It matters to Jews world over who know not what to say when confronted by enemies of the truth, who use lies and propoganda to veil their new anti-semitism, called anti-zionism. And the truth will matter when the world once again, for however short a period of time, considers the facts instead of the screams of the mob.

So what is the truth?

1) Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. (Many may feel that Hamas is a freedom-fighting organization, and not terrorists. In a moment of honesty, however, the free world has named them terrorists because they attack civilians and utilize tactics to induce the population of Israel to fear. Those who choose to label Hamas as anything other than terrorists will have to redefine the word terror.)
2) Hamas is in control of Gaza not through democratic means; rather, they wrested control from the ruling party through violence, bloodshed and intimidation directed towards the residents of Gaza.
3) Since the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas, Israel and Egypt, with the support of most western Governments, have effected a blockade of Gaza.
4) The sole purpose of this blockade is to prevent arms from reaching the terrorists. Literally hundreds of tons of food reach Gaza from Israel weekly. Gazans are routinely brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment that is beyond the ken of Gazan doctors.
5) The flotilla's express purpose is not to bring food and relief to Gaza. If that was their purpose, they would have agreed to Israel's offer to take the supplies in to Gaza after inspection. The expressed purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade in place to prevent weaponse from reaching terrorists.
6) According to international agreements regarding running of blockades (see the San Remo Manual, article 67), a ship is boardable even on the high seas if it intends to run a blockade. It is considered in violation of a blockade the moment it sets out from port with the purpose of running the blockade. Israel acted within international law. The use of force is permitted as a last resort.
7) Some say Israel should have allowed the ship through. They say that this would have been less damaging to Israel. However, this is far from true. Israel had three choices: 1) allow the ship through, 2) physically block the ship and reach a standoff situation, 3) take the ships to Israel after boarding them. The third option was the best choice in a sitation that contained only bad choices. (1) would have presented Israel as a paper tiger, unable or unwilling to enforce its own blockade. Further, it would have allowed in potential weaponry and terrorists to Gaza. (2) would have resulted in a standoff situation in which the flotilla members would have used the media to their advantage: imagine the flotilla members going on a hunger strike until being allowed to run the blockade! Or the flotilla ships may have rammed Navy vessels, requiring the use of much more force. Israel really had no choice but to board.
7) The flotilla members claimed the would be non-violent and resist passively. Video and images from the boats reveal these verbal assurances to be lies. The soldiers of Israel's Navy, carrying out legally sanctioned actions, were beaten and thrown overboard, stabbed and shot, by the 'non-violent' protestors. The fact that the feeling around the world is that Israel opened fire on unarmed civilians shows just how powerfully the flotilla members are in control of the media surrounding this event, and/or how biased the world is against Israel.

In conclusion, the Israelis acted within their legal rights and responsibilities towards their citizens. The flotilla was made up of provocateurs whose purpose was to score a big PR win for their side. The state of Israel's image in a world that is tired of the truth and just wants Israel to go away is such that Israel lost the PR battle before it began. Anything Israel did would be reported gleefully, either as a weakness in blockade, or cruelty in boarding.

And to counter all the disinformation, here is a picture of a 'peaceful flotilla member' describing his plans for the Israeli soldiers:


And here is a video documenting the violence met by the Israelis in enforcing their internationally-recognized blockade:

Friday, May 14, 2010

Good Neighbors

In the description of the encampment of the different tribes around the mishkan, the Torah (Bamidbar 3:29) tells us that the tribe of Reuven was in the vicinity of the family of Korach. The Rabbis learn from this that, "Woe is to the wicked, and woe to his neighbor," while "good befalls the righteous, and also his neighbor."

This teaching is mentioned in three different rabbinic sources, and each one delivers it utilizing slightly different diction. In Likutei Sichot, the Lubavitcher Rebbe examines each one in depth. The changes are nuanced, but reflect more than one would think at first glance. By examining each variation, one in Midrash Tanchuma, one in Bamidbar Rabah, and the final one in Rashi's commentary, we can come to a deeper understanding of the power and meaning behind being judged by the company we keep.

In the Tanchuma, it states that the tree tribes bordering on Korach and his compatriots, "avdu imo b'machlok'to", they were destroyed with Korach on account of his divisiveness. This describes the most superficial result of proximity to the wicked: when they get punished, those who dwell beside them are affected, as well.

Rashi's commentary changes the language: "l'kach laku mehem Datan V'Aviram...shenimsh'chu imahem b'machl'kotam", because they joined in the clash with Korach against Moshe, Datan and Aviram were punished. Clearly, Rashi implicates the non-Levites who died with Korach in his sin. It is not mere proximity that doomed them; rather, their proximity led them to join in the sins of the wicked, and thus, deserve punishment. This is a second way that neighboring with evil people brings disaster: there is a palpable danger that one will learn from their ways.

Finally, Bamidbar Rabah puts forth a third variation upon the midrash. "mi hayu ba'alei machloket? Korach...ul'fi shehayu s'muchim kahem R'uven, Shimon v'Gad, hayu kulam ba'alei machloket." Who were the ones in dispute with Moshe? Korach. However, the tribes who lived beside them were all parties to dispute. Likutei Sichot notices the use of the past tense verb here, and therefore understands that this is yet a third dimension to the teaching of chazal: one who ends up dwelling with the wicked reveals a latent tendency within himself to negative influences and behaviors. This is reminiscient of Lot, whose greed and desire for importance led him to the decedance of S'dom, where he became "head to jackals", rather than remain the tail of Avraham's lion (Avot 4:20).

The three aspects of neighblorly effect on one's life also seem to be present in those who choose to live in the vicinity of the righteous. One who makes himself close to tzadikim can benefit from their blessings, as well as learn from their ways. Also, it seems that the impulse to be close to good people is, in itself, fulfillment of an ethical imperative. Rabbi Yose ben Kisma summed this up in 6:9 of Avot.

In modern times, we do not have as much choice as we may like in who our neighbors are. We have limited control over who our children play with, as well. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to help fellow Jews who have lost the path of Torah back to orthodoxy. In light of these realities, how are we to assure ourselves that these aspects of peer pressure are kept in check?

In the past, the book of Job has been quite boring for me. More than forty chapters of long-winded speeches, alternatively complaining about and defending God's ways seem almost like a literary attempt at redundancy. However, I am reading Job's Path to Enlightenment, by Ethan Dor-Shav. By reading the text of Job closely, he comes up with some fascinating insights into the psychology and foundations of faith and religion that apply not only to people in pain and suffering, but to anyone who finds value in a real relationship with Hashem. One of his points, I believe, may perhaps shed light on how we can defend ourselves against the concept of "woe to the wicked's neighbor."

It is generally assumed that Job was a model of virtue before his test from Satan. However, if we pay closer attention, he is only described as lacking the negative: "innocent and straight, and one who feared God and turned away from evil." Indeed, tamim carries a connotation throughout the Bible of naivete. The fourth son at the seder would hardly be considered a tzaddik because of his "innocence"; it is rather a fundamental simplicity that is to be removed by the father and replaced with knowledge and sophistication. Also, Job is described as turning away from evil, but not at all as one who embraces good. He is a model of "virtue devoid of awareness." He is good by rote, by mechanical practice of duty, without developing that spark of interest and passion that marks individuals who engage in a search for closeness to God, "kirvat elokim li tov." Indeed, the essay goes on to demonstrate how Job's suffering bring him to a renewed interest in authentic communion with the Divine, which is only possible when blind routine is expunged from his life.

Most of us live with elements of Job-ness every day. Even when we are passionate and feel close to God, we find ourselves fulfilling the letter of the laws of prayer, tefillin, shabbat-observance and kashrut with an atmosphere of dissociation. In this type of situation, we are in danger of all three elements of neighborly influence. Our very passivity leads us to associate with like people, and we influence each other. The general level of communal observance and passion towards spiritual endeavors may fall, and ultimately, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So, the lowest common denominator can be reached.

By learning a lesson from the book of Job, we can infuse our duties towards God and our desire for an intimate bond with Him with a sense of true longing and active, authentic growth. With a sense of purpose and awareness of our position, we can overcome the problems of Korach and Reuven. Instead of being influenced by those who are less than perfect, we can develop ourselves as strong role-models for them, and bring them up, rather than be dragged down.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Independence Day


הלא זה אוד מצל מאש -- זכריה ג:ב

"Is this not a remnant saved from the inferno?"



וקבצתי אתכם מכל הארצות והבאתי אתכם אל אדמתכם -- יחזקאל לו:כד

"I shall gather you from all the lands, and bring you back to your land!"



והשבותי אתכם אל המקום אשר הגליתי אתכם משם -- ירמיהו כט:יד

"I will return you to the place from where I exiled you."



ואספתי אתכם מן הארצות אשר נפוצותם בהם ונתתי לכם את אדמת ישראל -- יחזקאל יא:יז

"I will gather you from the lands of your dispersion and bring you to Israel."



ויש תקוה לאחריתיך ושבו בנים לגבולם -- ירמיהו לא:טז

"There is yet hope for your future, sons shall return to their borders."



ובנו ערים נשמות וישבו -- עמוס ט:יד

"...they will build desolate cities and dwell in them."



עוד יקנו בתים ושדות וכרמים בארץ הזאת -- ירמיהו לב:טו

"Houses, fields and vineyards will yet be sold in this land."



ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל כי קרבו לבא -- יחזקאל לו:ח

"Now you hills of Israel, bring forth your leaves and carry forth fruit for my nation Israel, for they are coming!"



כשתתן א"י פריה בעין יפה אז יקרב הקץ ואין לך קץ מגולה יותר -- פרש"י סנהדרין צח עמ' ב

"When the land of Israel gives forth its fruits freely, the redemption is near, and there is no clearer sign of the redemption than this..."



עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלים -- זכריה ז:ד

"There will yet come a day when old men and women sit in the streets of Jerusalem..."



והטיפו ההרים עסיס -- עמוס ט:יג

"The mountains will drip sweet wine..."


יום "תחילת קיום דברי הנביאים" שמח!

Happy Yom Ha'atzma'ut!

Monday, March 15, 2010

Pay Attention, Obama!

Obama and Clinton, over the past few days, seem to have fallen into the fantasy so common to presidents of the US -- the belief that they control the world. It seems that Obama has chosen to take out the anger he feels from his impotent obsessions with domestic issues such as health care reform and the struggling economy. He has decided upon the classic, historical whipping boy, the scapegoat of every raging leader: the Jew and, lately, his State. The vehemence and acerbity of Obama's and Clinton's anger at Israel concerning an issue that is well beyond their domain is astounding; the world is stunned, and the evil revel.

What is amazing is the extent and distance Obama and Clinton have been willing to go in publicly embarrassing an ally. They explicitly agreed months ago with Israel that the "ten month building freeze" would apply to the West Bank and not Jerusalem. Indeed, on Thursday, the US admitted that the announcement of 1,600 new housing units in Israel's capitol did not consist of Israel reneging on any agreement, and that it would simply be prudent to be careful when dealing with matters of such a sensitive nature. Days later, Obama and Clinton decided to make this a public international incident. In order to do that, they have lied, and taken offense where none was present. They are manufacturing an Israeli-US crisis to serve their other interests. It is absolutely shameful that a US president and secretary of state would act in such an unprofessional, eminently dishonest manner.

Obama had better think carefully about the danger of publicly alienating an ally in public view, allowing the true enemy (Islamic terror including Iran) to believe that the coalition of good is fragmented and weak. Far from Israel "insulting" the US, Obama and Clinton have chosen to insult Israel, trying to demonstrate to the world the power they wield over the Jewish State. They are choosing to side with evil and terror against democracy and good. Obama is walking a very damaging road, one which will not aid his failing domestic policies, and one that will only hurt the concepts of justice and good in the world over.

I received a timely and relevant quote by email I would like to share with Israel and America, and Obama, Clinton and Netanyahu in particular (originally written on Yaakov Kirschen's blog called Dry Bones) :

'In December 1981, the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law to the Golan Heights. In reaction the American administration declared that it would "punish Israel". Prime Minister Begin then issued a statement that he read to the US Ambassador to Israel and released to the public. It reads, in part:

"A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the "Golan Heights Law."

Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.
What kind of expression is this – "punishing Israel"? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don't behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with "punishments." He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments."'

Obama, you have lied to the world, and used Hilary Clinton as your messenger girl. Why don't you both face up to the real problem in the Israeli - Arab problem -- the unwillingness of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and most of the Arab world to admit Israel's right to exist? Why don't you face the increasing problem in the Western world -- the emergence of the belief that the Jews have no right to defend their population from onslaughts from those who deny their right to exist?

While Obama and Clinton choose to find "insult" in Israel's announcement to build houses, they ignore the true colors of the Arabs: in the same week, the 'Palestinians' honored a female terrorist who committed one of the worst acts of terror in Israel. They also called for the Arab public to arrive at the Temple Mount and stage riots there. A double standard of epic proportions -- truly the "change" we all hoped for from Obama. (For a sane editorial from CNN regarding the underlying issues, see here. Important quote: "The most dangerous cause of instability in the Middle East is the so-called peace process itself.")

I am disgusted with the US president and his lap-dog secretary of state.

UPDATE: Netanyahu seems to realize the moment of truth in his premiership, and has announced (in decidedly less hot-headedness than Clinton's and Obama's announcements) unequivocally that building in all of Israel's capitol, Jerusalem, will continue despite Obama and Clinton's hysterical fits of frustration. Further, at the end of ten months, building will continue in the West Bank, as well.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Refresher Course on Your Enemy

We all need a reminder every now and again why we cannot let our Jewish (and non-Jewish) mercy take over regarding our enemies. They understand their religion as requiring them to take over the world by sword, and freedom or democracy are of no value.

Here are some photos from a recent Arab demonstration in England: