Rejected Cross Currents Comments

Time for another installment of comments I posted on Cross-Currents posts, that have (as of yet) not been approved:

Post: Nachal Charedi

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 28, 2012 at 1:52 am

No one claims that blazing trails is easy, כל התחלות קשות. Nachal Hacharedi is new. As you say, mistakes happen in any system, and especially in a new one, it is the trail-blazers’ stubborn determination that makes or breaks its viability. If the army is flooded with 20,000 boys like your son, these issues will quickly be overcome.

However, I think your conclusion that, My next child has already gotten their army exemption, is the wrong one. If our commitment to the ideals you and your son obviously share is overridden by an individual bad experience (ignoring the fact that there are numerous others who came out with markedly different experiences), we belie those ideals, and will never succeed at the goal.

Instead of protesting against and rejecting Nachal Hacharedi, charedim (and all Israelis who care) should be protesting your son’s experience. When the army realizes that mistakes will not be swept under the rug, they will make doubly sure that your son’s story is not repeated.

Post: Plesner Committee


Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm

Nor can the lack of physical danger in national service be the distinguishing factor. Chareidim do not claim that their blood is redder, or that they have some special exemption from risking their lives in defense of the Jews of Israel.

Of course they do – (if not they would be in the army!) – they claim that as Talmidei Chacham, they have no need for natural protection, and therefore are not required to contribute to support of the protection (רבנן לא בעי נטירותא, see Bava Batra 7b). The fact that (at the very least) this does not apply in our current situation, and, de facto, the haredi world implicitly concedes this, does not affect their talmudic support for their position.

The proof that they feel they are special is in a later part of R Rosenblum’s essay. He writes: The IDF will encounter little communal resistance to the expansion of chareidi combat units under the aegis of Netzach Yehuda, as long they remain voluntary.

Why should haredim be volunteers while the rest of us are drafted? The haredi demand for a different set of standards certainly demonstrates their special opinion of themselves.

Contrary to popular opinion, chareidim do not deny the necessity of an army. Most can conceive of situations in which every able-bodied yeshiva student would pick up arms. But there is no threat that could ever induce anyone in learning to pick up a paintbrush.

You can’t just “pick up arms”. A modern army cannot hope to win without thorough training. If you can conceive of a threat, you need to make sure you are ready to fight if it ever becomes a reality – not go to Lishkat Hagiyus on the day hostilities break out.

No one is telling haredim to do national service (although it would seem that a better understanding of the larger picture might mitigate or even preclude the disdain held for non-combat societal necessities represented by “picking up a paintbrush”). Perhaps R Rosenblum should exert some energy convincing the haredi leadership that Netzach Yehuda is the way to go. Then, we can have a draft for most, and exemption for the elite intellectuals (which might easily be expanded to the elite of the universities as well, so that true innovation and scholarship might be unhindered there as well as in the beis midrash), and a truly incorporated society – not where everyone is the same (who wants that?!), but where all kinds of Jews shoulder the same national responsibilities with a sense of pride and unity.

When A Chatzitzah Requires Re-immersion

בשאלת חציצות למיניהן, מתי יוצרות חיוב לחזור ולטבול


דברַי להלן מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.

א

במסכת עירובין (ד:), נלמד מהפסוק "ורחץ את כל בשרו", שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין גוף הטובל לבין המים. ר' יצחק מסביר שדבר העומד על בשר הטובל המחסה את רוב הגוף (או השער), וגם מקפידים רוב האנשים עליו (כדברי הרא"ש שבטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, ולא כדברי הבית יוסף ברמב"ם שתלוי בדעתה), מהווה חציצה מדאוריתא. אבל אם זה רוב ולא מקפידים, או מיעוט וכן מקפידים, זה רק חציצה מדרבנן.

מובן שאם אשה טבלה בדרך אשר בו היה חציצה, מדאוריתא או מדרבנן, אנו נחייב אותה לחזור ולטבול שוב, אפילו עברו ימים, או אפילו היתה עם בעלה כבר. זה משום שבלי טבילה הלכתית, האשה עדיין בחזקת נדה. גם אם רק מדרבנן היה חציצה, אנו נחייב אותה טבילה שנית, כי מדין דרבנן, לא עלתה לה טבילה, ועדיין היא בחזקת איסור (אף אם זה רק איסור מטעם דין דרבנן). אם תחזור לטבול, תברך שנית, אף אם החציצה היה מדרבנן.

וכן פוסק השולחן ערוך ביורה דעה, קצ"ח:א. מוסיף הרמ"א שעדיין, לכתחילה, לא תטבול אפילו בדברים שלא חוצצים, גזרה אטו דברים החוצצים, וזה על פי השערי דורא. הט"ז אומר שאף לרמ"א, בדיעבד עלתה לה טבילה, כי לא גוזרים גזרה לגזרה בדיעבד. יוצא שבדבר שאין הקפדה, וזה מיעוט, לא צריכה לחזור ולטבול, אע"פ שלכתחילה לא תטבול כך.

ב

אמרנו לעיל שרעיון "מקפדת" היא, להלכה, אף אם האשה הזאת שלפנינו לא מקפדת, אבל רוב נשים כן. המושג היא, "בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם". אבל מו"ר הרב קדר זצ"ל כותב שאם זו רוצה דווקא את הדבר (למשל גידול ציפורניים), אז היא לא תהיה נכללת במושג, כיוון שיש לה דעת הפוך מנשים האחרות. לכן, אשה אשר דוקא רוצה משהו שרוב נשים לא רוצות, או אף מקפידות, יוצרת לעצמה מציאות חדשה, כי היא דווקא מקפידה - אבל מקפידה באופן חיובי ולא שלילי. מזה יוצא שאשה אחת, שטובלת בחציצה שמהווה מיעוט, ואינה מקפדת, רק לא משנה לה, ההלכה רואה את זה כאילו מקפידה, משום שרוב נשים היו מקפידות, ולכן בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, וצריכה לחזור מעיקר הדין, אפילו אחרי כמה ימים, כמו שהסברנו בחלק א'. אבל אשה אשר דוקא רוצה בדבר זה, לה, לא יהווה הדבר חציצה מדרבנן, ולא תצטרך לחזור ולטבול. ראוי לדבר על ליבה כדי שתנהג כמנהג נשי ישראל שנוטלות ציפרניהן, אבל אי אפשר למנוע ממנה לטבול עם הדבר הזה, אם היא לא רוצה להורידו.

ג

לאור האמור לעיל, ננתח רמ"א בעייתי בסעיף כ. השולחן ערוך שם פוסק שציפורן גדולה מהווה חציצה על עצמה, כי היא מגוף האדם. רק נקרא חציצה אם יש בצק או צואה מתחת לציפורן. השערי דורא אומר שאם שכחה לגזוז ציפרניה, אינו חוצץ אם לא היה בהן לכלוך, אבל מכל מקום טוב להחמיר ותטבול פעם שנייה משום שאי אפשר שלא יהיה שם טיט או משהו.

סיבת השערי דורא להחזירה לטבילה היא פשוטה: זה מאוד קשה להיות בטוח שלא היה לכלוך. לכן, אם אפשר, נחמיר ותטבול שוב. כנראה לפי השערי דורא, זה שהיתה מתכוונת לגזוז ציפרניה ושכחה לא יוצר חציצה, כי חלק מהגוף לא מהווה חציצה אם הוא לא מדלדל (עיין סעיף כ"א). כל הענין הוא רק שקרוב הדבר שהיה שם חציצה כי קשה להיות בטוח במקום כה צר במקרה כזה, שמוכח מזה שהיתה כוונתה לגזוז ורק שכחה, שלא ניקתה יפה. לכן, טוב להחמיר לטבול שוב. אם רק שכחה, אזי בטח לא ניקתה תחת הציפורן כראוי (כמו אשה שדווקא רוצה את הצפרניים ארוכות היתה עושה) ולכן קרוב הדבר שהיה חציצה. גם אפשר לדייק מהשערי דורא שכאשר חוזרת לטבול שנית, הוא לא אומר שחייבת לגזוז הצפרניים קודם (כמו שהרמ"א רומז, ראה לקמן), אלא שתטבול שנית בפשטות. זאת אומרת, אחרי ששכחה, ושמה לב ששכחה, היא יכולה או לגזוז, או לנקות היטב - ואז אין בעייה של טיט. כל הבעייה לשערי דורא עם טיט תחת ציפורן ארוכה זה שאם כיוונה לגזוז ולא עשתה כן, אזי קרוב הדבר שלא ניקתה יפה, ולכן אולי היה טיט. יכולה לתקן פגם זה או ע"י או ליטול את הציפורן, או לנקות יפה, אם דוקא רוצה את הציפורן גדול. ואז, תטבול שוב מחומרא.

אבל לא כן הרמ"א. הרמ"א אומר שמאחר שכבר נהגו ליטול הצפרניים, אפילו אם צפורן אחת נשאר בידה וטבלה, צריכה טבילה אחרת, וכן נוהגים. הש"כ מביא שדעתו של הרמ"א לא מבוססת על השערי דורא (כי הרמ"א מצריך טבילה, והשערי דורא רק מזכיר לחומרא, וגם שמשמע מהרמ"א שצריכה קודם הטבילה השנייה לגזוז ציפורניה), אלא על הראב"ן, הפוסק נגד השולחן ערוך ודעימיה, ואומר שצפרניים ממש חוצצות כיון שעתידה ליטלן. הש"כ פוסק כרמ"א על פי הראב"ן, שאפילו יום המחרת, אפילו היתה עם בעלה צריכה לחזור לטבול אם יכולה. (הט"ז שלומד את הרמ"א כפוסק כשערי דורא רק מחמיר שתחזור אם יכולה אם לא היתה עם בעלה. ראוי גם לציין שהראב"ן שיטת יחיד, ולכן השו"ע לא פוסק כמותו.)

מה שקשה מכל מה שאמור בש"כ זה, זה שלפי הכללים שהגדרנו לעיל, אם רואים את הציפורן כחציצה, כמו שהש"כ קורא את הרמ"א, אז זה מיעוט המקפדת, אז למה לא נחייב את האשה לחזור ולטבול אף אם לא יכולה? דהיינו, היא לא יצאה ידי טבילה מדרבנן, אז שתחזור לטבול! (לט"ז, לא קשה, כי אפשר להבין שחוזרת לטבול רק כי היא לא בדקה טוב מתחת לציפורן, כדעת השערי דורא, ולכן רק צריכה לטבול שוב מטעם חומרא שלא עיינה בבית הסתרים, ואע"פ שבית הסתרים אם לא עיינה עלתה לה טבילה, כאן קצת יותר חמור כי קרוב הדבר שיש שם משהו חוצץ, עיין קצ"ט:ח-ט. לט"ז ולמרה"ם לובלין, לא תחזור לטבול שוב אם כבר היתה עם בעלה, אף אם עבר הלילה (מהר"ם).) אז למה לש"כ לא נחייב אותה לטבול?

ד

להסבר, נראה לי שיש לחדש שהרמ"א כאן מחדש רובד נוסף לרבדים שהזכרנו עד עתה. עד עתה, אמרנו ש:

- אם זה חציצה דאורייתא, צריכה לחזור ולטבול. (פשוט)

- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, אף אם היא לא מקפדת, בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, וחוזרת. (פשוט)

- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, ורוב לא מקפידות, והיא כן, בטלה דעתה ולא חוזרת. (רשב"א)

- אם זה דבר שרוב לא מקפידות, אז לכתחילה לא תטבול, אבל מדיעבד יצאה, ולא חוזרת לטבול. (רמ"א, ט"ז)

- אם זה דבר שאע"פ שרוב מקפידות, יש לה הקפדה חיובית, אין אומרים בטלה דעתה. לא חוזרת, ואף לכתחילה אם היא מתעקשת. (יביע אומר ור' קדר)

עתה, נוסיף שלרמ"א, יש עוד רובד: אם זה מיעוט ורוב לא מקפידות מטעם נוי, אבל מטעם מנהגי טבילה, בנות ישראל קיבלו על עצמן לעשות כן, והיא מעוניינת להצטרף למנהגיהן, רק היה טעות ומשום איזה סיבה, זה לא עבד, בזה, צריכה לחזור, והש"כ מוסיף, אם אפשר. זה לא חיוב גמור, כי זה לא בקטגורית מקפידות מעיקר הדין, אבל זה מספיק כדי ליצור צורך לטבילה שנייה, אם אפשר. ואולי הרמ"א משווה את הרובד החדש הזה למקפדת ממש, ולכן לרמ"א, כל דבר שבנות ישראל יקבלו על עצמן ייהפך לצורך טבילה שנייה, אבל הש"כ מסביר שלדעתו לפחות, זה לא באותו רמה כמו חציצה מדרבנן, ולכן רק חוזרת לטבול אם אפשר. (קיימת גם האפשרות שהש"כ מסביר את הרמ"א ולא מוסיף.)

כמובן, רובד זה צריך להיות מוגדר, כי לא כל דבר שנשים מורידות יכול להיכנס ל"נהגו בנות ישראל". כנראה הרמ"א ממעיט את תוקף הרובד הזה ורק משתמש בו בציפורניים, היכא דהראב"ן עצמו אמר את זה. כמובן, הרובד הזה רק קיים אם קיימת התנאי של הראב"ן, שעתידה ליטל את הציפרניים. לכן אם לא היה לה כוונה זאת, דהיינו, יש לה כוונה נגדית לגדול ציפורניה, לא שייך דין זה של הרמ"א.

(אחר כתבי דברים אלו, עיינתי בכתבה של ר' אריה מנדלקורן, בו הוא מסביר את הסוגיה בעיון, ומסביר את הש"כ ברמ"א כך שזה פשוט חשש לציפורן גדולה שחוצצת לדעת ראב"ן. לפי זה, למה כתב הרמ"א "נהגו בנות ישראל"? כנראה לפי הרב מנדלקורן, עצם הנהגת בנות ישראל זה מוכיח שחששו לראב"ן, ולכן, כותב הרמ"א שנכון לנהוג כך. דהיינו, זה לא רובד חדש ברמ"א, אלא פשוט שבנות ישראל נוהגות כן בגלל שהראב"ן כתב כן, אז לכן, מסתמא זה עומד ליגזז, במיוחד אם שכחה, ולכן תחזור לטבול. אני לא שלם עם זה, כי יוצא א"כ שהמניע לבנות ישראל לנהוג כן הוא השיטה של הראב"ן. אבל זה לא כל כך מסתבר, כי הראב"ן רק אמר דבריו "כיוון שעתידה ליטלן", אבל אם לא עתידה ליטלן, לא אמר דבריו. אם כן, עצם זה שהראב"ן אומר שהציפורן מהווה חציצה אם עתידה ליטלן, לא יכול ליצור מצב שנחייב טבילה שנייה אם שכחה. צריך סיבה אחרת, כמו טעם מנהגי טבילה, כדי ליצור מנהג, עליו יחול דין הראב"ן. בין כה, לא יוצא נ"מ בינו לביני לדינא, כי אני מגדיר את הרובד החדש הזה דווקא בדבר שבו אמר הרמ"א, נהגו בנות ישראל - שזה אך ורק צפרניים.)

דברַי לעיל מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.

Emergence of Ethical Man

I.

I finished reading Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Emergence of Ethical Man on Shavuot, and have just completed a reading of Dr Hazony’s essay on the book. I was surprised, as was he, at the tremendously innovative (or not, as RYBS might contend) attitude the book takes towards naturalism, and its seeming implicit rejection (or at least severe de-amplification) of the supernatural¹. It is part of Dr Hazony's thesis that Emergence of Ethical Man presents an exclusively naturalistic view of mankind's place in the created world, one that eschews the need for the supernatural aspect. I will point out later why I disagree with this.

It is also worth noting that my deep-seated hesitations to taking this book as true to the opinions which Rabbi Soloveitchik held and taught were dispelled at least somewhat by Hazony’s well-placed treatment in the fourth section: he points out correctly that nothing in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s other published writings contradicts what he wrote here, and provides testimony from a close confidante who seems to support this as being the Rav’s view throughout life. Additionally, Halachik Mind seems to have been written before Emergence was, and it may well be as Hazony suggests that this work is a continuation of that one. In that case, perhaps RYBS had the time to revise and prepare for publication the manuscript that became Halachik Mind, but did not have the leisure before his death to give the same polish to Emergence. Furthermore, I have been told that Rabbi Soloveitchik specifically mentioned this manuscript amongst the ones he wanted his family and students to publish.

II.

As I mentioned above, I would take issue with one crucial aspect of Hazony’s thesis. He reads the book as a total rejection of the supernatural. However, I do not believe that Rabbi Soloveitchik's book supports such an interpretation. Allow me to demonstrate where we diverge with a few specific examples.

1) Dr Hazony writes: “If the biblical concept of man offers immortality only through the merger of one’s living consciousness with the unending life of one’s people, what kind of salvation or redemption can man hope for? Clearly, the Bible does not offer the individual salvation through the redemption of one’s soul in a transcendental world. What then?"

It is not clear RYBS rejected the individual's salvation through redemption in a transcendental world. In fact, he seems to uphold both. He says (p 176) that, "The first concept of immortality as coined by Judaism is the continuation of a historical existence throughout the ages. It differs from transcendental immortality...yet metaphysical immortality is based upon historical immortality. Whoever does not identify himself with the historical ego and remains on the natural level cannot attain immortality. The first conquest of death takes place in the realm of history."

It seems that RYBS does not replace the concept of transcendental immortality with historical immortality. Rather, he sees the latter as a prerequisite for the former. It is not that the former is false or even unnecessary, but that historical immortality is first, and is the gate-way to immortality of the transcendental kind.

2) Hazony says: "What we see in the exodus from Egypt is not the failure of the natural world to function according to physical law, but rather the remarkable possibility that the natural world can, at times, act in accordance with the dictates of the moral law."

RYBS's quoted passage explicitly states an active role for God. He may be acting through nature, but He is acting nonetheless. The miracle is not simply a blind confluence of the natural and the ethical, or a happenstance elevation of nature to the ethical realm, but God acting through nature, and for the purpose of guiding providential history forward. In essence, RYBS seems to hold, as Maimonides does, that the miracle is not in the natural event, but in the timing of that event, which enables meta-historical results. As Hazony himself quotes from Emergence, "God would have been instrumental in a natural children’s plague…. [But o]n the night of Passover he appeared… as acting along historical patterns…. Miracle is simply a natural event which causes a historical metamorphosis. Whenever history is transfigured under the impact of [natural] cosmic dynamics, we encounter a miracle."

3) Dr Hazony indicates: "… naturalist ones such as those we find in Maimonides’ Guide and Soloveitchik’s Emergence of Ethical Man"

Though it is tempting to group RYBS's Emergence with Maimonides, so doing ignores the fact that, in the Code, Maimonides is explicit in his need for תחיית המתים and other supernatural occurrences. I only point this out because, according to Hazony's argument, RYBS does not contradict his naturalistic Emergence in his other works. However, Rambam does, and I think this would preclude the association of the two masters in this matter.

4) Finally, a completely naturalistic take on mankind seems to preclude events such as prophecy, and the giving and receiving of the Torah at Har Sinai. Indeed, Rabbi Soloveitchik does not deny that there exists such a paradigm. Even as he describes prophecy as a charismatic bond between giver and receiver, he does not deny that the essential, supernatural, element of this bond is the divine order: "That is why God tolerates no intrusion by society upon His befriended Abraham...The human being acting under divine orders is portrayed as a forsaken person whose only friend is God." (p 152)

With regard to revelatory experience, RYBS writes (p 187), "The voice coming forth from the burning bush and Moses' resistance symbolize the clash of the thesis with the antithesis. The final reformation of Moses embodies the synthesis of redemption." It is clear that this "coming forth" is a supernatural occurrence to which Man is susceptible, even in the naturalistically leaning Emergence. It is indeed mankind's highest step to be capable of immanent discourse with God. Further (p 184), Rabbi Soloveitchik describes Moses' role as "The angelic role - that is to say, the role of agent". An angel may simply be an agent of God, but Moses' task as such propelled him into the realm of the supernatural, with "divine power" delegated to him. This would also seem to be at odds with Dr Hazony's thesis.

III.

Certainly, Emergence presents a unique and important viewpoint, and one that deserves more reflection and study. Hazony’s article zeros in on some of the more notable and revolutionary aspects of the work, and points out how monumental these points may be to modern-day Jewish philosophical ambitions. There is value in a commitment to a religious-philosophical system which is complete within the here-and-now, and which gives adequate meaning to life in the world which we experience, with less resort to the supernatural. However, it is important to note that Rabbi Soloveitchik does not deny the element of the supernatural; he merely downplays it. In this respect, he follows the lead of thinkers such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (see Dayan Grunfeld's Introduction to Horeb, p 37), who held that the unique message of Judaism is not one of metaphysical speculation, but down-to-earth activity within the real world, and the raising of the natural to the status of the ethically commanded.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ Certain parts of the book itself left me unconvinced. In particular, Rabbi Soloveitchik's read of the Gemara in Sanhedrin 90b (pp 176-177 in Emergence) struck me as ignoring the subject matter of that passage, ie, תחיית המתים, the revival of the dead, and treating the passage as discussing immortality. This explication is a misreading of the passage.

The Talmud states (Soncino translation): "How is resurrection derived from the Torah? — As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron the priest. But would Aaron live forever; he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah should be given him? But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah."

The obvious meaning of this passage (and the similar one regarding Avraham) is that since the corporeal, actual Aharon was not alive at a time when he could receive terumah, the verse would only be fulfilled literally if a time comes when Aharon is revived, and lives in Israel.

This passage speaks of revival of the dead, not immortality. Rabbi Soloveitchik reads it metaphorically at best, understanding "resurrection is derived from the Torah" as "immortality is indicated in the Torah", and applies his understanding of historical immortality to it. He undoubtedly takes the passage away from its true meaning.

To be sure, Rabbi Soloveitchik's understanding of the verses may make more sense than the Talmud's, and be less forced. Indeed, he mentions it earlier in the book. I myself am drawn strongly to his explanation of the verses as discussing historical Aharon and historical Avraham, as opposed to the individuals. However, it is clear that this explanation is at odds with this Talmudic passage; the passage itself does not bear Rabbi Soloveitchik's interpretation.

However, whatever my concerns with this deconstruction and its removal of the plain sense of the Talmudic passage, it is clear that RYBS emphasizes immortality through historical identification, over transcendental life-after-death.

Anti-Pagan Motif in B'reshit

I am reading Moshe Greenberg's translation of Yehezkel Kaufmann's work, Religion of Israel. Part of Kaufmann's thesis is that the Jewish Bible contains within it a strong anti-pagan polemical element. I have found an excellent example of this motif in the aftermath of Avraham's battle against the four kings. I hope to be able to verify the following (someday, when I have more time), but in the meantime, I leave it as a strong possibility.

A curious literary dance occurs as Malki Zedek, the king of Shalem, priest to El Elyon, comes out to greet Avraham. The Torah emphasizes the god of Malki Zedek three times in three sequential verses, as El Elyon, translated roughly as god-most-high:

"Malki Zedek, king of Shalem, brought bread and wine (he was priest of El Elyon); He blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Avram by El Elyon, founder of heaven and earth; and blessed is El Elyon, who delivered your enemies into your hands,' and offered a tithe of everything." (Gen. 14:18-20)

The Torah first describes the king as priest to El Elyon, and twice, the king himself blesses Avraham in El Elyon's name. Now, the midrash identifies Shalem with Jerusalem, and Malki Zedek with Shem, son of Noah. Additionally, El Elyon is identified as an appelation for God, the God of the Bible. 'Shalem' is actually present in the name ירושלם, Yeru-shalem, and, as this is the most imporant city-state in Canaan, the association seems to work well.

However, the matching of El Elyon with the Jewish conception of God seems less convincing. For, one short verse later, Avram responds: "'I raise my hand to God [the tetragrammaton], El Elyon, founder of heaven and earth...'" If it were true that Malki Zedek's 'El Elyon' refers to the same God as that of Avraham, what need would Avraham find in repeating verbatim, in the same conversation, the preamble of Malki Zedek? Avraham seems to be correcting a mistake; he seems to be making a point pregnant with theological significance.

'El', while used as a general name for any god in Semitic languages, was also the proper name for the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon (citation). With this fact in mind, it becomes quite possible that this primary god would be the special representative and protector of the most important city-state of Canaan. Thus Malki Zedek, as king of Shalem, would become closely associated with El Elyon (literally, El, the most high god), as high priest of El Elyon's cult. In line with Malki Zedek's statment, El was seen as the god who fashioned heaven and earth. (In general, pagan mythologies view the world as being created by a god who fashions it out of one of various primordial materials (depending on the specific myth). Paganism is essentially a monistic world-view in which both gods and mankind function under an overarching backdrop of a spiritual-mystical rule-set which functions autonomously within matter, separate from gods and man. Kaufmann defines paganism as, "...the idea that there is no supreme divine will that governs all. The rule of the gods is ultimately grounded on the mysterious forces that inhere in matter, in a realm which lies outside them." (Religion of Israel p 32) The gods are controlled by fate and magic, operating directly upon the fabric of the universe, which is outside the realm of the gods. Monotheism breaks with this view by positing the Creator as one who functions completely independently and is in total control of everything.)

If we accept the foregoing, it becomes evident that Malki Zedek (whom we will no longer identify with Shem, obviously), after seeing the victory of Avraham, comes as high priest of the most high god of the land, to praise his god and, through him, Avraham. He declares that the victory stemmed from the aid and divine influence of El Elyon, a proper noun, literally the name of his patron high god.

Avraham immediately understands Malki Zedek's speech as praise for the pagan cult of El Elyon. Avraham recognizes the friendliness and brotherhood extended by Malki Zedek, but also the implicit and explicit invocation of the pagan dogma. He transforms this moment into yet another chance to gain a victory in his war against idolatry and his evangelism of monotheism in the form of the one God. Immediately notable in Avraham's speech is that he qualifies the name of the deity, pre-pending to it the name of the Abrahamic God. He says, 'I swear not by the proper noun, not by the god named 'El Elyon', but rather by the tetragrammaton, the God who is the creator of everything, and the only God. I use the term 'El Elyon' as an adjectival phrase, describing the only God - the God who is highest over everything, and who is (in the words of Kaufmann) subject to no powers that transcend him.'

Avraham's critique is subtle, precise and appealing. In just a few words, it sums up an entire world-view, and at the same time, provides an eloquent example of the general anti-idolatry motif in the book of B'reshit.

However, this lesson is not a simple one. Even the father of monotheism at times struggles with it, so steeped is the world around him in paganism. For in the very next chapter, 15, Avraham learns from God himself the lesson of God's complete control over the fabric of the universe.

Before discussing the content of chapter 15, it is important to recognize by what right we relate two separate chapters, divided by אחר הדברים האלה, ostensibly a division and mark of a new topic. Upon closer examination, however, the end of chapter 14 and the beginning of chapter 15 are linked linguistically by the use of the Hebrew root מ.ג.נ. Malki Zedek uses this root in 14:20 in the piel form when he declares that El Elyon 'delivered - מיגן' Avraham's enemies into his hands. In 15:1, God uses it in the qal form to assure Avraham that God 'protects - מגן' over Avraham. This root appears only one other time in all of the Torah, in D'varim. Its use in such close proximity in our chapters, four short verses apart, with only the vowelization differentiating the two divergent meanings, is undoubtedly meant to link the two chapters and events in a reader's mind. (This is a literary technique used by the Torah to couple divided narratives, as we discussed here.)

While bemoaning his childlessness, Avraham says to God, "What can you give me? I go childless..." (v 2). It seems almost as if Avraham is resigned to a world in which he is doomed to be barren. Avraham describes his lack of progeny as a passive fate. It is not necessarily God who has decided that he be without, but perhaps the fateful realm above the pagan deities. In the next verse, Avraham recants somewhat, evidently remembering his monotheism, saying, "to me, You have not given seed." Avraham admits that God is the source of the curse. However, he still does not make a request that God change his fate; he still accepts as a fact that he will not have children. Perhaps he does not yet recognize that God can change this. His despair places Avraham in a depressed, myopic state, and these verses exude gloom.

They dynamic, active and all-powerful God shakes Avraham out of his melancholy. In verse 5, "God took him outside, and said, 'look to the sky and count the stars!'". God calls Avraham to an active role, and in doing so, dispels the notion of blind fate actively running things against a passive deity or man. Avraham's depression and belief in fate is tied by the midrash to paganism: God castigates Avraham: "צא מאצגננותך - Leave your astrological divinations!" Perhaps through your pagan tools to divine your fate, you see that you are destined to be without children. However, I am God, in total control of the world, and I promise you children as numerous as the stars of the heaven!

Thus the beginning of chapter 15 acts as a fitting end to the story in chapter 14. Connected by a rare Hebrew root, the stories beg to be read together. And what is the message of chapter 15? That even Avraham, he who reached monotheism on the strength of his intellectual powers alone, still struggles with the vestiges of the pagan creed on an emotional level. It takes God to arouse him out of his attempts to divine the future through magic and omens. It takes an actual experience, an actual encounter with God, to cleanse the pinnacle of mankind of traces of idolatry. Perhaps even if we accept R' Saadia Gaon's opinion that the truth can be reached by reason alone, we are left with the emotional dimension of man that can only be set completely straight by revelation.

Against a Submissive Attitude in Torah Learning

Since a post at Cross-Currents, extolling the idea that the rishonim were on a higher plane than we are, spiritually and scholastically, and that anyone who does not submit to them, but dares to imply that we have the capacity to decide between them or judge their opinions, is no longer engaged in תלמוד תורה. This precipitated a heated debate, mostly moderated. Ultimately, a misreading, by the editor, of the original points of the author led me to realize that perhaps the editor realizes the fact that we may and should disagree when necessary with rishonim and acharonim, and that although the original poster held one idea, the moderating editor held one much more inline with the sources, and simply wanted to clarify that disagreement should be done with respec?t (something I believe most ideas are entitled to).

However, it is probably useful to have localized some germane quotes for future reference. The following are some quotes by Torah giants indicating that disagreement and even rejection of earlier sources is desirable in Torah discourse.

Rav Kook (Orot Hakodesh pp. 537,547):

“תורת ההתפתחות, ההולכת וכובשת את העולם כעת, היא מתאמת לרזי עולם של הקבלה, יותר מכל התורות הפילוסופיות האחרות…אנו מוצאים בו את העניו האלקי מואר בבהירות מוחלטת…וזאת היא עליתה הכללית, ששום פרט לא ישאר חוצה, שום ניצוץ לא יאבד מהאגודה, הכל מתוקן לסעודה.”

And then, in 2:24 (pg 647): “כל אותן ההרצאות והדרכים המביאים לדרכי מינות הם בעצמם ביסודם מביאים, כשמחפסים את מקורם, לעומק אמונה יותר עליונה, ויותר מאירה ומחיה, מאותה ההבנה הפשוטה שהאירה לפני התגלות הפרץ…ובזה הגודל האלקי מתפאר, וכל המגמות האמוניות מתאשרות ביותר, ומקום האמונה, הבטחון, והעבודה האלקית מתרחב…ויש בשכלולו של האדם ארת עצמו ואת עולמו גם כן כדי להעלות מדרגות, הרי הוא עושה בזה ממש את רצון קונו. והמעלה הרוחנית המתעלה מעל כל מתראה היא ליותר מרכזית ביסוד ההויה…וכל ערכי המוסר מתעלים בעילוי אלקי…”

Rav Kook (Shemona Kevatzim 3:8):

"ועם זה לא נעלמה ממנו גדולתם של הראשונים, ואפיסתנו לעומתם, ואנו אומרים, אם הראשונים כמלאכים אנו כבני אדם. אבל האם על מלאכים עצמם, עם כל הודאתנו בתקפם וחוסן קדושתם, גדלם ואימתם, “וגובה להם ויראה להם”, וכי עליהם עצמם אין אנו באים בכח הסוד, והאגדה בכלל, להתגדר ולומר, שמה שלא יוכלו להגיע אליו עם כל כבודם, אנו מגיעים אליו עם כל שפלותנו? החשבונות שונים הם. יש לנו עילוי של הליכה ושל בחירה, של התקבצות הדרגות השונות בחטיבה אחת, לגבי מעמד של עמידה, של הכרח, של טפוסיות מיוחדה למקצוע אחד, שאנו מרשמים את המלאכים…. כמו כן בחשבונות אחרים לא יעכבונו ראשונים. אם אנו באים למגמה, שמסיבות נמנעה מהם, בין שהיא שכלית בין שהיא מוסרית, אמונית או לאומית, וכבודם וגדלם, ומיעוט ערכנו וקטננו, במקומו מונח, אבל לא נפסוק משום כך מכל שאיפת עליה שרוחנו הומה אליה, ושיד הזמן מורה אותנו שהננו יכולים לתופסה. שם ד’ אנו קוראים בהתגלות החיים והרוח שבכל דור ודור, ופגם הכתוב כבודו של צדיק בקבר מפני כבודו של צדיק חי…"

"אבל על כל פנים החשבון מתמצה, שההשתפלות שלנו לעומתם לא תבטלנו משאיפות רוממות ערך, ודליגה על גביהם, נגד האלילות הרוחנית, שהרבתה לה אלילים מכל דרי מעלה. ואנו הננו עולים בגאותנו ואומרים, מי לי בשמים. רק האמת המולטה, רק הגודל לבדו, רק המקוריות בעצמה, רק עז אלהים, דורשים אנו ונדרוש. כמו כן בחשבונות אחרים לא יעכבונו ראשונים. אם אנו באים למגמה, שמסיבות נמנעה מהם, בין שהיא שכלית בין שהיא מוסרית, אמונית או לאומית, וכבודם וגדלם, ומיעוט ערכנו וקטננו, במקומו מונח, אבל לא נפסוק משום כך מכל שאיפת עליה שרוחנו הומה אליה, ושיד הזמן מורה אותנו שהננו יכולים לתופסה …"

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Epistle 34):

"זאת היא תפיסת הגאון החסיד על ספר ליקוטי אמרים ודומיו, אשר מפורש בהם פי’ ממלא כל עלמין ולית אתר פנוי מניה כפשוטו ממש, ובעיני כבודו היא אפיקורסות גמורה לאמר שהוא ית’ נמצא ממש בדברים שפלים ותחתונים ממש
…
הנה עיקר העלאת מ”ן זה של העלאת נצוצין לא נזכר אלא בקבלת האר”י ז”ל בכללה, ולא במקובלים שלפניו וגם לא בזוהר הק’ בפירוש. וידוע לנו בבירור גמור שהגאון החסיד ז”ל, אינו מאמין בקבלת האר”י ז”ל בכללה, ושהיא כולה מפי אליהו ז”ל."

Ramban (Introduction to Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot):

" לראשונים תלמיד, לקיים דבריהם ולהעמיד, לעשות אותם לצוארי רביד ועל ידי צמיד, לא אהיה להם חמור נושא ספרים תמיד. אבחר דרכם ואדע ערכם. אך באשר לא יכילו רעיוני אדון לפניהם בקרקע אשפוט למראה עיני. ובהלכה ברורה לא אשא פנים בתורה. כי י"י יתן חכמה בכל הזמנים ובכל הימים. לא ימנע טוב להולכים בתמים"

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (Towards A Renewed Rabbinic Leadership):

"We may go still further and say that Jewish knowledge can even be deepened today, firstly through our ability to point out previously unseen significance in Jewish conceptions by contrasting them with related ideas in non-Jewish thought; and secondly by applying to the study of the traditional literature of Judaism modern methods of research."

(I add the following in a paranthetical comment, since it is a possible explanation of the Kuzari's words, which he does not make perfectly explicit. In the Kuzari (5:2), Rabbi Yehuda Halevi states:

"לא אנהג על דרך הקראים, אשר עלו אל החכמה האלקית מבלי מדרגה"

I believe his point here is that the Karaites treated the Torah as given once, and completely static, unchanging. They rejected the notion of an oral Law, תורה שבעל פה, repudiating the very concept of a Divine Law that is revealed through the creative power of Rabbinic authority, in evolutionary stages. Rabbinic Judaism holds differently from the Karaites. Rabbi Berkovits makes this point in Not in Heaven (p 139), stating:

"In essence, R Abraham [son of Rambam] was warning against a new form of Karaism, against becoming Karaites of the written-down Oral Torah.")

Rav Soloveitchik (Emergence of Ethical Man, p. 6):

"It is certain that fathers of the Church and also the Jewish medieval scholars believed that the Bible preached this doctrine. medieval and even modern Jewish moralists have almost canonized this viewpoint and attributed to it apodictic validity. Yet the consensus of many, however great and distinguished, does not prove the truth or falseness of a particular belief. I have always felt that due to some erroneous conception, we have actually misunderstood the Judaic anthropology and read into the Biblical texts ideas which stem from an alien source. This feeling becomes more pronounced when we try to read the Bible not as an isolated literary text but as a manifestation of a grand tradition rooted in the very essence of our God-consciousness that transcends the bounds of the standardized and fixed text and fans out into every aspect of our existential experience. The sooner Biblical texts are placed in their proper setting - namely, the Oral tradition with it's almost endless religious awareness - te clearer and more certain I am that Judaism does not accent unreservedly the theory of man's isolationism and separatism within the natural order of things."

ביאור הגר"א לספר משלי ו:ג

אם אין אני לי מי לי...כלומר שאם אין אני אחשוב בשבילי, מי יחשוב בשבילי?

The Gra, as quoted by his student R' Chaim in חוט המשולש, סימן י"א:

שלא לישא פנים בהוראה אף להכרעת רבותינו בעלי השולחן ערוך...בתורה דכתיב בה אמת, בלתי אל האמת עינינו.

Rav Chaim of Volozhin in רוח החיים, א:ד:

הלימוד נקרא מלחמה...ואסור לו לתלמיד לקבל דברי רבו כשיש לו קושיות עליהם, ולפעמים יהיה האמת עם התלמיד...כי מלחמת מצווה היא...ולא לישא פני איש, רק לאהוב את האמת.

Twice Offended and Thereby Praised

Rav Neriyah used to say that we live in a world of b'diavad, a post factum, imperfect, vitiated world where we cannot expect to find ourselves in ideal situations. Usually, this type of thinking is considered a pessimistic world-view. If only we could live in an ideal position, but alas, we wring our hands, we must deal with the unfinished, unpolished realia of practical existence.

A trademark of Rav Kook's thought is that he does not only take stock of reality and fit it into a framework with which we can manage, but that his transformative creativity is able to find the supernal good even in the most base and spiritually desolate aspects of circumstance. This potential is brought to fruit by the beginning of the Hagadah, where the Talmud teaches (Pes. 116a) that in retelling the story of the Exodus, we begin with the shameful and end with the praise. The Talmud points to two ways in which we do so: the first is by telling the story of ארמי אובד אבי, understood by Rashbam as describing Avraham as an Aramean, descendent of idolators¹, who wandered from home at the command of God. The second is the reminder that עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים, we were slaves, the lowest of the low, at one time.

Now, prima facie, both these stories seem to point to the low beginnings of the Jewish nation. Avraham was the son of idolaters, which, from a moral and religious point of view, is a low place to plant the seeds of the people destined to spread the light of monotheism. By the same token, a free nation, in its own land, would be shamed indeed to recall the disgrace and humiliation of an epoch of servitude to the Egyptian master. On the face of things, these shameful, humble beginnings are overcome by the praise, that in the end, God brought us out of slavery into the fresh air of freedom, and from the mire of paganism to the intellectual clarity of monotheism. These beginnings are something about which we might feel, "Thank God we're over that", something which, were it not for our yearly story-telling, we would be quite happy to forget.

Rav Kook², however, takes slavery not as something to be brushed aside in embarrassment, but a beginning which was critical in its formative powers for the Jewish People. "To be able to submit the independent will and personal tendency in order to accept the yoke of Heaven, at which Israel excels, through which they have and will bring exceedingly great good to themselves and the world, this potential was acquired during the slavery and subservience..." Rav Kook sees our ability to submit to the will of God and faithfully bear his word to the world around us as a talent conditioned in the crucible of the Exile in Egypt. Furthermore, when a person is "so free that he is able to, through his own independent choice, subjugate himself in the appropriate situation...this is true freedom. 'Do not fear, my servant Ya'akov'..." Rabbi Carmy comments on the use of this reference from Tehilim that even though Ya'akov is referred to as a servant, he is described as possessing the attribute belonging only to the most free person, fearlessness.

So, it is precisely the exile in Egypt and Israel's slavery there which prepared it to accept the yoke of Heaven. It is only through this shame or offense of slavery that the praise of Israel, the chosen people of God, is possible.

Rav Kook continues: The lessons of monotheism essentially abstract theology to the extent that it is hard to attach to on an emotional level. Indeed, the further rarefied the philosopher's idea of God was, the less applicable He became to humanity, the less he was part of a vibrant tapestry of human life. The epitome of this is the First Cause conception of God. Even though Judaism certainly contains checks so that monotheism does not dry up into this kind of deism, it is still true that, to paraphrase Rabbi Carmy again, holiness has the potential to stifle the imagination. It is for this reason, Rav Kook says, that the progenitors of Israel began as idolaters. Idolatry, for all its base aspects, lends itself to physical, imaginative and creative talents. This exposure ended up benefiting the nation of Israel, providing the potential capacity to incorporate into the service of the true God the richness of their creative and vivid abilities. The bravery and physical fortitude, the imaginative elements of their personae are all able to shine forth when serving God, in their rightful, prescribed place.

Thus Rav Kook transforms what may seem to be a shy embarrassment regarding low beginnings into important, contributing factors to the essential qualities of Israel. Our very history is an example of מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, beginning in a shameful way, but through and because of this shame, becoming a nation worthy of praise. May the light of Israel shine, and help the world attain the perfection of messianic times.

--------------------------------------------

¹ In fact, this can help us understand, tangentially, the uplifting, and yet disturbing, story of עקדת יצחק. How can it be that God would even pretend to demand something of Avraham which goes against all that the ethic of the Torah repudiates so strongly? Perhaps the request, from the point of view of Avraham (and his contemporary readers and witnesses), was not so disturbing as our century's tempered, Judeo-Christian minds see it. It was common in those times to sacrifice the first, the best, in pagan rituals, and this undoubtedly extended to children and other humans, such as the cult of Molech. Thus, the initial request in the עקדה was not outside the normal religious experience of the time.

Furthermore, and this gets to the point of Rav Kook, pagan ritual was able to evoke a passion and vividness that is often lacking in monotheistic service. Abstracted, intellectualized spirituality tempers the raw emotions of Man, and can stifle creativity and excitement. Perhaps herein lay the test for Avraham - are you able to maintain the willingness to engage, heart and soul, in My service? Can you match the intense fervor of the idolators around you? And Avraham's הנני, Here I am - his immediate and unquestioning willingness - answers this question in the affirmative. (See also Rabbi Soloveitchik's Kierkgaardian summation in Emergence of Ethical Man (note on pp 156-157), "Abraham was great in his acting in accordance with the logic of the absurd.")

Beyond this, the ultimate lesson in this story regarding child sacrifice is clear - and in this, עקידת יצחק stands as a shining example of the morality God intends the world to learn from the light of the Jews, far above the pervailing morality of the times - "Do not set your hand against the boy, neither shall you do anything to him!" In no uncertain terms, the God of Avraham rejects completely the concept of child, or any human, sacrifice, as an acceptable method of divine service. The story of the עקדה certainly drives this lesson home in stark detail.

Of course, that which was seen as a positive action for the forefather, would be seen as a sin to us presently, and rest assured, God would not demand this of us. However, the story of the binding of Yitzchak becomes one full of moral lessons for the nascent Jewish People, and for the world, of loyalty to God even to the extreme, tender love between family members, passion and feeling in the service of the one true God, and a rejection of pagan practices.

Thanks go to Netanel Livni for a shabbat morning discussion which precipitated this footnote.

² Thanks to Rabbi Carmy whose lecture on this subject pointed me to look at the הגדה של פסח of Rav Kook, עולת ראייה, Introduction to Maggid, which is the source for this essay.

Major Events of Jewish History

In this post, I will list a skeletal timeline of Jewish History, from the exile of the ten tribes through the twentieth century. Please feel free to make use of this admittedly rough timeline, and please mark your corrections or additions in the comments section.

The hand  of God is evident in the pages of Jewish history. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes (On Jewish Sovereignty, 1973): "It is difficult for a Jew to detect the presence of God in the history of the nations or religions - unless it be in the history of Israel, and, only through that history, in the history of man as well. Eliminate Israel from history and there is no need for any reference to God. Without Israel, everything is explainable and expected. Economics, power, politics and psychology will explain everything. Without Israel, man is self-explanatory. Only the reality of Israel resists explanation on the level of manmade history. Because of Israel, the Jews knows that history is messianism - that God's guidance, however impenetrably wrapped in mystery, is never absent from the life of nations."

719 BCE - Exile of 10 tribes of Israel to Assyria
586 BCE - Destruction of the first Temple & Exile of Judea to Babylon
             - 423 according to Seder Olam
             - Begin Babylonian Exilarch (Jewish leader)
             - from Davidic dynasty (which lasted past 1000 CE)
624-546 BCE - Days of Micha the Prophet
                       - Thales of Miletus
537 BCE - Babylon conquered by Persia
516 BCE - King Cyrus offers Jews return to Judea
                - begin second commonwealth
500 BCE - Cyrus, Ezra, Nechemia
446 BCE - Pythagoras, Heraclitus (dated as per Seder Olam)
400-300 BCE - Xenophanes of Ionia, Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
                        - (dated as per Seder Olam)
334 BCE - Persian Judea conquered by Syrian-Greeks
               - Alexander the Great, Hellenization
200 - 150 BCE - Macabees
190 BCE - Book of Ben-Sira (list of heroes, evidence
                - of Neviim as corpus of scripture)
200 - 100 BCE - Dead Sea Scrolls - Evidence of Biblical
                         - Canon and sectarian writings
165 BCE - Hanukah
               - Later Hasmoneans, Hasmonean dynasty
               - Hycran, Queen Salome, Aristobulos
135 BCE - Judeans conquer Edom
                - Political/religious parties of Pharisees, Sadducees
75 BCE - In Parthia (Persian Empire, Babylonia), Hillel leads
67 BCE - Rome annexes Judea, Idumeans (formerly ruled
              - by Judea) become Kings of Israel
40 - 30 BCE - Herod
37 BCE - Rome rules Judea through procurators, eg. Pontius Pilate
100 BCE - 100 CE - Apcocalyptic books - Pseudopygrapha
                               - Philo
                               - John the Baptist
                               - Jesus of Nazareth
70 CE - Destruction of second commonwealth, Temple
           - Massada
           - 1 million Jews in Persia at this time
135 CE - Mishna
             - First citation of Ketuvim, discuss re: Kohelet, Shir Hashirim
             - Canon
132 - 134 CE - Judea: Hadrian reneges on promise to rebuild Temple.
                       - Judea: Rebellion against Rome. Akiva, Bar Kosba
                       - Judea: Betar. Rebellion crushed. Rename J to AC
                       - Judea: Yavneh and Sanhedrin destroyed
135 CE - Judea: Christianity parts ways forever with Judaism. ולמלשינים
150 CE - Judea: Bet Din restarts with Shimon II
100 CE - 300 CE - Jews follow Roman army to future France, Germany
                             - Spain, Portugal inhabited by Jews also
                             - (perhaps from times of King Solomon)
200 CE - Parthia: Rav in Sura, Shmuel in Pumpedita
260 CE - Parthia: Naharda'a destroyed because of Roman-Persian war
300 CE - Constantine turns Rome Christian
325 CE - Council of Nicea Separations between Jews and Christians
429 CE - Judea: Abolition of Patriarch in Judea/Palestine
400 CE - 470 CE - Parthia: R Ashi collates learning: Babylonian Talmud
                             - Parthia: Mazdaism tries force the Jews to immorality
470 CE - 500 CE - Parthia: Mar Zutra, Reish Galuta, rebels, is executed
412 CE - 700 CE - Spain: Jews forced to convert or leave
500 CE - Parthia: Begin Saboraim notes, order, editings to text of Talmud,
             - which they no longer added to
600 CE - Judea: Persians briefly take Palestine, Rome reconquers soon
622 CE - Mohammed, Islam. Destroys Jews of Arabia or exile them
until 450CE - Northern Europe: Jews were farmers
until 650 CE - Become merchants from oppressive
                    - laws in France, Spain, Italy
650 CE - 700 CE - Islam conquers Persia, Palestine, North Africa
711 CE - Mohammedans from North Africa conquer Visigothic Spain
             - Pact of Omar invoked
760 CE - Parthia: Karaism: Anan Ben David and Chanania rebel
             - against Talmud and Geonim.
800 CE - Pact of Omar - Jews allowed to live in Islamic-controlled
             - areas with reduced rights. Yellow patch
850 CE - Central Europe: Rabbeinu Gershom & Takkanot in Mayence
860 CE - Parthia: Geonim
             - Parthia: Siddurim: Rav Amram Gaon's, Rav Saadia Gaon's, Geonic responsa
875 CE - First appearance of Sambatyon & Eldad the Danite story
500 CE - 900 CE - Judea: Cantillation
                            - Judea: Vowel system (Tiberian massorah)
                            - Judea: Midreshei Agada, Piyyutim
500 CE - 1100 CE - Europe: General goodwill between Jew and Christian.
                                  - Laws against Jews but not practically enforced.
                                  - Jews were merchants, government functionaries,
                                  - eg. Charlamagne
750 CE - 1240 CE - Khazars led by Jewish convert king
900 CE - Parthia: Rav Saadia Gaon saves Judaism
             - from disintegration from Karaites, among others.
             - Unifies Jews, becomes Gaon of Sura
970 CE - 1038 CE - Rav Sherira and Rav Hai Gaon
                              - Decline of Babylonian community's leadership role
1000 CE - Our earliest extant Torah Scrolls date from around this time
1040 CE - France: Rashi made knowledge the rule
               - and ignorance the exception for Jews. Emphasis on study
               - Fez: Spanish School of Talmudism
               - Rif. Emphasis on halacha
1096 CE - Central Europe: First Crusade
1144 CE - Central Europe: Second Crusade
1189 CE - Central Europe: Third Crusade
               - York becomes a second Massada
900 CE - 1200 CE - Spain: Golden Age for Jews
1092 CE - Spain: Ibn Eztra, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, R' Bahya ibn Pekuda
1135 CE - Spain: Rambam comes from North Africa to flee persecution
1200 CE - 1400 CE - Western and Central Europe:
                                 - Slow process of Expulsion of Jews
1144 CE - Norwitch - first blood libel
1200 CE - Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid - Sefer Chasidim
1239 CE - France: Talmud burned publicly by wagonload
1290 CE - Jews expelled from England
1306 CE - Jews expelled from France
1200 CE - 1400 CE - "Silver Age" of Spain
1212 CE - Moors lose Spain to Christian armies
               - Cultural center of Jews moves to Provence
1232 CE - Clash between Philosophers and Traditionalists
                - Appeal to Catholic Church who burned Guide and other texts
                - Rashba - ban under 25 learning Kabala
1250 CE - Spain: Zohar introduced by Moses de Leon
1263 CE - Spain: Disputation between Ramban and Pablo Christiani
1264 CE - Boleslav the Pious
1306 CE - Controversy ends with Jews being expelled from France
1344 CE - Casimir the Great, both create Jewish Charter for Poland
1394 CE - Jews expelled from France for good
               - Germany: Black plague - Jews murdered by thousands
1300-1350 CE - Ralbag book of navigation translated by Pope
1350- 1400 CE - Germany restricts Jews living in towns and length of time they could stay
                         - Jews live in Ghettos
1420 CE - Murder of Jews and Expulsion from Vienna
1411 CE - Riots in Spain lead Jews to convert
1400-1500 CE - Germans followed by Jews migrate East
1453 CE - Turkish J community grows from refugees but not to stature of P
               - Jacob Ibn Chabib
               - Joseph Nasi - plan to settle Tiberias fails
1496 CE - J expelled from Lithuania
1492 CE - Inquisition in Spain, Torquemada against newly converted Christians
               - Abravanel
               - Crew of Columbus made up of Morranos
1497 CE - Inquisition in Portugal
               - Mendes, Nasi family
1500 CE - L & P under one Grand Duke
1500 - 1600 CE - Pilpulism, the kahal, education, intellectualism
                           - J culture of intelligence in Poland rivals Babylonian Amoraim
                           - Tzena Ur'ena in Yiddish published
1480-1520 CE - Renaissance in Western Europe
                         - Rome, Italy, enlightened ideas spread - medicine, science, art
                         - Hebrew studied in Universities
                         - Jews from S and P permitted in R
                         - Reuchlin (against) - Pfefferkorn (for) book burning controversy
                         - liberalism is good for tolerable Jewish life
1520 CE - Martin Luther - Lutheranism - eventual advocate extermination of J
1525 CE - Jewish pseudo-Messiahs - David Reubeni, Solomon Molcho.
               - burned at stake
1530 CE - Renaissance ends with liberal promises not fulfilled
1540 CE - Previously kind Italy expels Jews except from Rome & Ancona
               - Refuge in Turkey - Ottoman Empire
               - Sefad, rebuild semicha quarrel - and failure
1488-1575 CE - Karo - Shulchan Aruch, Spain to Sefad
                         - 1492 and on Spanish Jews turn to Kabala
1530-1572 CE - Rema
1519 CE - Germany expells Jews from some towns
1519-1670 CE - Germany & Italy - Ghetto for Jews
                         - Homes of Catechums for converts
1534-1572 CE - Luria, ARI, saw self as Messiah son of Joseph
                         - He was a German in Sefad
                         - Leader of movement of kabalists and imagination
                         - Transmigtration of souls, Gilgulim
                         - Student was Rabbi Chaim Vital, spread Kabala in Europe
                         - Small population of Palestine subsisted on charity
1558 CE - Holland seeks freedom from Spain
1559 CE - Printing press, Italy center of Jewish press
               - Azariah de Rossi, davidic ancestry - historian - מאור עניים
               - Western European J expelled or Ghettoized
               - despite contributions to very foundations of WE civilization
               - Center of J life shifts from S & G and moves to Poland
1530 CE - Polish Jews organize semi-autonomous self government
1572 CE -Jagello dynasty ends, Poland has monarch only as figurehead
               - Real power in Nobles in their own territory (feudalism)
               - Jews overseers of serfs
1623 CE - Lithuanian J withdraw to own council
               - Polish Jews have Va'ad Arba Aratzot
               - Rabbinic & Political committees exist within it
               - Shtadlan
               - Taxes to Poland collected by Va'ad
1648 CE - Chmelnitzky
1648-1658 - Sabbatai Zevi
1618-1648 CE - 30 Years War -German states and Holy Roman Empire
                         - Jews suffered also
                         - Jews participated as court purveyors
                         - In Prague Samuel Bassevi made a noble for services to state
1612-1616 CE - Frankfurter Purim, Fettmilch
1600 CE - Marranos move from Iberian peninsula to Holland for religious freedom
               - Jews from Germany escape to Holland - 2 J communities
1609 CE - Maharal dies
1640 CE - Uriel de Costa writes against detailism of J, commits suicide
1632-1677 CE- Benedict Spinoza
1650 CE - Menashe ben Israel - claims 10 tribes are NA Indians
1290-1660 CE - No Jews in England. MBI tries to convince Cromwell who balks
                         - Soon Jews come to England and are de facto accepted
1492-1612 CE -Jews in new world - North America, South America
1657 CE - New Amsterdam (later NY)
               - Stuyvesant denied, Dutch Co permitted J full rights in New World
1660 CE - Lithuania interested in reason/learning
               - South Poland interested in mysticism, Ba'alei Shem
1700-1760 CE -Ba'al Shem Tov - Hassidism
                        - Jews take on Polish noble dress - capotte, long beard
1707 CE - Ramchal mistaken as Sabbatean
1720 CE - GRA - no piyutim, pilpul, positive about secular study
1729 CE - Mendelsohnn born
1740 CE - Jacob Frank - all sins must be done for Messiah to come - orgies
1750 CE - Emden/Eibushitz controversy
               - Amulets, Sabbateanism
1753 CE - PM Pelham (England) Jews given full rights, subsequently repealed
1760 CE - Maggid of Mezhrich taught next generation, was more scholarly than Besht
1772 CE - Excommunicated Hassidim (GRA)
1796 CE - Death of GRA
1600-1776 CE - Jews find freedom and equality in USA
                         - George Washington, Hayim Solomon
1789 CE - French Revolution
1800 CE - Poland split between Hassidim and Mitnagdim - difficulties
1791 CE - French Jews full citizenship
1799 CE - Napoleon
               - Sanhedrin (propoganda, get Jews to submit)
               - Infamous decrees - 40 yr moratorium on J debts
               - Jews cannot escape conscription as a Gentile could
1810 CE - German states still oppressive to Jews
               - Vienna conference: after defeat of Napolean retract rights given to J
               - Spurs J to work for equality in German lands
1816 CE - Jacob Herz Baer - first reform Prayer meeting
               - Reform - attempts by Jews to be less "queer"
1827 CE - Russia Czar Nicholas I - pale of settlement
               - Cantons
               - Russia opens J schools with Russian subjects
               - Realizing the real purpose, head of schools, Lilianthal leaves for US
1830 CE - Crimieux J in France forught for rights, member of provisional gov't
1844-1846 CE - Conferences to give Reform a set of dogma, what they believe
1860-1880 CE - Holdheim - J is dead institution - developed by man and must adjust
               - Hirsch - Torah is from God, no changes
               - Geiger - Judaism is living institution sacred, must change ceremonies to express spirit
               - Frankel - Change must occur organically "Historical Judaism"
               - Geiger encapsulated European Reform, Frankel, US Conservative movement
               - Hoffmann, Hildesheimer "Science of Judaism", critical work in Judaism and use modern methods
1848 CE - French Revolution II against king
1850 CE - Nationalism awakens in Europe and Jews are more-so than Gentiles
1855 CE - Russia: Czar Aleksandr II liberal, stops cantons, Jews allowed out of pale
               - Seeming liberalization in Russia
1840 CE - Renewal of hate
               - Damascus Affair, Morau Affair (Italy)
1860 CE - Crimieux - Jewish Universal Alliance to help Jews worldwide
1880 CE - Eastern Eurpoe hostile, Jews need solution
               - Jews more loyal to Germany than Germans
1870 CE - Napolean III overthrown, F true republic
1880 CE - France gives J full rights, Crimieux dies
1880 CE - Germany - Zunz, Graetz, Science of Judaism
               - Western Jews have negative opinion of Eastern European Jews
1750-1880 CE - Eastern Europe Haskala, Hebrew literature
               - As opposed to history, philosophy, theology of Western European Aufklaerung
               - Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer - German Philosophers
1867 CE - Rappaport (Shir), Krochmal, Shadal, biblical and philosophical studies
               - Viewed Judaism as offering more to secular culture than it took
1870 CE - Russian, German J uncomfortable
               - Haskala did not provide adequate solutions
               - Modernization is tantalizing
1820-1860 CE - US expands, Jews head west
                         - Leeser advocated J unified leadership
                         - Rebecca Gratz - Sunday school system
1820-1892 CE - Belarus - Beis Halevi - RYDS
                          - Son R Chaim Brisker, begins Brisker dynasty
1860 CE- US Civil War - Jews on both sides
1889 CE - Isaac Wise - Pittsburgh Platform went further in Reform than Europeans
               - Hebrew Union College, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
 1894 CE - Antisemitism, scientific Jew hatred
                - France: Dreyfus affair
                - Some are still liberal, but tide turns to hate J
                - Russia still feudal, Jew hatred rampant
1880-1900 CE - Liberalism - revolutions and change sweep Europe
                        - Jews participate but still there is antisemitism
                        - Jews leave Russia in large numbers to US
1818-1883 CE - Russia: Marx, the Bund
1873 CE- Chovevei Zion, Rabbi Kalischer
1860-1904 CE - Herzl, Zionism, Nordeau
1882-1903 CE - First Aliyah
1904-1914 CE - Second Aliyah (largely failure, many left Palestine before WWI)
1878 CE - BILU, Petach Tikva
1902 CE - JTS, Solomon Shechter, US
               - Catholic Israel, Unity, Tradition and Scholarship
1909 CE - Kehilla experiment in US fails
1917 CE - Revolution in Russia, Communism
1914-1918 CE - WWI
1918-1923 CE - Third Aliyah
                         - Tel Aviv, Haifa, renewal of Land - desert blooms
                         - Jewish settlements dot the land, and Israel returns to her land
1924-1928 CE - Fourth Aliyah - urban development of Tel Aviv
1920 CE - Sir Herbert Samuel, British Jewish comissioner to Palestine civil administration
               - Tel Hai, Jews fight back against Arab attacks - Trumpledor "Hagidem"
1929 CE - Hebron riots and other Arab riots against Jews
               - British largely passive unless Jews are attacking
1918 CE - League of Nations, Mandate Commission, Human Rights
1917 CE - Balfour Declaration, British Mandate
               - Bolshevik Revolution in Russia -- USSR
1860-1948 CE - Hebrew revived as spoken language, Ben Yehuda
1901-1906 CE - Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1915 CE - Revel reorganizes RIETS (1896) into Yeshiva University - New York
               - R Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
1917 CE - JPS translates Hebrew Bible into English in US
1922 CE - Hebrew Theological College - Chicago - R Eliezer Berkovits
                - US Jewry independent of European religious guidance
1920-1930 CE - US rise in anti-semitism, Henry Ford (later admits to being mislead)
                         - Obstacles to Jews in Universities, etc
                         - American Jews donate hugely to Palestinian, European Jews
1922 CE - Congress passes strict anti-immigration laws over veto of President
1921 CE - British White Paper - restricts Balfour promises to "part" of P
1925 CE - Hebrew University opens in Jerusalem, Magnes
               - German refugee professors (eg Scholem) make it intellectual center
1933 CE - Hitler
               - Albert Einstein relocates to US from Germany
               - Fifth Aliyah
1937 CE - Columbus Platform recognizing place for tradition, Jewish homeland
               - Replaces Pittsburgh Platform for Reform
               - Reconstructionist Judaism appears
1883-1946 CE - Rabbi Isaac Breuer - Der Neue Kusari
1937-1943 CE - Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1938 CE - Kristallnacht
               - Evian conference - world turns back on Jews
               - Some Jews allowed into some countries only with money
               - Germany would not let Jews out with money
               - British continue policy to keep Jews out of Palestine
               - Jewish refugee ships sink, explode, sent back to port of origin
1939 CE - Death of Freud in Germany
1939 CE - In face of Arab riots, British issue second White Paper
               - Declares building of Jewish homeland in P complete
               - Allows small number of Jews in over five years, afterwards, only with Arab consent
1939-1945 CE- WWII
1943 CE - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
1945 CE -United Nations
               - Post-war pogroms and violence against Jews in Eastern Eruope
               - Prove Jews have no homes left, must emigrate
               - Jews revive Haganah, Etzel, Lechi
1948 CE Israel declares Independence
1956,1967,1973,1976 CE - Israel fights for its life against Arab armies
1948-2000 CE - Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen, Iran), and like operations
                        - Extraction of Jews from lands previously little-known
                        - Refuseniks in USSR, eventual USSR collapse
                        - Development of Israeli military alongside peaceful hopes
                        - Israel blossoms, economic, religious, artistic life flourishes

Knesset Members Eat Their Words

Before the Disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the following MK's mocked the idea that this would lead to rockets on Ashkelon: Meir Sheetreet (Likud --> Kadima), Ran Cohen (Meretz), Orit Noked (Labor), Shaul Mofaz (Likud --> Kadima), Ofir Pines-Paz (Labor).

Aside from this, let us not forget the politicians who supported the disengagement against their better judgement: Slivan Shalom, Limor Livnat, Bibi Netanyahu.

Those of us who saw clearly back then knew then the dangers posed by the disengagement. Now, the whole world can watch these politicians make fools of themselves with the benefit of hindsight and video recording.

"Get Over" the Holocaust?!

In response to a disrespectful, shameful opinion piece in the Beacon:

The truth is, Weinreich does not advocate "forgetting" the Holocaust, he simply advocates allowing it to become part of the historical record, doing away with the visceral reaction it evokes in most people. As people rail against "forgetting", Weinreich may sit and smirk in self-righteous contentment, thinking that he never advocated that, and "can't people read?" However, he is still wrong, and the amount of common sense Weinreich ignores leads one to the conclusion that the purpose of this ill-conceived piece is primarily to create a stir and promote the visibility of the author and publication as "cutting edge".

First of all, I doubt the author would ever have the temerity to publish such a piece about the Armenian Genocide. Much as the proverbial Jewish bus driver deriding the haredi he meets for being so "different", and t...hen apologizing profusely upon learning that the man is Amish, Weinreich probably feels a certain comfort level with the material of the Holocaust, and his familiarity has bred a certain level of casual disrespect and, yes, even perhaps some contempt.

In reply to Weinreich's substance: historical events are slowly scabbed over and eventually scar at their own pace. Indeed, the destruction of the Temple, the massacres at Massada, York, Medina, the Crusades and Inquisition, the Chmielnicki Massacre, all these atrocities are remembered by the Jews. However, given time and rebuilding, the acuteness, or freshness, as Weinreich calls it, of the memories, is replaced by historical context and often, religious meaning. This is a natural process that we can witness as occuring in relation to our own personal tragedies and troubles. It is also a psycho-social reality on a national level. So, the very process Weinreich so coldly suggests happens on its own.

However, the crucial difference between Weinreich's proposal and the natural occurrence I describe above is as follows: When this process occurs naturally, it is part of a healing process that gives perspective and comfort. But when it is demanded before its natural process has barely begun, it is inflammatory, self-promotional and repugnant. As a writer who (to be most charitable to Weinreich) hopes to help the national consciousness of the Jews on the road to recovery, he ignores the needs of the nation and the magnitude of the damage done. The very fact that many read his piece as suggesting that we "forget", shows just how untimely his writing is. It is an obscenity.

Parenthetically, it is important to remember that Jewish tradition is full of rites and rituals whose purpose is to assist in this process. The shock element of the laws of Aninut (one whose close relative has just died) leads to Shiva, a period of mourning, which leads to progressively less intense periods of remembrance and sadness. It is important to remember however, that Judaism keeps personal and national days (Tisha B'av for example) to revive and freshen the memory of tragedy and evil in our minds. We are never to allow the events of our personal and national lives to become desiccated history. Even with the natural process in place, we are supposed to break out of that from time to time, each year, to remember the events in a real, fresh, immanent way. So Jewish tradition and religious imperative recognizes the scarring and healing process, and supports it, even as it sets aside certain times to recall the events memorialized in the full color of their experience.

Intra-Religious Violence

Just reported on Ynet, a haredi family has complained to police that their eleven year old boy was attacked in Jerusalem by secular thugs.

Whether or not this story proves true, it is imperative that all Jews recognize that violence directed against children, or indeed, any non-threat, is antithetical to Torah values, and antithetical to secular ethical systems as well. It must be publicly stated that such Jew-on-Jew violence is horrifying and must be stopped.

A School in Beit Shemesh

The Agudath Israel of America released a statement concerning the violence in Beit Shemesh. Read it here. Here is my response:

many charedi Jews, men and women alike, see a need to take special steps – in their own lives and without seeking to coerce others – to counterbalance the pervasive atmosphere of licentiousness, so as to avoid the degradation of humanity to which it leads.

If increased modesty is expressed by individuals' attempts to avoid situations they feel are improper, that is one thing. If a man feels unable or uninterested in walking on the same sidewalk as a woman, and he switches sides, no one will complain. If a woman chooses to not speak with a man out of a sense of modesty, again, no one will complain (although people may question the motives, value and repercussions these types of behavior have on the individual and on the community).

However, if "special steps" taken include gender-segregated buses, signs asking women to walk on the other side of the street, and an unwillingness to vociferously reject the more radical embodiment of these strictures (such as assault (insults and taunts against adults and, more horrifically, children) and battery (spitting, brick throwing, etc)), then, far more than the "atmosphere of licentiousness" the charedi community wishes to avoid, they contribute to the degradation of humanity.

The true irony is found when considering the very concept stated above in my first paragraph: the idea that as long as one does not impact others with his "special steps" in modesty (or other strictness), one should be allowed to take them. This idea of personal autonomy and freedom comes not from the Torah, but from liberal philosophy.In the past, the danger posed to society from overly strict individual behavior was viewed as damaging no less than overly lax individual behavior. One who deviated too far off the golden mean, the societal norm, in either direction, was herded back to the norm. It is ironic that only in the context of modernity and the liberalism it engenders that the charedi world can support "special steps in their own lives", steps that have no basis in normative Halacha and derive their validity from modernity's "individual freedom".

Finally, while Aguda's condemnation of the violence is welcome, it comes belatedly, at a time when the media has picked up on an old story in Beit Shemesh. This has been going on for months, the segregated buses (and violence in their defense) has been going on for years. Why is the vast majority silent? Why is it only when the media pick up a story that the leaders of the charedi world in Israel feel the need to begin to condemn? Was there nothing to condemn months ago, when the heckling of little girlds started? Was there nothing to condemn years ago, when women were assaulted on buses for not moving to the back?

Could it be that the majority supports the goals of the violence, and therefore, they ignore the means?

Finally, I want to point out that there is a troubling view of today's society as extremely licentious. Judaism has existed and survived in cultures far more explicit and licentious than today's. Just think about ancient Greek or Roman culture, or the 18th century dress and behavior across Western Europe.

Later, Rabbi Yaakov Menken posted a comment responding in part to me. I fisked it, and this comment has yet to be approved by Cross-Currents, even though Yaakov Menken has commented since. Here is the unapproved comment from me:

"

Daniel Weltman

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

December 29, 2011 at 11:31 am

If you condemn the charedi separate buses, and do not condemn those in Korea and Mexico City, you are a bigot.

I guess I am not a bigot then, at least by your standards.

I know you don’t mean to sound this way, but you sound as though you are trying to defend the indefensible. And so:

They didn’t speak fast enough.

They sure didn’t. Women have had bricks thrown at them, been physically (!!) assaulted on buses that are segregated, and little religious girls (albeit not charedi) have been called whores and prostitutes, and yet there has been no backlash from official charedi organizations until now, until the media blitz. In fact, rabbis have said that they refuse to speak out against these activities, because they are not related to them at all. It is sad that it takes what you call a “deliberate provocation…media tactic” to get the ball rolling on some much-needed, sadly missing public charedi outrage.

They dare to operate gender-separate buses.

No, Egged does. They do not operate the buses. If this were a private bus company, things may be a bit different, don’t you think…

They dare to help their own values by suggesting opposite sides of the street before Sukkos, when the crowds and tiny sidewalks of Meah Shearim make physical contact mandatory.

Suggesting? Or enforcing? I think your comment suffers from pollyanism. How about the mob-style forcing of stores to keep the placards about “please only enter modestly dressed” in their windows? What happens to those who refuse, Yaakov? How about Manny’s bookstore? If these actions are really only those of fringe elements, then the complaint of the mainstream charedim is much too late, and too little besides. If not, then I do not really know what point you are making.

All of that means the charedim (including Rav Lipman, who is in Beit Shemesh and has vociferously opposed the Sikrikim) condone their behavior.

שתיקה כהודעה – Silence implies consent. I doubt that anyone would say that any rabbi who “vociferously opposed” the hooligans condones their behavior. Let’s discuss without the false choices.

Deliberate provocation is an acceptable media tactic against them.

See above.

or present a verbal confrontation as violence.

Yaakov, spitting at someone is considered נזיקין in Halacha. It is ironically listed with one who “uncovers a woman’s hair in public”, and has the same compensation to the victim — 400 zuz (quite a sum of money). See Bava Kama 8:6.

Screaming obscenities in public is certainly against the law, and not covered by Free speech when it is disorderly conduct. Particularly when directed at a person in a threatening way, it is assault. It is assault. Throwing feces, rocks, bricks, and other objects at a person or a home is battery and property damage.

When you say “present a verbal confrontation as violence”, do you mean to imply that the above occurrences (some recorded) did not occur?

truly the Jews’ Jews

If by “Jews’ Jews” you mean, finding a demand to react against fringe elements of their society vocally and consistently, and not to allow evil and thuggery to fester in their midst, yes they are Jews. If you mean the colloquial usage, that they are the scapegoat for the people who serve as scapegoats for the rest of the nations, you are simply wrong, and throwing around loaded terms will do nothing to help anyone in the Beit Shemesh situation today.

"