Mesorah 7

The Rabbinite and Karaite communities lived largely apart since the twelfth century. Although questions were raised as to the legal status of the Karaites, these discussions were mostly theoretical. The issues were whether or not the Karaites were to be considered Jews, and, if so, was it permissible to marry with them? The answer to the first question is surprisingly more complex than we might assume. We are generally raised on the concept that, no matter what one does, a Jew remains a Jew. As to an individual, this is certainly true. The idea is well established in the Talmud: "An Israelite, even if he sins, is still and Israelite". Nevertheless, the halachah requires a Jew who has apostatized to formally re-accept Judaism before a Beit Din, and to immerse. Essentially, this constitutes a mini-conversion.This, however, does not mean he wasn't Jewish until now. It is a way of showing public regret for his actions, as a prerequisite for community acceptance. That an unfulfilled Jewishness is nevertheless handed down for generations, as is generally assumed, really has no source. Yes, it is the view of most rabbis. But there was a significant minority of rabbis in the sixteenth century that believed that a family not identifying with the entire Torah, Written and Oral, ceased to be Jews after three generations. This view, however, is also without Biblical or Talmudic source. Another issue is their identity. The Karaites follow patrilineal descent. That is, the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is regarded as a Jew.The understanding of traditional Judaism is exactly the opposite. So, how would we know if many generations back, any particular Karaite may have been the product of a marriage in which the matrilineal line line was not Jewish, rendering him a non-Jew? This was countered by many with the argument that Karaites did not intermarry. In fact, until the last few years, they did not accept converts! (and even now, it is the ersatz, online variety that have invented Karaite conversion)  The chance of a Karaite not having a Jewish matrilineal line would be exceedingly unlikely. Another issue was "mamzerut" (usually translated "bastardy"). Our understanding of this Biblical prohibition of marrying a Mamzer is understood by us to mean the progeny of an incestuous or adulterous union (the Karaites have a totally different understanding of the term). Now, Karaite divorce does not follow our understanding of the Biblical ceremony. Even if it did, it would still be invalid, as divorce, as well as many other rituals, requires two "kosher" witnesses. Karaites would be excluded, as their views and practices are seen as heretical, disqualifying them as witnesses. Therefore, all Karaites are under suspicion of being doubtful mamzerim. Many countered this argument with the idea that if their divorces lack kosher witnesses, so do their marriages! A child born out of wedlock is not a Mamzer. Therefore there is no reason to assume that any individual Karaite is under suspicion of being either not Jewish, or illegitimate Their views are seen as heretical, nonetheless. It would be virtually impossible to run a family under two theologies and two ideologies. The conclusion expressed in most classical sources is that if a Karaite renounces his (or his family's) ways, he is to be welcomed back into the community, and may marry whomever he pleases. There were, and are, dissenters to this approach, but it is the one widely accepted.
As I noted, these question were for centuries largely theoretical, as there was little mingling between the groups. This question became real and pressing as the two groups came to live together in modern Israel. It has been controversial for over seventy years, and remains so today. That will be my next post.

Judaism and Women part 2

First of all, we need to be clear that Torah is NOT an egalitarian document. There is a difference between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, between and Israelite and a Levi, between a Levi and a Kohen. I am a Levi. Only a Kohen may arise and do the Priestly blessing in the synagogue. If he does so, he is doing a mitzvah. If I were to do so, I would be committing two sins. Each has its rules, regulations and functions. It is not a question of BETTER. What is right for one is not right for the other in certain areas. But all are entitled to respect, dignity, and human decency.
The Written and Oral Torahs have enumerated what a woman SHOULD do, and what she MUST do. There is also a wide area of mitzvot she is not bound by, but which she may voluntarily perform. Some of these have become customary for women to perform, others have not. To what degree is this custom binding? Rabbis differ greatly on this question.
There are also things that women MAY NOT do. A woman cannot be a witness on a legal document. She can be a witness in a court for some cases, but not others.We do not know the reason for this restriction. Is it inherent in the Will of G-d, or is it because a married woman, in fear of her husband's demands, might bear false witness in order to protect her husband? We simply do not know. There is actually a debate in medieval sources whether this restriction is Biblical or Rabbinic. Does it perhaps reflect the fact that classically, women were not educated? If so, can this change?
In all of the above, the rules are fairly clear, other than the degree we do or don't apply a long standing  tradition as law. But there are some much grayer areas. The Talmud tells us that of the seven people called to read the Torah, women count, but "we do not call them because of the honor of the congregation". What does that mean? Is there something intrinsic that prevents this, or are we talking about a society in which most women were illiterate, most men literate. A literate woman reading the Torah would cause immense embarrassment for the illiterate man. About twenty years ago, a number of more liberal Orthodox rabbis permitted giving women aliyot on this basis. Today, we are all fairly literate. In any case, in most communities the person called up doesn't actually read the Torah, but merely blesses while a designated reader does the honors. (Except for Yemenites, who always read their own Torah portion). Why not women? Several synagogues, both in Israel and the U.S., adopted this practice on a trial basis. Most have since abandoned it, as it "didn't feel quite right".
In my next essay I will discuss the history of Egalitarian Conservative Judaism. There was the expectation that more participation of women would bring droves of Jews back to synagogue. The result was the opposite. In a short time, Conservative went from being the largest of the groups, to the smallest. How is this? Why is this? what can be learned from this? That will be my next essay.

The Techelet Controversy

The Torah commands that we put a "cord of blue" into our tzitzit. This was observed scrupulously until the third century, when the Roman/Byzantine authorities decreed that only their royalty could wear blue. They closed down the manufacturing sites of the blue die, primarily in Northern Israel and Lebanon. The ruling of the Talmud is that when techelet (the blue dye) is not available, the tzitzit can still be worn with the white strings only.
We must remember that there were no artificial dyes until the 18th century. The Talmud rules out Indigo (kala ilan), without indicating why. A rabbinic work, the Tosefta, states that any dye not derived from the "Chilazon" is invalid. Most rabbis accepted this. Some, however, argue that this is not mentioned in the Talmud, except as being that which is usually done. One present day rabbi, Rabbi Israel Ariel (head of the Temple Institute) accepts that any blue, even, durable dye would be valid. Indeed, Maimonides rules that way in regard to the sanctuary, where techelet is also required.
There have been several rabbis and groups who have sought to reintroduce the original techelet. The first was Rabbi Liner, the rabbi of Radzin in the late 1800s. He searched for a sea creature that fit the very enigmatic description in sources. In a public aquarium in Italy, he came across the Cuttlefish. It produces a dye, known as sepia. Sepia, however, is brown, not blue.He asked a chemist if there was any way it could be turned blue. The chemist, employing the usual test for nitrogen, made blue sepia. However, had he used any other part of the fish, or even a hamburger, he would have gotten the same results. I once spoke with Rabbi Menachem Burstein, probably the greatest present day authority on techelet, who told me that, as unlikely it may be for the cuttlefish to be the "chilazon" it seems from the writings of Maimonides to have been his impression as well. Today, Radziner Chassidim, and most Breslover Chassidim, use this techelet.
Modern archaeology has discovered the ancient dye producing factories. Man thousands of snail shells have been discovered; but of several species. Which species, or combinations of species, was the Biblical Chilazon? The "Ptil Techelet" group has settled on one particular species, whose die is chemically identical to indigo, which would explain the Talmud's warning against vegetable indigo. Many rabbis have endorsed this view. (I, however, have some reservations as to how it is made). Another researcher, Dr. Shaul Kaplan, the only Orthodox oceanographer in the world (to my knowledge) espouses a different species, whose die in naturally blue, rather than through oxidation, as the Ptil Techelet group's is. For some reason, his view has garnered little support, although it is quite convincing.
Most rabbis do not support any of these views for one of several reasons. First, we are not really sure of the identification of the Chilazon, or exactly what color is techelet. Most assume it is a sky blue. According to RASHI, it is a greenish blue. According to RAMBAM, it is a dark blue, close to black.Another reason many hesitate is because the ARI said that techelet will not return until Mashiach. However, the great kabbalist and scholar, Rabbi Naftali Katz, wrote that the rediscover of techelet would be a sign that redemption is near. Others feel that if the great rabbis of the last sixteen hundred years didn't have it, who are we? It is known that the Rabbi of Radzin presented the Chafetz Chaim with a set of techelet. The Chafetz Chaim put them on a Tallit, which he only wore on Rosh Chodesh (New Moon).
There are also differences of opinions as to how many of the strings need to be blue. The tzitzit consist of four strings, folded over to make eight. The view of RAMBAM is that only one of the eight should be techelet. RAAVAD opines that one full sting should be techelet, resulting in two of the eight. ROSH requires two of the four, meaning four of the eight. Each view has its modern day advocates.
For the record, I use Radziner techelet when I can get it. When I can't, I use artificial dye, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Ariel. May Hashem guide us in a straight path, and renew our days as of old.

Mesorah 6

We have seen how the great Karaite schism deeply divided the Jewish people, and continues to do so until this very day. While rejecting, in its entirety or in part, the Oral Torah, Karaism developed their own "Oral Torah", known as "Sevel Hayerushah" (The Burden of Inheritance) using many of the same hermeneutic rules found in the Talmud, but usually with very different conclusions. This led many to say that Karaism urged people to "abandon the Talmud, we"ll give you a new one". This belies claims of Karaism following a "Scripture Only" approach. Although it was very different from Traditional Judaism, there was a surprising tolerance between the followers of the two groups for the first several centuries. Marriage contracts have been found in Egypt for mixed Karaite-Rabbinite marriages. These contained agreed upon stipulations of what aspects of life would be governed by which observances. To be sure, rabbis were writing attacks on Karaite doctrines, and Karaite leaders were writing attacks Talmudic principles, but it appears that it was regarded, for the first three hundred years, as an "in-house" dispute. This changed radically in the twelfth century. When RAMBAM arrived in Egypt he found Rabbinites and Karaites living together. He was dismayed to find that many Rabbinite Jews had accepted Karaite interpretations of some mitzvot, to the extent that laws of Biblical origin were now being neglected in favor of Karaite interpretation and practice. For example, as I pointed out in part 5, Karaites kept a far stricter set of observances for the separation of husband and wife during menstruation. However, they did not include the immersion in a mikveh at the conclusion of the separation period. This is perhaps the most important aspect, as we interpret the Torah. Karaites would merely have a woman who was not menstruating, pour a bucket of water of the one who had finished her separation. RAMBAM was horrified to find that Egyptian Rabbinites were doing the same! He went on the attack, declaring Karaism to be a dangerous heresy, to be totally suppressed, up to and including lethal force. (These sections in his writings have undergone severe censorship, and one needs to look at recent printings based on the oldest manuscripts to know what he really said.). From that point on, the two groups went their separate ways. In some times and places they got along; albeit keeping a safe distance. In other places, there was rivalry for State recognition as the "real" Jews. On the other hand, in the Russian Empire, Karaites often evaded restrictive laws promulgated against the Jews by either claiming that they weren't Jews, or that they were a more intelligent form of Judaism, and far more loyal to the Czar. Crimean Karaites largely avoided becoming victims of the Holocaust by convincing the Nazis that they were not Jews. These actions drew a deeper wedge between the groups. Debates arose in the sixteenth century as to whether or not the Karaites were to be regarded as Jews at all. These debates continue, and have implications for our acceptance or non-acceptance  of groups that have deviated from the Mesorah. More on this vital question next time

Judaism and Women part 1

When i was in college in the late '60s, the feminist movement was just beginning. Ongoing debates were common in and out of class, as to the nature of femininity. Do women think and react differently from men by nature, or because the two sexes are raised differently? Are women more nurturing, men more aggressive, because of training and societal expectations, or is it in our genetic makeup? Today, science has proven that we are, in fact, very different. Much, if not most, of the strife we see in relationships, is because men expect women to react like men, while being frustrated when they don't; with women being frustrated by men's inability to "understand". Judaism has always been aware of this fact, and has assigned different duties and functions to each gender, appropriate to their particular strengths.. Sometimes, however, it is not readily apparent whether a particular rule is halachah, or simply a cultural norm of a certain time and place. If it is a cultural norm, can it be changed, or is it part of Jewish tradition at that point? Some of the conflicts and contradictions in this area in general society have their parallels in the Jewish world. Feminism has fought long and hard to see that women are taken seriously,both at home and in the work place. They have established that a woman can do the same jobs as men, and need to be paid the same wages. Women refuse to be objectified. Yet, some feminists have fought for the "right" to expose as much of their bodies as they wish; or, more correctly, as Madison Avenue tells them they should wish. In New York City, where I live, women have won the legal right to go topless. Does this make men take them more seriously? Why don't we judge men's appearances and value by how much skin they show? Similarly, women have bought the mixed message of the need to be a Super Mom, while judging their self worth by their success in a career. Jewish women in modern society, are faced with the fact that, unlike in the past when Jewish life centered around the home, today's Jewish community centers around the synagogue, which was not historically the province of women. Should women have greater, or even equal, place in synagogue services? Should we be examining what roles are permitted according to halachah, and making innovations, or should we be exploring no ways to understand traditional roles? Should more effort be expended in putting Judaism back into the home? These questions are "out there", but many people wish they would just "go away". They won't. There are those in favor of making a new Orthodoxy in which women are free to take on traditionally male roles to the extent the halachah allows. Others feel that change is rarely a good thing in a system that has thrived for over three thousand years. Just because something is permissible, doesn't mean we need to do it. On the other hand, are there aspects of custom that are, in fact, being improperly used by men who wish to maintain their fathers' concept of propriety...and power?These are delicate question, all with far reaching implications. Let me say that I consider myself a feminist, but not an nihilist. I don't believe in destroying everything in the hopes that something better will evolve. But I also think that "we've always done it this way" is not the answer for most issues. Women make up half the Jewish People. Many of the wisest and creative people I know are women. How can their talents and abilities be harnessed for the betterment of the world, our People..and themselves? Some of you are aware that I was briefly a moderator on another group dedicated to women's issues. There was another rabbi moderating as well. Whatever I wrote, he would come back to "custom trumps everything". That puts folklore over sources. To me, that is just not Judaism. But neither is the alternative of ignoring what has always been.
In this series I hope to analyse this question from a halachic perspective, an historical perspective, a sociological perspective, as well as a spiritual perspective.