Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 13

 

Up until about 1970, kosher restaurants in the United States, and most other countries, were either 'self-supervised" or had a local rabbi pop in for a spot check, usually once a week. For canned and other packaged goods, the consumer relied on ingredients, especially as to the oil content. If it read "shortening", it meant lard. If it said "vegetable shortening", it was assumed to be kosher. The booklet to which I referred in my last post, slowly had the effect of educating that much more could go wrong with the ingredients besides oil, but also indoctrinated the public into believing that essentially nothing was kosher that didn't have a qualified rabbi carefully examining everything. Butcher shops, at that time, generally had a rabbi or Mashgiach (supervisor) make a weekly visit. From around 1970, that mostly vanished. Supervision was now understood to mean, especially in the case of meat, constant supervision. Those rabbis who were running "Kashrut Agencies" that didn't follow the new guidelines were mostly discredited. Actually, what kind of supervision is halachically required is a moot point. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), run by rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America, the RCA (the same folks who, since the 1980s have accepted and promulgated the new and stricter conversion standards), jumped on the new and stricter standards of kashrut. Their Kashrut agencies, once tiny, now became a huge business, with influence on virtually every aspect of food production. What was positive about this, was that they set uniform standards. What was negative about this, was that they set uniform standards. On the positive side of the ledger, charlatans were largely put out of business. Also, since most people did not really understand the ingredient panel of products, there was now no need to worry. The OU on the packaging was all that was needed. The layman, who could not be expected to know that "suet" meant beef fat, would be able to rest assured. On the other hand, standards were set by their own board. Questionable areas, where rabbis disagree, were given a single answer. Local rabbis had their discretionary power taken away from them. Some areas, like cheese production (to be discussed in a later post), have rabbinic opinion stretching from one extreme to the other. For most Orthodox communities, the OU's answer became "THE" answer. More right-wing groups, however, were dissatisfied with the OUs standards, which they saw as too lax. The Satmar Rabbi was reported to have made a bilingual pun; "Der U? Nem you!" (The U? You take it!). Although other national Kashrut agencies have sprung up, none is as influential or powerful as the OU. However, as it is also a business; non-halachic considerations also take a part. Competitors need to be fought (again, like in the story of the restaurant in my last post). I choose not to elaborate. A major problem not just with the OU, but virtually all agencies (other than Satmar and a few others) is that there is an inherent conflict of interests when it comes to the Mashgichim. The way hechsherim (Kashrut certifications) work, is that a representative of the agency first visits the plant, and decides what, if anything, needs to be done to make it kosher. Once an understanding has been reached, a Mashgiach is assigned to the plant. The Mashgiach may or may not be a rabbi, but has been trained in what to look for. Although the agency takes a substantial fee (typically $40,000/year), the Mashgiach gets, in most cases, close to minimum wage. Furthermore, the Mashgiach is paid by the plant, not the agency. If he finds something improper and informs the agency, the plant manager can, and usually will, fire him. The agency will endeavor to place him in another plant, but that is not always possible. Every time a Mashgiach points out a problem, he must put his meager livelihood on the line. Some ultra-Orthodox agencies, on the other hand, pay their Mashgichim directly, thus avoiding this problem. (I was told by one of the top OU executives that if the Mashgichim were not paid by the plants, it would be "too difficult" to ensure the agency's reimbursement). Other conflicts of interest also exist. In the early '80s, the largest producer of poultry products in the U.S., Perdue, was in talks with the OU about becoming Kosher. This would have drastically lowered the exorbitant price of Kosher poultry. The major producer of Kosher poultry found out about this, and told the OU "We made you! For thirty years, we supported you, and essentially put you on the map. Now you're going to put us out of business, and set up a competitor?" The OU dropped the new project, citing a sense of loyalty to their long-standing client. But many consumers were outraged. "Is your loyalty to that manufacturer, or to the Kosher consumer?" The protests were to no avail. One man, adored by many, but hated by many more, especially in the establishment, has been a feared opponent of the Kashrut industry for over fifty years. In my opinion, he is the greatest halachic figure alive today. That will be my next post.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 12

 Trigger warning! I will now tell a horror story. If "The Godfather" was too difficult for you to watch, please skip this post.

The story begins about twenty years ago, in a community that had for many years followed a very liberal, albeit Orthodox, halachic line. In recent years, however, they began a "get tough" policy. Conversion policy, for example, that had essentially been "come Tuesday at three. By five you will be a Jew" now became extremely strict. This went even further in the area of Kashrut. The council of community rabbis agreed to a new policy. Anything in THEIR city without THEIR supervision would be declared non-Kosher. There was a restaurant in town. The owner was both devout and learned. Even the most pious members of the community freely ate there. One day, the rabbis came to him. "You need our supervision, or we will declare you non-kosher. " The proprietor said "I have been in business for many years. There isn't a Jew in this city who doesn't trust me. Why should I give you several tens of thousands of dollars a year for your supervision?" "Believe us; you need it". The man scoffed. A few days later, a large ad appeared in the local Jewish newspaper: "It has been determined that this restaurant can no longer be considered kosher". The man soon went out of business. He lost his livelihood, as well as the respect of the community. I soon heard this story, and could scarcely believe it was true. A relative of mine (I say this with deep shame), was a rabbi in that community. I asked him if the story was true. "Not only is it true, but I was on the committee that made that decision and went to speak with the owner". Seeing my jaw drop, he added "we HAD to do it. That was the only way we could get a unified kashrut policy". What I still don't know is, if the rabbis meant it; a unified policy was so vital that it didn't matter who was destroyed on the way? Or was it the income generated by the supervision "service" ($40,000/year for the agency; Mashgiach [kashrut supervisor] paid separately)? Most people think that "kosher" always means rabbinic supervision. This is pure fiction. What is clear from the Talmud, as well as legal codes is if the people preparing the food are not to be relied upon (e.g. people who themselves didn't keep kosher, or otherwise lacked credibility), a trustworthy person must supervise. Until the mid-1980s, rabbinic supervision was rare, with the exception of wine and meat, and in many places cheese (to be discussed in a later post). Canned and frozen fruit and vegetables, all kinds of packaged goods, were assumed to be kosher, unless a suspect item appeared on the ingredient panel. Everything began to change in the mid-1960s, taking over the Jewish community over the next two decades. Now, even bleach (which few sane people ingest) has supervision. A booklet appeared, put out by an Orthodox student group, under the auspices of a rabbi prominent in the kashrut industry. Through a series of half-truths, as well as downright lies, the booklet "Proved" that virtually nothing can be kosher without supervision. Various chemicals "might" be used in the manufacturing process which "might" be non-kosher (as discussed in my previous post) Machines "might" be dabbed with lard. The booklet even alleged that out of the five species of tuna, only two were kosher (false). If the ingredients read "100% pure vegetable oil", it could, and usually does, contain up to 4% animal oil (false). Any ingredient that is 2% or less of the total package, need not be listed (false. The actual number is two parts per million). The panic spread slowly, but spread it did. In the early '80s, I spoke to a Hungarian Hareidi rabbi of a community that was centered around a Yeshiva. I asked him if canned goods needed a Hechsher (kosher certification). He said "We tell the residents here to buy only with a hechsher. But for the Yeshiva, we get government surplus without a hechsher". The die was cast when Coor's Beer, which had been owned by an outspoken antisemite, applied for rabbinic supervision after the original owner's death. Sales skyrocketed. No other beer had supervision at that time, but had nevertheless been freely consumed. A rumor circulated (and was published in a Kashrut magazine) that some other beers were made from non-kosher wine (!!!!) Most companies then jumped on board. By 1990, nearly anything that could have a hechsher, did. This was a financial boon for the manufacturers, as well as the kashrut agencies. The kosher consumer, who had been disempowered by the false information, was now dependent on these agencies. In what ways was this actually good? How was it bad? (besides the reasons I have already stated), and is anyone fighting it? That will be the topic of my next post

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 11

 When is a part of a non-kosher animal kosher? When it is no longer food. It is clear in the Talmud that although a dead bug is not kosher, a bug that has turned to dust is of no consequence. We also find that the hooves and horns of non-kosher animals may be ingested, if there is no flesh attached. Presumably, these things were for some medicinal purposes, much as Traditional Chinese Medicine (a hobby of mine) uses these things even today. There is a question raised in the Talmud if earth needs to be considered a non-kosher substance, since it contains the remains of countless creatures. The ruling is that it is not a problem, as the creatures have long since decayed. This is all based on Deuteronomy 14:21, which tells us to give non-kosher meat to the GER (Toshav), or sell it to the pagan (Nochri, literally "stranger"), and he shall eat it. The implication is understood that one can only give it, or sell it, if it is edible. One may not eat any non kosher flesh, until it is no longer food. However, if non-kosher food should fall into kosher, if it is spoiled, or even if it does not taste good in that particular mixture, the kosher remains kosher. The non-kosher needs to be removed and discarded, but it has not contaminated anything else. This is called "Noten Taam LiFgam" (imparting a bad taste). So, you would not be able to eat pork, until it had essentially turned to dust. But if edible, yet bad-tasting pork fell into your soup, just take it out and throw it away. This may seem like a very unlikely scenario. But in modern times, this has become a major bone of contention (no pun intended). For example, what is gelatin? It can be made from many things, but usually from pig bones and calf skins. Yikes, isn't that non-kosher?!?! Not necessarily! In the U.S., most rabbis forbid it. In Israel, most rabbis permit it. Nearly all Sepharadic rabbis around the world permit it. How? What it is made from is not the end of the story! It is soaked in an acid bath until it becomes a colorless, tasteless powder. At that point, it is no longer food! Afterwards, other processes are done, which makes it again edible. Does this resurrect its non-kosher standing? The policy of the American Kashrut agencies is that it does. But if we check their references, we can see that they actually say "It's theoretically kosher, but better not to use it". This idea extends to a host of other food products and additives, that are made from non-kosher sources, but have undergone significant chemical changes. One would never guess where they come from! So, one controversy in the Kashrut field is the issue of a vastly altered non-kosher substance. Another issue is "how altered makes it vastly altered?" A good example is whey. When milk is broken down, with the solids separating from the liquid portions (remember Little Miss Muffet?), the liquid part is called whey. But another solid part can be extracted from the whey. This is known as whey powder. It tastes and smells like vomit. But, besides being flavored and sold to athletes and health food addicts as "protein powder", it plays a number of vital roles in the baking industry. Is it Kosher? Sure. But is it dairy, and hence forbidden to have with meat? Virtually all commercial bread has it. Is the final, disgusting powder still milk? These are the kinds of things rabbis love to fight over, and this remains a bone of contention. However, there are certain people who have much to gain by declaring all of these things to be problematic, or even forbidden. They are called the Kashrut Industry, That will be the topic of my next post.

Stringencies part 5

 We have seen that while some rabbis and groups see stringencies as part of our true devotion to G-d, others see stringencies as a distraction from serving G-d, an expression of ego, and a major source of depression when we do not meet the higher standards that we ourselves have created. Another artificial function of stringencies is to create a sense of community, based on a holier-than-thou attitude. Some groups follow great stringencies, far exceeding halachic strictures. Examples include, but are not limited to, refraining from consuming green vegetables for fear of ingesting an insect, resurrecting long-forgotten rules that were, centuries ago, ruled to be no longer applicable, such as refraining from new grain even outside of Eretz Yisrael, many stringencies regarding shaatnez (forbidden mixtures of wool and linen), as well as standards of kashrut that go way beyond the halachic requirements. Also included in this area are those who have "discovered" an obscure statement in a classical source (RAMBAM, ARI, Rabbi Judah the Pious), and openly defy accepted practice, with an arrogant attitude of "how can you NOT do this?" (I am not speaking of reinstituting older practices when well-founded and logical, but rather extreme opinions that are NOT part of the halachic system. These practices provide a false sense of comradery (I'm a follower of this or that group, and we don't eat that. We are so special!), as well as providing an ego boost to the individual. If these were consistent, uniformly following the opinions of figures like the above named rabbis, I would not criticize. But these groups are rarely consistent, and often ignore much more basic principles espoused by these rabbis.  For example, many Hasidic communities emphasize rulings of ARI, but ignore the adherence to halachic times of prayer, stressed both in Halachic literature, and even more in ARI. Of course, rationalizations are offered (I'm not ready yet for prayer, and need to prepare). These arguments hold no water. If I'm not "ready' for Shabbat on Friday afternoon, can I put it off for Monday? In the Yeshivish community, many take great leniencies with prayer, so as not to diminish the time for study. In all of these instances, I would argue that the stringencies are more directed at self-aggrandizement, rather than a desire to serve G-d. I believe that such behavior is an example of being so right, that we are wrong. Wo must always question our motives. Are we trying to please G-d, other people, or our selves.  

The Train Wreck part 7

We will now go back to the immediate aftermath of the Shabbatean debacle. As I have written previously, few rabbis of the time dared oppose Shabbetai Tzvi. Most either supported him, or else took a wait and see attitude. The primary opponents to the new heresy were Rabbis Yaakov Sasportas and Tzvi Ashkenazi. Their lives were under constant threat from the Shabbateans, even well after Shabbetai's apostasy, as it was felt that the failure of Shabbaetai's mission was due to their opposition. After Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi passed away, his son, Rabbi Yaakov Emden (named for a city he had lived in, but more commonly known as Yaavetz; Yaakov Ben Tzvi) took up the cudgel of fighting the holdouts of Shabbateanism. One of his targets was Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzato (RAMCHAL), whom historians have exonerated. His other main target was Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz, who served as rabbi of communities in Poland, Moravia, Bohemia, as well as several important German cities. Both men published extensively on matters of Halachah and Kabbalah. Rabbi Emden was the center of controversy, as he challenged the antiquity of the Zohar (although he steadfastly defended its doctrines), and declared RAMBAM's "Guide" to be a heretical forgery, that could not have been written by the same author as RAMBAM's legal code. He also accepted Christianity as an excellent alternative to Judaism for non Jews. Rabbi Eybeshutz was long rumored to be guilty of Shabbatean leanings. Already suspicious, the controversy erupted full blown, when there came into the hands of Rabbi Emden, some amulets allegedly written by Rabbi Eybeshutz, which upon examination were seen to contain numerous reference to Shabbetain Tzvi, declaring him to be the Messiah. Rabbi Eyebshutz denied having written the amulets. The 1750s was marked by declarations of excommunication from both sides. Even German nobility entered the fray. Rabbi Emden accused Rabbi Eybeshutz of incest, and the resulting issue was now a Shabbatean leader. Defenders of Rabbi Eybeshutz countries that he had, years earlier, been on a Beit Din that excommunicated the Shabbatrans. Others suggested that this was a ploy, meant to take the heat off of Rabbi Eybeshutz. In the meantime, several students of Rabbi Eybeshutz's yeshiva were outed as active Shabbateans. His own son declared himself to be a Frankist "prophet".  Many documents have come to light in the intervening centuries, that showed many of Rabbi Emden's accusations to be true. Many claim that these are forgeries. In any case, nearly all historians completely accept the accusations, as well as most Orthodox historians, although the latter tend to play down the incident. In strictly Orthodox circles, the accusations are considered to be utter nonsense. One Modern Orthodox rabbi wrote a  book on Rabbi Eybeshutz, calling it "Bechor HaSatan" (The First Born of Satan), thus giving away his stance already in the title. The after effects of this dispute were several. For one, Shabbateans and Frankists were now out in the open, and it was perfectly acceptable to oppose and censure them. Secondly, the spectacle of two Jewish leaders out to destroy each other, caused a great decline in respect for rabbis, and even for Orthodoxy itself. This paved the way for greater acceptance of Reform. In addition, Rabbi Eybeshutz's approach to halachah was, ironically, very strict. A number of modern day groups base their approach on him. Was his strictness merely a means of driving people away from halachic observance, by making it very onerous? Theories abound. One additional aspect of the controversy was that one famous rabbi defended Rabbi Eyebshutz to the hilt, even granting him a letter of ordination. That document, however, is filled with Shabbatean catchphrases. Again, some argue "forgery", albeit without a shred of proof. I will not say who this defender was. If you know, please don't say, as it would draw me into a fight I am not strong enough for. A prominent Orthodox historian, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me "we know all of this, and are doing out best to keep it quiet". Yes, the influence of Shabbateanism and Frankism continues.

The Train Wreck part 6

Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) was an assimilated, German speaking Swiss Jew. As a journalist for a Swiss newspaper, he was assigned to cover the Dreyfus trial in 1894. Alfred Dreyfus was a captain in the French army. France had just lost a war to Germany. His superior officers, ashamed of their blunders, forged documents showing that Dreyfus, a Jew, had been giving military information to the Germans. Without him, France would surely have won the war. He was tried, dishonorably discharged, and sent to Devils Island under a life sentence. He was finally exonerated in 1906. Herzl was shocked at the sight of mobs running through the streets of Paris, crying "Death to the Jews!". Was this, then, the land of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? If the Jews are not safe in Paris, where could they be safe? He tried, but failed, to have all Jews around the world, present themselves at their local churches, to be Baptised at the same hour of the same day, thus putting an end to antisemitism, by putting an end to the Jews. He had no success in this endeavor. Instead, he wrote a book, Judenstaat, in which he set forth a vision of a secular Jewish state. He organized the First Zionist Congress in 1897. He thought that Jews from all over would rush to the new cause. But Western European Jews, despite Dreyfus, felt reasonably comfortable in their adopted homelands. A responsive chord was struck among the oppressed Jews of the Russian Empire. These Jews were also secular, and sought to create a Jewish worker's Paradise. It was only at the Third Zionist Congress that some religious Jews joined in. They made it clear that they thought the planned State would be secular, but with provisions made for the religious to feel comfortable. They specifically denied that they saw the movement as in any way messianic or representing Divine Redemption. They only needed a country that would be a safe haven. Let us be clear. This was a longing for a secular peoples' G-dless redemption. It was right out of Franlist ideology. Nearly every rabbi in the world opposed the new movement. The Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe declared it to be "worse than Christianity." Herzl was a great organizer, but a very shallow ideologue. The latter position was filled by Max Nordeau. Nordeau proposed the following. The Jews are a nation, like any other. In order to bind them together, Moses gave them a religion. When they lost their country, the rabbis gave them more religion, in the form of the Talmud. That, it was hoped, would keep them together, even while they were scattered. Now, in the days of every ethnic group forming a nation state (which essentially lead to World War I), a good Jew now is one who works for a state for the Jews. Religion, at this point, only divides, and should be eliminated. I should point out that every major Israeli city has a Herzl and a Nordeau street or avenue. The new settlers in the Holy Land clashed with the Old Yishuv. It must be pointed out that the Hareidim didn't come to Israel, but rather Israel came to them. The irreconcilable differences in ideology are a sore point to this very day. The idea of "Religious Zionism" came in some thirty years later, in the person of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. He boldly claimed that the Messianic redemption had begun. The institutions of the Zionist movement were "the foundation stones of the Divine Throne". What about the fact that the Zionists were not only secular, but deliberate, spiteful sinners. He "explained" that this, the final Redemption, was through "Rachamim Rabbim" (Great Mercies; Isaiah 54:7). The observance of Mitzvot, while still a good thing to do, was no longer a factor in Redemption. We had entered a new era. Sound familiar much?
Next time, well go back to the mid eighteenth century, to a dispute that divided Jewry (and still does), that still raises anger on each side. Guess what? It centers around Shabbaetai Tzvi.

The Train Wreck part 5

We have seen how Shabbatean ideas, through "the Enlightenment", had forged a national identity out of a large segment of East European Jews. Although this movement was secular, religious Jews were not immune. Two Shabbatean works became popular in Eastern Europe, neither being too obvious as to their origin. One was the main propagandist book of moderate Shabbateans, the Hemdat HaYamim ("Pleasantness of Days"), often considered the most beautiful book the Jewish people ever composed. It is a full compendium of Jewish life and ritual. It contains original prayers, some still recited in many synagogues. But it also contains stories, ostensibly about ARI and other great Tzaddikim, putting in their mouths praise for many abominations. Many of the prayers are clear references to Shabbetai Tzvi's life. (Please release him from prison, let him sit on his throne with "'Ateret Tzvi"; a beautiful crown, or "The Crown of Tzvi". This book is so insidious, that it is still revered in some North African communities. Another book that became very popular in Hasidic circles was "Sefer HaTzoref" (The Book of the Refiner). Herschel Tzoref was a Shabbatean rabbi, who ran a court similar to the Hasidic courts of a century later. The Baal Shem Tov possessed a copy. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Bardichev tried to have it printed, but the print house refused to touch it. Both of these books inspired many with the immediate need to go to the Holy Land, as the Mashiach was soon to come. Several late Eighteenth Century saw Hasidic leaders moving to Tiberias, anti-Hasidic (Mitnagdim), moving to Safed, as well as outright Shabbateans moving to Jerusalem. In the following century, many religious Jews formed a group called "Hevevei Zion", and left the Russian Empire for the Land of Israel. Their motives were primarily religious. But these motives would probably not have come about if not for the legacy of Shabbatean messianism. They formed what is known as "the Old Yishuv" (the old settlement). The ultra Orthodox communities in Jerusalem and elsewhere are the descendants of these communities, now boasting being nine or ten generations in the Land.  But secular nationalism was about to invade, heavily driven by the Frankist notion of a non halachah bound Judaism, Next time.

The Train Wreck part 4

The effects of the teachings, or supposed teachings, of  Moses Mendelssohn were far reaching. The understanding of an antinomian (against Law) Judaism was shocking, but it resonated with those whose families had been Frankists. Many left Judaism. Most of Mendelsohn's children converted to Christianity. The two who didn't,  saw their children apostatize. In Germany, and to a lesser extent in France, Judaism was dying. In the Nineteenth Century, Abraham Geiger organized the new understanding into Reform Judaism. He didn't view this as a Denomination, but as an idea that would engulf all of Judaism. The emphasis was not on the Torah and its commandments, but on ethics. Each Jew was autonomous, deciding for himself what rituals to keep or not keep. In any case, the mitzvot were no longer seen as binding. Worship services were conducted primarily in the national language, with rabbis dressed very much like 19th Century Christian clergy. The organ was introduced into the synagogue. Even synagogue architecture was now made in the image of Renaissance churches. When Samson Rephael Hirsch, originally a friend of Geiger, formed an Orthodoxy that included some of these reforms, Geiger and his followers did all they could to destroy the new institutions, in order to allow the Reform ideology to reign supreme. A central observance that particularly irked the reformers, was Mikveh; with mobs coming with sledgehammers to destroy these pools. Interestingly, the Shabbateans had done the same thing in the Seventeenth Century. As Reform moved eastward, it took many forms. Some of these were more radical, others sought a compromise with tradition. When it hit Czarist Russia, a great shift took place. German Jews admired German culture. Nay, they adored it. Most Russian Jews were opressed by their government and their neighbors. An oxymoron emerged. Secular Judaism. This had never existed before. The secularists, as the name implies, were atheists. They did not seek a different form of synagogue worship. They saw their Judaism as a national identity, much like the many other national groups throughout the Russian Empire. Many turned to their linguistic treasure; the Yiddish language. It had existed for a thousand years, and was a rich compendium of medieval German, Hebrew, Polish, Ukrainian  and Russian. Theater groups wrote and performed plays in that language. Stories and novels, often with an anti-religious theme, were produced. Soon, a competing trend arose. The Hebrew language, long a vehicle for prayer and Torah literature, was now resurrected as a written language for a new, Jewish, secular culture. Socialism soon became the "religion" of East European Jews. In a sense, it was at once a Messianic and a Frankist development. When the old foundations of society fell, a new and greater world, characterized by peace, prosperity and justice, would arise. Let me reiterate. It's not that they were copying these ideas from Frankist literature, but rather that these ideas were features of popular culture since the Eighteenth Century. When the Russian Revolution came, Lenin's inner circle were mostly Jews. When Reform hit America, it was far more radical than it had been in Germany. Large segments switched to a Sunday Sabbath. Kosher laws were jettisoned. It was super nationalistic. A rabbi in Nineteenth Century Charleston, South Carolina, said at the dedication of his synagogue "We neither expect nor seek a return to Zion. This land is our Zion, this city our Jerusalem, this building our Temple." One hundred years later, when the City of Charleston wanted to commemorate the founding of the Reform Synagogue (called "Temple" after that speech), they sought descendants of the original founders. Not one was still Jewish. Next time, I'll go into more offshoots of the "Enlightenment",  and their roots in Shabbateanism and Frankism.

The Train Wreck part 3

The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, the periods of the rise of Shabbateanism and Frankism, were no easy time for Christian Europe either. 1666, the year of the promised redemption, according to the Shabbateans, as well as the year of his conversion to Islam, had been predicted by several Christian leaders as the year of the Second Coming. The results for Christians, as well as their Jewish neighbors, was a crisis of faith. Europe experienced at this time a series of wars between Catholics and Protestants. In Western Europe in particular, philosophers wrote books about the Rights of Man, and questioned the very foundations of religion. These were the same ideas that were soon to lead to the American and French Revolutions. Men like Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Voltaire and others were now changing Man's understanding of the world. Into this, a Jewish scholar was about to enter. On the surface, he appears to have no connection with Shabbateanism, Frankism, or even Kabbalah. But he would prove to be a game changer. His name was Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786). Son of a rabbinic scribe (sofer), he trained to be a rabbi. He had many tutors, but especially took to the teachings of RAMBAM's "Guide".He concluded that a fundamental principle of religion is reason. He wrote extensively in favor of the existence of G-d and the immortality of the soul. He defended the Talmud against its critics, saying that the Written Word is no longer understood after a few generations, and, in fact, becomes an idol. Only the Oral Word maintains its meaning forever. His main criticism of the Jewish world was that because of our way of life, as well as persecution from the outside, we had no culture (read: German Culture). He scandalized Germany by writing a pamphlet that a Jew is capable of nobility of character. He became friends with many leaders of the European Enlightenment. He said that Judaism is true, but we can't know these things for sure, and attempts to convert people from one religion to another are therefore immoral. In order to bring Jews to German culture, he translated the Torah into fine High German, together with an original commentary, based on Talmud and Midrash. This lead to an abandonment of the medieval dialect of Yiddish spoken in Germany at that time (Western Yiddish, which no longer exists.) Surprisingly, after his death, his students and colleagues taught that he was, in fact, an atheist, and sought to destroy the Talmud. I have searched in vain for an explanation of this phenomenon, but found none. In fact, there is a very simple one, discovered by the great historian of Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem. ALL OF MENDELSSOHN'S STUDENTS WERE SONS OF FRANKIST FAMILIES! Shabbateans sought an end to halachic observance. Frankists sought a destruction of all that is, in the hope of a birth of something far better in its place. They simply read these ideas into Mendelssohn's teachings. The results were many new movements, all based on antinomian ("against law") principles. To be discussed next time.

The Train Wreck part 2

In the immediate aftermath of the Shabbatean debacle, several things happened. First, many communities threw out Kabbalah entirely. Kabbalah had been too closely associated with the Shabbatean movement. In fact, the Shabbateans were often referred to as "Zoharites". Western European communities jettisoned anything that smacked of Kabbalah. Central and Eastern European communities greatly restricted Kabbalah. This is when the "rule" that one must be over forty years of age, and well versed in Talmud came in. Kabbalists who followed these rules were required to pray in their own synagogues or prayer rooms. Books of Kabbalah written at this time were generally dry and non inspiring. Emotion played little part. In fact, neither did ideology. Scholars kept their noses in the books, and didn't dare speculate. In fact, even Talmudic study was, at this juncture, limited to eight tractates that didn't deal with speculative or spiritual matters. Thus was born the Lithuanian Yeshiva approach; deep study with no spirituality. In my opinion, this is one of the great tragedies of the Shabbatean aftermath. The creation of a text-wise but virtually G-d absent Judaism, that has become "normative Orthodoxy", and has remained so ever since. RAMCHAL was excommunicated and banished because he claimed prophetic powers. That would not have raised an eyebrow a few years earlier. The Spanish-Portuguese communities all across Europe, were terrified of Kabbalah and its implications. The great community of Amsterdam, not only jettisoned Kabbalah, but actually brought in secular humanist rabbis from Italy. Many East European smaller communities maintained a close connection with Kabbalah, but were unwittingly using Shabbatean texts! Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all was the redefining of Judaism at this point. Medieval Judaism, especially in Spain, had two streams of intellectual thought. One was solidly based on the Spanish Kabbalah. The other was philosophical, largely based on RAMBAM's "Guide". Little by little, the philosophical approach almost died out among scholars. But now, without Kabbalah, an ideology was badly needed. Although most stuck to Talmudic study, without raising the great existential questions of life, a significant portion went to philosophy. But "The Guide" interpreted the Mitzvot not as great spiritual exercises, bringing tikkun to the Universe, but as educational exercises meant to impress the person with important lessons. G-d didn't really care. A synthesis of these ideas was soon to mix with Shabbatean ideas, with far-reaching results. Next time.

The Train wreck part 1

I have in the past expressed my opinion that the events surrounding the Shabbatean debacle of the Seventeenth Century, was by far the greatest calamity to befall the Jewish people. I am perturbed that most writers portray it as a minor glitch; a small fender bender. I have read in many popular books that only a small number of people were involved, while all the rabbis urged caution. This is a blatant lie...or deliberate cover-up. In fact, nearly all rabbis at the time were enthusiastic followers of the false Messiah, with a very small group opposing him, and a somewhat larger group taking a wait and see attitude. The fender bender was, in reality, more of a train wreck, from which we never recovered. I have spoken of this some in earlier posts. Now, I wish to delve into it in more depth. First, a brief historical review. Shabetai Tzvi was born in Smyrna (Izmir), Turkey, in 1626. He was a rabbi and scholar, but suffered from what we today call bipolar disorder. In his "up" phases, he would perform strange acts, like uttering the Divine Name, eating forbidden foods, and even marrying a Torah scroll! In his "down" phases, he would deeply regret his actions, and do acts of penance. The great massacres of Jews in Poland and Ukraine in 1648 and 1649 made a deep, dark impression on him, as they did most Jews. Messiah fever was in the air, which has often caused us more suffering than the persecutions themselves. Shabbetai travelled around the Meditteranean basin, in search of a cure for himself. He hesitatingly declared his Messiahship on several occasions. In the early 1660s, he met the acclaimed Kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza (yes, Jews lived in Gaza). I can not explain what happened. The night before Shabbetais arrival at his home, Nathan had a vision of the Divine Chariot. Sitting on the throne above the chariot, was a figure Nathan did not recognize. He lay motionless on the floor all night. The next day, Shabbetai arrived, and Nathan recognized him as the figure in his vision. Nathan devised an entire theology around Shabbetain, at once explaining his strange behavior, as well as containing a message of deliverance. According to Nathan, Shabbetai's soul had been, from creation, in an abyss inhabited by dragons and monsters. These creatures were torturing him even now, in a vain attempt to prevent the Redemption. Worst of all, this abyss also contained the soul of Jesus, desperately trying to prevent the revelation of the true Messiah. What's more, this plane of existence was on a level where the laws of the Torah didn't apply, therefore making Shabbetai not bound by the normal rules of Jewish behavior. 1666 would be the year of the final Redemption. Many Christian mystics had named that year as the date of the Second Coming. The tension was great. Rumors had spread throughout Europe that Shabbaetai had raised a huge army, and had already destroyed Mecca. He was now marching on Rome! Fear gripped Christendom! Shabbetai went to Turkey, with the idea of converting the Sultan to Judaism. Instead, he was put in prison, and given a choice of death, or conversion to Islam. He converted, which sent shockwaves through the Jewish world. Most of his followers abandoned him at that point. He began signing letters as "The G-d of Israel". Nathan wrote books telling people not to despair. This was merely another stage of Shabbetai's battle with evil. Many followers still followed him to his prison island, where he ordered some 300 of them to likewise convert to Islam. But it wasn't really Islam. It was, and is (!) Islamic in form, but with the worship of Shabbetai instead of Allah. Some 9,000 still live in Turkey. Shabbetai lived for another decade, with Nathan as his loyal propagandist. Even after his death, secret bands of followers existed, usually incognito. Even many famous rabbis were secret adherents of the new cult. A century later, a Polish Jew named Jacob Frank, declared himself to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Tzvi. Together with 10,000 followers, he converted to Catholicism. But he founded a cult with Shabbetai, and himself, at its center, rather than Jesus. His approach was Nihilism; destroy everything that is, and something much greater will come about in its place. He organized orgies, were both incest and adultery were practiced. There is documentation of Frankist cells operating as late as World War I. Some claim they still exist. What is abundantly clear to me, is every Jewish group that now exists, has been tainted by Shabbateanism and Frankism. I will divide these into three groups. First, those that sprouted directly from these movements, albeit with shifts in ideology. Second, those groups that arose in opposition to these movements, that, in my view, jettisoned the baby with the bathwater. Spirituality and emotion were thoroughly banished as too dangerous. Third, those groups that ignored these movements, but inadvertently adopted some of their ideology or practices. I shall analyze these in this series.

Conversion to Judaism part 9

In 1979, after two years of campus work, and two years of congregational work, I became interested in the military chaplaincy. I was only twenty six. I eagerly toured several air force bases, and spoke at length with the chaplains. Jewish chaplains were, and still are, first approved by the Jewish Welfare Board (JWB), that, in turn, deals with rabbinical organizations of the three major denominations. In the case of Orthodox rabbis, that was the Rabbinical Council of America. I was, in fact, a member of  a smaller, more Right Wing organization; the Rabbinical Alliance of America. The JWB informed me that this presented no problem. The RCA would simply approve me or disapprove me on the merit of my credentials. I was summoned to the RCA headquarters in New York (I lived in Cincinnati at the time). One of the bigwigs of the RCA met with me. "Look" he said "each denomination has an annual quota of chaplains. If we are short, we recognize you. If we have enough of our own people, we don't". I suddenly realized I was essentially dealing with a labor union, and I wan't one of "his people". I told the bigwig that I had gone to college with his son. He placed a call to his son. "He doesn't remember you. Goodbye". That's how the U.S. military lost me as a chaplain. That's how I lost my respect for the RCA. Little by little, over the years, I discovered that the whole system was about power and influence. Up until about 1980, any conversion, performed by any Orthodox rabbi, was recognized both in the U.S. and in Israel. Although conversion requirements differed greatly from rabbi to rabbi, all were recognized. Then, the RCA let it be known that they wished to standardize  all Orthodox conversions, by means of a central Beit Din. This proved impractical, so they modified it to include only certain RCA rabbis, who would follow RCA guidelines. Other rabbis, even RCA members, were no longer authorized to perform conversions. Who granted the RCA such sweeping powers? They simply took it, as they had taken control of virtually all major Orthodox synagogues. An expression my late Mother used to use a lot comes to mind; "Who died and left you boss?" People with other conversions, were told that they are not Jewish at all. Chabad, which used to do many conversions, stopped (at least in places where there were  RCA rabbis). Hasidic and right wing Yeshiva conversions were no longer recognized, although, with considerable pressure, they could often be recognized ex post facto, after the RCA deigned to grant recognition. Often, these involved rabbis far more qualified than the RCA ones. Twenty years later, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate made a deal with the RCA that they were to be seen as the only rabbinic representatives of U.S. Jewry. Any RCA rabbi coming to Israel, would also automatically be recognized to serve in an Israeli rabbinic position. (Whereas I, and many others, had to seek the approval of one of the Chief Rabbis.) A similar situation exists regarding kashrut and the OU. (Same people as RCA). Millions have been spent on public relations, to make the OU the ultimate name in the field. A large part of their success lies in the fact that they weaken and destroy smaller hechshers, by spreading all sorts of nasty rumors. On the other hand, mistakes of other agencies are often covered up for political expediency. My mind races back to my abortive attempt of becoming a chaplain. But with me, it was just an issue of a position. For numerous converts, these policies often signal a lifetime of hurt and rejection. I do not know how some people sleep at night.

Conversion to Judaism part 8

Although several American cities became centers of Jewish life and education since colonial times,  In the early  twentieth century, New York City emerged as the ultimate center; a position it held for most of that century, and, to a lesser extent, until today. It was home to the Jewish Theological Seminary, that gave birth to the Conservative movement, as well as the Jewish Institute of Religion, that composed a major part of the Reform movement. From the 1930s, several European style Yeshivot made their homes in New York, even ordaining American born rabbis. However, then as now, these ordainees seldom sought to occupy pulpits, preferring instead to concentrate on education. Accepting "Out of Town" rabbinic positions (anything other than New York), almost never occurred to these men. In 1886, and elementary school, Etz Chaim, was founded on the Lower East Side, that took the unheard of position of teaching in English, well as teaching some secular subjects. In 1898, it progressed to hosting a Rabbinical school. Their rabbis did take pulpits, some even going to the "unknown" territories beyond the Hudson. Eventually, this institution became Yeshiva University (YU), and its Rabbinical School became the Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS). The rabbis of the European style yeshivot mocked YU, with its acceptance of American culture, and especially its inclusion of secular subjects. The Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe quipped "I don't know how Rav Yitzchak Elchanan could have sinned, to have such an institution named for him". But YU proudly sported the motto "Torah U'Mada" (Torah and Science). Indeed, their logo is a microscope with a Torah scroll. There were several Orthodox Rabbinical organizations at that time, but none were willing to accept these newfangled rabbis as members. The fact is, that the American Orthodox rabbinate was in shambles at that time. Most of those serving as rabbis (as opposed to educators) were without credentials. Some took grandiose titles for themselves. One "rabbi" in the Bronx, put  a shingle by his door "Chief Rabbi of New York". Another "rabbi" across the street, not to be outdone, hung a shingle that read "Chief Rabbi of America". Hasidic "Grand Rabbis" were soon to follow. In the mean time, YU rabbis began to occupy established Orthodox synagogues, first in New York, but soon in all major American cities. Two new organizations were formed; a federation of YU rabbis, called the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), that was, and is, open to all YU ordainees, and theoretically, graduates of eight other Yeshivot that they recognized, but, in fact, only those with "connections" in the RCA need apply. Those synagogues that got their rabbis from YU, formed an association of synagogues; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America" (OU).. For all intents and purposes, the YU. RCA, OU triumvirate had taken over American Orthodoxy. Although other groups sprang up, they have little of the recognition that the YU confederation commands. By 2003, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate recognized the RCA as the sole representative of American Orthodoxy. The meaning, and repercussions, of this arrangement, especially regarding conversion, will be my next installment.

Conversion to Judaism part 7

A big consideration in the non recognition of non Orthodox conversions has more to do with history and politics than actual halachah. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism differ on many important points from Orthodoxy. As such, they are considered heresies, much like the Karaites and the Samaritans. But Samaritans WERE considered Jews for 1,000 years before the issuing of a ruling declaring them not to be Jews. Similarly, marriages between Karaites and Rabbinites were common for 400 years, until RAMBAM campaigned for their non recognition. The Chief Rabbinate in Israel keeps going back and forth between declaring Karaites to be Jews or non Jews. The Conservative movement began before there was an organized Orthodoxy in America. While some of its leaders were essentially "Reform lite", most were fully observant and for all intents and purposes Orthodox. In fact, the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary very nearly merged with the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University in the 1920s.  The merger fell through, not because of halachic differences, but because of differences in methodology in Talmudic study.With time, however, it drifted further and further away from Orthodox principles, even as Orthodoxy was drifting to the Right. In about 1960, two prominent American Orthodox rabbis declared war on the Conservative movement. (I do not wish to reveal their names). One, a very Right Wing rabbi, had a young rabbinic scholar enroll at JTS, in order to find out what was said there. I spoke to that scholar many years later. He described to me what happened. He was in a class on Chumash. An unusual word was under discussion. The professor explained it by using a cognate word from another Semitic language. The young man protested "but RASHI says..." The professor interrupted "THIS is the approach of our yeshivah". After reporting back to the rabbi, a ban was put on the Conservative movement. Everything they did was declared invalid. Even if an Orthodox rabbi took a Conservative pulpit, he was to be considered invalid. This position was endorsed by the Right Wing Agudas HaRabbonim. Had that rabbi taken the time to send a spy four miles North  to Yeshiva University, he would have heard the same thing. He was, in fact, a prisoner of the mindset of the European yeshivot. At about the same time, a highly influential  Modern Orthodox rabbi applied for a teaching position at JTS. He was rejected. Personally miffed, he also declared the Conservative movement to be heretical and invalid. This all begs the question if these men had the foresight to see what was to become of the Conservative movement, which now rejects the binding nature of halachah, or whether they brought this about by pushing them away. In any case, this resulted in an ostracizing of any and all rabbis with any connection to that movement, even if personally observant and dedicated to the spreading of Torah Judaism. This also served to write off two thirds of American Jewry. A few years ago, in the neighborhood where I live, and Orthodox rabbi was seen talking to a Conservative rabbi on a street corner. The Orthodox rabbi was immediately fired. In my opinion, this attitude is, in my opinion, bad for the Jews, and even worse for converts. Next, I shall discuss how American Orthodoxy, including conversions, has been hijacked by one narrow group.

CONVERSION TO JUDAISM PART 6

So why, in apparent violation of the Biblical commands to "Love the Convert" and "do not oppress the Convert" and the Talmudic admonition not to "lock the door before potential converts" are converts today being dragged over hot coals, and finding deadbolt locks on every door? The reasons are varied; some making some sense, others being more political, although most would balk at my use of the word. Let's first take the arguments that are genuine concerns. First is the reality that we live in an open society. Whereas once, the Jews lived behind ghetto walls, either figuratively or in actuality, today, a large percentage of even ultra Orthodox Jews suffer the heartbreak of having one or more children go "off the derech (path)". Even those who are doing the most for bringing people in, have no clue how to handle this. Throwing that child out, and changing the locks, does happen. This is primarily an attempt to "save" the other kids. Those families are forever broken, with feelings of hurt and resentment on all sides. When it comes to converts, enthusiasm for Judaism today may give way to secularism tomorrow, or conversion to another faith the day afterwards. Many rabbis feel that we must, at the very least, be as certain as possible that the new convert is prepared for the real world. That is the reason that although, in classical sources, there are no requirements of knowledge or observance before the conversion, today, most rabbis require significant knowledge and full observance beforehand. Full disclosure of what it means to be a Jew, will prevent someone from thinking "hey, had I known this law or that, or this attitude or that, I would not have chosen this path". Another really major hurdle is the view I recently explained of Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes in the late nineteenth century, that a conversion is invalid if the candidate had any mental reservations about any law, or indeed about any Jewish principle. This was an entirely knew idea, accepted, at first in some right wing circles, but now fairly standard in most of Orthodoxy. Some have written against this idea, but find themselves marginalized. Beyond that, the idea has become so fundamental in people's minds, that all converts are now looked upon with suspicion; what were they  thinking at the moment of conversion?. One acquaintance of mine, a former Minister as well as an attorney, attended a lecture given by a prominent rabbi who did much in "kiruv" in the mid twentieth century (my wife, Sima, had also been a follower of this rabbi when I met her). When the rabbi opened the session to questions, the former Minister challenged one of his assertions. The rabbi thereupon said "I have grave doubts as to the validity of your conversion". (This statement violates several Biblical laws).The support given the view of Rabbi Schmelkes, was endorsed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, considered the greatest rabbi in America, or perhaps the world, in right wing Yeshivish circles in the U.S, (I do not share that view). essentially guaranteeing its acceptance . It should be stressed that in those circles, Rabbi Feinsteins views were accepted more for his reputation, than for  examining  his logic and faithfulness to sources.Please see my series on "Daat Torah" for the explanation of that approach. Actually, in his responsum, he shows that this is NOT the view of Talmud, but goes on to question how bringing in a not fully observant convert could benefit the Jewish people.  When I was researching the background for this post, I had been studying the different views, especially between RAMBAM and the Tosafot, if non-Jews may, if they choose, observe mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Laws. RAMBAM says "yes". The Tosafot say "no". RAMBAM only excludes a few; namely, the ones of which it is written "It shall be a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Whereas many take RAMBAM at his word, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had written that virtually all mitzvort have a Jewish theme, and are therefore forbidden to non-Jews. RAMBAM, according to Rabbi Feinstein, only included the mitzvot of charity, and bringing certain sacrifices. The rabbi writing the article on this topic, rather than seeing if this explanation fits RAMBAM's words, simply concluded with the words "since Reb Moshe was more widely recognized than the other rabbis, his view must be accepted". These are the ideas that have made life so difficult for converts and potential converts. In my next post, i will cover those that I consider to be politics.

Conversion to Judaism part 5

When I went into the rabbinate in 1971, placed in a prominent Midwest University, I asked the rabbi who had prepared me for ordination (as a young man, he had studied under the Chafetz Chaim in Radin, and was now a member of the Right Wing Agudath HaRabbanim), how was I to relate to those people who had had non Orthodox conversions. Without hesitation, he opened Tractate Yevamot in the Babylonian Talmud to page 47, and showed me two remarkable passages.Both spoke of people who were living as Jews, but there was doubt about their mothers actually having been Jewish. People were referring to them as non-Jews. In the one case, the person in doubt was a woman. One of the rabbis remarked "It is impossible that she never immersed for her menstrual cycle (nidah)" (and therefore is considered Jewish) In the other case. a man with the same issue was under discussion. Again, a rabbi interjects "It is impossible that he never immersed for a seminal emission".(The Torah requires immersion in such a case only in relation to the Temple Laws of Purity. Ezra extended that to Torah study and prayer. This was suspended during Talmudic times, although some still practice it). The implication here was that once immersion had taken place, either with intent of conversion, or intent of fulfilling a mitzvah, the person was now Jewish.(RAMBAM has a different, non literal interpretation of the passage). The rabbi who had taught me concluded, that any convert who had undergone immersion was now Jewish, independent of our recognition or non recognition of the converting rabbi. This has been my policy ever since, although I favor re-conversion, no questions asked, as a stringency. This, in fact, was the policy of most Orthodox rabbis at the time. Today, you will hear vociferous denials from Orthodox rabbis and rabbinic organizations. Where does the dispute lie? Why the shift? The above mentioned Talmudic discussion in Yevamot, goes through several stages of discussion. In practive, we do all of them, but the question is, if all was NOT done, what are the minimum requirements needed for the conversion to be efficacious? The ideal conversion consists of informing the candidate of some of the mitzvot and their seriousness. (Whether a formal acceptance of the convert is necessary, or merely acknowledgement of what he has been told, is not clear). This is to be done before three dayyanim (judges), but any three adult, male, observant laymen would also be 100% kosher. The candidate, if male, is then circumcised, and given time to heal before completing the conversion. If already surgically circumcised, a drop of "blood of the covenant" is drawn. At that pointy, both male and female converts are immersed in a mikveh (or suitable body of water). That's it. A discussion ensues concerning what if only circumcision was done? (The Babylonian Talmud rules "no" the Jerusalem Talmud says "yes") Another view says that immersion alone is required for conversion, circumcision being an obligation incumbent on every Jewish male, but not an absolute requirement for conversion. Another opinion is that circumcision is the main requirement for conversion of males, immersion for females. Whether a Beit Din is an absolute requirement or not is also discussed. One man came to a rabbi and confessed to him that he had "converted himself" The rabbi asked "do you have any witnesses?" (Implying that corroborating witnesses are necessary). When the man replied "no", he was told "you are believed enough to disqualify yourself, but not your children." The Talmud also speaks of "Converts who converted among the Gentiles, and never heard of Shabbat". (Shabbat 68b). No one questions the validity of the conversion; only the degree of liability of the convert.Are witnesses absolutely required, or would definite public knowledge be sufficient?In Tractate Sanhedrin, many leniencies are allowed for the makeup of the Beit Din for a conversion "SO AS NOT TO LOCK THE DOOR BEFORE CONVERTS." The legal codes written after the time of the Talmud all quote the "ideal" way, and that has become standard. But, as all the other ways are left in the Talmud (with the possible exception of circumcision only) as open questions, it is impossible to say that they are not valid. So why the extreme stringencies that are practiced in the last twenty five years? That will be my next post.

Stringencies part 4

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, or at least so much so, that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. Most Sepharadic communities freely used electricity on Yom Tov, until coming to Israel and submitting to Askenazi influence. I mentioned in my series on Shabbat, that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals, Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation). They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second. This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues, as well as in the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee, by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, about eight years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", which was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power, after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered :"fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance, because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as general rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that had no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharaidim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a stringency? Greater minds than mine will need to decide.This is but one of many situations where a particular activity may be permissible, but the consequences could lead to the demise of Judaism. Discretion is oft the better part of valor.

Stringencies part 3

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it is the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940), at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on  the electricity, or start up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict both ways, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat nor Yom Tov. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if electricity heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored, in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain.The ruling is that it may be extinguished RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for the Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles), although none of them had any education in science. Nearly all that has been written since, struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when the Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". We shall see what this means in my next post. A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 8

How is one to know if a charismatic figure is legitimate or a fake? One excellent guideline, widely publicized during the era of cults in the 1970s and 1980s, is that a religion differs from a cult primarily in that a religion empowers, and a cult disempowers. If a charismatic figure tries to micromanage your life, control your finances, pressure you to cut ties of family and friendship, you are in the wrong place. Next, in the case of Jewish charismatic figures, if you witness non-halachic behavior from the cult leader, run.. Once again, I will take aim at those who are so afraid to speak or hear lashon hara, that they let molestation and other crimes go unreported. I know of thousands of people who refuse to believe the sworn testimony, both in Beit Din and Civil Court, of women who have been abused by a certain Jerusalem figure. Most of his many followers refuse to believe, seeing the reports as a "test" of their faith. These followers bear full responsibility for those yet to be abused. Please, if you see something, say something. If you hear something, believe the victim. Err on the side of caution. I wish I had believed the rumors about Carlebach before my disastrous first marriage. If a "rabbi" talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk, you are once again in the wrong place. There have been several cases in the last few years of supposedly Orthodox rabbis who cheated on their wives with married congregants. Their congregations decided nevertheless to retain these men! This is like drinking water out of a toilet. It looks like Torah, sounds like Torah, but it is a deception. Best of all, is the advice of Rabbi Nachman, as interpreted by Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Nachman taught that a spiritual leader is like a rubber stamp; you can't read it until it is imprinted on something else. Thus, a leader may really be known only through the conduct of his students. Rabbi Natan connects this with the teaching in Ethics of the Fathers, "What are the differences between the disciples our father Avraham, and the disciples of the wicked Bilaam?" Why mention the disciples? Why not just say "Avraham and Bilaam"? He answers that had we met both, we couldn't tell the difference. Both prayed, offered sacrifice, and performed miracles. The difference can be seen only in the students! May HaShem guide us to proper, holy leaders, and make us worthy of bearing their imprint!

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 7

Throughout this series, I have used the term "charismatic" in a negative way; as one who demands honor and acceptance by virtue of his position, rather than his actual knowledge. But there is one class of Jewish leaders that openly operate on the level of charisma, who are accepted by many, though vilified by others. These are the Hasidic Rebbes, as well as the Sepharadic and Yemenite Mekubbalim (Kabbalists). Although many of these men are scholars in their own right, many are barely learned. There are also charlatans among them.Their claim to fame is not their learning, but the belief that their great piety has brought them to a state of devekut (clinging to G-d), that affords them the ability to ascertain G-d's will, and even intercede to change His will. A rationalist will dismiss all of this as chicanery. But millions of others find encounters with these men to be life changing. One of the disciples of Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk, was asked to describe his first meeting with the Tzaddik. "When I met him, he hugged me. I felt him taking a knife, plunge it into my heart. cutting it out, washing it with soap and water, replacing it in my chest, and sewing it up". Many followers of Rebbes and Mekkubalim will tell you similar experiences. Does this represent anything in Jewish tradition? In fact, it does. We find many of the Prophets being consulted on private, personal matters. (Think Saul's first encounter with Samuel). Similarly, in the Talmud, although most of the Sages are known for their erudition, some are known especially, or even exclusively, for their efficacious prayers, and the performance of miracles. (Think Hanina Ben Dosa and Honi Hame'agel). There is an interesting statement in the Talmud (Megillah 29a):

The verse states: “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to the house of our master, i.e., Rav, in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to the entire world.

We apparently have two approaches here. One, that G-d is to be found in Torah sources. The other, that G-d is to be found with those whose lives are a living Torah. But how are we to distinguish those who are truly connected to G-d, from those who are faking? A scholar will show a discerning person who he is the moment he opens his mouth. A charismatic person can use trickery, slight of hand, even hypnosis to establish his claims.How are we to know? That will be my next post.