Torah...for the Nations? part 3

The issue of whether or not we should be teaching Torah to our non-Jewish neighbors was a moot point in Medieval Europe. Jews were frequently murdered en masse. The worst perpetrators of all were the English. It was they who started the blood libel; the calumny that Jews use Christian blood in our religious ceremonies, especially on Passover, and Jews are born blind, until Christian blood was poured in their eyes. Entire communities were wiped out as a result. Often, the Jews were herded into the synagogue, which was set on fire, or thrown off a cliff. The Jews of England suffered great massacres in 1190, with the final annihilation of English Jewry in 1290. Jews were only readmitted to England three and a half centuries later. The blood libel spread rapidly through Europe, and still crops up from time to time, even in the Unites States. To this day, German Jews are careful to have at least one cup of white wine among the four cups at the Passover Seder, in order to demonstrate that we are not drinking blood. The Crusades saw massacres of Jews all over Europe and the Middle East, as enthusiastic Christian soldiers "practiced" on Jews, while on their way to kill Muslims. Fully one-third of the Jewish people was killed, proportionally identical to the Holocaust. One would think that the way to deal with the hate was to talk. But a series of disputations between Jewish and Christian clergy from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries proved not only fruitless, but actually disastrous. In most of these cases, an apostate Jew would level charges against Judaism with the civil authorities, often the King himself. A public debate would take place. Usually, the rules stated that the Jews could defend Judaism, but not criticize Christianity. Nearly always, the Jews won these debates, which generally brought about further persecution and expulsion. In the few cases where the Jews lost, they were often forcibly Baptized afterward. Perhaps the most famous of these disputations was that at Barcelona, in 1263, between RAMBAN and the apostate, Pablo Chistiani. Unlike other such debates, King James of Aragon gave RAMBAN full permission to make counter-arguments against Christianity. The debate was what we would today call a "knockout". (One can find a dramatization of this debate on YouTube, under the title "The Disputation"). However, RAMBAN was, despite royal assurances, forced to flee Spain because of his "blasphemy". Historians believe that these debates lead directly to the Inquisition. Yes, talking to the outside world about Torah, brought death and destruction upon our people. It was seen as far better to keep quiet...and even to maintain secrecy. In fact, I worry about all the ubiquitous rhetoric of online rabbis against Christianity. The arguments have changed little since the thirteenth century. I fear that these videos will bring an antisemitic backlash. In my opinion, a better approach is to teach Judaism, rather than attack others. In the mid Twentieth century, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for true dialogue, with the Jewish people free to tell our story to the world. But it lasted less than a decade. Next time.

Torah...for the Nations? part 2

In 1988, a famous Hasidic Rebbe had lost his wife. Among those paying condolences, was a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva. This particular Rosh Yeshiva was world renowned for his penetrating analyses of RAMBAM, both in halachah and philosophy. As could be expected, the conversation turned to topics of Torah. The Rebbe, in the course of their discussion, quoted a halachah in the name of RAMBAM. The Rosh Yeshiva stated emphatically "There is no such statement of RAMBAM". The Rebbe corrected him, pointing out that the statement is not found in RAMBAM's legal code, but rather in his commentary on the Mishnah. He went on to point out the numerous authorities who quoted that statement in their writings. The Rosh Yeshiva was humiliated. He was THE expert; or so he thought. This was like catching an error in Einstein's arithmetic. He left, visibly shaken. The Rebbe immediately sent some of his followers to ask the Rosh Yeshiva for forgiveness. They were rebuffed. (I have heard this story from followers of both men.) The point of this story is that the writings of RAMBAM are both subtle and complex. Issues raised and explained in one of his works, are often taken up again elsewhere, and given a different explanation. This "elsewhere" may be in a different book, or several paragraphs later in the same work. (This is one of my pet peeves about many online rabbis, who build an entire philosophy on a statement of RAMBAM, which is contradicted three paragraphs later.) A great deal of Jewish religious literature consists of works reconciling these differences. The same holds true of RAMBAM's uncharacteristic quote of the homiletic interpretation of "meorasa" (betrothed) for "morasha" (inheritance), apparently forbidding any transmission of Torah knowledge to non-Jews. This reticence is reinforced in his laws of conversion, where only bits and pieces of Jewish concepts and practices are told to the conversion candidate, and that only moments before his actual conversion ceremony. But we also find in RAMBAM that he considers both Jesus and Mohammed to be false prophets, he nevertheless sees them as tools for G-d, enabling even those living on "distant islands" where Jews never go, to learn of the G-d of Israel. But from here, we could infer that our spreading the Torah should be passive. We shouldn't teach. We"ll let G-d and history take care of that for us. But in another passage, he says that we should not teach Scripture to Muslims. Since they say that we have deliberately altered and distorted the Scriptures, in order to remove prophecies concerning Mohammed, our efforts to teach them Torah would only be met with derision. But since Christians do accept our Scriptures, it is a mitzvah to teach them, so as to show them their true meaning. Therefore, his approach is NOT to keep our Torah secret. On the contrary, we WANT them to come to Torah. We do not want to give them further ammunition for derision. Historically, however, this approach was also seen as a threat to other faiths. Very real, physical dangers, up to and including torture and death, manifested themselves in the attempt to elucidate verses in Scripture. We are about to enter a discussion of the Age of Disputations. The events that I shall describe, have largely brought about Jewish self-censorship, and, in my opinion, a reticence concerning the Prophets' charge to be a Light unto the Nations

Torah...for the Nations? part 1

The Talmud, along with several other ancient sources, both Jewish and non Jewish, records the following story:

King Ptolemy (of Egypt) once gathered 72 (others say 70) Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". G-d put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

Although many historians question the details of this narrative, there is no question that in the Third Century BCE, Jewish scholars translated the five books of Moses into Koine Greek, the language of the Hellenistic empire. Over the next century or two, the other Biblical books were also translated, along with material that is not in our Tanach. This is known as the Septuagint, the "Translation of the Seventy", which became standard Scripture in the assimilated communities of the Empire, especially in Egypt, and later became accepted Scripture for early Christians, from Paul on. (Earlier quotes from Tanach are direct translations from he Hebrew). To this day, the Septuagint is the only version of Tanach recognized as authoritative in the Greek Orthodox Church. The Talmud records that some deliberate changes were introduced by the translating rabbis, in places where a literal translation would be misleading. In some places, especially in the Book of Isaiah, the "translation" is little more than a paraphrase. By the Third Century CE, Jews had abandoned the Septuagint. Torah was studied and read in Hebrew. In those parts of the Eastern Roman Empire (whose language was Koine Greek, rather than Latin) where the Jews did not remember Hebrew, the far more literal translation of Aquila was substituted. Only fragments of the latter survive. We would expect the Septuagint to have been greatly celebrated by the rabbis. HaShem's Torah was, for the first time, made known to the Nations. But, on the contrary, this magnum opus was seen as a cause for mourning. "When the Torah was translated into Greek, three days of darkness fell on the world" (Talmud Megillah). A fast was instituted, which later was incorporated, together with other tragedies, into the fast of the Tenth of Tevet. But why? We had "made it"; Judaism was now "on the map". Several reasons were offered. One is that each word of the Hebrew original is pregnant with meaning. A translation...any translation... could, at best, convey only one of these meanings. The Italians have a saying "A Translator is a Traitor". Also, with Scripture in non Jewish hands, it could be easily distorted. The Book of Esther, in the Septuagint, is practically a different book! Haman is no longer an Agagite, but a Greek, seeking to undermine the Persian Kingdom in order to enable a Greek conquest. Worse still, the word "hanged" (applied to Haman and his sons), is the same word as "crucified" (σταυρώνω staurono), which infuriated Greek speaking Christians, who felt they were being mocked. This caused much antisemitism, and even violence, each year when Purim was celebrated. But beyond these reasons, many of the rabbis saw a more fundamental problem with a translation. We read in Deuteronomy 33:4 "Moses commanded us the Torah, The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob". The Torah was our gift from G-d! It was sacrilege to give it to others! The rabbis went on to homiletically say "Do not read "Morashah" (an inheritance), but "meorasah" (betrothed Bride). We are surrendering our Betrothed to every passerby. The latter homiletic interpretation converts the sharing of our heritage, into an act of depravity. Surprisingly, RAMBAM quoted this Drash as halachah. Or DOES HE? Next time.

Living in the Land of Israel part 6

I would like to go further into the words of my teacher, as well as present my conclusions on the topic as a whole. Rav Kiwak was, as I understand, teaching an important general lesson. There are commandments, both Biblical and Rabbinic, that are non-negotiable. One cannot simply say "well, this Saturday I would really like to go shopping. I'll just skip Shabbat this week". That is simply not an option for someone who takes Torah seriously. On the other hand, even most Torah laws provide for situations where they are to be violated. For instance, a person who is dangerously ill MAY NOT fast on Yom Kippur. Similarly, one who is dangerously ill on Shabbat, MUST violate the Shabbat in the course of medical treatment, This is not a dispensation. This itself is a requirement of the Torah. There is no reward for going beyond this by putting one's self in danger. But there are things that are very valuable, but not actual halachah. The Zohar, as well as many other holy books, puts a tremendous emphasis on the positive effects, both on the microcosm; man, as well as on the macrocosm: the Universe, of arising in the middle of the night to pray and meditate on the themes of alienation from G-d, as well as restoration. In the days when people retired soon after nightfall, this was not difficult. Today, this is a virtual impossibility for most people. Some, nevertheless, do it without fail. Others do it occasionally. For still others, this has gone by the wayside entirely.For example, older editions of the Chabad siddur feature it, newer ones do not. Rav Kiwak's comments about the "stomach ache" mean that one must weigh the risk/benefit ratio of staying in bed or getting up in the middle of the night. As it is not halachah, one may very well say "why bother?". But the tremendous spiritual journey of Tikkun Hatzot is beyond words. On the other hand, if being up at that time will mean being sleepy the next day, unable to pray, unable to study Torah, unable to perform one's duties to one's employer, let alone to G-d, his "merit has been lost in his loss". Some people will do it anyway. Others will think about prioritizing their spiritual life. The same is true when talking about the Land of Israel. There is clearly no requirement, according to most opinions, to live there. But the sanctity of the Land, besides its many holy places where one can be renewed, are beyond belief. Every moment is a treasure; for those who do not feel a "stomach ache". Those who say otherwise, base their statements on aggadah rather than halachah; or, even worse, political ideology, disguising as religion. I will illustrate with an unpleasant experience I had a few years ago. A woman who had been my neighbor in Beit El, found me on Facebook. She told me her tales of woe. Her husband had left her, going back to the States. (Fortunately, he did give her a "get"; a bill of divorce.) She had moved to Jerusalem with their children. Unscrupulous lawyers had convinced her to sue her ex for support and were draining her of the little sustenance she had. I told her that from my knowledge and experience, such international lawsuits rarely bore fruit. But she was convinced that if, in the midst of her poverty, she pursued the legal route, she would soon be rich. She met a man who wanted to marry her. But he had a wife back in the States, whom he did not divorce, and hence the Rabbinate would not allow her to marry this man. A rogue rabbi in Israel suggested she live as his concubine. They now have children together. For months, she wrote to me about her misery; bill collectors, neighbors prejudiced against her because of her living arrangements, government oppression, police oppression, constant anxiety over Israeli government policies. I wrote her many sympathetic emails. Then, about six years ago, she posted a comment about the upcoming American elections. (I do not wish to deal with the question whether her perceptions were correct. It is the attitude I am commenting upon). She wrote "I hope that Trump loses. American Jews would prosper under Trump, and never come on aliyah. But Hillary is an antisemite, and will persecute the Jews. Then they will have no choice but to come to Israel". I was stunned. Despite all of her misery, she wanted the American Jews to come at any cost. Let them be persecuted, rounded up in camps, perhaps with many to die...so long as the bulk came "home" to share in her misery. This attitude gives a whole new meaning to the term "cognitive dissonance". I immediately unfriended her and blocked her. For all those who say that it is a Torah requirement to live in the Land, which is largely fictitious, or who say, after an antisemitic incident "the writing is on the wall.  Time to come home" J'accuse. For those who are capable of focusing on the spirituality inherent in the Land, on the sense of closeness to G-d,  while being oblivious to everything happening around them,  happy are they! I, for one, am not sympathetic to that view. 

Living in the Land of Israel part 5

No figure in Jewish history has placed more emphasis on the spiritual significance of the Land of Israel than Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. He saw it as the quintessence of Holiness, which each Jew must visit at least once. He embarked on a pilgrimage  in the early Summer of 1798, without money or provisions, in the middle of the Napoleonic wars. He was captured by pirates, nearly sold into slavery, ransomed by the Jewish community of Rhodes, endured the shelling of Akko (Acre) by the French; just to walk four cubits in the Holy Land. He arrived in Haifa on the Eve of Rosh Hashana, walked a few paces, and made the amazing statement "I now understand what none have understood before, and I have been given a gift of Rosh Hashana" (I have explained these statements elsewhere). He then said to his travelling companion (his identity has not come down to us, but there are two theories), "Hire passage back for immediately after the Holiday" The man balked, and said that he wanted to feast his eyes on the sights of the Holy Land. Rabbi Nachman, who was never stubborn about anything, agreed to stay for a few months, visiting the fledgling Hasidic communities in Tiberius and Safed. He never mentions about going there to live. His student, Rabbi Natan, made an almost identical trip in 1822. In his writings, Rabbi Natan does praise those who live there. Since then, most Breslover Hasidim have either lived there, or are making efforts to get there. Rabbi Nachman's and Rabbi Natan's deep mystical insights form the main backdrop to Rav Kook's teachings, albeit without the political twist, and cognitive dissonance, that few Breslovers would endorse. I have written in the past about my teacher, Rabbi Nissen David Kiwak. I met him in 1985, when he was just thirty years old, and was "bowled over" by his incredible insights, as well as his way of seeing through events, in a way that is, in my opinion, close to prophecy. After seventeen years of suffering under the Israeli "system" (not that there is anything systematic about it), Sima and I were totally beaten down, our idealism betrayed, robbed of both goods and dignity. I asked Rav Kiwak if it would be permissible to leave (not a simple question). He said "Of course. At this point, it is forbidden to live here". (The "Second Intifada" was underway; bombs exploding every few hours, with the government doing nothing.) I said "But YOU live here!" He answered "No I don't. I live in the Holy One,, blessed be He". It took me a few years to understand that remark. He meant that he was surrendering himself to the Will of G-d, and relished every moment in the Holy Land. If death was around the corner, that was up to G-d, and essentially none of our business. He went on "The description of the Holiness of the Land could fill up so many books, that this whole apartment building would be filled with books. I love Eretz Yisrael. I also love to wear Tefillin. But when I have a stomach ache I take my Tefillin off." I began to understand. The halachah says that if one has stomach or intestinal discomfort, one must remove the Tefillin (some say because the body is then "unclean", others say because of distraction). Tefillin are amazing. But if one is so distracted, there is no point. The rabbi is not distracted by violence and terrorism. For a long time, two thugs stood menacingly at his door, hired by a major Hasidic Rebbe, who claimed that Rav Kiwak had used black magic (!) to attract the Rebbe's grandson as a disciple, and later as a son in law. Rav Kiwak ignored everything. But for me, and many others, the tensions of life in Israel, the government oppression of religion, the indignities of day-to-day life in Israeli society, prevented any appreciation of the Holiness of the Land. All this was, in effect, a "stomach ache". It was time for me to "take off the Tefillin" I consider these words to be among the most vital teachings that I received from him. A few years ago, my son, Shmuel and his wife asked the rabbi if they should move back to the Land. It was the eve of Rosh Hashana, just a few feet from the holy resting place of Rabbi Nachman. Rav Kiwak said "of course." When they came home, and informed me of this, I was bewildered. I told my son "ask him again, when it is not Rosh Hashana, and you are not in Uman". He did so. Rav Kiwak said "Of course. When you own an apartment in Jerusalem free and clear, when you have saved $200,000 in cash, when you can assure me that you will ignore the news media, keep your head in the Holy Books, and speak with no one." My son was only to come when he could make sure he would not have a stomach ache. That is possible for very few.

Living in the Land of Israel part 2

Despite the huge praise of living in the Land of Israel in Talmud, like "one who lives in the Land of Israel is as one who has a G-d, one who lives outside the Land of Israel is as one who has no G-d" and "Jews who observe the Torah outside the land are like those who worship idols in ritual purity", we find precious little about moving there. In fact, there is a view in the Talmud that it is FORBIDDEN to move there. The proof text is from Jeremiah "They shall be brought to Babylon, and remain there..." Our exile is a Divine Decree. Attempting to undo it is rebellion against G-d! (I have written elsewhere that although the Jerusalem Talmud believes in a natural redemption, the Babylonian speaks of a supernatural one.) However, the verse in Jeremiah is not speaking of the Jews, but of the Temple vessels captured by Nebuchadnezzar, and the above "interpretation" must be seen as aggadah.. The concept of Aliyah is perhaps the one with the widest gap between drash (homiletics) and pshat (literal meaning). Already the Tosafists (12th to 14th centuries) write that this mitzvah is no longer applicable, due to the hardships involved in the journey, as well as those involved in living in a primitive backwater. Besides, the special mitzvot that apply only in the Land are many and complex, which most will be unable to properly observe. (Tosafot, Ketubot 110b). This is also quoted in MORDECAI. This was little discussed in later centuries. One may argue that today there is no great hardship in the journey, and Israel is a modern country. But anyone who has been reading my posts knows that there are other kinds of hardships in Modern Israel, especially for American immigrants. Moshe Feinstein, writing in 1952, states that although one fulfills a mitzvah by living in the land of Israel, there is no obligation either Rabbinic or Biblical. He writes that since there is no actual obligation to live there, one should heed the warnings of Tosafot. This view caused considerable consternation in religious Zionist circles. When he died in 1985, and was buried in Jerusalem (I was at his funeral), one religious Zionist publication put on its cover "Rav Moshe makes aliyah!", superimposed on a picture of Jerusalem's Har Hamenuchot cemetery. People were arguing about that headline for many months.  Most non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist rabbis endorsed the view of  Moshe Feinstein. Rav Moshe Shternbuch, a Hareidi Israeli rabbi, added to it that the pressures against religion in Israel are very great, and one must think carefully about the effects of these pressures on one's self and one's family. On the other hand, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, a major figure in religious Zionist circles, wrote emotionally about the "obligation" of aliyah after the founding of the State. According to him, a  twofold obligation of aliyah has been created. First, the barriers mentioned in Tosafot no longer exist (I would disagree strongly), and since Israel is the "beginning of the Redemption", but is still in its swaddling clothes, every Jew has an obligation to go there. He writes that this is a “central and fundamental Mitzvah”. It must be noted that these words are emotional, rather than source-based, and based primarily on the ideas of Rav Kook. Other rabbis in the religious Zionist camp write in a similar vein, quoting aggadic sources, and basing themselves primarily on political ideology rather than Torah. Some say that every case must be judged on its merits, as to the appropriateness of this move. One who goes on aliyah leaves friends and family behind, often breaking many hearts. One cannot ignore that the vast majority of Western immigrants, return to their native countries within five years. The statistics used to be 70% but were solved by the Israeli government by stopping to keep this statistic. I personally feel that my "aliyah" in 1984 hastened the deaths of my parents. This is a very heavy burden on me. I know countless others with the same thoughts. My take away from all of this is that all things being equal, it is a wonderful thing to live in the Land of Israel. But rarely are all things "equal". In my next post, I will deal with those who argue against living there in current circumstances.

Living in the Land of Israel part 1

When I lived in Israel, there was an outspoken journalist, TV commentator and politician, named Tommy Lapid (father of Yair Lapid, who is now a powerful person in the government). His political stance was right of center, although he would take each issue as it came. He had a deep hatred for religion. I once saw him say on TV "Religious Jews are vermin". When the moderator asked "And how should we deal with vermin?" he refused to answer; but we knew what he was thinking. From time to time, a fellow panelist would call him a Nazi. He would get enraged, saying "How dare you? I lived through the Holocaust". Once, two rabbis were in a heated debate, on the topic of "Land for Peace" (sic). The Kookian rabbi said "Never! Absolutely forbidden!" The Hareidi Aggudist rabbi said "Of course we should. The halachah requires us to!". Tommy Lapid looked at them and said "Tell me; do you read the same books?" When trying to derive a final halachah from sources, one must watch out for claims based on politics, or that say "This is not mentioned in sources, because it is too obvious." The latter assertion rarely holds up to reason. Very often, there are conflicting views, and it takes a great deal of skill to arrive at truth. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the issue of if there is or isn't a Torah requirement to live in the Land of Israel. There are many aggadic statements in the Talmud that lavishly praise living in the Land of Israel. Perhaps the most striking of these is "He who lives in the Land of Israel is considered as having a G-d, he who lives outside the Land is as one who has no G-d".These are the statements that we often see in rabbinic essays that declare "aliyah" to be obligatory. However, we seek in vain for a halachic statement. True, RAMBAN (1194-1270)(among others) understands the verses that say "You shall go over Jordan, inherit the land of your enemies, and dwell therein" as a command. But nearly all other authorities see those words as a promise, rather than a command. RAMBAM clearly states that a Jew may live anywhere in the world he chooses, other than Egypt (problematic, as that is precisely where he lived). However, once he has lived in the Land, he may never leave. (Most others give parameters that would allow leaving.under certain circumstances) The Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of such an obligation, although it rules that if a couple are divided on the issue of moving to the Land of Israel,  this constitutes grounds for divorce. In fact, we find no major authorities debating the issue before the twentieth century. Living in the Land was overwhelmingly seen as something meritorious, but by no means obligatory.Those for and against the idea that one must live there, take their stands along partisan and ideological lines; is the State Israel the promised Redemption? What are the implications of that? When I go over this material, I ask, along with Tommy Lapid, "Tell me, do you read the same books?" In my next installment, I will deal with the writings and arguments of these twentieth century rabbinic figures. After that, I will deal with the question "if I'm not obligated, is it nevertheless something I really should do?"