Volume 39 Number 84
Produced: Wed Jun 18 5:48:04 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Beit Din in Moav
[<Yisyis@...>]
Midrash and Torah Text (2)
[Alex Heppenheimer, Avi Feldblum]
Modern Orthodoxy: definition (Chumras)
[Binyomin Segal]
Ruth/Naomi
[Batya Medad]
Torah's take on conversions
[<halevi@...>]
vaccination
[Barak Greenfield, MD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Yisyis@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:40:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Beit Din in Moav
I followed the thread about the courts in Moav with interest. I have
always wondered about the institutions of Jewish learning during the
time of the Shoftim.
A history of the Jews during the last 2000 years will always feature the
yeshivos and scholars of that era and place. The second Temple period
also mentions the Anshei Knesses Gedolah and the Sanhedrin as the main
institutions during that period. The first Temple and more obviously,
the Shoftim period omit any reference to Yeshivas and spiritual leaders.
The shoftim were supposed to be the roshei yeshiva but it would seem
that they were chosen more for their leadership and military skills.
While we discuss contemporary issues in mail-jewish, the problems
encountered then were anarchy and Baal and Molech worship. Given the
information in Sefer Shoftim, it is hard to visualize a society equipped
to transfer the wealth of torah knowledge needed to educate 3 millenia
of G-d fearing Jews.
A person with emunah, believes that the mesorah was an unbroken chain
from Moshe all the way to the present. However, this era, seems to be
the weakest link of the chain. Can anybody help me out? Incidentally,
there is a medrash that Pinchos lived and was active until Eli's
administration at the end of the Shoftim, a period of several hundred
years. I always thought that the medrash was an attempt by chazal of
addressing this quandary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Midrash and Torah Text
In MJ 39:81, Ben Katz <bkatz@...> commented on a post of
mine:
> I am going to be a bit of a kanoi here. Assumming that
>pleoni almoni's name was Tov is a symptom of a rampant problem in
>Orthodox Judaism today, which is confusing midrash with the Biblical
>text. Nowhere in the text is he specifically named, and, in fact,
>since he is the only character in the book NOT named there is
>obviously some significance the author wishes to convey (prob. that
>since he didn't redeem the field that he is insignificant). I know
>the verse at the end of chapter 3 could be understood that his name is
>[Tov] and that some rishonim read it that way, but again, this is not
>universal (see Ibn Ezra for example) and is not peshat.
But if that's the case, then this whole thread amounts to "confusing
midrash with the Biblical text"; after all, the text doesn't say
anything at all about Ruth's conversion, and presumably there is some
significance in the fact that these details are omitted!
There is indeed some significance the author wishes to convey by
referring to the man by a pseudonym; see Rashi on 4:1, for example. By
the same token, though, Chazal were perfectly well aware of these
considerations, and clearly they felt that there is also value in
knowing his real name. (And for the purpose that I referred to him, it's
definitely easier to call him "Tov" rather than "the person whom the
Biblical text calls Ploni Almoni, but who some of our Sages say was
actually named Tov.")
So to me, this is no different than referring matter-of-factly to
Avraham's ordeal in the furnace, to take one example of many episodes
for which we find no hint (or, at best, a seemingly farfetched one) in
the text: there's a good reason that G-d chose not to include them in
the Written Torah, but there's an equally good reason that the Sages
recorded them for us. Surely, you wouldn't object that it's "a rampant
problem in Orthodox Judaism today" when we say Hoshaanos that refer to
Avraham as the one who "ba ba'eish uvamayim" without adding a caveat,
"but only according to a midrash; the Biblical text has no hint that
Avraham ever went through fire and water for the sake of kiddush
Hashem"!
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 05:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Midrash and Torah Text
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Alex Heppenheimer wrote:
> So to me, this is no different than referring matter-of-factly to
> Avraham's ordeal in the furnace, to take one example of many episodes
> for which we find no hint (or, at best, a seemingly farfetched one) in
> the text: there's a good reason that G-d chose not to include them in
> the Written Torah, but there's an equally good reason that the Sages
> recorded them for us. Surely, you wouldn't object that it's "a rampant
> problem in Orthodox Judaism today" when we say Hoshaanos that refer to
> Avraham as the one who "ba ba'eish uvamayim" without adding a caveat,
> "but only according to a midrash; the Biblical text has no hint that
> Avraham ever went through fire and water for the sake of kiddush
> Hashem"!
While I do not agree with Ben's characterization of this being a
"rampant problem in Orthodox Judaism today", and understand, especially
in adult discussion that it is awkard to try and constantly identify
what is textual and what is midrashic overlay, I do think this is a
major problem in the education of children in Tanach, where there is no
distinction made. I believe it is very important to know what is in the
text, and what is a midrashic statement.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:09:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Modern Orthodoxy: definition (Chumras)
On 7 Apr 2003 Allen Gerstl wrote about a particular type of chumra as
being specific to the charedi community.
> Yet we also have a recurring phrase "u-baal nefesh yachmir" (and someone
> who cares about his soul will be stringent concerning the matter). This
> concept of "baal nefesh yachmir" is I believe a hallmark of non-MO and
> it is grounded on a particular view of the halacha. I believe that the
> latter view is based upon speculation that there is a (Platonic-style)
> absolute halacha. Thus while a rav must pasken and his pesak IS the
> halacha and it may be relied upon by the shoel (the questioner), from
> the standpoint of an absolute halacha, the posek might be wrong. So
> while by relying upon pesak, no culpable aveira might be committed if
> the posek was wrong; on an absolute basis there might still be harm to
> the neshama of the shoel (questioner).
Some of you will recall that I raised some questions about this chumra
type, and what I saw as a characterization that it was new. Allen
responded to those questions, and I have been thinking about these ideas
of his for some time.
Ultimately, I think the problem I have is that Allen's reasoning for
this type of chumra does not ring true for me and my experiences. I am
nominally charedi myself, and have spent lots of time in chareidi
institutions and yeshivot (ok yeshivas) and do not believe that the
meaning Allen assigns to these chumras is in fact the meaning that is
being acted upon within the chareidi community.
That is to say, while Allen may have identified a type of chumra that
may be the "hallmark of non-MO", I do not believe it comes from a
viewpoint that there is a "(Platonic-style) absolute halacha." I don't
think this is an accurate reflection of the chareidi world view.
After some reflection, I have found an alternative explanation for this
chumra type that I place before you today. In some practical sense it
may not be very different than the chumra type that Allen suggested, but
I believe the underlying philosophy is very different.
Allow me to quote from Silverstein's translation of Mesilat Yesharim,
concerning the trait of saintliness pp217-19:
"'Fortunate is the man whose toil is in Torah and gives pleasure to his
Creator.' The underlying idea is this: It is known which mitzvoth are
binding on all of Israel....However, one who truly loves the
Creator...will not endeavor and intend to fulfill his obligations by
means of the duty which is acknowledged by all of Israel in general, but
will react in very much the same manner as a son who loves his father,
who, even if his father gives only a slight indication of desiring
something, undertakes to fulfill this desire as completely as he
can....it is enough for such a son just to understand the inclination of
his father's mind to do for him even what has not been expressly
requested....the lover [i.e. the son] will not say, 'I have not been
commanded further. What I have been told to do explicitily is enough for
me.' He will rather attempt, by analyzing the commands to arrive at the
intention of the commander and to do what he judges will give him
pleasure....[Similarly with regard to G-d] 'Since I have seen that God's
desire inclines towards this, I will use it as a sign to do as much as I
can in relation to it and to extend it into as many areas as I can
envisage' ... Such a man may be called 'one who gives pleasure to his
Creator.'
"...a comprehensive performance of all mitzvoth, embracing all of the
relevant areas and conditions within the realm of possibility....
In the next chapter, the divisions of saintliness, he speaks about the
"remnants of a mitzvah". On pp 223-229 he gives examples of this chumra
type from Megilla 27b. His explanation (from p223-5) is as follows:
"This is an instance of Saintliness in relation to the fine points of
mitzvoth, for since R. Zakkai was so lacking in means that in order to
procure wine his mother had to sell her hat, he was not required to
obtain wine in the first place. For him to do so, then, was an act of
Saintliness."
I believe it is an attempt at saintliness - not an attempt to fulfill
the "real" requirements of the law - which motivate the chareidi
community (at least the ones that are motivated by appropriate
motivations at all, but that is another whole discussion). Certainly
this text is a standard mussar text of the charedi yeshiva. And it does
fit in more comfortably with what I have been taught and learned within
those institutions. We can certainly argue/discuss/disagree about any
particular chumra and whether it is an appropriate attempt at
saintliness. But I do think we will have a better understanding of the
internal motives of the chareidi if we accept this explanation for
chumras of this type.
Any comments?
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:50:38 +0200
Subject: Re: Ruth/Naomi
There are some rabbis who are experts in Tanach and consider it
important to take into account what the anthropologists know about
ancient times. I'm certainly no expert, but it's hard to think of a
single case wherein the husband joins the wife's family and accepts the
wife's religion, tribe affiliation etc. (Ishmael went with Haggar
contrary to what was planned by Sarai and Avram.) Today the child is
the religion of the mother, but things weren't so clear in Biblical
times, and I'm curious if there's any mention of a "modern Beit Din" for
conversions in the Tanach.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <halevi@...> <halevi@halevi.biz>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:38:33 -0500
Subject: Torah's take on conversions
Shalom, All:
As far as Ruth goes, IMHO the question of a Bayt Deen (ecclesiastical
court) being necessary to convert someone to Judaism is not cut and
dried. My evidence is the Torah itself, in (D'vareem/Deut. 21:10). It
specifies that a Jewish soldier who captures a non-Jewish woman and
wants to marry her has to give her time to mourn her past life, and also
shave her hair to make her unattractive. After that, if he still wants
to marry her, he takes her as his wife. NOWHERE does the Torah mention a
formal conversion process, let alone a Bayt Deen.
This also raises another major question: this being the case, why do we
say one can not convert for the sake of marriage? Surely the woman
referenced in this Torah portion is not an altruistic, pure-faith
convert. Yet, she can become a Jew at the whim of her captor.
Comments, anyone?
Kol Tuv,
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barak Greenfield, MD <DocBJG@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:19:21 -0400
Subject: RE: vaccination
Although the anti-vaccine crowd is quite self-assured, the fact remains
that the broad consensus of physicians is that children should be
vaccinated. Therefore, those who refuse to do so are putting their
children's health in the hands of their own medical knowledge, in
opposition to the vast majority of experts who disagree. Yes, we have
all heard incessant name dropping of famous doctors who oppose the
present vaccination regimen, and the various conspiracy theories
relating to the big bad medical establishment. But the fact remains that
the broad consensus of medical opinion is in favor of routine childhood
vaccinations.
This being a halacha-oriented discussion group, the question is, then,
to whom does halacha defer with regard to medical decisions? A parent
with little or no medical knowledge vs. a physician? Or doctors at the
fringe of the medical community vs. a broad consensus? Remember: sakanta
chamura me'issurah; even if some may be willing to "buck the trend" and
use umbrellas and bicycles on shabbos, one must be very wary of going
"bishrirus liba" in deciding not to vaccinate her child.
Barak Greenfield, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 39 Issue 84
