Kol Hamevaser - Latest Comments

Re: Eved Kena’ani: The Other Jewish Slave

Glycol — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:26:44 -0000

Thank you for that article.

Your hypothesis is has merit, but one possible problem is that there is language in the Talmud that seems to contradict it. For example, Berakhot 16b doesn't appear to humanize the eved kena'ani at all--quite the opposite. The rabbis almost entirely (and strongly) concur in ruling that the loss of even an upstanding slave is to be treated as a loss of property indistinguishable from the loss of a beast of burden. This is opposed to the notion that the slave, particularly the trustworthy slave, was regarded as a subservient member of the community. Bava Kama 88a seemingly denigrates the notion that a non-Jewish slave can be considered simply a subordinate in the Jewish world. Its language suggests that the non-Jewish slave is still seen as an outsider. There are similar statements elsewhere in the Talmud. Additionally, Shabbos 32b and Eurvin 43b both seem to speak of slavery in or near the advent of the Messianic era. Saadia Gaon, in his Emunoth ve-Deoth, also spoke of slavery during this time. Certainly few indications are given to suggest an eventual abolition of slavery.

Another possible problem is that the rabbis place rather severe restrictions on freeing a slave in the event of abuse. Slaves would have been particularly prone to finding themselves in situations where there would have been insufficient qualified witnesses under halakha to punish owners who maimed or murdered them. As I recall, and I may be a little fuzzy on this point, the rabbis further reduced opportunities by ruling that the maiming of a slave had to be intentional (something difficult to ascertain) and the damage had to be total. An eye, tooth or other non-regenerable body part had to be completely destroyed. Much of this appears aimed at protecting the interests of slave owners at the expense of an already vulnerable and dependent caste in Jewish society. The chances of an abused slave prevailing in a beis din without the cooperation of the owner appear minimal.

Finally, few of the many protections and benefits extended to the eved ivrit are formally extended to the eved ken'ani under halakha and this regardless of the slave's behavior. Nor is any such allowance given for a non-Jewish slave whose family may have served Jewish owners for many generations. The best Judaism offers are unenforceable exhortations by rabbis like the Rambam to avoid cruelty in dealing with non-Jewish slaves.

You're probably better informed than I about how all these statements are interpreted in later rabbinical literature. It would be interesting to get your opinion on them. Thank you once more.

Re: Why Chicken Scratch on Stone, Clay, and Pots Matters: A Case Study in Amos and Archeology

Elisheva F — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:33:01 -0000

One might suggest that "hozeh" can point to Aram in another way, by a close reading of the pasuk and by keeping the rest of Tanach in mind. Even without the Zakkur Inscription(which indeed seems to provide support), we already know that "Hazael" is a prominent name of Arameans in high positions(see Sefer Melachim Alef ch. 19, Bet ch.8, 12, 13--around the time of Jeroboam ). When the theophoric element is removed, we have "Haza"--the same root as "hozeh." We do not see this root appearing much, if it all, among Israelite or Judahite names in the Tanach(Ahaziah and Jehoahaz of Samaria and Ahaziah and Ahaz of Judah are questionable examples)--so it is reasonable to connect "hozeh" in Amos to a favoured linguistic phrasing of "prophet" in Aram, and to the Northern Kingdom's connection to Aram.

Re: God, the Multiverse, Stephen Hawking, and You

Flame18 — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 05:05:25 -0000

science does not make philosphy irrelevant. science may be able to explain the world with out using god as an explanation. that says nothing about gods existence. science doesn't deal with abstracts, philosophy does. philosophy deals with abstracts such as scientific method, which science uses but doesn't create, ethics, definitions, free will, mind, belief, time- beyond what science says about it. Also notice that stephan hawking is arguing with philosophers and saying something philosophical. when science does talk about abstracts, it is being philosophical. philosophy is part of and includes every subject that humans think about.

Re: God, the Multiverse, Stephen Hawking, and You

Rafi — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:08:11 -0000

I never claimed to prove anything, and I admit there are ambiguities in the fine-tuning argument. Hawking was my starting point in this article, and Hawking agrees that fine-tuning is "startling" and requires an explanation.

In general, if you want to assume that God doesn't exist, then Kant demonstrated that no speculative proof can show you that He does. But if you assume that He does exist, then the elegance of the laws of physics is an inspiring display of His wisdom. Einstein called it "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man."

Anyway, as R. Berkovits writes in God, Man, and History, in the section I quoted, religion shouldn't care for proofs. Religion is about relationship.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Re: God, the Multiverse, Stephen Hawking, and You

Intelligent Observer — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 02:18:02 -0000

All "proofs" of this sort suffer from the same fundamental weekness. How much fine tuning does it take for a God to exist?

Re: On Bikinis and Earthquakes

micha — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:03:16 -0000

We don't shy away from echoing the religious right when it comes to Pro Choice vs Pro Life -- even though Rav Moshe Feinstein advised to vote Pro Choice! -- or numerous other issues. Much (most?) of the Orthodox community does see itself as part of the Religious Right. So why would it pose a problem on this issue?

WADR I think the article omits the primary reason for this shift in how we discuss theodicy -- the Shoah itself. If we in the post-Shoah era accept the notion that disasters come upon us due to our sins, how do we live with the the statement that implies about that generation?

WRT chazal... yes, we do find them discussing which sins caused the destruction of the first Beis haMiqdash, which led to the loss of the second, what did Nadav and Avihu do to merit their death, what sin causes tzaraas etc... But looking at a meta-level, the gemara repeatedly portrays them as doing so unsucessfully. In none of these cases does the gemara provide a consensus; it always leaves us with a multiplicity of suggestions.

Looking at Qol Dodi Dofeiq, the Rav tells us the Jewish question about the Holocaust is not "Why?" but "How does Hashem ask me to respond?" And we can read these gemaros as addressing that question as well. Not, "Why did Hashem let the Romans destroy the second Beis haMiqdash?" But, "What lessons should we take from the destruction? How can we use it to motivate improvement?" And even there, no one suggestion suffices.

-micha

Re: Does Jewish Tradition Recognize a Spirituality Independent of Halakhah?

EM — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:36:01 -0000

This article is still trapped in the mindset it claim to challenge.
First, the very question refering to "a spirituality outside of halacha" as opposed to, say, outside of "torah," stacks the deck.
More importantly, the author ends up seeing three models of simchah - generated by halachic observance, hedonistic, and oriented towards God - and promoting the third. But this simply reads-in a halachic absolutism (option 1) that is not present in the Gemara itself. The gemara simply has two categories - God-oriented and not. The first category, "shel mitzvah," includes more than halachic observance -as the cited rashi notes, it includes emotional states that are oriented toward connecting with God.
The authors initial assumption that "simchah shel mitzvah" must = "spirituality generated by halachic observance" shows just how pervasive the mindset he is trying to challenge is.

Re: A Guide to Remaining Perplexed

Pierre — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:22:12 -0000

Thank you for your formulation of frequently-overlooked key issues with Rambam's formulation of Judaism. If a similar approach were lent to ALL other attempts to systematize judaism in lieu of Redeemed Israel in a Redeemed land - whether "secular", religious or modern "synthesis" - we would begin to understand THAT we don't understand.

Re: On Bikinis and Earthquakes

RRand — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:17:15 -0000

Conveniently, supercomputers have roughly as much to do with Artificial Intelligence as cheap calculators do. AI is not the study of cramming more transistors onto a given piece of silicon or efficiently connecting such pieces, though doubtless many corporations highly value such study. Definitions of Artificial Intelligence vary but most agree that the field revolves around teaching computers to think or act rationally (in some texts to think or act like humans). If a computer ever passes the Turing Test, or even demonstrates similar rationality, we will have to strongly reconsider any remaining forms of mind-body dualism, because such approaches will obviously be unnecessary. Admittedly, we are a long way from that point (though I have seen some promising signs for the field: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06..., http://www.physorg.com/news157...

I should point out that the sentence you quoted does not directly deal with free will. Truthfully, the cited claim by Maimonides that God directly influences human minds that seems to more directly conflict with such notions (though Maimonides may have had a different conception of free will entirely). Naturally, humanlike machines may cause us to question free will as well, though I should note that computers are certainly subject to quantum mechanics, so by your approach we might argue that they have free will. For myself (as noted in footnote x) I haven’t seen a strong argument for divine providence by means of quantum mechanics and I certainly have no idea how certain probabilities involving particles could lead to humans possessing any form of free will. But feel free to enlighten me.

Re: On Bikinis and Earthquakes

Ariel — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:20:56 -0000

Important discussion of an issue often ignored in modern society. A few issues:

"Moreover, modern science leaves very little room for outside influence, so how can we attribute natural misfortunes to God? "
This is perhaps the accepted position in secular society, but it primarily based on 19th-century determinism. Quantum mechanics provides a possible mechanism whereby G-d controls nature without interfering with any laws.

" However, as the cognitive sciences progress in their understanding of the human brain, I expect that this theory will become harder to maintain – Artificial Intelligence may bury it."
This is a rather casual denial of the fundamental belief in free will! Quantum effects may also help explain consciousness, in fact some say all of existence depends on being observed by a conscience observer. Either way, I do not see what artificial intelligence has to do with anything. Supercomputers are as conscience as as a cheap calculator.

Re: Say “No” to the Philistines: Identity as a Mark of Difference

Chesky Kopel — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:54:51 -0000

I really enjoyed and appreciated this article, and I can really relate to the theme and the conclusion. I also have one question. Regarding the pig bones study, Sarit wrote:
"These figures seem to not only reflect Israel’s adherence to the Bible’s prohibition against eating pig[x] during this period, but also that eating pig became a cultural taboo at this time, not just an arbitrary halakhah, due to the fact that the Philistines specifically ate it in large amounts."

I'm not very familiar with this study or the historical background, but wouldn't it be reasonable to also suggest, with an eye toward the strong Jewish religious tradition, that remarkably few pig bones were found in the Israelite settlement because of the Biblical prohibition, and that the Philistines ate great quantities of pig specifically to distinguish themselves from the Israelites?

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Yschwartz — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:37:23 -0000

Could someone please shed light on the Ivanka Trump geirus? Did Rav Schachter Shlit"a sit on the Bais Din to convert her? If the Rav Shlit"a actually did convert Ivanka Trump, how is that consistent with the halachic position that he formulates in this interview?

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Danny — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:56:02 -0000

Rav Elli, this comment doesn't do you justice. You are fully aware that the acharonim often interpret the Rambam in ways that differ from a convincing "peshat" reading (as in this case). So does that mean we are forbidden to read the Rambam with open eyes?

Are we chasidim of Rav Schachter, forbidden to read the Rambam differently than he does following some of those acharonim?

I've had the opportunity to read that Rambam with world-class talmidei chachamim who agree that the most reasonable "peshat" reading agrees with Rav Uzziel's approach.

Rav Schachter's hubris regarding Rav Druckman is inexcusable.

Chag Sameakh.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Danny — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:47:02 -0000

No Elli. Rav Herzog's position is different than that shared by Rav Ovadia and Rav Amar. Rav Schachter's is similar to the former. Rav Ovadia and Rav Amar are on Rav Druckman's side.

Read Rav Amsalem's "Zera Yisrael" before you write with such certainty about what the Rambam or later poskim say and mean.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Elli Fischer — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:46:17 -0000

Perhaps you should ask Rav Schachter to study the relevant passages in the Rambam with him, and then you can convince him that your reading of the Rambam is better than his.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Elli Fischer — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:43:43 -0000

Rav Druckman is a rosh yeshiva (and politician). Why would you think that he's less constrained than Rav Schachter? Rav Schachter's position is similar to those of Rav Herzog, Rav Ovadia, and Rav Amar - they didn't grasp the complex reality that you apparently do? I'm a dati US oleh, too, but I was a community rabbi in the US and was involved in gerut on several occasions, and I'm glad that Rav Schachter has taken the line that he has. Perhaps he's not the one who "doesn't grasp reality."

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Elli Fischer — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:36:41 -0000

A breath of fresh air. Thanks for posting this.
The degree to which the Rav Uzziel/ Rav Druckman position is being cast as a "mainstream" position in MO/DL circles is strange and frankly problematic.
It's also fascinating that when R. Schechter talks about "universal standards," he does not even relate to issues of curriculum and frumkeit of the dayyanim, rather to the technical process. This is itself an implicit recognition of what the Beit Yosef says about the process, namely, that individual dayyanim have discretion when it comes to evaluating sincerity of commitment and curriculum.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Avi — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:56:47 -0000

Actually the rambam appears to contradict himself in many places, and it takes someone who knows the sources to be able to resolve these apparent contradictions.
Actually the Rambam himself disagrees with your assessment that you are as qualified as Rav Shachter to interpret Rabbinic literature including his. Rav Schachter understands a Rambam at least as well as you - why do you think he quotes acknowledged leaders of the generation?
So sorry, you cannot dismiss Jewish Halachik tradition with a wave of your hand.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Dati US oleh — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:54:36 -0000

In orach hayim issues it is customary in Ashkenazi circles to follow the Mishna Brura. Freuqetly the Aruch Hashulhan will differ in opinion, lekula, from the MB. This is a reflection of the AH's grasp of reality as a community rov. The MB was a talmid chochom, but his concept of community, practice, reality, etc. were not as in tune with gzeirot which could be upheld by the tzibur. In the case of conversion here, there are great social implications for the future of the Jewish people. It is possible that former cheif rabbi Uzziel's psak (as well as Rav Drukman's) are a reflection reality, of course constrained by halacha, that (with all due respect) Rav Schachter does not grasp (as he is self admitedly not a pulpit or community rabbi).

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Danny — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:45:08 -0000

I am frankly horrified that Rav Schachter was viewed as a legitimate "compromise" despite the views he expresses in this interview. I'm particularly disgusted by his comments about Rav Druckman (uvemakom sheyesh hillul hashem ein holkin kavod larav). As anyone who lives in Israel knows, Rav Druckman certainly doesn't need Rav Schachter's blessing. How could Rav Schachter publish such a thing before Yom Kippur?

The RCA has done a tremendous disservice to gerut ever since the Rabbanut escapade. Eventually, God willing, there will be alternatives.

Re: Under the Huppah With a Shikse Goddess: The Performance of Jewish Rituals in Non-Halakhic Situations

hamevaser — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 01:55:10 -0000

ReJew,
You are right that a huppah has more than legal significance, but, then
again, that was the entire point of the article. So I'm not sure which
Orthodox Jews are "struggling" in this context.
- KHM Editor

Re: A Guide to Remaining Perplexed

ari — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:09:04 -0000

Does your last paragraph mean to imply that you do believe in a corporeal G0d?

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Dsher999 — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:56:54 -0000

This is a sad interview because it presents things as so cut and dry when they simply are not. You can quote all the acharonim you like to say that Rambam meant x, y or z but frankly the Rambam wrote his opinion in plain Hebrew and it can be taken at face value. The Rambam was as precise a person as ever walked the earth and if on such weighty matters as this he did not simply say "kabbalas ol mitsvos is me’akkev" then he did not mean to say it. Sorry.

Re: Under the Huppah With a Shikse Goddess: The Performance of Jewish Rituals in Non-Halakhic Situations

rejewvenator — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:45:08 -0000

"Yet, paradoxically, many of today’s intermarrying Jews incorporate important legal elements of kiddushin – elements discussed in the same Talmud tractate as the ban on intermarriage, such as the huppah – into their halakhically inconsecrable wedding ceremonies."

Only Orthodox Jews think of huppah and kiddushin as "important legal elements" of a marriage ceremony. In doing so they ignore that these rituals define a Jewish marriage outside of any halachic context... but then, Orthodox Jews struggle to understand that there exist contexts aside from halacha.

Re: An Interview with Rabbi Dr. Moshe D. Tendler

hamevaser — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:53:51 -0000