A History Lesson for MK Dr. Zahalka

Read 'em and weep Zahalka.

MK Zakhalka Tells the Truth...

Gittin, Qiddushin and Inter-faith Dialogue

With everything else that's been going on recently, the Jewish blogosphere has been burning up with the question: What are the proper parameters for Orthodox involvement in Inter-faith dialogue, and what degree of theological flexibility do those involved in such activity have?

The issue is extremely thorny, and a blog posting is not the place to responsibly discuss so important an issue. Certain salient points, though, are appropriate in this context.

1) The best point of departure remains Rabbi Soloveitchik's essay, Confrontation, (and see the important observations of Rabbi Professor David Berger, here). The leitmotif of that essay was the absolute need to respect the inviolate nature of the faith commitment of one's Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist interlocutor. In other words, it is both disrespectful (and futile) to engage a believer on the central issues of their faith. Thus, to argue that Jesus was simply a Pharasaic fellow traveller, or that Jerusalem had little or no religious significance for Muslims until after the First Crusade, is to simply indulge in a dialogue of the deaf (at best). Jews might believe either or both to be true. That is irrelevant, and such discussions should best be kept off of the agenda.

2) There are broad swaths of thought and action where members of different faith committments can find common ground. The struggle against neo-paganism (aka secular humanism) comes to mind. Even political issues can be put on the agenda, without venturing into core issues that divide us. For example, Evangelical Christians and Jews share a non-allegorical approach to the Prophetic promises regarding Israel's return to its ancestral homeland, and the role of that return in improving the moral standing of mankind. Where there is a clear common language, where the innermost truths of a faith community are not in play, there is a place for mutually respectful conversation.

3) Most importantly, such encounters are no place for tyros. In line with Judah Ibn Tibbon's rules for proper translation, one who is involved must have total mastery of his own tradition and extensive expertise in that of his interlocuter's tradition. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

Hazal taught that anyone who is unfamiliar with the nature of Gittin and Qiddushin should not involve himself therewith (Gittin 5b). The same is definitely true when representing Judaism in an encounter with outher religions.

Italia Judaica: Fresh Opportunities

Over the next three days, Tel Aviv and Bar Ilan Universities will celebrate fifty years of the Italia Judaica Project. The program looks very interesting, and I am looking forward to meeting colleagues who I know only by name. Participating in this conference has special meaning for me, as well. It marks, together with the incredibly wonderful time I had teaching at Revel last Summer, my return to intensive involvement in Italian Jewish History.

When I started my doctorate, there was a fundamental imbalance in Italo-Jewish studies (as in Jewish Studies, generally). Tremendous energies had been invested in political and economic history and in the study of philosophy, mysticism, dance, music, inter-faith-relations, poetry, hunting, art and historiography. Practically no effort was invested in studying the texture of Jewish religious life (except to show that Italian Jews were more open-minded and less religious than Ashkenazim. Of course, we know where that line of thought led.) A fortiori, little (if any) attention was focused on Halakhah (or real rabbinic literature).

At the time, there were signs that this situation would be ameliorated. Reuven Bonfil had just published his path-breaking study, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy
(which was preceded and followed by a series of equally important contributions to this aspect of Renaissance Italian Jewish life). For the first time, a first-rate historian had respectfully presented the bulwark of Jewish Life and Survival: Jewish Law and Observance. At the same time, Ya'aqov Boksenboim was busy publishing important collections of rabbinic responsa from manuscripts (here, here, and here). It looked like the aforenoted imbalance might be rectified. It was partly for that reason that I undertook my own work on Mahariq.

Looking over the program for this week's conference, I am sad to see that my optimism was misplaced. Of all the speakers, I am the only one to devote himself to a rabbinic figure (R. Azriel Diena). This is not only a distortion, it's also a tragedy. The Kaufman manuscript collection in Budapest, one of the most important collections of Italian Halakhah, is disintegrating as I write this, and no one thinks it's important to publish and analyze that material (except, evidently, me). עת לעשות לה (as it were). That's the message that I hope to convey on Tuesday.

Absolutely awesome!!!!

Birds on the Wires from Jarbas Agnelli on Vimeo.

Of the Rav, Rav Schachter and Mishpaha

I was genuinely excited to see that ורבי מורי R. Herschel Schachter שליט"א was featured on the cover of the English edition of Mishpaha magazine (I was a member of Rav Schachter's Kollel from 1979-1982).

Of course, Rav Schachter deserves the recognition, in his own right. More to the point, the extensive interview furthers the process whereby the writings of מו"ר רש"י Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל openly penetrate the Yeshiva and Hassidic communities. [I say 'openly' because everyone knows that אגרות הגרי"ד , שיעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל and the various collections of שיעורים are purchased by 'Black hat' Yeshivah students, teachers and others.] It caps the process that Rav Schachter began with his two anthologies, נפש הרב and פניני הרב.

The interview was, largely, a pleasure to read. I was especially appreciative of the fact that Rav Schachter admitted that he has a very specific 'take' on our Rebbe, which differs from that of others (e.g. Rabbi Professor Haym Soloveitchik, the Rav's son, whom he quotes in the interview, to that effect). His presentation lent an important element of balance to the picture of the Rav as being primarily a philosopher.

There were, albeit, some very jarring moments.

Rav Schachter cites David Holzer's highly problematic collection of the Rav's private table talk, Thinking Aloud, to the effect that Religious Zionism had replaced the Torah with Zionism. This citation was particularly troublesome by the way it was manipulated by the interviewer. Now, I have no doubt that the Rav might have been troubled by the priorities of certain elements within Religious Zionism, especially by the Rav Kook school. He certainly might well have expressed that criticism sharply. However, the way the quote was used left the impression that Rav Soloveitchik distanced himself from Religious Zionism. This is simply not true. I was sorry that this was cited by Rav Schachter, who is himself a devoted Religious Zionist and a very outspoken lover of Eretz Yisrael.

The interview closes with Rav Schachter's observation that the Rav urged people to study for graduate degrees in order to make a living. He suggests that had he been aware of the effloresence of the Kollelim, he would not have been so emphatic about the need for graduate study. Others, myself included, differ with him on this point.

Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל needs no one's validation. He was recognized in his lifetime by the greatest of his colleagues (R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Aaron Kotler, R. Shneur Kotler, R. Shmuel Rozovsky, R. Avraham Cahaneman and others זצ"ל) as 'the greatest Rosh Yeshiva in the world.' However, that message was hidden from the masses, and Rav Schachter has done a tremendous service, a huge Qiddush HaShem, to our rebbe and our Yeshiva by disseminating his Torah near and far.

[UPDATE: ברוך שכיוונתי. Rabbi Harry Maryles comes to similar conclusions, and puts things into perspective, here.]

Hareidi Internet Meltdown

I'm not really sure what to make of the apparent success of Hareidi rabbis and Rashe Yeshiva in closing down a number of prominent websites that catered to their communities. On the one hand, I understand wanting to keep the salacious and undersireable elements of the internet out of the community. On the other hand, doing so is a truly Sisyphean task. Do these rabbis really think that by driving these portals out of business, they will keep people from the net? On the contrary, these 'safe' portals served a valuable function in providing information without blind links to undesireable sites.

I suspect that there is a deeper motive here. These websites provided Haredim with a place to vent; to express themselves on issues of moment, and often in contrast to the official organs of their community. In other words, this is a bald attempt to shut down dissent.

It won't work. It can't work. It might, however, return to haunt and undermine the authority of those who enacted it.

On Insubordination, the Freeze and Ehud Barak

There is really no limit to the cynicism, the megalomaniacal arrogance, of Ehud Barak. He led the Labor Party to disaster in the last elections. His position as party leader is under constant (justified, IMHO) criticism for incompetence. He was roundly censured by the State Comptroller for spending tens of thousands of dollars for luxury expenses on a trip to Paris. He was recently condemned for employing an illegal foreign worker.

How does Barak fight back? By smashing the Settlers and the Religious Zionist community.

First, he ran roughshod over the government's decision to suspend only new housing starts in Judea and Samaria. Instead, he revoked the right of local councils to issue ANY building permits. He did so to show how tough a Leftist he is, reining in those brutal settlers (present company included). [See Menahem Benn's comments.]

Next, he went looking for a Hesder Yeshivah to beat up on. He found one, Har Berakhah. The Rosh Yeshivah there is a member of the Hardali Right, who has supported army insubordination in the face of orders to evacuate settlements. However, he's a very small fish. The whole yeshivah has thirty or so students. Barak, however, decided to make this a cause celebre, in order to win points with the Leftists. According to today's papers, he's running headlong in to the total disbanding of the Hesder Yeshivot, which supply a high degree of the officer corps, have soldiers who've been decorated for bravery above and beyond their percentage in the population, and whose motivation and devotion to duty far outstrips anything the Labor Party supporters can muster. (After all, a very large percentage of the leaders of the Israeli Left, left [the country, that is]).

Now, I absolutely oppose refusal to obey orders that are not idefensibly illegal or immoral. However, Barak's nefarious, cynical attacks on the religious zionist community will only hurt the army, and the country. OTOH, what does Barak care, as long as he gets to be Defense Minister?