R’Schiller On The Beauty of Existence

Posted on May 31, 2007 | Leave a comment

I am a big fan of the works of R’Mayer Schiller. He is a thoughtful, insightful and intriguing individual with an “unorthodox” world view. I want to quote again from his essay “Torah Umadda and The Jewish Observer Critique’ Towards a Clarification of the Issues".

The issue being dealt with is one of immense complexity and really in my opinion, is at the forefront of the “ideological debates” in the world of Orthodoxy. In short, the question is, what does G-d have to say about our mundane, human existence outside the world of Mitzvot?

In this excerpt, Rabbi Schiller accuses the critics of Rabbi Lamm essentially of Cognitive dissonance, for on the one hand they perpetuate an ideology that exclusively values Talmud Torah as the “be all and end all”, yet simultaneously, although guiltily, see value in other dimensions of human existence whether it be art, wisdom, poetry, beauty, sport, culture, etc. To paraphrase R’David Berger in one of his shiurim, these are the Jews who are “proud of their secular education, but against it” or as R’Schiller would say Jews who “resolutely refuse to draw any theoretical conclusions from their musings”.

I highly recommend that people read the whole article, however the following I think poignantly gets straight to the point:

They feel a positive attitude towards “wisdom’, art and other forms of human achievement, yet, their world view is helpless when it comes to explain the significance of these phenomena. What in their opinion, is God’s response to one who explores the intricacies of biology or chemistry? To Jonas Salk? Or to Beethoven? What is the achievement of Edmund Hilary in God’s eyes? Or Stan Musial? What was the value of Hemingways ‘old man” and his struggle bring home the “fish”?

I have often sat with Hasidim who have declared that a “frummer doctor is a Kiddush Hashem”, but will resolutely refuse to draw any theoretical conclusions from their musings. Indeed, isn’t it standard practice in the “Torah only” world, at fund raising events, to honor those with advanced academic degree and praise their accomplishments? Recently I sat with a prominent mitnagdic Rosh Yeshiva who waxed rhapsodic over Ebbets Field, Happy Felton’s Knothole Gang, “Campy” and “Pee Wee” and, yet felt obligated to declare those wondrous memories of his youth “shtusim”[26]. The gap between a mathematical theory of good and evil and the reality of the boundry of God’s creation is difficult to overcome

[26] Another mitnagdic Rosh Kollel told me that a trip to Niagra Falls would be “bittul Torah”. However, when reminded of the Abbot and Costello routine of “Niagra Falls”, he laughed so hard he could barely catch his breath. I asked him what he thought God felt about the joy he experienced at that moment and he was at a loss to answer.

Leave a comment

Posted in Wisdom, Poetry and Musings

Chief Rabbi Sacks: Dignity of Difference

Posted on May 24, 2007 | Leave a comment

While browsing the Lookjed forum, I came across an amazing
reference, posted by R’Gil Student. It is a massive collection of sources in
short book form by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on Judaism’s positive view of other
religions and nations. Fascinating stuff, it can be found here. Enjoy!


Its introduction begins with a quote from Rav Kook, from his sefer “Orot Hakodesh”, truly beautiful and insightful:

When the knowledge of G-d is suffused by a great love, when it is pervaded by its true illumination, according to the capacity of each soul to receive it, there radiates from its absolute light a love for the world, for all worlds, for all creatures, on all levels of their being . . . When these love-possessed people see the world, especially living creatures full of quarrels, hatred, persecutions and conflicts, they yearn with all their being to share in those aspirations that move life toward comprehensiveness and unity, peace and tranquillity. They feel and know that the nearness of G-d, for which they yearn, can only lead them to joining themselves with all and for the sake of all. When they confront the human scene, and find divisions among nations, religions, parties, with goals in conflict, they endeavour with all their might to bring all together, to mend and to unite . . . They want that every particular shall be preserved and developed, and that the collective whole shall be united and abounding in peace. (R. Abraham Isaac Kook, Orot haKodesh, II: 442-43)

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

The Missing Years In Jewish Chronology

Posted on May 20, 2007 | Leave a comment

I have always been fascinated by the “missing years” in Jewish chronology and it is something that I really want to explore in more depth in later posts. For a bit of a background to this issue, see this Wikipedia article

I have addressed the issue once before in this post, which includes R’Biberfeld’s solution to the problem. R’Biberfeld preposal can be found in his scholarly polemic “Universal Jewish History” which is available online in its entirety here. It is a very interesting book, which although dated, does contain some fascinating ideas and sources.

A rather new approach which has recently appeared can be found in the 3rd volume of the Hakira Journal. The article entitled “A Y2K solution to the Chronology Problem” is available for download here. I will hopefully analyze this solution in a later post.

What I really want to post up is a fascinating piece by R’ Saadia Gaon in his Emunot v’Deot relating to this issue. It can be found in Chapter 9 of the "Treatise of Redemption" (pg 322 of the Yale English Edition). R’Saadia Gaon in his critique of the Christian interpretation of some passages in Daniel, makes the claim that the Christians intentionally altered the calendar so that the dates of their view of redemption would coincide with their understanding of scripture. R’Saadia Gaon makes the accusation that they intentionally added dynasties to their list of kings to achieve this effect (the opposite of the views championed by the article in Hakira and R’Shimon Shwab). Here is the quote in full:

However the clearest [refutation of all lies in the fact that from the time when this revelation was made to Daniel until the date which they believe [to have been the time of the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the redemption], only 285 years had elapsed. Now the total sum [mentioned in the book of Daniel] is 490 years. Of this number of year 70 were taken up by the period preceding the building of the second temple, and 420 by that of its existence.

I have found, then, that the advocates [of the Christian doctrine] had no other means [of supporting their theory] except the contention that an addition is to be made in the chronological calculation. They maintain, namely, that the government of the Persian over Palestine existed for a period of something like 300 years before that of the Greeks and that the number of their kings during this period was seventeen. However, I have refuted this contention on their part from the text of the book of Daniel itself, [pointing out] that it was impossible that between the time of the government of Babylon and that of the Greeks more than four Persian kings should have rules over Palestine. For the angle said to Daniel, peace be upon him: And as for me, in the first years of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him. And now, I will declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up against the real of Greece (Daniel 11:1,2). The above statement has thus been explained from every aspect.

These are, then, the arguments that may be offered in refutation of the doctrine of the Christians aside from the objections to be raised against their theory of the suspension of the laws of the Torah and those that might be urged against them on the subject of the Unity of God, and other matters, which cannot properly be presented in this book.

The eight treatise has hereby been completed.

Leave a comment

Posted in History

R’Moshe Feinstein On Honest Dealings With Government

Posted on May 12, 2007 | Leave a comment
Concerning the matters of kindness that our government in the United States of America, (that G-d has, in His great kindness toward the survivors of European Jewry and the survivors among the Torah giants and their students, brought us here, and we founded Torah institutions, established ones from Europe, and also new ones,) which through the "Kingdom of kindness”, whose entire purpose is to benefit all its citizens, has made available many programs to help students in all the schools in the country, so that they can learn and grow in their studies, and also Torah institutions receive substantial assistance for their students; certainly all the Roshei Yeshivot and their principals, and the students, appreciate all the benevolence of the government, and bless the welfare of the Nation and all who stand at its leadership with all blessings.
 
And even though there is no suspicion on the Roshei Yeshivot and the principals, who are too fearing of Heaven to violate prohibitions of theft, and of speaking falsehood and untruth and deception, and violation of the law of the land with any type of leniency, for they know of the severity of the prohibitions and the terrible punishments from Heaven, and it is against the whole purpose of the foundation of the yeshivot and the study there, which is for the students to be truly G-d-fearing and to beware of monetary prohibitions in the extreme; even so, it is appropriate to be raise the issue in order to draw attention also to the donors, who bring donations to support the Torah, that they should not cause theft, or a loss of money to the government, not in accordance with the laws of the Torah and the laws of the government, that they should not stumble even unintentionally in these great transgressions. And to all who are very careful, great blessing should come to them, and they should succeed in their Torah institutions, to have many G-d-fearing students; which is a great blessing to the Nation as well, as it is well-known to all that the Yeshiva students are, thank G-d, the most distinguished citizens in their personal traits and good behavior.


(Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat, II, 29 The translation here is slightly abridged and adapted)

Extract is from "Tzedakah and Tzedek" By R’Daniel Feldman

Leave a comment

Posted in Torah

Interesting critique of contemporary culture

Posted on May 8, 2007 | Leave a comment

See the article here

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Interesting Tid Bits

Posted on April 29, 2007 | Leave a comment

Rather interesting on the recreation of Noah’s ark, see the article here.
The song of the sun, science confirms the sun’s praise to G-d, see here.

If you have any links that you feel others would enjoy reading about, leave a comment and I’ll post it in here.


Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

R’Schiller On Corrupt Culture

Posted on April 28, 2007 | Leave a comment

In a highly thoughtful article entitled “Torah Umadda and the Jewish Observer Critique: Towards a clarification of the Issues”, Rabbi Mayer Schiller has a fascinating observation regarding the perverse aspects of contemporary media and culture. His sentiments are often articulated most vocally on R’Harry Maryles blog, with the point being that basically not every activity that is pursued by the “Modern Orthodox” can be considered within the rubric of the Torah Umadda philosophy. Blatant attempts to include the hedonistic aspects of culture into a Torah way of life are inexcusable and furthermore, tarnish the true objectives of the Torah U Madda endeavor. I’ll let Rabbi Shiller’s comments speak from themselves;

“On a personal note, it has been my experience, having taught Talmud in Modern Orthodox high schools for twenty years, that those few who do abandon the faith do so not because of their exposure to secular disciplines, but because they found a hedonist lifestyle more pleasant. As noted earlier, this is the great crisis which confronts Modern Orthodoxy and all segments of Orthodoxy today – hedonism, not ideology. It is the cheap attachment to popular culture which threatens, not that of knowledge and beauty in the larger sense. My students did not abandon Judaism because they studied history or literature with too much passion, rather, they left because they were tempted by images presented to them on television, movies and popular music. If a cautionary note should be sounded, it is that Modern Orthodox leaders are far too silent about this real threat to the souls of their constituents. It would require honesty and courage on their part to demand of their followers abstention from the vile (but today totally accepted) manifestations of popular culture. No, it is not necessary to throw out our volumes of classical poetry or great music, it is merely necessary to smash the television and shatter juniors CD collection.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Wisdom, Poetry and Musings

R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg On Faith

Posted on April 21, 2007 | Leave a comment

I am currently reading Marc Shapiro’s fascinating biography of Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the Seridei Eish (Buy it here). An fascinating piece is Shapiro’s elucidation of R’Weinbergs view of belief. It is also interesting to note the similarities between R’ Weinbergs view and that of G. K. Chesterton, the famed English writer. Below is an extract from pages 74 – 75.

Believing that modern Hebrew literature was too important and influential for Orthodox thinkers to ignore, Weinberg began to write a series of essay on in, though only two installments actually appeared. Weinbergs essay on Micha Joef Berdyczewski (1865 – 1921) includes a number of fascinating points which, unfortunately, were never fully developed. All that is left are a few glimpses of what could have been some very refreshing thoughts on the nature of faith in the modern world.

The figure of Berdyczewski was bound to be fascinating to the Orthodox, for this wrings include, at one and the same time, the most strident opposition to tradition as well as an apparent pride in it. Not surprisingly, this characteristic has often been discussed in scholarly studies of the author. As Weinberg put it, the key to Berdyczewski is his ‘Jewish Heresy’. Weinberg believed that this heresy arose from the same source as the holy, and was actually the result of deep spiritual longing. Furthermore, just as distinction must be made between the base heresy of the masses and the profound heresy of thinkers such as Berdyczewski, Weinberg argued that the same is true with regard to the opposite pole to heresy, namely belief. In his mind, belief which is characterized by calm and fulfillment is actually a sign of inner emptiness and lack of thought. A man with such feelings is a believer only because he does not have the strength to deny, and such ‘belief’ or rather lack of denial, can never be the source of creativity. True belief, which is both religious and creative, is also stormy and turbulent and has nothing in common with passive fulfillment.

The way Weinberg expressed himself on these latter points bears such similarity to the ideas of G.K Chesterton that one must wonder whether Weinberg had read the latter’s Orthodoxy, which had appeared in German translation in 1909. For example, in the following famous passage we find Chesterton making the same point as Weinberg, in his own inimitable style:

People have fallen into a foolish habit speaking of Orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and swat that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statutory and the accuracy of arithmetic… It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands.


Leave a comment

Posted in Faith

The View Of The Chazon Ish On Rav Kook: Another Perspective

Posted on April 21, 2007 | 1 comment

It is taken as a fact that the Chazon Ish was highly critical of Rav Kook, going so far as to declare him a heretic with no share in the World to Come. Marc Shapiro, in his essay "Of Books and Bans" has a footnote (14) regarding this topic that presents textual and eye witness accounts that dispel this notion. This is not to say that the Chazon Ish did not disagree with Rav Kook on many issues, I am certain that he did. However, it appears that these disagreements took place within the realm of civility and respect that is due a Torah scholar.

I take issue with what Rapoport writes on p. 92, that when R. Kook passed away, R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, the Hazon Ish, declared that he would have no portion in the World to Come. The source for this is Aharon Rosenberg, Mishkenot ha-Ro’im (New York, 1997), vol. 3, pp. 1120-1121, who cites a well-known London anti-Zionist. This is hardly an unimpeachable reference. (This same source also claims that the Hazon Ish insisted that R. Ben Zion Uziel’s Mishpetei Uziel be left on the floor, since it is muktseh mei-hamat mi’us. See ibid., p. 1198; Elyakim Schlesinger’s haskamah to Aharon Rosenberg, Torat Emet [Monsey, 1992]). The truth is that while the Hazon Ish asserted that R. Kook’s philosophical works should not be read, he saw nothing objectionable about his halakhic writings and certainly did not regard as R. Kook as a heretic. See Shelomo Kohen, Pe’er ha-Dor (Jerusalem, 1969), vol. 2, p. 34.  Indeed, one of the first things the Hazon Ish did when he arrived in the Land of Israel was to write R. Kook a letter, asking him to decide a halakhic problem he was confronted with. See R. Ben Zion Shapiro, ed., Iggerot ha-Reiyah (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 448-449. Furthermore, it is known that when R. Kook came to deliver a talk in Benei Berak, the Hazon Ish remained standing throughout the former’s address. See Kohen, Pe’er ha-Dor, vol. 2, p. 32; R. Mosheh Zvi Neriyah, Bi-Sedeh ha-Reiyah (Kefar ha-Ro’eh, 1987), p. 247. Even with regard to R. Kook’s philosophical writings, the Hazon Ish sometimes expressed a more positive view, depending on whom he was speaking to. See Binyamin Efrati, "Shenei Bikurim Etsel ha-Hazon Ish ZT"L," Morashah 6 (1974): 62-63.

1 Comment

Posted in Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook

R’ Eliezer Berkotvits’ Critique Of Mysticism

Posted on April 11, 2007 | Leave a comment

In a world enamored with mysticism, it is always of interest to read an alternative view point. R’ Eliezer Berkovitz in “God, Man and History” elucidates his world view of Judaism, clarifying and extrapolating upon his understanding of the “Encounter” between man and God. The following is an extract from Pg 40 of that book where R’Berkovitz offers his critique of the mystical approach to religion, for in his opinion, it is this approach that is in reality antithetical to the world view of religious man.

The encounter should not be confused with mystical communion. The mystics goal is the surrender of personal existence. His desire is to merge himself in the One, to pour himself into God, to be drawn into the All. The mystic finds his fulfillment in the extinction of his dignity through being consumed by the Absolute. For him individuality is a burden and a shame. Only the One or the All is real, and every form of separateness from it is an unworthy shadow existence. In the encounter, on the other hand, the original separateness is affirmed; in fact, it is granted the highest dignity by being sustained by God. The encounter may occur because the individual personality is safeguarded. Where there is encounter, there is fellowship; and fellowship is the very opposite of the mystical surrender of man’s identity in an act of communion. Judaism is essentially non-mystical because it is religion. The mystical communion is the end of all relationship and, therefore, also the end of all religion.

Judaism is essentially non-mystical because, according to it, God addresses himself to man, and he awaits man’s response to the address. God speaks and man listens; and God commands and man obeys. Man searches, and God allows himself to be found; man entreats, and God answers. In the mystical union, however, there are no words and no law, no search and no recognition, because there is no separateness. Judaism does not admit the idea that man may rise “beyond good and evil,” as it were, by drowning himself in the Godhead.

There is a natural affinity between mysticism and pantheism. All mysticism tends toward pantheism. Once the mystical union is completed, there is nothing left but the Absolute, in which all is contained. The appropriate worldview of the mystic is pantheism. It is his justification for devaluing individual existence, as well as for attempting to redeem it through return into the All. On the other hand, mysticism is only available “religion” for the pantheist. His worship of the Absolute demands the denial of his own separateness from it. Thus, we are led to the Spinozistic amor dei; since nothing exists apart from the infinite, man’s love for God “is the very love of God with which God loves himself.” One is inclined to agree with those who see in this the monstrous example of absolute self-love. The truth, of course, is that where there is no separateness, there is no love either. Where there is no encounter, there can be no care or concern. The mystic endeavors to overcome all separateness; the pantheist denies it from the very beginning. Judaism, on the other hand, through its concept of the encounter, affirms the reality as well as the worth of the individual existence. Judaism is not only non-mystical, it also essentially anti-pantheistic.


 

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized