Friday, March 23, 2007
Rabbi Zev Farber, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah and the Orthodox Community
A letter from R. Michael J. Broyde on this subject: link
Friday, March 9, 2007
A Letter from R. Zev Farber
Maligning a Rabbi – Did Yated Ne’eman Get it Right?
An Open Letter to the Yated Ne’eman
Dear Editor: in this piece, I respond to the recent attack on my person written by Yisroel Lichter and published in Yated Ne’eman, February 2007. It is well known that Mr. Lichter’s article also attacked my Yeshiva, and my Rebbeim and colleagues. Although they have taken the path of ha-ne’elavim v'einam olvim (those who are insulted but do not insult in return), for my part, I feel the need to express the truth for its own sake.
The attack reads: “Rabbi Zev Farber… in an article that YCT was not ashamed to publish on its own website… has the audacity to write outright kefirah in the interpretation of Chazal in the Gemora.(sic) In an article which he brazenly titles: ‘Choosing a Wife – Did Yaakov get it right?’ We do not want to sully the pages of the Yated with Rabbi Farber’s outrageous critique of Yaakov Avinu. Suffice it to say that it is an unforgivable bizayon of the Avos Hakedoshim and Imahos Hakedoshos and the height of Chutzpah, stupidity and ignorance that goes against everything that Chazal have taught us about them… Are there any minimum standards of Emunah in Divrei Chazal on how to learn and understand the incidents mentioned in the Torah?”
To best understand my rebuttal, one should read my article in its entirety, available at http://www.yctorah.org/content/view/176/56/.
I would first like to point out that the ideas in my article, which are based on an approach found in classical meforshim as I will demonstrate below, was written for a particular audience. The article was meant for members of Modern Orthodox congregations and was intended to articulate the ideas of these meforshim, as well as some of my own ideas, in modern paraphrase. As in any article of this kind, a degree of poetic license is legitimate, though I admit that a few statements could have been phrased less provocatively. The title was chosen specifically to catch the eye. In retrospect, I probably should have been less flashy in my presentation.
Mr. Lichter’s thesis is that it is essentially wrong to assess the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in a critical way, and by doing so, I have denied the basic understanding of the Torah and its heroes offered by Chazal. Is this true?
A. Firstly, there is a strong basis in Chazal for critiquing the Avot; Yaakov and Rachel in particular.
In Genesis Rabba (72) it states: “Rabbi Shimon taught: “Because [Rachel] disparaged the righteous man (Yaakov) she cannot be buried with him. This is what it means when it says: ‘Therefore, he will lie with you tonight’, he will lie with you (forever); he will not lie with me.’ … Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman said: “Leah lost the mandrakes and gained tribes and burial, Rachel gained the mandrakes but lost tribes and burial.” This passage seems to be a substantial criticism of Rachel’s priorities in comparison with Leah’s.
Also, in Midrash Sekhel Tov (Gen. 42”12), in reference to the finding of Yosef’s cup in Benyamin’s bag: “‘And they found the goblet in Benyamin’s sack’ – Once the goblet was found in his sack, [his brothers] began to mock him. They said: ‘Thief son of a thief! Thus your mother humiliated our father with the Terafim!’”
Or, again in Genesis Rabba (Theodor-Albeck 74): “Why did Rachel die first? Rabbi Yehuda says it is because she spoke before her sister.”
So too this passage from Yalqut Mayan Ganim (quoted in Torah Shleima, Gen. 30”1): “Why was Rachel punished with death on the way? Because she compared a creation to its creator (by asking Yaakov for a child).”
In Tractate Shabbat (10b) the Talmud learns from Yaakov how not to parent: “Rava bar Mahsia said in the name of Rav Hama bar Guria in the name of Rav: ‘One should never make one child stand out from the others by your treatment of him, for because of two shekels worth of fine wool which Yaakov gave Yosef beyond his brothers, his brothers became jealous of him, and it all ended with our forefathers going down to Egypt.’”
This passage from Genesis Rabba (Theodor-Albeck 71) offers a serious critique of Yaakov: “…as it says ‘Yaakov got angry’. God said to him: ‘Is this the way one responds to downtrodden women?! By your life, your sons will stand before hers!’” (Also see Midrash Tanhuma, Va-Yeitzei 19, for a similar reading.)
Midrash Tanhuma (Buber, siman 11) actually has Leah criticizing Yaakov: “The whole night [after the wedding] Leah acted as if she were Rachel. When he got up in the morning, and he saw that it was Leah, he said to her: ‘Daughter of a liar! Why did you deceive me?!’ She said to him: ‘And why did you deceive your own father? When he said to you: “Are you my son Esau?” You said to him: “I am Esau your first born son.” And you ask “Why did you deceive me?” Did your father not say (to Esau): “Your brother came with deception”?’ From these words of rebuke with which she scolded him he began to hate her.”
I think that the above more than adequately demonstrates that there is, in fact, a basis in Chazal for the general orientation of my article.
B. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, even if I had had no basis in Chazal, it would still not have been a heresy. The question of whether one is bound to interpret a story in the Torah – as opposed to a mitzvah or halakha - the way Chazal do, is an old question. The consensus amongst the Geonim, backed up by many Rishonim and Aharonim, is to unequivocally permit it.
For example, in Rav Shmu’el ha-Naggid’s introduction to the Talmud (under the term “aggada”), he says: “Anything which [Chazal] offered as interpretations of verses, each person offered what happened to occur to him and what made sense to him. Therefore, whatever makes sense (to you) from these interpretations you should accept, and the rest should not be taken into account.” A similar statement can be found in the Sefer ha-Eshkol (Albeck, Laws of the Sefer Torah pgs. 157-8) in the names of Rav Sherira and Rav Hai. This is also discussed by Ibn Ezra, in his introduction to the Torah (part 5), and by Rashbam, in his opening comments on Genesis and Parshat Mishpatim.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman, in the introduction to his commentary on Va-Yikra (pg. 6), quotes Rav Shmu’el ha-Naggid, and states: “The sayings, stories, wisdom and exhortations of our sages, collectively referred to as Aggada, whose point is to convey a moral or an explanation of a scriptural passage which contains no law – one cannot claim that they were given at Sinai, and we are not at all obliged to accept them.” Rabbi Leo Jung, in his book Fallen Angels (pg. 4) states in reference to Aggada: “They have no authority; they form no part of Jewish religious belief.”
Though this last is, perhaps, an overstatement, it should be clear at this point, that even if I were wrong about my interpretation it would still not have been kefirah. People are entitled to make mistakes in this area without being categorized as heretics.
C. Thirdly, anyone who has studied Chumash seriously knows that openness to critiquing its heroes is a well accepted and documented practice amongst the meforshim. For example, the Ralbag (Va-Yeitzei, To’elet 22) on our very topic states: “It is worthy to remove ourselves far from the trait of jealousy, for this is a very base trait. One can see that since Rachel only desired children due to jealousy of her sister, it happened that she did not attain her desire except through exceptional hardship, which brought about her death from childbirth.”
A classic example of this type of analysis is found in the Ramban, in his commentary on the story of Avraham and Sarah going to Egypt (Genesis 12”10): “And you should know that Avraham Avinu committed a grave sin, albeit unwittingly, by bringing his righteous wife into a situation of potential iniquity, because he was afraid lest the [Egyptians] kill him. He should have trusted in God to save him and his wife…”
Rav Hirsh, commenting on this same story (Gen. 12”10-13), sums up this position beautifully: “The Torah does not attempt to hide from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men, and precisely thereby it places the stamp of credibility upon the happenings it relates. The fact that we are told about their faults and weaknesses does not detract from our great men; indeed, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they all been portrayed to us as models of perfection we would have believed that they had been endowed with a higher nature not given to us to attain. Had they been presented to us free of human passions and inner conflicts, their nature would seem to us merely the result of a loftier predisposition, not a product of their personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate… Hence let us learn from our great teachers of Torah – among whom Nahmanides is certainly one of the most outstanding – that we must never attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of the past. They are not in need of our apologetics, nor would they tolerate such attempts on our part. Truth is the seal of our Word of God, and truthfulness is the distinctive characteristic also of all its genuine great teachers and commentators.”
This is echoed in his comment on Gen. 25”27: “In no place were our Rabbis reticent in revealing to us the weaknesses and mistakes, big and small, of the actions of our great forefathers. Specifically, through this method, they extend the Torah and strengthen its message throughout the generations.”
Rabbi Hirsch clearly conveys the message that critique of the patriarchs and matriarchs is not the privileged prerogative of Chazal but is an approach that we should – as indeed he did – adopt in parshanut ha-mikra.
Additional examples evaluating the Avot and Imahot critically are:
Rashbam on Gen. 22”1 and 32”23,
Bekhor Shor on Gen. 17”19 and Gen. 16”5,
Hezkuni on the latter,
Radak (ibid),
Ramban on Gen. 16”6,
Abarbanel on Gen. 27 (page 307 in the standard edition),
Tzror ha-Mor on Gen. 15”2, 15”9, 17”17 and 35”1.
Kli Yakkar on Gen. 37”1&2,
Netziv (Gen. 29”30-31),
Torat Moshe (of the Hatam Sofer) on Gen. 29”18/30,
From the above quotes and references it should be clear, again, that it was not only Chazal who would assess the Avot and Imahot critically, but Rishonim and even Acharonim would do so. One must surmise that these meforshim were clearly teaching us a lesson on how we ought to approach the biblical narratives and heroes.
D. Finally, is there a basis in the meforshim for my interpretation in specific?
We are all aware of the Midrashic interpretation summarized by Rashi; that Leah was destined for Esau, and, therefore, Yaakov chose to marry Rachel. However, this is not the only understanding of the story.
The Ralbag (Va-Yeitzei, To’elet 10) says: “…it is fitting for a man to choose a woman without blemish, for the children he will have with her will be healthier and more intact. This is why Yaakov did not choose Leah, as her eyes were watery, which is an illness. He chose Rachel for she was lovely of form and lovely of appearance, which would be a way of keeping his desires in check, so that he would not think about other women.”
The Radak (Gen. 29”18) takes up the possible objection that Yaakov was too righteous to think this way: “One can ask: since righteous men want to marry in order to have children, why would they look for a beautiful woman, if their intention was not in order to satisfy their desires? Nevertheless, Yaakov chose Rachel because she was very beautiful… A possible explanation is that the intention was for good, because a beautiful woman stimulates desire, and in order to have as many children as possible [the righteous men] wanted to stimulate their desires…”
Rav Yosef ibn Kaspi (Matzref la-Kesef, Gen. 29”17) writes: ““‘Leah’s eyes were soft, but Rachel was [lovely of figure and lovely of appearance]’ – this [preceding verse] introduces the reason for [the verse] following it; ‘Yaakov loved Rachel’, and everything that follows regarding Leah and Rachel… What is greatly surprising to us and to any pious person is this: How could Yaakov Avinu choose beautiful maidens?!” Ibn Kaspi is criticizing Yaakov here, for using appearances as his main criterion for choosing his wife.
The Zohar (Margolis, Gen. pg. 305) has arguably the most extreme interpretation: “Rabbi Elazar said: ‘When Yaakov stumbled upon a woman at the well, why was it not Leah? Was she not the one who established for him so many tribes? However, God did not want to match Leah with Yaakov openly… Furthermore, [God did this] in order to attract Yaakov’s eye and heart with the beauty of Rachel, so that he would establish his home [in Haran], and because of her he would become matched with Leah, who would establish for him so many tribes.” The Zohar understands the entire well scene as a sort of lure devised by God. Apparently, according to the Zohar, Leah was so unattractive to Yaakov that he would have been unable to come to the conclusion on his own that she was his real intended!
The above sources are ample evidence that interpretations other than Rashi’s were commonly circulated on this topic, some of which are rather critical.
I am aware that it is difficult to hear these sorts of interpretations, and many would prefer to cling to the view of the Avot as being far beyond any assessment or critique which could possibly be offered by us. As a middle ground, I would like to quote the Ran in his Derashot (#6): “It is necessary to explain why the simple reading of the text regarding Bat Sheva is written as if King David really sinned (if we know from Chazal that he did not)? For it is the way of scripture to cover up the faults [of its heros]… and if so, how could the scripture present the Bat Sheva and Uriah story as if it were a terrible sin? The answer is that both the revealed and the hidden in this story represent great fundamentals for those who are in the process of repentance… This is why scripture presents this is as if it were a terrible sin, for the little that David actually sinned, as Chazal admit that he did, was considered, for him, to be as if a regular man had sinned in exactly the way described in the verses. Scripture teaches us here that even if a man were to sin terribly, it can be forgiven him, just like David’s sin was forgiven him, with all its apparent seriousness, as presented in the simple meaning of the verses.”
In other words, according to the Ran, the Navi is projecting an image which may not have been an accurate historical description of David in order to provide us with a paradigm of sin and repentance. One can use this approach to understand the meforshim cited above; it can additionally function as a prism through which my own Devar Torah may be more easily viewed. It is the pedagogic value of the story of Yaakov and Rachel that was the concern of the Devar Torah, rather than the making of any definitive statements about the essential nature of Yaakov.
Based on the numerous references listed above, it is clear that Mr. Lichter’s accusation about my learning and alleged heresy was the unfortunate consequence of his own lack of familiarity with classical sources. I respectfully submit these references in the hope that the editor of Yated Ne’eman will recognize the baselessness of Mr. Lichter’s claims and print the requisite retraction.
Readers with questions are welcome to contact me.
Rabbi Zev Farber
1461 Lively Ridge Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329
404 693 4494
zevfarber@gmail.com
An Open Letter to the Yated Ne’eman
Dear Editor: in this piece, I respond to the recent attack on my person written by Yisroel Lichter and published in Yated Ne’eman, February 2007. It is well known that Mr. Lichter’s article also attacked my Yeshiva, and my Rebbeim and colleagues. Although they have taken the path of ha-ne’elavim v'einam olvim (those who are insulted but do not insult in return), for my part, I feel the need to express the truth for its own sake.
The attack reads: “Rabbi Zev Farber… in an article that YCT was not ashamed to publish on its own website… has the audacity to write outright kefirah in the interpretation of Chazal in the Gemora.(sic) In an article which he brazenly titles: ‘Choosing a Wife – Did Yaakov get it right?’ We do not want to sully the pages of the Yated with Rabbi Farber’s outrageous critique of Yaakov Avinu. Suffice it to say that it is an unforgivable bizayon of the Avos Hakedoshim and Imahos Hakedoshos and the height of Chutzpah, stupidity and ignorance that goes against everything that Chazal have taught us about them… Are there any minimum standards of Emunah in Divrei Chazal on how to learn and understand the incidents mentioned in the Torah?”
To best understand my rebuttal, one should read my article in its entirety, available at http://www.yctorah.org/content/view/176/56/.
I would first like to point out that the ideas in my article, which are based on an approach found in classical meforshim as I will demonstrate below, was written for a particular audience. The article was meant for members of Modern Orthodox congregations and was intended to articulate the ideas of these meforshim, as well as some of my own ideas, in modern paraphrase. As in any article of this kind, a degree of poetic license is legitimate, though I admit that a few statements could have been phrased less provocatively. The title was chosen specifically to catch the eye. In retrospect, I probably should have been less flashy in my presentation.
Mr. Lichter’s thesis is that it is essentially wrong to assess the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in a critical way, and by doing so, I have denied the basic understanding of the Torah and its heroes offered by Chazal. Is this true?
A. Firstly, there is a strong basis in Chazal for critiquing the Avot; Yaakov and Rachel in particular.
In Genesis Rabba (72) it states: “Rabbi Shimon taught: “Because [Rachel] disparaged the righteous man (Yaakov) she cannot be buried with him. This is what it means when it says: ‘Therefore, he will lie with you tonight’, he will lie with you (forever); he will not lie with me.’ … Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman said: “Leah lost the mandrakes and gained tribes and burial, Rachel gained the mandrakes but lost tribes and burial.” This passage seems to be a substantial criticism of Rachel’s priorities in comparison with Leah’s.
Also, in Midrash Sekhel Tov (Gen. 42”12), in reference to the finding of Yosef’s cup in Benyamin’s bag: “‘And they found the goblet in Benyamin’s sack’ – Once the goblet was found in his sack, [his brothers] began to mock him. They said: ‘Thief son of a thief! Thus your mother humiliated our father with the Terafim!’”
Or, again in Genesis Rabba (Theodor-Albeck 74): “Why did Rachel die first? Rabbi Yehuda says it is because she spoke before her sister.”
So too this passage from Yalqut Mayan Ganim (quoted in Torah Shleima, Gen. 30”1): “Why was Rachel punished with death on the way? Because she compared a creation to its creator (by asking Yaakov for a child).”
In Tractate Shabbat (10b) the Talmud learns from Yaakov how not to parent: “Rava bar Mahsia said in the name of Rav Hama bar Guria in the name of Rav: ‘One should never make one child stand out from the others by your treatment of him, for because of two shekels worth of fine wool which Yaakov gave Yosef beyond his brothers, his brothers became jealous of him, and it all ended with our forefathers going down to Egypt.’”
This passage from Genesis Rabba (Theodor-Albeck 71) offers a serious critique of Yaakov: “…as it says ‘Yaakov got angry’. God said to him: ‘Is this the way one responds to downtrodden women?! By your life, your sons will stand before hers!’” (Also see Midrash Tanhuma, Va-Yeitzei 19, for a similar reading.)
Midrash Tanhuma (Buber, siman 11) actually has Leah criticizing Yaakov: “The whole night [after the wedding] Leah acted as if she were Rachel. When he got up in the morning, and he saw that it was Leah, he said to her: ‘Daughter of a liar! Why did you deceive me?!’ She said to him: ‘And why did you deceive your own father? When he said to you: “Are you my son Esau?” You said to him: “I am Esau your first born son.” And you ask “Why did you deceive me?” Did your father not say (to Esau): “Your brother came with deception”?’ From these words of rebuke with which she scolded him he began to hate her.”
I think that the above more than adequately demonstrates that there is, in fact, a basis in Chazal for the general orientation of my article.
B. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, even if I had had no basis in Chazal, it would still not have been a heresy. The question of whether one is bound to interpret a story in the Torah – as opposed to a mitzvah or halakha - the way Chazal do, is an old question. The consensus amongst the Geonim, backed up by many Rishonim and Aharonim, is to unequivocally permit it.
For example, in Rav Shmu’el ha-Naggid’s introduction to the Talmud (under the term “aggada”), he says: “Anything which [Chazal] offered as interpretations of verses, each person offered what happened to occur to him and what made sense to him. Therefore, whatever makes sense (to you) from these interpretations you should accept, and the rest should not be taken into account.” A similar statement can be found in the Sefer ha-Eshkol (Albeck, Laws of the Sefer Torah pgs. 157-8) in the names of Rav Sherira and Rav Hai. This is also discussed by Ibn Ezra, in his introduction to the Torah (part 5), and by Rashbam, in his opening comments on Genesis and Parshat Mishpatim.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman, in the introduction to his commentary on Va-Yikra (pg. 6), quotes Rav Shmu’el ha-Naggid, and states: “The sayings, stories, wisdom and exhortations of our sages, collectively referred to as Aggada, whose point is to convey a moral or an explanation of a scriptural passage which contains no law – one cannot claim that they were given at Sinai, and we are not at all obliged to accept them.” Rabbi Leo Jung, in his book Fallen Angels (pg. 4) states in reference to Aggada: “They have no authority; they form no part of Jewish religious belief.”
Though this last is, perhaps, an overstatement, it should be clear at this point, that even if I were wrong about my interpretation it would still not have been kefirah. People are entitled to make mistakes in this area without being categorized as heretics.
C. Thirdly, anyone who has studied Chumash seriously knows that openness to critiquing its heroes is a well accepted and documented practice amongst the meforshim. For example, the Ralbag (Va-Yeitzei, To’elet 22) on our very topic states: “It is worthy to remove ourselves far from the trait of jealousy, for this is a very base trait. One can see that since Rachel only desired children due to jealousy of her sister, it happened that she did not attain her desire except through exceptional hardship, which brought about her death from childbirth.”
A classic example of this type of analysis is found in the Ramban, in his commentary on the story of Avraham and Sarah going to Egypt (Genesis 12”10): “And you should know that Avraham Avinu committed a grave sin, albeit unwittingly, by bringing his righteous wife into a situation of potential iniquity, because he was afraid lest the [Egyptians] kill him. He should have trusted in God to save him and his wife…”
Rav Hirsh, commenting on this same story (Gen. 12”10-13), sums up this position beautifully: “The Torah does not attempt to hide from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men, and precisely thereby it places the stamp of credibility upon the happenings it relates. The fact that we are told about their faults and weaknesses does not detract from our great men; indeed, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they all been portrayed to us as models of perfection we would have believed that they had been endowed with a higher nature not given to us to attain. Had they been presented to us free of human passions and inner conflicts, their nature would seem to us merely the result of a loftier predisposition, not a product of their personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate… Hence let us learn from our great teachers of Torah – among whom Nahmanides is certainly one of the most outstanding – that we must never attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of the past. They are not in need of our apologetics, nor would they tolerate such attempts on our part. Truth is the seal of our Word of God, and truthfulness is the distinctive characteristic also of all its genuine great teachers and commentators.”
This is echoed in his comment on Gen. 25”27: “In no place were our Rabbis reticent in revealing to us the weaknesses and mistakes, big and small, of the actions of our great forefathers. Specifically, through this method, they extend the Torah and strengthen its message throughout the generations.”
Rabbi Hirsch clearly conveys the message that critique of the patriarchs and matriarchs is not the privileged prerogative of Chazal but is an approach that we should – as indeed he did – adopt in parshanut ha-mikra.
Additional examples evaluating the Avot and Imahot critically are:
Rashbam on Gen. 22”1 and 32”23,
Bekhor Shor on Gen. 17”19 and Gen. 16”5,
Hezkuni on the latter,
Radak (ibid),
Ramban on Gen. 16”6,
Abarbanel on Gen. 27 (page 307 in the standard edition),
Tzror ha-Mor on Gen. 15”2, 15”9, 17”17 and 35”1.
Kli Yakkar on Gen. 37”1&2,
Netziv (Gen. 29”30-31),
Torat Moshe (of the Hatam Sofer) on Gen. 29”18/30,
From the above quotes and references it should be clear, again, that it was not only Chazal who would assess the Avot and Imahot critically, but Rishonim and even Acharonim would do so. One must surmise that these meforshim were clearly teaching us a lesson on how we ought to approach the biblical narratives and heroes.
D. Finally, is there a basis in the meforshim for my interpretation in specific?
We are all aware of the Midrashic interpretation summarized by Rashi; that Leah was destined for Esau, and, therefore, Yaakov chose to marry Rachel. However, this is not the only understanding of the story.
The Ralbag (Va-Yeitzei, To’elet 10) says: “…it is fitting for a man to choose a woman without blemish, for the children he will have with her will be healthier and more intact. This is why Yaakov did not choose Leah, as her eyes were watery, which is an illness. He chose Rachel for she was lovely of form and lovely of appearance, which would be a way of keeping his desires in check, so that he would not think about other women.”
The Radak (Gen. 29”18) takes up the possible objection that Yaakov was too righteous to think this way: “One can ask: since righteous men want to marry in order to have children, why would they look for a beautiful woman, if their intention was not in order to satisfy their desires? Nevertheless, Yaakov chose Rachel because she was very beautiful… A possible explanation is that the intention was for good, because a beautiful woman stimulates desire, and in order to have as many children as possible [the righteous men] wanted to stimulate their desires…”
Rav Yosef ibn Kaspi (Matzref la-Kesef, Gen. 29”17) writes: ““‘Leah’s eyes were soft, but Rachel was [lovely of figure and lovely of appearance]’ – this [preceding verse] introduces the reason for [the verse] following it; ‘Yaakov loved Rachel’, and everything that follows regarding Leah and Rachel… What is greatly surprising to us and to any pious person is this: How could Yaakov Avinu choose beautiful maidens?!” Ibn Kaspi is criticizing Yaakov here, for using appearances as his main criterion for choosing his wife.
The Zohar (Margolis, Gen. pg. 305) has arguably the most extreme interpretation: “Rabbi Elazar said: ‘When Yaakov stumbled upon a woman at the well, why was it not Leah? Was she not the one who established for him so many tribes? However, God did not want to match Leah with Yaakov openly… Furthermore, [God did this] in order to attract Yaakov’s eye and heart with the beauty of Rachel, so that he would establish his home [in Haran], and because of her he would become matched with Leah, who would establish for him so many tribes.” The Zohar understands the entire well scene as a sort of lure devised by God. Apparently, according to the Zohar, Leah was so unattractive to Yaakov that he would have been unable to come to the conclusion on his own that she was his real intended!
The above sources are ample evidence that interpretations other than Rashi’s were commonly circulated on this topic, some of which are rather critical.
I am aware that it is difficult to hear these sorts of interpretations, and many would prefer to cling to the view of the Avot as being far beyond any assessment or critique which could possibly be offered by us. As a middle ground, I would like to quote the Ran in his Derashot (#6): “It is necessary to explain why the simple reading of the text regarding Bat Sheva is written as if King David really sinned (if we know from Chazal that he did not)? For it is the way of scripture to cover up the faults [of its heros]… and if so, how could the scripture present the Bat Sheva and Uriah story as if it were a terrible sin? The answer is that both the revealed and the hidden in this story represent great fundamentals for those who are in the process of repentance… This is why scripture presents this is as if it were a terrible sin, for the little that David actually sinned, as Chazal admit that he did, was considered, for him, to be as if a regular man had sinned in exactly the way described in the verses. Scripture teaches us here that even if a man were to sin terribly, it can be forgiven him, just like David’s sin was forgiven him, with all its apparent seriousness, as presented in the simple meaning of the verses.”
In other words, according to the Ran, the Navi is projecting an image which may not have been an accurate historical description of David in order to provide us with a paradigm of sin and repentance. One can use this approach to understand the meforshim cited above; it can additionally function as a prism through which my own Devar Torah may be more easily viewed. It is the pedagogic value of the story of Yaakov and Rachel that was the concern of the Devar Torah, rather than the making of any definitive statements about the essential nature of Yaakov.
Based on the numerous references listed above, it is clear that Mr. Lichter’s accusation about my learning and alleged heresy was the unfortunate consequence of his own lack of familiarity with classical sources. I respectfully submit these references in the hope that the editor of Yated Ne’eman will recognize the baselessness of Mr. Lichter’s claims and print the requisite retraction.
Readers with questions are welcome to contact me.
Rabbi Zev Farber
1461 Lively Ridge Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329
404 693 4494
zevfarber@gmail.com
Friday, March 2, 2007
A Letter from R. Nati Helfgot
Shalom Uverakah! The mean-spirited attack on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School as well as some of its faculty and musmachim recently printed in Yated Neeman has generated a lot of discussion. I do not have the desire to engage in a lengthy rebuttal to or discussion with people who are so antagonistic towards YCT and do not genuinely care about it or the real people (whose lives) are involved with it.
However, a number of people have asked me for some personal comment and so I feel impelled to share some disjointed thoughts. By the nature of my time constraints (teaching Torah and preparing shiurim, attempting to be a good husband and good father to my three little boys, and a grave illness in my immediate family which is sapping much of the emotional strength I have left) I will be briefer than I might have otherwise chosen to be.)
But first four disclaimers:
A.
R. Linzer’s quote about struggling with difficult mitzvot that challenge our ethical notions and our conception of a just God (a conception that emerges from many parts of the Torah) is a badge of honor. God implanted within us a moral sensibility and did not want us to be morally insensitive or obtuse. Gedolei olam from time and immemorial struggled with difficult mitzvot such as the commandment to obliterate Amalek. Read some of the writings of Rav Lichtenstein in English and in Hebrew or the recent essays by Rabbi Shalom Carmy and Rabbi Norman Lamm in the new volume on “War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition” for any more citations.
B.
The citation from Rabbi Linzer’s essay in Milin Havivin was taken out of context. An even simple reading of the entire essay debunks any notion that somehow calls for “changing” or “breaking” halakhah in any fashion. Anyone who has a sat a day in his halakhah shiur on Hilkhot Niddah or Hilkhot Shabbat knows the care and seriousness with which he, a true talmid hakham of outstanding middot and sensitivity, approaches the halakhic process.
C.
YCT has never claimed it follows in the footsteps of the Rav zt”l as Hasidim follow a rebbe. This is simply a straw man to selectively cite some of the most polemical statements of the Rav (I would like to see the Yated cite some other statements of the Rav such as his insistence on the importance of women as well as men learning Gemara intensively or some of his critiques of the yeshivish world in Hamesh Derashot etc.)
Indeed, the idea that all Modern Orthodox rabbis, shuls or institutions (and even Yeshiva University) slavishly follow every major p’sak or public policy directive of the Rav is an illusion. Just to cite one example (amongst many), the Rav was vigorously opposed to liturgical innovation such as writing or adding Kinot for the Holocaust on Tisha be-Av. He was also opposed to the institution of Yom ha-shoah and many of the liturgical additions that have become de-rigueur in Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations. Yet, there are dozens, if not hundreds of modern-Orthodox shuls throughout North-America led by rabbis, many of whom were close talmidim of the Rav who have adopted those very elements that the Rav was opposed to. YCT takes inspiration from the teachings of the entire panoply of great rabbinic figures of previous generations as well as the current generation. We are inspired by the teachings and writings of Rav Kook, Rav Hutner, Rav Hirsch, Rav Hildesheimer, Rav Hoffman, Rav Weinberg, Rav Herzog all of them zt”l as well as many others (including a number who might be pegged as Hareidi) too numerous to list here. We have never claimed to be the bearers of the specific mesorah of any one individual gadol or leader.
Substantively on the interfaith issue:
First, let us get some facts down correctly, irrespective of reports on blogs or newspapers. As far as I understand, The World Jewish Congress asked YCT (as well as Yeshiva University) to host a visit of prominent Catholic cardinals who also wanted to see how a beit medrash functions and what hevruta learning is. YCT acceded to this request for many reasons far beyond the scope of this short post, (a decision I believe was correct and necessary) and indeed hosted the Cardinals for this event which included a very powerful speech by R. Weiss describing his inner conflict with hosting the event given the Church’s historic anti-semitism and his personal battle over the crosses at Auschwitz. Yet he also spoke of his hopes for the future and for a world where people can come together for the good of all of mankind and touched on many other themes. After a few more speeches and the singing of a niggun the program concluded with a half an hour of learning a small passage on the origin of Jewish prayer from Masechet Berakhot. (Though it has not been mentioned, Yeshiva University-Stern College for Women hosted the Cardinals the very next day and they also learned Gemara be-hevruta with some of the women in the Stern Graduate Talmud program as I recall it was reported in the YU-Stern College Observer). While this may not be every one’s cup of tea and the images are jarring to many people because of the historic and sociological experiences that we carry as Jews in relation to the Church, it did not formally cross any of the Rav’s formal public policy guidelines that he articulated in the mid 1960’s. The Rav had very specific things in mind that he felt should be restricted such as formal debate and dialogue about topics such as the Seder and the Eucharist and Jesus as the Jewish Messiah as he wrote explicitly a number of times (see Community, Covenant and Commitment, pgs. 260-261). He did not believe that any and all contact of any religious character was automatically out of bounds.
Moreover, if the writer wanted to truly discuss the application of the Rav’s guidelines written almost fifty years ago to the contemporary scene, a more serious analysis is needed. This analysis should include an honest discussion as to whether in the aftermath of the radical changes that have occurred in the last decade in the Catholic Church such as the recognition of the State of Israel, the beginning of a process of owning up to historical Christian anti-semitism and their share of responsibility for the Shoah, the change in attitudes towards Jews and Judaism that has seeped into Catholic practice and education and the rise of the radical Islam and its threat would (all things that have come on the scene after the Rav’s death in 1993), the Rav’s own assessment of the public policy issue of interfaith dialogue might have undergone a shift.
Finally, it is a fact that there are currently are (and in truth always were) substantial voices within the Orthodox community and leadership that differ with the wholesale application of the Rav’s guidelines in our current reality. Indeed since the recognition of Israel by the Vatican, many of the Chief Rabbis of Israel, including some who are recognized poskim, as well a great rabbanim such as Rav Shear Yashuv ha-Kohen and Rav Menachem Fruman have engaged in full fledged religious dialogue in many countries and in many venues. Even in the United States there have been dissenters from the Rav’s guidelines in the last three decades who remained in good standing in the Orthodox community including such well-known figures as Prof. Michael Wyschograd, who continues to teach at Yeshiva University and is a member of the editorial board of Tradition magazine. Thus, on a practical level, I do not believe that YCT should automatically restrain students or rabbis who desire to engage in that type of dialogue. It is should at least be obvious that those who do choose to engage in that dialogue do not somehow become “non-orthodox” by virtue of taking that track.
D.
The Hareidi world and the Modern-Orthodox world differ as to whether there should be any interaction between Orthodox rabbis and clergy from the other Jewish denominations. This issue has long divided various segments of the Orthodox community and revolves around the tenuous balance between working together on programs and causes on behalf of the Jewish people and the fear that Orthodoxy is legitimizing heterodox movements and approaches to Judaism. Even within the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic which has generally taken a more liberal approach to this issue there are differences of nuance and perspective on this question. Thus, some Modern-Orthodox rabbis will not participate in joint board of rabbis, but might join together in a occasional lecture series with Reform or Conservative rabbis, while others will not even do that, while still others (especially beyond the narrow confines of the NY area) will join in on joint boards. These issues have bedeviled the community for half a century and there are and always have been various practices within the Modern-Orthodox community. For example, while some talmidim of the Rav did not sit on any joint boards, there were others, also talmidim of the Rav, who did in fact do that and rightfully remained in good standing in the Orthodox community.
YCT Rabbinical School as I understand it, while emphatically rejecting a hard pluralism that comes close to relativism, strongly feels that interaction and cooperation, without blurring distinctions can be beneficial for the greater good of the Jewish people and ultimately spreading the message of Torah to Klal Yisrael as a whole. We are driven by the Rav’s vision of a shared community of fate as well as Rav Lichtenstein’s clarion call some two decades ago which went even further:
E.
In that spirit, there is much to be gained in the areas of pastoral counseling, leadership training, speaking skills, making life-cycle events meaningful, homiletical ideas and even in selected areas of Jewish thought from non-Orthodox speakers and clergy. While the core faculty of the Yeshiva are classical talmidei hakhamim and fully Orthodox rabbanim and professionals, we appreciate and value the insights and experiences of others beyond our immediate community when they can help us train our students to be effective, compassionate and professionally trained rabbis. In that context, in addition to inviting other Orthodox rabbis and professionals to occasionally speak to our students in various areas of the curriculum we have also opened our doors to non-Orthodox rabbis and professionals in areas where they can contribute positively to the education of our students.
F.
Rabbi Jonathan Milgram is a first rate talmid hakham, scholar, and ehrlicher yid. The attempt to besmirch him is painful and inappropriate. R. Milgram is a fully Orthodox rabbi, a musmach of YU-RIETS, who learned for a number of years in R. Baruch Simon’s shiur at YU, before going on for his doctorate in academic Talmud. He lives in Teaneck, NJ and is an active member of R. Kenny Schiowitz’ shul.
R. Milgram does indeed teaches full-time at JTS (there are not many positions available in academic Talmud in most of the yeshivot in Brooklyn and Monsey that I know) and teaches a once a week afternoon class in the history of Talmudic literature and the history of rishonim at YCT. This is a supplemental course to the regular Gemara and halakhah learning of the Yeshiva akin to a YU-Revel course taken by RIETS students who are studying at Revel as their afternoon program while they are in the semicha program. There too they may study academic Talmud studies or even take other courses occasionally taught by professors such as Dr. Benji Gampel, who are full-time professors at JTS but sometimes are invited to teach a semester or two at Revel.
The Hareidi world and many in the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic world view academic Talmud with a very jaundiced eye. This is certainly their right. However, it is highly unfair to claim that those who integrate these methods into their learning are somehow automatically out of the pale and to be tarred as “non-orthodox”. Great gedolim such as Rav A. Hildesheimer, R. D.Z. Hoffman, the Seridei Eish and many other lesser known Orthodox rabbinic figures would certainly take strong umbrage at that accusation. Moreover, many great, fully Orthodox scholars and rabbanim continue to integrate those methodologies in their learning. To demonize the whole pursuit of academic Talmud study is ultimately to tar and feather such Orthodox rabbonim as: R. Jeremy Wieder (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Ozer Glickman (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Mayer Lichtenstein (Rosh Yeshiva-Yeshivat Kibbutz ha-Dati and grandson of the Rav zt”l) Rabbi Dr. Yaacov Elman (YU-Revel) and many others. The issue of the parameters and limits of integrating academic Talmud study into traditional learning of Gemara may be an important one, but it deserves a serious and measured discussion, not argument by screed and name calling.
G.
R. Zev Farber is a wonderful young talmid hakham and musmach of YCT. The vituperative language and calumny heaped upon him was hurtful and inappropriate.
His essay analyzing some of the life choices of Yaakov Avinu raised the ire of the author of the Yated essay. I do not want to address the cogency of the specific ideas of the essay or whether I would have used this or that formulation or more nuanced language. These are all issues which one can calmly debate. The issue at hand, however, is much more fundamental. Learning and teaching about the greatness, achievements, holiness and stature of our biblical heroes such as the Avot and Imahot coupled with an honest and rich understanding of the human dimension, feelings, as well as struggles, mistakes and errors of those very characters has been discussed in many forums. It is one of the dividing lines between contemporary Hareidi (and Hardal and right wing-Modern Orthodox) parshanut and classical modern-and contemporary open Orthodox parshanut. In general terms we at YCT are animated and guided by the sentiments expressed by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein:
Below are some basic marei mekomot and essays that are worthwhile exploring for those who want to pursuer this further. What is fascinating to me is that in this issue it is really the Hareidi position which is really "modern” as Hazal and the Rishonim were much more open to these nuances than contemporary Hareidi writers. Indeed if one reads Bereishit and Shemot Rabbah systematically one sees Hazal's deep assessment of the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great. Anyway here are some very selective basic sources and readings (besides dozens of examples in Midrash that are too numerous to list here).
1. Ramban on Genesis 12-story of Avraham and Famine; Ramban on the story of Hagar's first banishment by Sarah-Gen 16
2. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch-Gen 12:10;Gen 25:27;Exod 6:14
3. Rav Yitzhak Hutner- Igrot U-Ketavim- Letter #128
4. R. Aharon Lichtenstein, "Torah and General Culture" in "Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures", pg 227
5. Joel Wolowelsky, "Kibbud Av and Kibbud Avot" Tradition 33:4 (199) pg 35-44
6. H. Angel, "Learning Faith From the Text" in "Wisdom From All My Teachers"
7. A. David, Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot", Ten -Daat 5:2 (1991)
8. Z. Grumet, "Another Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot" Ten-Daat 6:1(1992)
9. H. Dietcher, "Between Angels and Mere Mortals: Nechama Leibowitz' Approach to the Study of Biblical Characters" in Journal of Jewish Education 66:1-2 (200)
10. E. Shapiro, "Approaching the Avot" , www.atid.org
11. On the “Hatzofeh” website, a few years ago there was a whole debate on this topic; Havikuach al ha-tanakh and you can access many essays including an excellent one by Rav Yoel Bin Nun
H.
I have had the good fortune to visit many of the YCT musmachim in the field and I am constantly overwhelmed by their commitment to Torah, the Jewish people, and helping Jews grow spiritually in their connection to God. I am proud of all of the work that they are doing in teaching the devar Hashem, comforting the bereaved and the lonely, energizing their communities and touching lives and hearts throughout North America.
All of us are human and occasionally a young musmach can and does make a mistake in p’sak or in a d’var Torah or in dealing with a difficult text or attempting to formulate a theological concept. I know that in the 18 years since I received semicha, I (as well as many of my colleagues) have made mistakes in all of those areas. Today, of course, mistakes are instantly magnified by the power of the Internet and world-wide communication. In addition, sometimes, in a desire to present an idea in a meaningful and arresting way young musmachim and students do not judiciously choose careful language. Moreover, sometimes radical ideas are actually rooted in kabbalistic or hassidic sources, (such as the writings of the Ishbitzer, Rav Zadok or Rav Kook) but are not familiar to mainstream traditional Orthodox audiences. It is important for writers in those contexts to properly source and explain where they are coming from. It is clear to me that in our history a musmach or a student has occasionally made a mistake (out of sincere conviction) in a number of the areas that I listed above.
Here and there, there have also been formulations that I would consider have crossed some lines. Whether, when and how an institution should respond to such phenomena is a difficult issue touching on serious issues that include a whole panoply of considerations. One thing I am sure of, the forum for such a discussion is not a mean-spirited attack article that reflects no generosity of spirit nor understanding of the real people involved, the work and context in which they operate and the world-views and perspectives that they come from.
I.
The attempt to somehow tar YCT and some of its faculty with the taint of being anti-Israel is beneath contempt. YCT is a proudly religious-Zionist yeshiva whose faculty and student body affirm both the historical and religious significance of the State of Israel. On every Monday and Thursday in its Beit Medrash, the mi-shebeirach prayer for the welfare of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces is movingly recited after Keriat ha-Torah (highly doubt that this is the custom of the minyanim attended by the authors and editors or readership of the Yated!). The president and dean of the Yeshiva, R. Avi Weiss was and is one of the heroes of pro-Israel activism in the United States. The Yeshiva pulsates with connection and love for Israel, its people and the IDF (indeed a number of our students have proudly served in the IDF and have seen combat).
Guilt by association is not an honorable tactic and in America is usually associated with the specter of McCarthyism. It is a fact that some of the faculty of YCT spoke last year at a conference on human rights abuses in the United States at the invitation of the North American Rabbis For Human Rights. The conference was to focus on the American front and not on issues related to Israel (that being the condition that the YCT faculty agreed to participate in the first place). The fact that this group is also allied with a group in Israel that has harshly critiqued the IDF and the Israeli government does not in any mean that everyone whoever has anything to do with the North American branch magically agrees with every or anything posited by the Israeli organization (That is guilt by association squared!) Furthermore, the fact that one or two students in our history participated in a left-wing rally or signed on to a petition five years ago critical of the tactics of the IDF (positions, that despite my personal opposition to them, are part of the legitimate discourse that takes place amongst committed Zionist and supporters of Israel both and in the Israel) no more means that this is the position espoused by a majority or even a significant minority of students at YCT. This is no more cogent than saying that most students in RIETS are supporters of the Shira-Hadashah partnership type minyanim because one of the founders of the Darkei Noam Minyan on Manhattan’s upper West Side was student at RIETS when the minyan was founded!
However, a number of people have asked me for some personal comment and so I feel impelled to share some disjointed thoughts. By the nature of my time constraints (teaching Torah and preparing shiurim, attempting to be a good husband and good father to my three little boys, and a grave illness in my immediate family which is sapping much of the emotional strength I have left) I will be briefer than I might have otherwise chosen to be.)
But first four disclaimers:
- I write as an individual, not as a representative of the Yeshiva. Only R. Avi Weiss, the President and R. Dov Linzer, the rosh ha-Yeshiva can speak for the institution as a whole. I simply write from my personal perspective. R. Weiss and R. Linzer are dear friends and colleagues who tirelessly work on behalf of Torah and the Jewish people who do not deserve the harsh critique and demonization reflected in the article.
- I am writing based on my knowledge and understanding of the facts. Like all human beings I may be mistaken or I may be recalling something in error. Please do not attribute any nefarious motives if I get a detail wrong. All human beings make mistakes, and a bit of generosity of spirit would help us all a long way in this difficult world in which we live.
- There is something profoundly disturbing and unethical and lacking in basic derekh eretz and kevod ha-beriyot in a “Torah “newspaper not doing basic fact checking nor in engaging in the simple journalistic (and ethical) protocol of calling up the subjects of one’s reportage for comment, reaction, clarification, questions before publishing a lengthy and harsh attack. I weep for us as a community that this passes for “Torah-true journalism”.
- The nature of quickly drafted comments intended for the blogosphere under great time and personal pressures means that the formulations may not be as robust, crisp and elegant as I might have desired.
A.
R. Linzer’s quote about struggling with difficult mitzvot that challenge our ethical notions and our conception of a just God (a conception that emerges from many parts of the Torah) is a badge of honor. God implanted within us a moral sensibility and did not want us to be morally insensitive or obtuse. Gedolei olam from time and immemorial struggled with difficult mitzvot such as the commandment to obliterate Amalek. Read some of the writings of Rav Lichtenstein in English and in Hebrew or the recent essays by Rabbi Shalom Carmy and Rabbi Norman Lamm in the new volume on “War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition” for any more citations.
B.
The citation from Rabbi Linzer’s essay in Milin Havivin was taken out of context. An even simple reading of the entire essay debunks any notion that somehow calls for “changing” or “breaking” halakhah in any fashion. Anyone who has a sat a day in his halakhah shiur on Hilkhot Niddah or Hilkhot Shabbat knows the care and seriousness with which he, a true talmid hakham of outstanding middot and sensitivity, approaches the halakhic process.
C.
YCT has never claimed it follows in the footsteps of the Rav zt”l as Hasidim follow a rebbe. This is simply a straw man to selectively cite some of the most polemical statements of the Rav (I would like to see the Yated cite some other statements of the Rav such as his insistence on the importance of women as well as men learning Gemara intensively or some of his critiques of the yeshivish world in Hamesh Derashot etc.)
Indeed, the idea that all Modern Orthodox rabbis, shuls or institutions (and even Yeshiva University) slavishly follow every major p’sak or public policy directive of the Rav is an illusion. Just to cite one example (amongst many), the Rav was vigorously opposed to liturgical innovation such as writing or adding Kinot for the Holocaust on Tisha be-Av. He was also opposed to the institution of Yom ha-shoah and many of the liturgical additions that have become de-rigueur in Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations. Yet, there are dozens, if not hundreds of modern-Orthodox shuls throughout North-America led by rabbis, many of whom were close talmidim of the Rav who have adopted those very elements that the Rav was opposed to. YCT takes inspiration from the teachings of the entire panoply of great rabbinic figures of previous generations as well as the current generation. We are inspired by the teachings and writings of Rav Kook, Rav Hutner, Rav Hirsch, Rav Hildesheimer, Rav Hoffman, Rav Weinberg, Rav Herzog all of them zt”l as well as many others (including a number who might be pegged as Hareidi) too numerous to list here. We have never claimed to be the bearers of the specific mesorah of any one individual gadol or leader.
Substantively on the interfaith issue:
First, let us get some facts down correctly, irrespective of reports on blogs or newspapers. As far as I understand, The World Jewish Congress asked YCT (as well as Yeshiva University) to host a visit of prominent Catholic cardinals who also wanted to see how a beit medrash functions and what hevruta learning is. YCT acceded to this request for many reasons far beyond the scope of this short post, (a decision I believe was correct and necessary) and indeed hosted the Cardinals for this event which included a very powerful speech by R. Weiss describing his inner conflict with hosting the event given the Church’s historic anti-semitism and his personal battle over the crosses at Auschwitz. Yet he also spoke of his hopes for the future and for a world where people can come together for the good of all of mankind and touched on many other themes. After a few more speeches and the singing of a niggun the program concluded with a half an hour of learning a small passage on the origin of Jewish prayer from Masechet Berakhot. (Though it has not been mentioned, Yeshiva University-Stern College for Women hosted the Cardinals the very next day and they also learned Gemara be-hevruta with some of the women in the Stern Graduate Talmud program as I recall it was reported in the YU-Stern College Observer). While this may not be every one’s cup of tea and the images are jarring to many people because of the historic and sociological experiences that we carry as Jews in relation to the Church, it did not formally cross any of the Rav’s formal public policy guidelines that he articulated in the mid 1960’s. The Rav had very specific things in mind that he felt should be restricted such as formal debate and dialogue about topics such as the Seder and the Eucharist and Jesus as the Jewish Messiah as he wrote explicitly a number of times (see Community, Covenant and Commitment, pgs. 260-261). He did not believe that any and all contact of any religious character was automatically out of bounds.
Moreover, if the writer wanted to truly discuss the application of the Rav’s guidelines written almost fifty years ago to the contemporary scene, a more serious analysis is needed. This analysis should include an honest discussion as to whether in the aftermath of the radical changes that have occurred in the last decade in the Catholic Church such as the recognition of the State of Israel, the beginning of a process of owning up to historical Christian anti-semitism and their share of responsibility for the Shoah, the change in attitudes towards Jews and Judaism that has seeped into Catholic practice and education and the rise of the radical Islam and its threat would (all things that have come on the scene after the Rav’s death in 1993), the Rav’s own assessment of the public policy issue of interfaith dialogue might have undergone a shift.
Finally, it is a fact that there are currently are (and in truth always were) substantial voices within the Orthodox community and leadership that differ with the wholesale application of the Rav’s guidelines in our current reality. Indeed since the recognition of Israel by the Vatican, many of the Chief Rabbis of Israel, including some who are recognized poskim, as well a great rabbanim such as Rav Shear Yashuv ha-Kohen and Rav Menachem Fruman have engaged in full fledged religious dialogue in many countries and in many venues. Even in the United States there have been dissenters from the Rav’s guidelines in the last three decades who remained in good standing in the Orthodox community including such well-known figures as Prof. Michael Wyschograd, who continues to teach at Yeshiva University and is a member of the editorial board of Tradition magazine. Thus, on a practical level, I do not believe that YCT should automatically restrain students or rabbis who desire to engage in that type of dialogue. It is should at least be obvious that those who do choose to engage in that dialogue do not somehow become “non-orthodox” by virtue of taking that track.
D.
The Hareidi world and the Modern-Orthodox world differ as to whether there should be any interaction between Orthodox rabbis and clergy from the other Jewish denominations. This issue has long divided various segments of the Orthodox community and revolves around the tenuous balance between working together on programs and causes on behalf of the Jewish people and the fear that Orthodoxy is legitimizing heterodox movements and approaches to Judaism. Even within the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic which has generally taken a more liberal approach to this issue there are differences of nuance and perspective on this question. Thus, some Modern-Orthodox rabbis will not participate in joint board of rabbis, but might join together in a occasional lecture series with Reform or Conservative rabbis, while others will not even do that, while still others (especially beyond the narrow confines of the NY area) will join in on joint boards. These issues have bedeviled the community for half a century and there are and always have been various practices within the Modern-Orthodox community. For example, while some talmidim of the Rav did not sit on any joint boards, there were others, also talmidim of the Rav, who did in fact do that and rightfully remained in good standing in the Orthodox community.
YCT Rabbinical School as I understand it, while emphatically rejecting a hard pluralism that comes close to relativism, strongly feels that interaction and cooperation, without blurring distinctions can be beneficial for the greater good of the Jewish people and ultimately spreading the message of Torah to Klal Yisrael as a whole. We are driven by the Rav’s vision of a shared community of fate as well as Rav Lichtenstein’s clarion call some two decades ago which went even further:
With respect to reducing polarization, I am convinced that the best approach does not call for minimizing differences but rather for maximizing community. Basic ideological differences exist and to blur them is both irresponsible and anti-halakhic...We can , however, place greater emphasis upon the factors which without denying difference, transcend it; upon confraternity, upon historical and existential ties, upon essential components of a shared moral and spiritual vision, upon elements of a common fate and a common destiny. We should not only concede but assert that, whatever their deviations, other camps include people genuinely in search of the Ribbono shel olam. (Leaves of Faith, Vol. 2: pg. 360)We also are animated by the teachings of Rav Kook who dialectically saw some partial truths and kernels of holiness and insight even in movements and ideologies that on the whole were in conflict with the basic world-views of fidelity to traditional Torah outlooks that he espoused. A full-blown treatment of the sof-pluralism of Rav Kook is beyond the scope of these short comments. I would also refer the reader to the excellent articles by Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm “Seventy Faces” in his collection Seventy Faces Vol 1 and R. Shmuel Goldin “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along: An Orthodox Rabbi’s View on Pluralism” in the Edah Journal 1:1 which nicely articulate many of the perspectives that guide us at YCT. In short, the approach adopted by the Yeshiva has very good Orthodox pedigree and is one that while open to critique should not be caricatured or demonized.
E.
In that spirit, there is much to be gained in the areas of pastoral counseling, leadership training, speaking skills, making life-cycle events meaningful, homiletical ideas and even in selected areas of Jewish thought from non-Orthodox speakers and clergy. While the core faculty of the Yeshiva are classical talmidei hakhamim and fully Orthodox rabbanim and professionals, we appreciate and value the insights and experiences of others beyond our immediate community when they can help us train our students to be effective, compassionate and professionally trained rabbis. In that context, in addition to inviting other Orthodox rabbis and professionals to occasionally speak to our students in various areas of the curriculum we have also opened our doors to non-Orthodox rabbis and professionals in areas where they can contribute positively to the education of our students.
F.
Rabbi Jonathan Milgram is a first rate talmid hakham, scholar, and ehrlicher yid. The attempt to besmirch him is painful and inappropriate. R. Milgram is a fully Orthodox rabbi, a musmach of YU-RIETS, who learned for a number of years in R. Baruch Simon’s shiur at YU, before going on for his doctorate in academic Talmud. He lives in Teaneck, NJ and is an active member of R. Kenny Schiowitz’ shul.
R. Milgram does indeed teaches full-time at JTS (there are not many positions available in academic Talmud in most of the yeshivot in Brooklyn and Monsey that I know) and teaches a once a week afternoon class in the history of Talmudic literature and the history of rishonim at YCT. This is a supplemental course to the regular Gemara and halakhah learning of the Yeshiva akin to a YU-Revel course taken by RIETS students who are studying at Revel as their afternoon program while they are in the semicha program. There too they may study academic Talmud studies or even take other courses occasionally taught by professors such as Dr. Benji Gampel, who are full-time professors at JTS but sometimes are invited to teach a semester or two at Revel.
The Hareidi world and many in the Modern-Orthodox rabbinic world view academic Talmud with a very jaundiced eye. This is certainly their right. However, it is highly unfair to claim that those who integrate these methods into their learning are somehow automatically out of the pale and to be tarred as “non-orthodox”. Great gedolim such as Rav A. Hildesheimer, R. D.Z. Hoffman, the Seridei Eish and many other lesser known Orthodox rabbinic figures would certainly take strong umbrage at that accusation. Moreover, many great, fully Orthodox scholars and rabbanim continue to integrate those methodologies in their learning. To demonize the whole pursuit of academic Talmud study is ultimately to tar and feather such Orthodox rabbonim as: R. Jeremy Wieder (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Ozer Glickman (Rosh Yeshiva-YU), R. Mayer Lichtenstein (Rosh Yeshiva-Yeshivat Kibbutz ha-Dati and grandson of the Rav zt”l) Rabbi Dr. Yaacov Elman (YU-Revel) and many others. The issue of the parameters and limits of integrating academic Talmud study into traditional learning of Gemara may be an important one, but it deserves a serious and measured discussion, not argument by screed and name calling.
G.
R. Zev Farber is a wonderful young talmid hakham and musmach of YCT. The vituperative language and calumny heaped upon him was hurtful and inappropriate.
His essay analyzing some of the life choices of Yaakov Avinu raised the ire of the author of the Yated essay. I do not want to address the cogency of the specific ideas of the essay or whether I would have used this or that formulation or more nuanced language. These are all issues which one can calmly debate. The issue at hand, however, is much more fundamental. Learning and teaching about the greatness, achievements, holiness and stature of our biblical heroes such as the Avot and Imahot coupled with an honest and rich understanding of the human dimension, feelings, as well as struggles, mistakes and errors of those very characters has been discussed in many forums. It is one of the dividing lines between contemporary Hareidi (and Hardal and right wing-Modern Orthodox) parshanut and classical modern-and contemporary open Orthodox parshanut. In general terms we at YCT are animated and guided by the sentiments expressed by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein:
Advocates of hagiographic parshanut, which portrays the central heroic figures of scriptural history as virtually devoid of emotion, can only regard the sharpening of psychological awareness with reference to tanakh with a jaundiced eye. But for those of us who have been steeped in midrashim, the Ramban, and the Ha’amek Davar-in a tradition, that is, which regards the patriarchal avot and their successors as very great people indeed but as people nonetheless, and which moreover sees their greatness as related to the their humanity—enhanced literary sensibility can be viewed as a significant boon. (Judaism’s Encounter With other Cultures, pg. 226)In oral comments Rav Lichtenstein made in 1984 at a melaveh malkah he was even sharper. Asked about this general topic he pithily replied: “There are two approaches to the humanity of the Avot, that of Rav Aharon Kotler and that of Hazal!” He further went on to bemoan that the Hareidi perspective ultimately turns the Avot and Imahot into “ossified figures of petrified tzidkus”.
Below are some basic marei mekomot and essays that are worthwhile exploring for those who want to pursuer this further. What is fascinating to me is that in this issue it is really the Hareidi position which is really "modern” as Hazal and the Rishonim were much more open to these nuances than contemporary Hareidi writers. Indeed if one reads Bereishit and Shemot Rabbah systematically one sees Hazal's deep assessment of the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great. Anyway here are some very selective basic sources and readings (besides dozens of examples in Midrash that are too numerous to list here).
1. Ramban on Genesis 12-story of Avraham and Famine; Ramban on the story of Hagar's first banishment by Sarah-Gen 16
2. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch-Gen 12:10;Gen 25:27;Exod 6:14
3. Rav Yitzhak Hutner- Igrot U-Ketavim- Letter #128
4. R. Aharon Lichtenstein, "Torah and General Culture" in "Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures", pg 227
5. Joel Wolowelsky, "Kibbud Av and Kibbud Avot" Tradition 33:4 (199) pg 35-44
6. H. Angel, "Learning Faith From the Text" in "Wisdom From All My Teachers"
7. A. David, Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot", Ten -Daat 5:2 (1991)
8. Z. Grumet, "Another Perspectives on the Avot and Imahot" Ten-Daat 6:1(1992)
9. H. Dietcher, "Between Angels and Mere Mortals: Nechama Leibowitz' Approach to the Study of Biblical Characters" in Journal of Jewish Education 66:1-2 (200)
10. E. Shapiro, "Approaching the Avot" , www.atid.org
11. On the “Hatzofeh” website, a few years ago there was a whole debate on this topic; Havikuach al ha-tanakh and you can access many essays including an excellent one by Rav Yoel Bin Nun
H.
I have had the good fortune to visit many of the YCT musmachim in the field and I am constantly overwhelmed by their commitment to Torah, the Jewish people, and helping Jews grow spiritually in their connection to God. I am proud of all of the work that they are doing in teaching the devar Hashem, comforting the bereaved and the lonely, energizing their communities and touching lives and hearts throughout North America.
All of us are human and occasionally a young musmach can and does make a mistake in p’sak or in a d’var Torah or in dealing with a difficult text or attempting to formulate a theological concept. I know that in the 18 years since I received semicha, I (as well as many of my colleagues) have made mistakes in all of those areas. Today, of course, mistakes are instantly magnified by the power of the Internet and world-wide communication. In addition, sometimes, in a desire to present an idea in a meaningful and arresting way young musmachim and students do not judiciously choose careful language. Moreover, sometimes radical ideas are actually rooted in kabbalistic or hassidic sources, (such as the writings of the Ishbitzer, Rav Zadok or Rav Kook) but are not familiar to mainstream traditional Orthodox audiences. It is important for writers in those contexts to properly source and explain where they are coming from. It is clear to me that in our history a musmach or a student has occasionally made a mistake (out of sincere conviction) in a number of the areas that I listed above.
Here and there, there have also been formulations that I would consider have crossed some lines. Whether, when and how an institution should respond to such phenomena is a difficult issue touching on serious issues that include a whole panoply of considerations. One thing I am sure of, the forum for such a discussion is not a mean-spirited attack article that reflects no generosity of spirit nor understanding of the real people involved, the work and context in which they operate and the world-views and perspectives that they come from.
I.
The attempt to somehow tar YCT and some of its faculty with the taint of being anti-Israel is beneath contempt. YCT is a proudly religious-Zionist yeshiva whose faculty and student body affirm both the historical and religious significance of the State of Israel. On every Monday and Thursday in its Beit Medrash, the mi-shebeirach prayer for the welfare of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces is movingly recited after Keriat ha-Torah (highly doubt that this is the custom of the minyanim attended by the authors and editors or readership of the Yated!). The president and dean of the Yeshiva, R. Avi Weiss was and is one of the heroes of pro-Israel activism in the United States. The Yeshiva pulsates with connection and love for Israel, its people and the IDF (indeed a number of our students have proudly served in the IDF and have seen combat).
Guilt by association is not an honorable tactic and in America is usually associated with the specter of McCarthyism. It is a fact that some of the faculty of YCT spoke last year at a conference on human rights abuses in the United States at the invitation of the North American Rabbis For Human Rights. The conference was to focus on the American front and not on issues related to Israel (that being the condition that the YCT faculty agreed to participate in the first place). The fact that this group is also allied with a group in Israel that has harshly critiqued the IDF and the Israeli government does not in any mean that everyone whoever has anything to do with the North American branch magically agrees with every or anything posited by the Israeli organization (That is guilt by association squared!) Furthermore, the fact that one or two students in our history participated in a left-wing rally or signed on to a petition five years ago critical of the tactics of the IDF (positions, that despite my personal opposition to them, are part of the legitimate discourse that takes place amongst committed Zionist and supporters of Israel both and in the Israel) no more means that this is the position espoused by a majority or even a significant minority of students at YCT. This is no more cogent than saying that most students in RIETS are supporters of the Shira-Hadashah partnership type minyanim because one of the founders of the Darkei Noam Minyan on Manhattan’s upper West Side was student at RIETS when the minyan was founded!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)