nineteenth-century battle its discussion of Dr. Belkin’s impact on Hashem. led, with a YU and, ultimately, on the wider arena Dr. Belkin was also a pioneer in the Books small number of families, to establish of American Orthodoxy. ba’al teshuvah movement. Together an independent Orthodox congrega- Dr. Belkin was a pioneer of higher with the late Rabbi Moshe Besdin, he tion in Frankfurt. education for Jewish women. In the established YU’s James Striar School of In general, the twenty-five years fifties, against significant opposition, General (JSS) for new- after the conclusion of World War II he established Stern College for comers to . JSS offered an were rough times for Orthodox Jewry. Women. As such, Dr. Belkin’s actions intensive course of Jewish studies to (claiming to be were as revolutionary as the creation of those who were not yet Orthodox. It was Orthodoxy Awakens: The while his colleague, as the de facto II. Geller’s observations, recollections loyal to halachah) was on the rise, and the Beth Jacob schools for women was a model for various other schools created Belkin Era and spiritual head and rosh hayeshivah, was and discussions make for interesting the American congregational scene was in Eastern Europe after World War I. in the and in in University the larger-than-life figure of the gaon, and highly rewarding reading. Geller marked by constant strife over such Not only did Dr. Belkin bring about the wake of the Six-Day War. Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the By Victor B. Geller offers the reader a host of recollections issues as mechitzah and driving to ser- the creation of a cadre of educated Thousands have since graduated from founding father of Modern Orthodoxy about the makers and shakers of vices on Shabbat. Orthodoxy was on Orthodox Jewish women in America, this school, including more than a few in North America. The Rav’s authority Modern Orthodoxy that are not well the defensive in those years. Yet with but these same women were responsi- prominent and scholars. and aura always overshadowed that of known. Amongst these are his efforts the help of men like Geller, Dr. Belkin ble for raising halachic standards in But above all, Dr. Belkin never for- Dr. Belkin. When reflecting on YU on behalf of Dr. Belkin to have LIFE and YU succeeded in helping to create got his roots as a yeshivah “man” from and on Modern Orthodoxy in the sec- magazine, during the Eisenhower a strong American Orthodoxy. This Radin. He never forgot his days as a ond half of the twentieth century, years, include an article about was accomplished through outreach Dr. Belkin treated rosh mesifta (lecturer in ) in the most think of the Rav rather than of Orthodox Jewish life in a special issue efforts to congregations and the train- Yeshiva of New Haven, under the Dr. Belkin. Thus, this volume comes on religion in America. Although the ing of young English-speaking, col- the Rav with the leadership of the chief rabbi of New to fill an important lacuna in the study task seemed fairly easy at first, it took lege-educated rabbis who were able to greatest respect, Haven, Rabbi Yehuda Levenberg, nor the steady hand of Geller, with Dr. meet the needs of the new post-War did he forget his service as a rosh Dr. Belkin's Belkin’s guidance, to bring this project American community. Among those and their relationship yeshivah at RIETS, under Dr. Revel and to fruition. The article, along with rabbis were men such as the late Rabbi was a model of how the gaon Rabbi . reputation and accompanying photographs, was able David Stavsky of Columbus, Ohio, Although at times he had policy dif- record have been to demonstrate that Orthodoxy in who traveled to various communities executive and ferences with the Rav, Dr. Belkin America was not relegated to the dying and succeeded in generating interest in spiritual leadership always deferred to him. Dr. Belkin overshadowed by both immigrant community, but that tens traditional Judaism. treated the Rav with the greatest Urim Publications his predecessor and his of thousands of otherwise acculturated Geller also provides the reader with can work respect, and their relationship was a , 2003 American families lived their daily much interesting information about in harmony. model of how executive and spiritual 291 pages successor. lives guided by the values and guide- the history of YU. Among the subjects leadership can work in harmony. Dr. Reviewed by Zalman Alpert lines of traditional Judaism. Projects he touches on are Dr. Belkin’s attempt Belkin was directly responsible for the of Modern Orthodoxy and YU—the such as this brought Judaism “to the to bring the late gaon Rabbi Eliezer M. the Modern Orthodox community in hiring of such European scholars as The Talmudic sages inform us that life and times of Dr. Belkin. The streets” and showed the eternal values Shach to YU as a senior rosh yeshivah many areas of Jewish life in which Rabbis David Lifshitz, Avigdor the deceased are forgotten by future author of this well-researched mono- inherent in . of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan women played a central role. For this Cyperstein, Shimon Romm (a friend generations, and that this fate befalls graph, Victor Geller served in many Geller also offers a fascinating Theological Seminary (RIETS). alone, Dr. Belkin deserves the collec- from his days at the yeshivah in even great rabbis and personalities. important executive positions on the account of the history of the first (Geller, however, does not mention tive thanks of American Jewry. Slonim), Yeruchem Gorelik (a top stu- Such is the case with the subject of the staffs of YU, the Orthodox Union and Orthodox synagogue in Great Neck, Dr. Belkin’s invitation to the late Dr. Belkin was a firm proponent of dent of the Brisker Rav, Reb Velvele) volume under review, Rabbi Dr. the National Council of Young Israel. New York. Here Geller played the role Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky to join the Umadda school of Jewish and other staff members at RIETS. , the second president of As such, he played a crucial role in of catalyst, providing learned advice to RIETS in a similar capacity.) He also theology. As such, he was committed Although not mentioned by Geller, in Yeshiva College, which is now known building the vibrant and strong a small group of laymen seeking to discusses the fact that the Rav gave to the creation of professional schools the late fifties, Dr. Belkin established a as (YU). Although Modern Orthodoxy that emerged in break away from a Conservative con- serious thought to leaving YU to of higher Jewish education, and to the for European scholars at YU. But Dr. Belkin accomplished much during the 1970s. Geller was a close associate gregation. The leader of this group was become head of the Hebrew training of professional laymen dedi- Dr. Belkin also helped to develop his tenure as president, his reputation of Dr. Belkin and was able not only to none other than the famed author Theological College in Chicago. Had cated to the ideals of . American-born scholars to eventually and record have been overshadowed by observe him up close, but also to inti- Herman Wouk. We now take it for he accepted the position, Chicago Dr. Belkin not only did much to take their places in the leadership both his predecessor, Rabbi Dr. mately participate in his activities on granted that many suburban commu- would probably not be the “second ensure the vitality of RIETS, which ranks at YU. Thus, Dr. Belkin was Bernard (Dov) Revel, and by his suc- behalf of the Orthodox community in nities and areas of second and third city” as far as American Orthodoxy trained rabbis and educators, but he extremely dedicated to the well-being cessor, Rabbi Dr. . the United States. settlements have Orthodox synagogues was concerned. In fact, years later the established professional schools under and growth of RIETS. Without the In addition, Dr. Belkin had the As a trained and veteran Jewish and communities. But that such con- Rav’s younger brother, the gaon Rabbi the auspices of YU, such as the Albert foresight and executive talent of Dr. “misfortune” to serve as president communal professional, Geller offers gregations exist is largely due to the , did accept the Einstein College of Medicine and the Belkin, American Orthodoxy would his learned and sagacious insights into dedication of men like Geller, Dr. position. Ultimately, he created his Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. have a different look today. While the Mr. Alpert is the reference librarian at events and situations involving Dr. Belkin and Wouk. In fact, Geller’s own yeshivah in Skokie, Illinois, These schools have produced thou- Rav was the developer of the soul of the Mendel Gottesman Library of Belkin’s work in building American description of Wouk’s struggle in Brisk of Chicago. Yet, the sands of men and women whose daily American Orthodoxy, Dr. Belkin was Hebraica/Judaica at Yeshiva University. Modern Orthodoxy after World War Great Neck is evocative of the mid- book’s most important contribution is lives serve as a study in Kiddush the developer of the body of American

Winter 5765/2004 JEWISH ACTION Winter 5765/2004 JEWISH ACTION Orthodxy. turies. How do we address the fact present. Following the “Divine knowledge” “mysterious” creatures, and does so which appears below, does seem to As with all books of this sort, there are that rabbis have incorporated into Much of the study of the conflict approach, Dr. Chaim Zimmerman successfully, there are places where he resemble geese “growing from timber.” some omissions. I would have been their discussions notions that we now between Torah and has been maintains that the words of Chazal are states unequivocally that the state- The rabbinic literature of the barna- interested in learning more about Dr. believe are obsolete? If these beliefs are subsumed under the heading of nish- ultimately proven correct by science: ments of Chazal are based on erro- cle goose could be supplemented with Belkin’s halachic outlook and about his mentioned in the context of homiletic taneh hateva. Research in this field has For the Torah man, the seeming con- neous, contemporaneous knowledge, the work of Rabbi Tzvi Yaakov relationship with the European roshei or aggadic statements, then few theo- included many scientific disciplines, tradictions remained a temporary dilem- and that these creatures may never Zimmels, who collected all the rab- yeshivah at the other American yeshivot. logical problems arise, as many of including cosmology, evolution,1 ma until a new scientific truth was dis- have existed. (See, for example, the binic sources discussing this creature.7 His roles as rosh yeshivah and lamdan these passages are metaphorical and astronomy2 and medicine.3 covered and the truth of the was chapter on sweat lice and spontaneous Rabbi Slifkin, in his discussion of (Talmudic scholar) need explication too. have no practical ramifications for reli- Zoology has also received some dis- clarified by scientific predictions empiri- generation.) He acknowledges that the “wild men” (adnei hasadeh), dis- Contrary to the doomsayers, Modern gious observance. However, if they parate treatment, and it is in this area cally demonstrated. Every time that a “such a solution may not be ideal, but, cusses the tradition, based on the Orthodoxy is growing; it is proud of appear to serve as the foundation of a that Rabbi Nosson Slifkin brings his new scientific proof is established, Torah in many cases, it may be the only valid Yerushalmi,8 that this species was a its past and confident of its future. halachic decision, how are we to view considerable zoological knowledge to assertions are verified, and questions of one.” form of a human being tethered to the Hopefully, this fine volume will bring this decision today? Does our obser- bear in his work Mysterious Creatures. discrepancy that perplex generations are ground by a cord from which it Dr. Belkin’s work to the attention of vance of the law change? This welcome addition to the nish- cleared up.5 received nourishment. Upon severance the wider American Jewish communi- The larger issue is the place of scien- tane hateva literature deals with such To the list of advocates of the “ Chazal did not of the cord, the creature was believed to ty, and his personality and record will tific knowledge in rabbinic literature. fantastic creatures as the unicorn, “metaphor” approach, I would add a possess superior die instantly. Daniel Sperber, professor be recognized by a wider range of peo- Is the scientific information discussed mermaid, phoenix, dragon and tree prominent place for the Maharal. One of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University, pro- ple. It is my wish that Geller’s work by Chazal considered an integral part goose. of the major themes running through knowledge of the vides another theory as to how this will inspire others to record and docu- of the halachic corpus? Is it infused Rabbi Slifkin is cognizant of, and the Maharal’s work is that the natural natural world.… notion of the tethered humanoid ment their experiences in creating a with the same theological import, and sensitive to, the theological complexity and spiritual worlds represent two evolved.9 vibrant and dedicated Orthodox given the same weight and credence as, of this topic and begins his work with completely distinct, though coexistent, They were experts in Rabbi Slifkin identifies the Biblical Jewish life in America. JA for example, halachah leMoshe an overview of the basic approaches to spheres of reality. Many of the passages Torah, not in the tachash as the giraffe and briefly men- miSinai? Or is the body of scientific resolving areas of seeming conflict in Chazal that appear to conflict with tions the theory that the giraffe may information found in Chazal merely a between Torah and science. The science would be interpreted by the natural .” have been the zemer mentioned in the Mysterious Creatures supplement to the halachic discus- author enumerates five basic approach- Maharal as being part of the spiritual Biblical list of kosher animals. In By Nosson Slifkin sions, having no independent theologi- es, which I excerpt from the book: 4 dimension, and possibly as metaphors. The chapters are highly informative, January 2002, a group of scientists, cal status? 1. Divine Knowledge Approach—The As these passages address a different with wonderful pictures and illustra- rabbis, veterinarians and shochetim (rit- The answer to this question may Sages possessed superior (or perfect) sphere of understanding, it is simply tions. One such chapter deals with a ual slaughterers) performed a halachi- depend on a number of different fac- knowledge of the natural world, which impossible for them to conflict with creature in rabbinical literature called cally oriented dissection of a giraffe. In tors: 1. The author and date of the they derived from the Torah or from scientific beliefs.6 the tree goose. The author alludes to a recently published account of this original rabbinic statement, 2. The Divine inspiration; scientists, on the The remainder of the book addresses two traditions explaining the origins of unique event, the authors provide particular area of science under discus- other hand, are fallible. the specific histories of a variety of the spontaneously generated goose— additional evidence to support the sion (astronomy, anatomy, physics, et 2. Changes of Nature Approach— “mysterious” creatures. With each one was that the birds emerged from identification of the giraffe as the cetera), 3. Whether the rabbinic state- Both the Sages and the scientists are cor- chapter Rabbi Slifkin attempts, with trees at the water’s edge, while the zemer.10 ment is halachic or aggadic in nature, rect; the physical nature of the world has varying degrees, to return to these other was that they arose from floating The text of the book is followed by 4. The philosophical approach of the changed since the time of the Sages. aforementioned approaches and inte- timber. Rabbi Slifkin mentions the a brief bibliography. Given the serious- authority addressing the conflict. 3. Different Meaning Approach— grate them into his research. For some existence of the gooseneck barnacle, ness of this topic, I would suggest In a number of areas of conflict, the Both the Sages and the scientists are cor- creatures he posits a tentative identifi- which was thought to be partially expanding the bibliography to include phrase nishtaneh hateva, nature has rect; we have simply misunderstood [the cation, while for others he explains the responsible for the latter legend. While articles as well as books, especially changed, has been invoked. The exact Sages’] intent. rabbinic passages as metaphors. The the picture of the barnacle in Rabbi since the list of books is so limited.11 definition or interpretation of this 4. Metaphor Approach—The Sages author, by his own admission, clearly Slifkin’s book does not give the (See sidebar for additional relevant Targum Press phrase is unclear, but it alludes to a used metaphors when speaking; we have aligns himself with the “empirical impression of a tree goose, the picture works.) Jerusalem, 2003 different reality between the past and simply misunderstood their intent. knowledge” approach. This is evident of one type of gooseneck barnacle, There will perhaps be readers for 232 pages 5. Empirical Knowledge Approach— throughout the book, which marshals whom Rabbi Slifkin’s book may pre- Reviewed by Edward Reichman Although great in Torah knowledge, the a wealth of evidence that many of the sent difficulty. Indeed, many great rab- Dr. Reichman is an assistant professor of Sages did not possess better knowledge of mythical creatures found in rabbinic binic scholars would simply never Few topics are as fascinating, emergency medicine at Montefiore the natural world than did other people sources were based on beliefs that were entertain the idea that Chazal could intriguing and theologically challeng- Medical Center and assistant professor of of their era. [Scientific knowledge in commonly held at the time of the ever have erred in their statements ing as the interface between Torah and philosophy and history of medicine at the those times was limited.] writing. In describing this approach, about scientific matters, regardless of science throughout the ages. As science Albert Einstein College of Medicine of For the specific advocates and Rabbi Slifkin states that “Chazal did the halachic or historical context. They evolves, scientific beliefs are dispelled, Yeshiva University in New York. He sources for these approaches, the read- not possess superior knowledge of the maintain that all the statements of theories are discarded, and received his rabbinic ordination from the er will be well served by consulting natural world over anyone else in their Chazal are products of ruach hakodesh shifts occur. Some of these discarded Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Rabbi Slifkin’s book. I would, howev- era. They were experts in Torah, not in (Divine spirit). While the book was theories or beliefs can be found in rab- Seminary of Yeshiva University, and writes er, like to suggest some additional the natural sciences.” While the author dedicated to an inquisitive Bar binic literature throughout the cen- and lectures about Jewish medical ethics. sources for the various approaches. works hard to identify many of the Mitzvah boy, I do not believe the aver- age thirteen-year-old boy is capable of Modern Life (Jerusalem, 1989); Gerald Galileo could not believe that “the The Torah u-Madda Journal 11 (2002- ‘Learning’ of the Talmud,” Modern dealing with such a complex topic L. Schroeder, Genesis and the same who gave us our senses, our 2003): 203-221, esp. 204-205. Scholarship in The Study of Torah: without rabbinic or parental guidance. (New York, 1990); idem., The Hidden speech, our intellect would have us put 11. Neriah Gutal’s major work on Contributions and Limitations However, this book is an excellent Face of God: Science Reveals the aside the use of these, to teach us this topic, cited by Rabbi Slifkin, has (Orthodox Forum), ed. Shalom addition to the library of the informed Ultimate Truth (New York, 2002); instead such things as with their help also been updated. See his Sefer Carmy (New Jersey, 1995). JA reader. idem., The Science of God: The we could find out for ourselves.” Hishtanut Hatevaim Behalachah, 2d Professor Sperber’s comments Convergence of Scientific and Biblical In this way Galileo reconciled the ed. (Jerusalem, 1998). This edition To Advertise in regarding Talmudic study could be Wisdom (New York, 1997); Lee independence of the human mind contains an index as well as an essay equally applied to Rabbi Slifkin’s Spetner, Not By Chance: Shattering the with a loyalty to God and Scripture, and comments appended by Rav work: Modern Theory of Evolution (New and he privately held this view, despite Zalman Nechemia Goldberg. See also Jewish Action A fuller understanding of all aspects of York, 1998). Rabbi Slifkin has also public recanting, for the rest of his life. the books listed in notes 1-3. Rabbi the text is not only legitimate, but essen- written about creation and evolution 3. See Edward Reichman, “The Slifkin lists only English-language Contact: tial. Hence, we should approach any within the Torah perspective in The Halachic Definition of Death in Light works. In my sidebar, I include works In the USA given Talmudic passage with all new- Science of Torah (Jerusalem, 2001). of Medical History,” The Torah u- in Hebrew and in English. found disciplines available to us. At the 2. The new heliocentric theory of Madda Journal 4 (spring 1993): 148- 12. Daniel Sperber, “On the Deborah Lieber same time, we must be humble enough to Copernicus and Galileo presented a 174; idem., “The Incorporation of Legitimacy, or Indeed Necessity, of 212-613-8135 realize that ultimately our conclusions potential conflict with rabbinic teach- Early Scientific Theories into Rabbinic Scientific Disciplines for the True will never move out of the realm of con- ings. On the Jewish reactions to the Literature: The Case of Innate Heat,” jecture. Nonetheless, we may have under- Copernican Revolution, see David The Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (1998- stood the sugya a little more, a little Berger, “Judaism and General Culture 1999): 181-99; idem., “The Rabbinic SUGGESTED READING: deeper, and a little better. We may have in Medieval and Early Modern Conception of Conception: An Behalachah.” B.D.D. 4 (winter solved some additional problems that Times,” Judaism’s Encounter with Exercise in Fertility,” Tradition 31:1 Carmell, A. and M. irked the earlier authorities. And we will Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration, (fall 1996): 33-63. Goldberger. “Comments on 1997): 81-96 (Hebrew section). have advanced in our limud Torah.12 ed. J. J. Schacter (New Jersey, 1997), 4. For a different enumeration of Shlomo Sternberg’s Review of Rabbi Slifkin’s Mysterious Creatures 133-35; Hillel Levine, “Paradise Not approaches, see Shlomo Sternberg, Guide to Masechet Hullin and Malach, D. “Hishtanut demystifies many rabbinic passages Surrendered: Jewish Reactions to “Review of Guide to Masechet Hullin Masechet Bechorot by I.M. Hatevaim Kipitronot Lestirot Bein dealing with zoology and helps us Copernicus and the Growth of and Masechet Bechorot by I. M. Levinger in B.D.D. 4.” B.D.D. 6 Dat Lemadda.” Techumin 18 understand rabbinic literature a little Modern Science,” Epistemology, Levinger,” B.D.D. 4 (winter 1997): (winter 1998): 57-84 (English (5758): 371-383. more, a little deeper and a little better. Methodology, and the Social Sciences, 81-102 (English section). Dr. section). It will generate further discussion and eds. R. S. Cohen and M. Wartofsky Sternberg’s article evoked strong Rabinowitz, N.E. “Ha’arakha debate about the identity of many ani- (Dordrecht, Germany 1983), 203-25; responses in subsequent issues of the Cohen, D. “Shinuy Hateva: An Madait Kiyesod Lipesikat mals, but, after reading this book, you Andre Neher, Jewish Thought and the journal. Also see Gil Student, Halachah: Iyunim Bemishnat will surely have advanced in your Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth “Halachic Responses to Scientific Analysis of the Halachic Process.” limud Torah. Century: David Gans (1541-1613) and Developments,” at http://www.aish- Journal of Halacha and Contem- HaRambam.” Techumin 8: 435- His Times (New York, 1986) and das.org/toratemet/science.html. porary Society 31 (spring 1996). 453. For updates and corrections on Rabbi’s David Ruderman, Jewish Thought and 5. “The Truth of Torah Data and its Slifkin’s book, please see Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Precedence for Scientific Discovery,” Frimer, D. “Kevi’at Avhut al Sprecher, S. “Divrei Chazal http://zootorah.com/books/creatures Europe (Connecticut, 1995), 266-68. Torah and Reason (Jerusalem, 1979), Yedei Bedukat Dam Bemishpat Veyediot Madaiyot.” B.D.D. 2 frame.htm. Rav Kook maintained that 29-49. HaYisraeli Ubemishpat HaIvri.” (winter 1996): 2-39. Rambam’s view was consistent with 6. See Alan Kimche, “The Maharal ed. M. Halperin. Sefer Assia 5. Notes the heliocentric theory. See his of Prague on Combining Torah Jerusalem, 1986. 185-209. Steinberg, A. Encyclopedia of 1. See Nathan Aviezer, In the Ma’amar Meyuchad on Rambam, pub- Learning with Secular Study,” Le’ela Jewish Medical Ethics. Trans. F. Beginning: Biblical Creation & Science lished in Ma’amarei HaRa’yah, 105- (December 1999): 15-20. Rosner. Jerusalem, 2003, s.v. (New Jersey, 1990); idem., Fossils and 112, as well as in vol. 12 of Ya’avits’ 7. Tzvi Yaakov Zimmels, “Ofot Gutal, N. “Hishtanut Tevaim.” Faith: Understanding Torah and Science Toldot Yisrael, 211-219. (I thank Rabbi Hagedailim BiIlan,” Minchat Bikurim B.D.D. 7 (summer 1998): 33-47. “change in nature.” (New Jersey, 2002); Matis Greenblatt for this reference.) (Vienna, 1926). See also The Jewish and Ilana Coven Attia, eds., Science in Galileo himself faced a theological Encyclopedia, ed. I. Singer (New York, Halevi, C. D. “Ha’avchanot Sternberg, S. “Guide to the Light of Torah (New Jersey, 1994); dilemma as his heliocentric theory 1964), s.v., “barnacle-goose.” Harefuiyot shel Chazal.” Masechet Hullin and Masechet and , went against the teachings of the 8. Kilayim 8:4 and Pnei Moshe, ad loc. Techumin 17: 319-326. Bechorot by I. M. Levinger.” Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Church. In response, he wrote: 9. “Vegetable-Men,” Magic and B.D.D. 4 (winter 1997): 81-102 its Problems (Jerusalem, 1978); Though Scripture cannot err, its Folklore in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat Lev, Z. “Neriah Moshe Gutal, (English section). Abraham Korman, Evolution and expounders and interpreters are liable to Gan, 1994). Sefer Hishtanut Hatevaim Judaism (Tel Aviv, 5762) (Hebrew); err in many ways … when they would 10. Doni Zivotofsky, Ari Z. Chaim Schimmel and Aryeh Carmell, base themselves always on the literal Zivotofsky and Zohar Amar, “Giraffe: eds., Encounter: Essays on Torah and meaning of the words. A Halakhically Oriented Dissection,”