The Sheitel Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes 1 Book Presentation 1 . The reader who seeks a more practically oriented presentation of these issues may wish to consult Rabbi Daniel Sperber’s forthcoming manuscript, The Halachic Status of Hinduism: Is Hinduism Idolatrous? A Jewish Legal Inquiry. Because he is more of a halachist and less of a theologian, his discussion does seek to reach some conclu- sions, where the present project seeks to problematize not only Hinduism but the very concept of Avoda Zara as well. While my argument calls for an application of a more complex method, his argument is that Hinduism is not Avoda Zara. The two argu- ments are complementary, but also very distinct in nature. 2 . The Jewish-Hindu encounter, including a mention of differing views as to its antiquity and extensivity, is the subject of the complementary volume to the present publication, The Jewish Encounter with Hinduism , published simultaneously by the same press. 3 . See, for example, Nathan Katz, The State of the Art of Hindu-Jewish Dialogue, Indo-Judaic Studies in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Nathan Katz et al., Palgrave- Macmillan, New York, 2007, pp. 113–126 and the various essays collected in F rom India Till Here , ed. Elhanan Nir, Rubin Mass, Jerusalem, 2006 [Hebrew]. 4 . This includes such figures as Benjamin of Tudela and Yaakov Sapir, both of whom are mentioned in The Jewish Encounter with Hinduism . 5 . M a n y o f t h e s e p o i n t s e m e r g e i n The Jewish Encounter with Hinduism and I do not pretend to do justice to the subject in these few lines. 6 . Some of this has been done in The Jewish Encounter with Hinduism. 2 Author Presentation 1. Some friends are catching up. We may be witnessing the beginnings of a trend among Orthodox Jewish scholars who are drawn to the study of Hinduism. Alan Brill and Pinchas Giller are two names that come to mind, in addition to Daniel Sperber, already mentioned. 3 Model Case Presentation: The Sheitel Crisis 1 . As I learned when visiting the temple and standing in the darshan line with devotees. 2 . See Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, kovetz Teshuvot , Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 1, 77, pp. 114–116. An important consideration in Rabbi Elyashiv’s earlier ruling is the testimony of an expert (whose name is not provided), who is described as the greatest expert in Indian matters. Rabbi Elyashiv’s concluding note affirms his dependency on this expert 208 NOTES TO PAGES 18–21 opinion as well as the need for further investigation on a factual basis. In fact, the seeds of the future reversal of opinion are contained in this concluding note, which eventually led Rabbi Elyashiv to obtain information based on his own independent source. At the end of the day, then, the entire issue devolves to fundamental issues of epistemology and authority: Whom can rabbinical authorities trust as expert wit- nesses on a subject that is beyond their competence, and what amounts to correct perception and knowledge of another field and—in this instance—the other? 3 . Actually, I recently heard that he did meet with a SOAS expert, prior to his departure. 4 . Fleming and Yoshiko Reed expose the problematic nature of the responses offered by Hindus questioned by rabbinic emissaries. Their answers contradict Hindu self- understanding, creating a gap that Fleming seeks to fill by pointing to the com- plexities of traditional understandings of hair and the meaning of its cutting in Hindu sources. See Benjamin Fleming and Annette Yoshiko Reed, From Tirupati to Brooklyn: Interpreting Hindu Votive Hair-Offerings, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 40, 2011, pp. 1–36. This complexity, typical of so much of Hindu religious thought, alerts us to the care that must be taken when posing questions to practitio- ners, based on the concerns and categories of another religious system. 5 . See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/nyregion/orthodox-jews-in-brooklyn-burn- banned-wigs.html , dated May 17, 2004. 6 . S h a l o m D o v b e r W o l p e , Yakem Se’ara Lidemama , Chish Press, Kiryat Gat, 2004 [Hebrew]. 7 . Almost none of these addressed the question of the actual practices or tried to verify for themselves what Hindu practice and belief consist of. One exception is the legal court of Rabbi Nissim Kareliz, in Benei Berak. As part of their ruling, which was more lenient than that of Rabbi Elyashiv, they received the testimony of a Jewish traveler who had spent time in India and reported on Indian customs. The witness was by no means an expert on Hinduism or an insider to it. 8 . The methodological flaws, even from the viewpoint of halachic discourse, in how rabbis went about, or rather did not go about, discerning the nature of Hindu religion are explored in Daniel Sperber’s, How Not to Make Halachic Rulings, http://www. jewishideas.org/articles/how-not-make-halakhic-rulings . 9 . The following anecdote captures the governing frame of mind. It is as funny as it is sad. In the midst of the sheitel crisis I was put in touch with a leading hassidic rebbe, who on the whole has a good grasp of contemporary reality, especially when it comes to issues of medicine and medical ethics. His opening line was: “So what is the story with Buddhism?” I replied by saying that the sheitel crisis revolved around Hinduism, to which he retorted by posing the question, most sincerely: “What’s the difference?” Given such low levels of familiarity with other religious cultures it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion of their halachic status. Consequently, assumptions and stereotypes prevail where careful thought and analysis are required. 1 0 . S e e Noda Biyehuda, Tinyana, Yore De’ah 111;180; See also 10. 11. The conclusion of Rabbi Joshua Flug, A Review of the Recent “Sheitel” Controversy, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 49, 2005, pp. 5–33 is telling. Flug, p. 33, speaks of the value of this controversy as an opportunity to explore issues that are rarely of practical relevance, such as an offering to an idol and the statistical principle of k avaua . 12 . Christianity being foremost among them. A substantial part of the present work extrapolates to Hinduism from prior views taken in relationship to Christianity. 13 . Identity of the worshipped god as an other is not the only reason for disapproving of image worship. Rabbi Yehuda Halevy seems to offer a critique of image worship that does not hinge on an understanding of another god. For him, images are means NOTES TO PAGES 21–22 209 of drawing down astral powers, but these are falsely ascribed to images and in fact do not work. See K uzari 1, 60–62. A similar understanding is also echoed by his colleague Abraham Ibn Ezra, commentary to Ex. 32, 1. See further Richard Marks’s discussion of Ibn Ezra in his forthcoming The Jewish Interest in Hinduism: A History of Ideas from Judah Halevi to Jacob Sapir . See the discussion in chapter 4 on Avoda Zara as relating to inappropriate forms of worship, alongside the primary focus on the identity of the worshipped God. 14 . Of course, the same challenge may be posed in relation to Christianity. To the extent that Christian worship involves the use of images and forms, this has fed widespread perception of Christianity as Avoda Zara. But if we approach the question from the other direction, we are challenged to contemplate how, other than through ritual, we would recognize the Christian God as one and the same as the God of Israel. See further, Alon Goshen-Gottstein, God Between Christians and Jews: Is It the Same God? Do We Worship the Same God? Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue, ed. Miroslav Volf, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2012, pp. 50–75. 15 . This has already been achieved by some rabbinic spokesmen. See in particular the discussion of Rabbi Steinsaltz. 16 . This move is implicit in earlier writings, especially with regard to Christianity. I believe it is one of the contributions of the present discussion to make explicit and conscious the reframing of the core question in this way as a basis for a Jewish view of another religion. 17 . This could lead to the realization, or the charge, that another god is worshipped by the same means, while avoiding representation through images. This describes inter- nal Jewish theological disputes, where the same worship is addressed to a God, vari- ously understood by different religious philosophies. Such divergent understandings could lead to the view of the alternative Jewish view as a form of Avoda Zara. See Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Triune and the Decaune God: Christianity and Kabbalah as Objects of Jewish Polemics with Special Reference to Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne’s Milhemet Mitzva, Religious Polemics in Context, ed. T. L. Hettema and A. Van der Kooij, Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, 2004, pp. 165–197. 18 . In a more historical vein, see K. van der Toorn, The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah, The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. K. Van der Toorn, Peeters, Leuven, 1997, pp. 229–248. 19 . I would say that in terms of methodology, Daniel Sperber’s rabbinic appreciation of Hinduism is largely based on his willingness to accept the authority of the Hindu interpreter, thereby absolving Hinduism from charges that are imported from the Jewish viewer’s eyes.