Summer11b Layout 1 5/27/11 12:33 PM Page 75

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Summer11b Layout 1 5/27/11 12:33 PM Page 75 Summer11b_Layout 1 5/27/11 12:33 PM Page 75 Legal-Ease By Ari Z. Zivotofsky What’s the Truth about . Rashi’s Daughters? MISCONCEPTION: Rashi’s daughters While there is no evidence that any problem with women performing wore tefillin. of Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin, this these mitzvot, and they are actually myth persists and is found in various encouraged to do so. The mitzvah of FACT: There is no evidence that printed sources. In her book, Life on donning tefillin appears to be a notable Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin. the Fringes: A Feminist Journey Toward exception. A variety of reasons has Traditional Rabbinic Ordination, Dr. been suggested.5 BACKGROUND: Rabbi Shlomo Haviva Ner-David2 cites Rashi’s daugh- The earliest source on the topic of Yitzchaki, known colloquially as ters’ “tradition” of wearing tefillin as women donning tefillin is found in Tar- “Rashi,” is the commentator par excel- setting a precedent. Similarly, an article gum Yonatan to Devarim 22:5. When lence on both the Torah and Talmud. that appeared in the Journal of Jewish discussing the prohibition of a woman Born in Troyes in northern France in Music and Liturgy3 mentions that wearing male garments, the commen- CE), he descended on both 4801 (1040 Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin. tary mentions that women are not per- sides from influential families. He The halachah makes it clear that mitted to don tzitzit and tefillin. studied in Worms, Germany, under women are exempt from wearing Dr. Aliza Berger, who carried out an some of the leading rabbinic authori- tefillin (Mishnah Berachot 3:3; Kid- exhaustive study of the topic, notes ties of his time and established a dushin 33b-34a; SA, OC 38:3). Whether that “Until the current generation, yeshivah in Troyes that was destined to women are allowed to don tefillin is the there have been only isolated instances become one of the principal dissemina- subject of great debate. The Rema (OC attested of women wearing tefillin.” 6 In tors of Ashkenazic tradition. In the 38:3) rules that it should be discour- a footnote (2), she concludes: “There is wake of the destruction of the German aged, and the Gra (comments to OC no proof for the popular legend that Jewish centers by the Crusaders, Rashi 38:3) contends that women are prohib- Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin. How- established France as the Torah capital ited from wearing them. ever, it is interesting to speculate on of Ashkenazic Jewry. He died in Troyes Ironically, some scholars argue that why this association arose; it probably in 4865 (1105 CE). during the early medieval period there has to do with the fact that Rashi’s Rashi had four daughters and no was actually a general laxity among daughters were known to be excep- sons. The two daughters about whom men or even outright neglect of the tional in that they were educated.”7 some information is known are Miriam mitzvah of donning tefillin. Rabbi A similar baseless claim developed and Yocheved. Both of them married Moshe Couchi, in the introduction to around the first wife of the Ohr great Torah scholars and bore and Halachot Gedolot, states that he HaChaim. She was the daughter of a raised the undisputed leaders of preached in France about the impor- famous rabbi, and some claim that she Ashkenazic Jewry. Yocheved married tance of putting on tefillin daily and wore tallit and tefillin. There is no his- Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel, one of Rashi’s that, as a result, people were more con- torical evidence of that. star pupils, and they had four famous scientious about putting on tefillin.4 The Talmud8 reports that Michal sons: Yitzchak (“Rivam”), Shmuel The question of women wearing bat King Shaul, wife of King David, (“Rashbam”), Shlomo the grammarian, tefillin is particularly interesting be- wore tefillin, though there are conflict- and the youngest and most famous, cause in general, Ashkenazim, based ing reports in the Talmud Bavli and Yaakov (“Rabbeinu Tam”). Miriam on the opinion of Rashi’s grandson Yerushalmi about how her contempo- married Yehudah ben Nathan Rabbeinu Tam, maintain that women raries viewed this. There is documen- (“Rivan”) who finished Rashi’s com- may take upon themselves time-bound tation indicating that Hannah Rachel 1 Rashi appears to mentary to Makkot. mitzvot from which they are exempt Webermacher, the famed “Maiden of have had another daughter, Rachel, and recite a berachah. Ashkenazic Ludmir,” who was a nineteenth-cen- and a fourth daughter who died young. women make a berachah, for example, tury Polish Chassidic leader, Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky is on the faculty of upon hearing the shofar on Rosh wore tefillin. the Brain Science Program at Bar-Ilan Uni- Hashanah, and shaking a lulav and sit- If women are indeed forbidden to versity in Israel. ting in a sukkah on Sukkot. There is no wear tefillin, how could Michal bat Summer 5771/2011 JEWISH ACTION I 75 Summer11b_Layout 1 5/27/11 12:33 PM Page 76 Shaul wear tefillin? The Kaf HaChaim (OC 38:9) quotes a creative suggestion by the Yafe l’lev. He suggests that Michal knew that she possessed a reincarnated “male soul.” He proposes that this also explains her barrenness. Regarding Rashi’s daughters, one can argue that ab- sence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However be- cause the notion of Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin appears only in late twentieth-century writings, and does not seem to appear anywhere before that, this would indi- cate that it is, in fact, a myth. Notes 1. See Shoshana Pantel Zolty, And All Your Children Shall Be Learned: Women and the Study of Torah in Jewish Law and His- tory (Northvale, NJ, 1993), 179. 2. (Boston, 2000), 2. 3. Leon Katz, “Halakhic Aspects of Bar-Mitzvah and Bat- Mitzvah,” vol. 9 (1986-7): 27. 4. See Rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Not Just Another Contemporary Jewish Problem: A Historical Discussion of Phylacteries,” Gesher 5:1 (1976): 106-121. See also, Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes Toward Non- observance in the Medieval Period,” edited by Jacob J. Schacter, Jewish Tradi- tion and the Nontraditional Jew (Northvale, NJ, 1992), 7-14. 5. A remarkable source is Rabbi Avigdor Tzarfati, one of the ba’alei Tosafot, in his Sefer Perushim Upesakim al haTorah leRa- bbeinu Avigdor Tzarfati, where he states that some of the right- eous women in his time had the practice of putting on tefillin and reciting a berachah. I thank noted Israeli historian and Rashi expert Professor Avraham Grossman of Hebrew Univer- sity for this source. Professor Grossman also stated in a per- sonal e-mail that the legend about Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin has no historical basis. 6. “Wrapped Attention: May Women Wear Tefillin?” in Jew- ish Legal Writings by Women, edited by Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai (Jerusalem, 1998), 75-118. A recent book by Rabbi Aharon Feldman (The Eye of the Storm: A Calm View of Raging Issues [Jerusalem, 2009]), using Berger’s article as a spring- board, criticizes the suggestion that women may wear tefillin. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, in reviewing the book (Jewish Ac- tion, [spring 2010], 18-21), while not advocating women wear tefillin, took exception with Rabbi Feldman’s tone and method- ology and presented a variety of positions on the topic. Ner- David in her book also reviews much of the literature regarding women wearing tefillin but gives scant weight to those who prohibit it. For an interesting modern source that discusses women and tefillin, see Ohr Sameach, Hilchot Talmud Torah, near the end of the long commentary to 1:2. 7. Rabbi Aryeh Frimer, a recognized expert on women’s ha- lachic issues, reports having thoroughly studied the subject and finding no source for this myth. Professor David Golinkin (“May Women wear Tefillin?,” Conservative Judaism [Fall 1997]: 3-18) wrote,“There is a widespread story that Rashi’s daughters wore tefillin, but I have been unable to find any writ- ten proof of this assertion.” Cf Idem, “Ha’im Mutar Lenashim Lehani’ach Tefillin? Asufot 11 (5758): 183-196. 8. Eruvin 96a-b; Yerushalmi, Berachot 2:3 and Eruvin 10:1; see Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33a, s.v. haRebbi. 76 I JEWISH ACTION Summer 5771/2011.
Recommended publications
  • Yeshiva University • Rosh Hashana To-Go • Tishrei 5769
    1 YESHIVA UNIVERSITY • ROSH HASHANA TO-GO • TISHREI 5769 Dear Friends, ראש השנה will enhance your ספר It is my sincere hope that the Torah found in this virtual (Rosh HaShana) and your High Holiday experience. We have designed this project not only for the individual, studying alone, but also for a a pair of students) that wishes to work through the study matter together, or a group) חברותא for engaged in facilitated study. להגדיל תורה With this material, we invite you, wherever you may be, to join our Beit Midrash to enjoy the splendor of Torah) and to discuss Torah issues that touch on) ולהאדירה contemporary matters, as well as issues rooted in the ideals of this time of year. We hope, through this To-Go series, to participate in the timeless conversations of our great sages. בברכת כתיבה וחתימה טובה Rabbi Kenneth Brander Dean, Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future Richard M Joel, President, Yeshiva University Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Dean, Center for the Jewish Future Rabbi Robert Shur, General Editor Ephraim Meth, Editor Copyright © 2008 All rights reserved by Yeshiva University Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future 500 West 185th Street, Suite 413, New York, NY 10033 [email protected] • 212.960.5400 x 5313 2 YESHIVA UNIVERSITY • ROSH HASHANA TO-GO • TISHREI 5769 Table of Contents Rosh Hashana 2008/5769 The Mitzvah of Shofar: Who’s Listening? Rabbi Reuven Brand The Teshuvah Beyond Teshuvah Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman Rosh HaShanah's Role as the Beginning of a New Fiscal Year and How It Affects Us Rabbi Josh Flug Aseret Yemei Teshuva: The Bridge Between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur Rabbi Shmuel Hain The Music of the Yamim Noraim Cantor Sherwood Goffin Selected Minhagim of Rosh Hashana Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer The Personal and Collective Journey to Har haMoria Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos
    Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts David Berger The deep and systemic tension between contemporary egalitarianism and many authoritative Jewish texts about gentiles takes varying forms. Most Orthodox Jews remain untroubled by some aspects of this tension, understanding that Judaism’s affirmation of chosenness and hierarchy can inspire and ennoble without denigrating others. In other instances, affirmations of metaphysical differences between Jews and gentiles can take a form that makes many of us uncomfortable, but we have the legitimate option of regarding them as non-authoritative. Finally and most disturbing, there are positions affirmed by standard halakhic sources from the Talmud to the Shulhan Arukh that apparently stand in stark contrast to values taken for granted in the modern West and taught in other sections of the Torah itself. Let me begin with a few brief observations about the first two categories and proceed to somewhat more extended ruminations about the third. Critics ranging from medieval Christians to Mordecai Kaplan have directed withering fire at the doctrine of the chosenness of Israel. Nonetheless, if we examine an overarching pattern in the earliest chapters of the Torah, we discover, I believe, that this choice emerges in a universalist context. The famous statement in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5) that Adam was created singly so that no one would be able to say, “My father is greater than yours” underscores the universality of the original divine intent. While we can never know the purpose of creation, one plausible objective in light of the narrative in Genesis is the opportunity to actualize the values of justice and lovingkindness through the behavior of creatures who subordinate themselves to the will 1 of God.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Following Verses from Devarim, Moshe Recounts the Events of Revelation at Sinai
    In the following verses from Devarim, Moshe recounts the events of revelation at Sinai. How does he describe his role? What inner contradiction comes from a comparison of verses 4- 5? Deuteronomy 5 (1) And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. (2) The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (3) The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. (4) The Lord spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. (5) I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare unto you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount, saying: To think about: What is a “face-to-face” encounter? What does it mean that Hashem spoke to the nation in such a manner at Sinai? Why might God have chosen to do so? According to verse 5, Moshe acted as an intermediary to “tell [the nation] the word of God.” How can this be reconciled with the direct encounter described in verse 4? What would be the point of Hashem speaking via a mediator? What does Moshe mean when he says “for you were afraid because of the fire”? Had the nation not been afraid, would the experience have been different? Why would God have chosen to frighten the people anyway? Did we hear the Ten Commandments directly from Hashem or did Moshe act as an intermediary? Right after the description of Hashem relaying the Ten Commandments, Moshe recounts how the people approached him, filled with fear: Deuteronomy 5 (20) and ye said: ‘Behold, the Lord our God hath shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth.
    [Show full text]
  • Purifying the Impure?
    בס“ד Parshiyot Shemini/Parah 23 Adar II, 5779/March 30, 2019 Vol. 10 Num. 30 (#408) This issue is sponsored by the families of Irwin, Jim and David Diamond in memory of their father, Morris Diamond z”l לזכר ולעילוי נשמת אבינו מורינו ר‘ משה בן דוד שלמה ז“ל Purifying the Impure? Ezer Diena In delineating the rules of purity and 1: The student may be right Rabbi Abulafia’s characterization of this impurity, the Torah warns us very According to Rabbeinu Tam (cited in person as one who is able to overcome a strongly to avoid defiling ourselves by Tosafot to Eruvin and Sanhedrin ibid.), challenge can be further split into two eating or otherwise coming into the student and judge meant to prove tests: the logical, and emotional. contact with the carcasses of only that a sheretz would not cause s her atz i m, literally “creeping impurity if an olive-sized piece were One test is to see a Torah ruling which creatures” [singular: sheretz]. (Vayikra transported, and this may have basis in seems illogical, even by the Torah’s 11:29-38, 41-44) Not only that, but the traditional sources. The ability to permit standards. Certain laws relating to sheretz gained special status as the a sheretz in this way simply indicates purity and impurity may very well fall paradigm of uncleanliness in the detailed knowledge and halachic into this category! In fact, one of the Talmud (Taanit 16a): acumen. However, other commentaries more challenging details of ritual purity, raise technical halachic questions which we read about in Parshat Parah “Rabbi Adda bar Ahavah said: A against this approach, and reject it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Best Part of Waking up Birchas Hatorah on Shavuos Morning Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch Faculty, Stone Beit Midrash Program
    The Best Part of Waking Up Birchas HaTorah on Shavuos Morning Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch Faculty, Stone Beit Midrash Program The Importance of Birchas HaTorah One of the most significant berachos we recite throughout the day is the birchas haTorah. This series of berachos30 is not only a halachic requirement, but a powerful testament to the importance of Torah study. For example, the Talmud (Nedarim 81a) asks why Torah scholarship often does not pass from a father who is a Torah scholar to his children. Ravina explains that it is result of the scholar’s omission of birchas haTorah: ומפני מה אין מצויין ת"ח לצאת Why is it uncommon for Torah scholars to produce Torah scholars as ת"ח מבניהן? רבינא אמר... their children? Ravina said: Because they [the Torah scholars] do שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה. not recite the berachos [of birchas haTorah] prior [to studying Torah] The Beis Yosef (O.C. 47) quotes his Rebbi, Rabbeinu Yitzhak Abohav, who explains Ravina’s intent: ורבינו הגדול מהר"י אבוהב ז"ל Our great Rebbi, Mahar"i Abohav zt"l, wrote that the [explanation כתב שהטעם שאינם זוכים of the] reason [given by the Talmud] that they are not privileged to לבנים תלמידי חכמים מפני שאין have children that are Torah scholars “because they do not recite the מברכין בתורה הוא לפי שמאחר beracha [of birchas haTorah]” is that since they do not recite שאין מברכין על התורה מורה berachos on the Torah, it demonstrates that they are not studying it שאין קורין אותה לשמה אלא for its own sake, rather merely like a common occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating a Jewish Tax Ethic
    ARI HART Civilization’s Price: Cultivating a Jewish Tax Ethic Introduction SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote that taxes are “the price of civilization”. Judaism recognizes them as more. Taxes are a means of civilization, and their creation and collection reveals a tremendous amount about a society’s priorities and values. Recent scandals involving Jews shirking their tax responsibilities have led to much ink being spilled, in certain circles, on whether or not Jew must pay taxes. The Jewish ethical answer in a free democracy is unequivocally “yes”. 1 Does the Jewish ethical tradition have anything to say beyond this basic question? Aside from how they should be paid (regularly, fully), can we artic - ulate a Jewish tax ethic? The Torah contains several kinds of taxes and tithes in its economic sys - tem. p Terumah was levied to support the priests who did not own prop - erty and devoted themselves to the communal good including running the Temple. Terumah, was given, according to rabbinic mandate at a level of between a fortieth, fiftieth or sixtieth of total produce, depending on the generosity of the payer. p Ma’aser rishon , a tenth taken after terumah was taken, was given to support the landless Levi’im in their service educating and serving the Jewish people. RABBI ARI HART is Assistant Rabbi at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Director of Recruitment at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. 78 Ari Hart 79 p Ma’aser sheini is a share of produce that had to be eaten in the capital, Jerusalem, or sold and substituted with food bought in Jerusalem, to support its economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Catalogue
    F i n e J u d a i C a . printed booKs, manusCripts, Ceremonial obJeCts & GraphiC art K e s t e n b au m & C om pa n y thursday, nov ember 19th, 2015 K est e n bau m & C o m pa ny . Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art A Lot 61 Catalogue of F i n e J u d a i C a . BOOK S, MANUSCRIPTS, GR APHIC & CEREMONIAL A RT INCLUDING A SINGULAR COLLECTION OF EARLY PRINTED HEBREW BOOK S, BIBLICAL & R AbbINIC M ANUSCRIPTS (PART II) Sold by order of the Execution Office, District High Court, Tel Aviv ——— To be Offered for Sale by Auction, Thursday, 19th November, 2015 at 3:00 pm precisely ——— Viewing Beforehand: Sunday, 15th November - 12:00 pm - 6:00 pm Monday, 16th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm Tuesday, 17th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm Wednesday, 18th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm No Viewing on the Day of Sale This Sale may be referred to as: “Sempo” Sale Number Sixty Six Illustrated Catalogues: $38 (US) * $45 (Overseas) KestenbauM & CoMpAny Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art . 242 West 30th street, 12th Floor, new york, NY 10001 • tel: 212 366-1197 • Fax: 212 366-1368 e-mail: [email protected] • World Wide Web site: www.Kestenbaum.net K est e n bau m & C o m pa ny . Chairman: Daniel E. Kestenbaum Operations Manager: Jackie S. Insel Client Relations: Sandra E. Rapoport, Esq. Printed Books & Manuscripts: Rabbi Eliezer Katzman Rabbi Dovid Kamenetsky (Consultant) Ceremonial & Graphic Art: Abigail H.
    [Show full text]
  • ON the MITZVOT of NON-JEWS: an ANALYSIS of AVODAH ZARAH 2B-3A Rabbi Dov Linzer
    MilinHavivinEng1 7/5/05 11:48 AM Page 25 Rabbi Dov Linzer is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School and the Chair of the Yeshiva’s Departments of Talmud and Jewish Law. ON THE MITZVOT OF NON-JEWS: AN ANALYSIS OF AVODAH ZARAH 2B-3A Rabbi Dov Linzer I. THE SUGYAH Non-Jews are commanded to observe the seven Noahide laws.1 A logical corollary of this is that they are to be rewarded for their performance of these mitzvot, and held liable for transgressing them.2 This assumption, however, is brought into question by the sugyah around the statement of Rav Yosef in Avodah Zarah 2b-3a (paralleled in Bava Kama 35a): 1 Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:4; Sanhedrin 74b 2 The idea of a world of future reward and punishment for non-Jews is consistent with the position that righteous non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2; Sanhedrin 105a). It is prima facie difficult to understand how the opposing position, that even the righteous amongst the non-Jews has no share in the World-to-Come, can explain the significance of Noahide mitzvot for a non-Jew. The answers to this question are beyond the scope of this paper, but we can immediately sug- gest three possible solutions: (1) The phrase “World-to-Come” may not refer to the totality of future metaphysical reward, but only one aspect of it; (2) The primary focus of the Noahide laws might be to enforce behavior on this world and do not suggest a meta- physical religious system for non-Jews and (3) While assured no future reward, non-Jews might suffer different degrees of punishment for the degree of their transgressions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Categorization of Errors Encountered in the Study of Zemanim
    91 A Categorization of Errors Encountered in the Study of Zemanim By: WILLIAM GEWIRTZ Introduction To begin, I feel obligated to address my motivation for writing an essay focusing on the errors regarding zemanim one encounters throughout rabbinic literature. My motivation is at least three-fold: 1. For theorists in the development of halakha, these examples provide valuable information for analysis. 2. Without errors identified and accounted for, mastery of this vast and critical area of rabbinic literature will remain difficult even for accomplished halakhists. One need only read the revealing teshuvah in Minhaṭ Yitzhoḳ 1 to observe the (self-reported) chal- lenges faced by one of the last century’s celebrated poskim. 3. On occasion, the erroneous reasoning provided in a teshuvah provides the basis on which others construct their rulings. This has caused practical errors usually, but not always, by lesser authori- ties. Throughout, I do not cite multiple teshuvot where an error occurs; with a few exceptions, one example suffices. Normally, a footnote will specify a source where an error can be found. Most illustrated errors were made by poskim living after the 19th century, when almost all need- ed science was widely available. The errors that I list are focused on the rationale or structure of the arguments regardless of whether the resulting psak may still be reasona- ble. As a result of the errors, however, many pesakim are not well- founded. Furthermore, many who study and then apply those arguments may use the rationale as a basis for an erroneous psak. 1 Minhaṭ Yitzhoḳ̣ (4:53).
    [Show full text]
  • The Sun's Path at Night
    The Sun’s Path at Night The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution RABBI NATAN SLIFKIN Copyright © 2010 by Natan Slifkin Version 1.1 http://www.ZooTorah.com http://www.RationalistJudaism.com This monograph is adapted from an essay that was written as part of the course requirements for a Master’s degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem). This document may be freely distributed as long as it is distributed complete and intact. If you are reading a printed version of this document and you wish to download it in PDF format, see www.rationalistjudaism.com Cover photograph: An armillary sphere, depicting the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos. Other monographs available in this series: The Evolution of the Olive Shiluach HaKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah The Question of the Kidney’s Counsel Sod Hashem Liyreyav: The Expansion of a Useful Concept Messianic Wonders and Skeptical Rationalists The Sun’s Path at Night: The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution Natan Slifkin Introduction The clash between reason and authority has many manifestations. But it comes to the fore with the issue of statements by the Sages of the Talmud concerning the natural world that are subsequently contradicted by science. In traditionalist circles, arguments about this topic have become especially heated in recent years, with many ultra-Orthodox authorities claiming that to attribute such error to the Sages was never a traditional view and is actually heresy.1 Typically, arguments about this topic range far and wide, covering many different statements in the Talmud and Midrash.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Rashi a Corporealist?
    81 Was Rashi a Corporealist? By: NATAN SLIFKIN Views of God in Medieval France Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki of France (1040-1105), better known by the acronym Rashi, is revered for his lucid commentaries on the entire Scriptures and most of the Talmud. His writings have probably been more widely studied than those of any other rabbinic scholar in his- tory. But in this essay, we will address a question that has never been comprehensively and methodically investigated before: Was Rashi a corporealist? Did he believe that God possesses form? Most Orthodox Jews living in the last few hundred years would be shocked and offended at the question. They would immediately— and indignantly—answer that, of course, Rashi never believed any such nonsense. A simple chain of logic produces this conclusion: 1. It is heretical to believe that God possesses form. 2. Rashi was a Torah scholar of inconceivable greatness. 3. Hence Rashi could not have believed that God possesses form. However, the huge number of manuscripts available to us today reveals that in medieval Europe, and especially in Rashi’s homeland of France, it was by no means unthinkable to believe that God pos- sesses form. The Tosafist R. Moshe Taku asserts that God some- times takes on human form, and considers it heretical to deny—as Rambam does—His ability to do so.1 Rabbi Isaiah ben Elijah of Trani (known as Riaz, 1235-1300, grandson of Rid) speaks of schol- ars who believed in a corporeal God. He notes that they do not be- 1 Kesav Tamim, in Otzar Nechmad (Vienna, 1860).
    [Show full text]
  • Kitniyot on Pesah – Are They Really Forbidden?
    Rice, beans and kitniyot on Pesah – are they really forbidden? By Rabbi David Golinkin The following responsum was approved by the CJLS on December, 24 2015 by a vote of fifteen in favor, three opposed, and four abstaining (15-3-4). Voting for: Rabbis Kassel Abelson, Pamela Barmash, David Booth, Elliot Dorff, Susan Grossman, Reuven Hammer, Joshua Heller, Jeremy Kalmanofsky, Adam Kligfeld, Gail Labovitz, Jonathan Lubliner, Daniel Nevins, Paul Plotkin, Elie Spitz, and Jay Stein. Voting against: Rabbis Amy Levin, Micah Peltz, and Avram Reisner. Abstaining: Rabbis Aaron Alexander, Miriam Berkowitz, Baruch Frydman-Kohl, and Noah Bickart This responsum was originally written in Hebrew for the Va'ad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel in 1989 and published in the Responsa of the Va'ad Halakhah 3 (5748- 5749), pp. 35-55 (which can be accessed at www.responsafortoday.com/vol3/4.pdf). It was aimed at Israel where hundreds of products are labeled "Kosher for Pesah for those who eat Kitniyot" and where many Ashkenazim marry Sephardim. This revised translation is addressed to all Jews. In this version, we have added some new sources and references, but we have also abbreviated some sections by referring to the Hebrew original. Since this responsum is quite lengthy, I have included a brief summary at the beginning. DG * * * * * Question: Why do Ashkanazic Jews refrain from eating rice, beans and kitniyot on Pesah? Is there any way of doing away with this custom which causes much hardship and also divides Jewish communities and even members of the same family? A Brief Summary of the Responsum: 1) In our opinion it is permitted (and perhaps even obligatory) to eliminate this custom.
    [Show full text]