KOL HAMEVASER The Jewish ThoughT Magazine of The sTudenT BodY

THE "OTHER" IN

REMEMBERING OZER GLICKMAN Z"L VOLUME X, ISSUE 3 MAY 2018

FEATURING: A Tribute to Rabbi Ozer Glickman Rabbi Yosef Blau, Dr. Steven Fine, Gabi Weinberg, & Ari Friedman Page 1

Symposium: Balancing Responsibilities Towards Medinat Yisrael Rabbi Daniel Feldman, Shayna Goldberg, & Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot Page 11

Revisiting Classical Essays Avraham Wein Page 15

Book Reviews Matt Lubin, Tzvi Aryeh Benoff, & David Selis Page 19 2 KOL HAMEVASER www.kolhamevaser.com David Selis Signs andWonders: 100HaggadaMasterpieces byAdamS. Cohen 24 Tzvi AryehBenoff Flames ofFaith:AReview ofanIntroduction toChasidicThoughtfortheAmerican Jew22 Matt Lubin Racheli Moskowitz Racheli Schacter 19 Judaism's EncounterwithOtherCultures: RejectionorIntegration? EditedbyRabbiJ.J. Book Reviews: Elana Rabinovich Avraham Wein Contemporary State of Orthodoxy 15 Rupture, Reconstruction,andRevolution:Dr. HaymSoloveitchick's LandmarkEssayonthe Doniel Doniel Weinreich Revisiting ClassicalEssays: E Rabbi NathanielHelfgot W Libi Ba-Mizrach Libi L VENT AYOUT Shayna Goldberg EBMASTER lyh esnl ope..adWnefl 12 Aliyah: Personal,Complex...andWonderful

David Selis Rabbi DanielFeldman COORDINATORS The ChallengesofLong-DistanceZionism Mindy Schwartz Mindy

Eitan Lipsky E Symposium: BalancingResponsibilitiesTowards Reuven Herzog DITOR Issac Bernstein C A h o-eihSu 8 The Non-JewishSoul Brielle BroderBrielle OPY Ilan Lavian Ilan SSOCIATE Daniel Gottesman Avraham Wein Why DidRuthConvert?

Articles EDITOR E Gabi Weinberg andAriFriedman DITORS Refections from Members of the Chabura 5 andtheDelicateDanceofOurLivedReality13 Leah Klahr Steven Fine E Kad Demakh ha-Rav Ozer... ha-Rav Demakh Kad DITORS Rabbi Yosef Blau -I Rabbi Ozer Glickman Z"L: An Unusual & Remarkable

N A Tribute toRabbiOzerGlickmanZ"L -C Avraham Wein

Letter from theEditor HIEF

6 T HE "O Remembering myFriend,RabbiGlickman Medinat Yisrael Yisrael Medinat THER " 11 11 IN J

UDAISM Volume X Issue3 3

4 4

The "Other" in Judaism The "Other" By AvrAhAm Wein Trust the Person, Doubt the Ideas Rabbi Shalom Carmy, in a sermon I once heard from him on Parshat Korach, discussed how we read the Korach narrative through Moshe’s eyes but not his mind. What this meant was, that we are not privy to know what Moshe is really thinking about Korach’s actions and words, but rather, we are simply presented with the words and actions as they occurred. R. Carmy argued that a valuable message is found in this narrative detail; it is important to take people’s actions and words at face value, and not assume there are conspiracy theories backing and motivating that person’s thoughts. Assuming negative intentions from opponents is an inappropriate and dangerous methodology.1 Later, I saw a striking quote by Rabbi Dr. , who also argued that we must not suspect others of acting with malevolent intentions. The context for this statement was a 1998 discussion of the Ne’eman Committee’s proposals (regarding conversion), which R. Lichtenstein was accused of being in full support of. In a letter to The Jewish Press (3/27/1998), he wrote: I deeply regret the substance and tone of much of the charged rhetoric being leveled at its members in some quarters — or, for that matter, some of the almost vitriolic condemnations of Conservative and Reform Jewry occasionally heard in the heat of controversy. Vehemently as I disagree with the positions of these movements, I prefer to attribute to error what some appear bent on ascribing to malevolence; and I fail to see what the Orthodox world has to gain by putting the worst possible face upon the motives and actions of our rivals. Such a course is both morally and Halakhically problematic and, from a pragmatic perspective, probably, ultimately, counterproductive. Similar to R. Carmy, R. Lichtenstein’s argument is that assuming others have insincere intentions is problematic morally, halakhically, and pragmatically. This approach, of not casting aspersions on the motives of others, deeply resonated with me at the time, but even more so now, as I was unaware of how relevant this issue is to our community. Assigning ulterior motives to others is a dangerous methodology, and we are surely better suited by instead engaging in substantive debates about ideas and values. In this vein, we chose the topic of “The Other in Judaism,” with the hope of shedding light on how

Letter from the Editor the from Letter engage with communities, individuals, and ideas that are different than their own. During our preparation for this issue, Yeshiva University suffered a major loss, namely Rabbi Ozer Glickman z”l. Along with being close with many current and former writers and editors of Kol Hamevaser, Rabbi Glickman was a major supporter of Kol Hamevaser, and very much believed in its importance. Therefore, we have dedicated a tribute section to R. Glickman in this issue, which includes touching and insightful eulogies from both his colleagues Rabbi Yosef Blau and Dr. Steven Fine, as well as his students Gabi Weinberg and Ari Friedman. While this tribute section to R. Glickman in this issue was certainly unanticipated, R. Glickman’s life actually beautifully dovetails with this issue’s theme. As you will read in the various tributes, R. Glickman was a man that was very open-minded and remarkably respectful and open to the ideas and approaches of others. Indeed, R. Glickman’s life is an inspiring model for how to engage with others, even those with whom he strongly disagreed, in a substantive and respectful manner. Although he is no longer physically with us, R. Glickman will have a lasting legacy as a role model for meaningful and thoughtful dialogue. In addition to the tribute section, Daniel Gottesman and Isaac Bernstein wrote articles relating to this issue’s theme, and touch upon important ideas regarding conversion and non-Jewish souls. In honor of Yom Yerushalayim, our symposium focuses on balancing responsibilities towards Medinat Yisrael. In the “Revisiting Classical Essays” section, I discuss the impact of Dr. Haym Soloveitchik’s famed article “Rupture and Reconstruction.” Finally, the issue closes with three book reviews by Matt Lubin, Tzvi Benoff, and David Selis. We thank the Center for Studies for sponsoring this issue in memory of R. Ozer Glickman Z"L.We hope you enjoy reading this issue and look forward to hearing your feedback. Avraham Wein is a senior at Yeshiva college and is majoring in , Psychology, and Tractate Shevuot.

1 I confrmed with Rabbi more extensive analysis of the korach Tradition 49:1 (2016), 1-7. Carmy that my recollection of his narratives see Shalom Carmy, The sermon was indeed accurate. For a Sons of Korach Who Did Not Die,” Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 3 4 KOL HAMEVASER fashion, was able to integrate all these all integrate to able was fashion, Brisker the inimitable his in Rav.He, the of with enthralled an Glickman became as Rabbi banker, career investment successful highly his During scholar. Hassidic major learned a with and study academic of proponents disciple prominent a most was the of He student. a being the at formally learned Yeshivawithout Philadelphia and Ha-Rav at Merkaz the Israel in studied in He context. mentioned same rarely sources of of range a from acquisition came standard knowledge Torah His the of system. product yeshiva a not He Yeshiva.was Roshei life fellow his different from radically and were experiences background Glickman’s member in IBC, Sy Syms, and Cardozo. he served as a Rosh Yeshiva and faculty Yeshiva,where at role his on focus to Rabbi about in a world of specialization, say I would like to Glickman being a true renaissance man much is there others. While many family,by also but will be felt most acutely by his beloved loss his talents, and interests multiple The untimely and sudden death family, friends, and admirers. A his man of shocked Glickman Ozer Rabbi of B Yeshiva Rabbi Ozer Glickman Z"L: An Unusual and Remarkable Rosh Glickman Kad Demakhha-Rav Ozer... Remembering myFriend, Rabbi www.kolhamevaser.com B y y r s ABBi teven 17a, Sanhedrin — be reliant not upon a translator. is Sanhedrin the so that languages— know magic, seventy doesn’t of who and masters the eldership, of uprightness, masters the of masters the vision, of masters the wisdom, of masters the of not to is who appointed Sanhedrin the is one No said: Yohanan Rabbi For n ay as Rabbi ways, many In y f osef ine B lAu him to be at home in a multiplicity of multiplicity a in home at be to him enabled erudition vast his Moreover, general. in life or philosophy, Jewish or not, could come and discuss Talmud, classes his of one in enrolled student, any where Bagel Nagel near offce table a at unoffcial an had He students. these for magnet a him made warmth human his with experiences varied and exception. The combination of his broad not able to fnd an appropriate mentor. were students of number substantial a experiences, life and background same the the essentially having of faculty rabbinic all With side. down Like a is there leaders. and virtually all accomplishments however, scholars own Torah its of generations two produced successfully has YeshivaRemarkably, Europe which were destroyed Eastern in the Holocaust. of centers Torah in the studied who erudition Talmudical Yeshiva. They were giants of European who would be able to replace the Roshei Yeshiva during my days as a student was he sought to grow in Torah knowledge. by his accomplishments: to his last day, Torah. R. Glickman was never satisfed to approach cohesive one into strands f i pes ad f h “tdns of “students the of and peers, his of himself, of performance of standards highest the demanded He Sanhedrin. the of sages the onto ideals highest his the frst half of the 3rd century, projected YoRabbi hanan, who fourished during stood, still Temple the when time the to back Looking Tiberias. in midrash his from students of generations of the all of Amoraim greatest the Napha, ad h tahr of teacher the and Israel, Erets Menahot 65a ab Gika ws the was Glickman Rabbi faced that challenge great The So said, Rabbi Yosaid, So of son hanan beit fo Jrslm I am I , from Yerushalayim, Glickman.” “Rabbi ever never, and Ozer, sometimes Tony,and him call I linguistic that insisted who man the of or capacities vision, eldership, lightly worn the uprightness, absolute the worldly piety, the sophisticated wisdom, house in ha-vaad) great (beit the council of in assembled who h sgs— the sages”— the a priual uiu bcue he because embodied the very unique values that he taught. particularly was disciplines. His course in business ethics ahic Rcai t h Rabbi the the as at Seminary.Theological Elchanan Isaac serves Ruchani Blau Mashgiach Yosef Rabbi Let his memory be a source of unique blessings. his combination of erudition and for humanity. replacement partial a even imagine to diffcult is It him. of taken from us with great potential ahead was but lives, many on impact positive having approaches. after many to issues exposed been sensitive to was the able to bring a mature commitment to and world modern the U-Madda of complexities Torah applied He were able to beneft from his wisdom. met never had he whom admirers and express to his approach to religious life, followers media social utilizing theirs. By from differed views his when even and Yeshiva Roshei values other defended Yeshiva’s for advocate Yeshiva, Rabbi Glickman was a ferce rtn, s a, from am, I as Writing, the to close come us of Few ab Gika md a made Glickman Rabbi of product a not Though talmedei Volume X Issue3

hakhamim Teveria hutsot . anguished by the loss of my friend skills. What about the private ones? when he would go up to in Judaism The "Other" and teacher Rabbi Ozer Glickman First among these, I would suggest was carry out the intercalation zikhrono le-verakhah. Our many hours the necessity to be a ba’al anavah, a of the months, the sea discussing Hazal, philology, novels, “master of modesty.” Rabbi Glickman would split before him. writing, hebrew literature, philosophy, wore his rabbinic robe very lightly. and of course, the present and future He greeted each of his many students of our beloved Yeshiva University are and friends— from the janitor to the over. We spoke together in shorthand— guard to the business person, rabbi Tiberias is located on the shores of the referencing obscure and well-known and professor, the talmedei hakhamim Kinneret, deep within one of the most texts, people, places, genre, books, and and the talmedot hakhamim— with active earthquake zones in the world. events— sometimes with a single word a smile, with sever panim yafot. He This agadata refects that reality— of or phrase. I cherish the moments when was Tony with the baseball hat. His massive stone statues bowed low, of the fames seemed to encircle as we “rabbinic costume” was a polyester a broad and beautiful sea splitting at danced the dance of Torah. I remember jacket— not intended to impress, but Rabbi Yohanan’s feet, of time itself at fondly the day my phone rang in the not frayed or dirty— which would his command. Ozer Glickman was one basement of the Strand Bookstore— not beft a talmid hakhamim. Ozer of Rabbi Yohanan’s most conscientious Rabbi Glickman calling to discuss knew what he knew, and sought out students. He was a “teacher in Israel,” a student in trouble; or the day we experts to teach him what he did not. but not a miracle worker— at least not accidently found each other at Barnes he was ready to “learn from every in the traditional sense of the term. He and Nobles— separating more than an person” yet truly “never lost a drop.” was a lover of Torah, of Erets Yisrael, of hour later, when we each realized that He was a builder of communities, our Yeshiva, of his talmidim, his friends, we had to “get back to work.” While and a conscience of our own. and most of all, his family. I heard of his no ba'al kishuf, “master of magic,” death early on a Jerusalem morning. A our time together was magical, and Even Rabbi Yohanan died, comment from one our many Facebook I know that Ozer thought so as well. and so too our dear Rabbi Glickman. Messenger conversations overtook me: The Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah “come back soon, haver, we need you Rabbi Yohanan’s list of the Zarah chapter 3, remembers that: here.” To which I respond as he did attributes of a member of the Sanhedrin each time we parted, Shalom, haver. is not, I think, meant to be complete. The length of the list suggests that even Dr. Steven Fine is the Dean Pinkhos Rabbi Yohanan had a hard time being When Rabbi Yohanan Churgin Professor of Jewish History at concise in his job description for the died (kad demakh), the Yeshiva University, and is the Director ideal Sanhedrin member. Our talmudic statues (in Tiberias) of the YU Center for Israel Studies. tradition is a list of necessary public bowed low. They say that

Refections from Members of the Chabura By GABi WeinBerG And Ari friedmAn

Gabi Weinberg and Ari Friedman were introduced us. We were following simultaneously appeared to be “just two talmidim in Rabbi Glickman’s a different Yoreh De’ah chabura, like us” but was actually very different. Yoreh De’ah Chabura in 5775. but wanted some extra insight and Below they share their experience: methodological approaches, and I wasn’t a chassid of Rabbi Ari knew exactly who to go to: R. Glickman, and there are many of them Glickman. Whenever Ari would that inhabit Yeshiva and the wider describe him, I couldn’t wrap my head world. Regardless, whenever I would By Gabi Weinberg (RIETS ‘17, Revel around this man who seemed to be full send R. Glickman a Facebook message, ‘16, YC ‘14) of contradictions. A banker, a scholar, following up on an idea he posted about a talmid hakham, a music afcionado, or searching for guidance for a shiur To me, Rabbi Ozer Glickman a sports fan, and many other things. I was preparing, he would respond was a seeker and a connector. Being faster than nearly any of my friends. out of Yeshiva University for a bit At the levaya, Rabbi Blau My interests in startups and Jewish now, my connection to Yeshiva was described R. Glickman’s offce: it was thought were something he could due to his digital presence. His interest a table at Nagel Bagel. That “offce” understand, and the care with which in existential Jewish communal was where we learned. On top of the he guided me to new sources made me questions, to some might appear as metallic table he’d have his things. feel like I was his number one priority. hock, but were truly essential questions He always had his over-the-shoulder to him and they made me think and bag, a tablet or two (with an Android Professionally, I had the question my preconceived notions. OS), a bottle of coke, and more often privilege of having two of Rabbi than not, a sabra pretzel-hummus Glickman’s teenaged relatives in my I remember when my Yoreh container. Ari and I would show up program. His excitement about their De’ah chavruta, Ari Friedman, for our chabura with someone who intellectual pursuits was palpable Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 5 6 KOL HAMEVASER o en a eb. ht a hw I how requirements was his of one That about learned Rebbe. a being to approach his in lesson a was semester, the for course listed a wasn’t it though De’ah Yoreh his give Nagel’s. of back the in “offce” his in talks and exchanges, email coffee, for meetings midtown Chop, Chop in chats students: other his to familiar be may that way relationship a in continued him my with that hours. fortunate lasted was I which conversation a for home his to student, unknown an me, invited still he Ha-Shana, Rosh of Glickman, even though it was the week with them. When I reached meet out to Rabbi to schedule overbooked already his from time taking generously from Glickman Rabbi stopped knowing never them initially him not with Talmidim, of many his spoke with As only afterwards. briefy and tisch YU night Friday in a at crowd face the anonymous in an was I Glickman consultant. senior To me,hewasmyRebbe. a or Management services, Risk of President Vice the advocate, Din Bais professor, a bandmate, law a a Chazzan, a an analyst, was he some To more. ways. and uncle, many whom grandfather, husband, father, to a was family, he in his was people all Above many to By Ari Friedman business-ethics his of for proud always mundane oversubscribed was or He ethereal him. too was needed. they they nourishment sure make the smart, to got plenty wanted he were and emotional they clear. knew was their He well-being for spiritual care and his and across the world will sit down to hear to down sit will world the across Jews Torah, the receiving of holiday Why DidRuth Convert? B www.kolhamevaser.com y d Aniel sig ab Gika to Glickman Rabbi Asking Rabbi met frst I When special was Glickman Rabbi s n dctr nothing educator, an As On the holiday of Shavuot, the Shavuot, of holiday the On G ottesmAn (YC ‘14) even chabura, ht hr dd’ hv t b a divide. a so be to worlds have didn’t two there that the bridging spent life he his because days those on Jew dedicated a being of advice challenge the invaluable on had He to. turn to YeshivaRosh unique a was Glickman Rabbi clash life, Jewish of rhythm to the with seemed environment work the when days On Purim. Seuda Simchas or any from away far afternoon, Purim on clinic hospital a in while him to wrote I email an to response a was It well. as others to think I and Rebbe, a as me to was Glickman Rabbi who my inbox. That email captured much of Rabbi Glueck, to Glickman’s lastreplytomewasstill in door the us on sign hung the of picture surprised a saw I When all. passing Glickman’s bill). the footed did, always he as (and, where restaurant he took the student out a for dinner at administered bechina, were submitted, there was the fnal oral talmidim. After all the written bechinas his to for love expression and spirit generous got his of another never was sadly experience, I which the for shiur, bechina fnal met The person). never in had he whom Lakewood from followers online his Simchas at students impersonal meeting enjoy to seemed of he (although full room to a lecture as a talmidim give just his not know individuals, needed to able Glickman be to Rabbi in room. individual the each with contact eye make could he that enough small be to a give to ore i Sm, n i his in and Syms, in courses te sucs i sol sre s a as serve should validation for the esteem it in which we all sources, from other heard also you which anything hear you if so true, maspidim it’s that know you multiple from thing same our for intellectual. concern and spiritual both growth, his felt always we hr i length, in short of reading the tragedy, happy endings, family values, family endings, tragedy,happy h sdens o Rabbi of suddenness The hy a we yu er the hear you when say They : the chabura: . Although Rut. Megillat s akd with packed is Rut needed chabura chabura This is an excerpt from that fnal email: talmidim many his of help the with and Torah, lucky to have sat at his feet, learned his of principle the embodied He Yeshiva think). Rosh (we a meeting in or Facebook, on the in personalities different not were There Glickman. Rabbi held tr i te aos iua convert, titular famous the messianic is the story the throughout into heroine The dynasty. glimpse a and n h cus o m day. my of course coalesce sequentially the in they when them but don’t Derech I do when im are Eretz Torah for opportunities greatest the that and Torahexperience a potentially is life entire to my that me reminds It preciousme. very is idea This minds. conscious our in Torah keep of demands but the shema keri’at not we only open and close it with when day entire the exhortation this fulfll we [that] Eliyahu Shenot the in Ha-Kadosh Gra the prefer learning….I Torah have constant to exhortation as an verse this some interpreted Although well. as one military political and a spiritual as a but leader as only not to but Yehoshuaexcel would who R’ ha-Nasi or Yehuda Rabbeinu to directedMoshe not that was this Note taskil.” ve-az ki derakhekho et tatsliah bo az la’asot ha-katuv ke-khol tishmor leman ve- va-laila yomam bo hageta ha- mi-pikha ha-ze sefer tora yamush “Lo I hope to perpetuate his legacy. I m so am I ke-boro. tokho Volume X Issue3 chabura, Ruth. A Moabite, Ruth converts to Jewish name, not her Moabite name.3 and the Jewish people were now their in Judaism The "Other" Judaism and cares for her mother-in- Ibn Ezra, in defending Elimelekh’s sons people, how could Naomi push Ruth law Naomi – even after both women’s marrying Moabite women, perpetuates and Orpah to go back to Moab? How husbands pass away. Ruth’s character this idea with strong language: “And could Naomi allow Orpah to return to and genuine actions jump out of the text it is inconceivable that Mahlon and her former idolatrous people once she as she journeys from being a Moabite Kilyon would take these women before had converted to Judaism; surely Naomi woman, to a poor daughter -in-law, they converted, and ‘[Your sister-in- here would be a mesit u-medi’ach?6 to moving to Judah and becoming law Orpah returned] to her nation and the wife of Boaz, a leading fgure of god’ (Rut 1:15) proves this.” Ibn Ezra On the other hand, maintaining the time. While Ruth’s character is seems to think it impossible that Mahlon that Ruth’s conversion occurs at 1:15 compelling, the reader wonders why and Kilyon would marry outside the raises a number of both technical and it is her particular story that we read faith. Following this opinion, the two character questions. One of the main on the holiday of receiving the Torah. sons could have married these women advantages of Ibn Ezra’s approach Through exploring Ruth’s conversion only after they had converted. Ralbag is its avoidance of the problem of to Judaism, and her choice to become also insists that the women converted Mahlon and Kilyon marrying Moabite a part of the Jewish people and Jewish before marriage, and this is why we women. The magnitude of this problem faith, the connection between her story don’t see Ruth convert at any other is heightened in light of the Talmudic and the holiday of Shavuot can be better point in the Megillah, even when she statement of R. Shimon ben Yochai that understood. Interestingly, the text of marries Boaz. Ralbag writes, “And “Elimelekh, Mahlon, and Kilyon were Megillat Rut never imparts the details thus it appears that they converted the leaders of the generation.” It would of Ruth’s conversion. Thus, we must when Mahlon and Kilyon married be astonishing if the greatest men of the explore the question of when exactly them; for this reason we don’t fnd generation married outside the Jewish Ruth converted, making the leap from that Ruth needs to convert when Boaz people. Additionally, while powerful Moabite to Israelite. And further, marries her.” Like Ibn Ezra, Ralbag and inspirational, Ruth’s proclamation what can her conversion itself tell us assumes Ruth converted to Judaism at could not have been a full-fedged about Ruth’s character; and what can some point before her frst marriage, conversion; there was no Beit Din in the it teach us about receiving the Torah? and throughout the Megillah she is desert, only her and her mother-in-law. assumed to have already converted. Throughout the ages Biblical There exist many ways to solve commentators have debated about The second opinion is that after these issues. Avi Harel proposes that when exactly Ruth converted. The the tragic events of the frst half of the Ruth only converted upon marrying basic storyline of the frst chapter chapter, Naomi journeys to return to Boaz. Prior to the marriage, recorded in of Ruth is that a family from Judah, Bethlehem; Orpah parts with her; and Rut 4:14, Ruth is referred to as Ruth the comprising of Elimelekh, Naomi, at that moment, Ruth converts. Moabite. However, once she is married, Mahlon, and Kilyon, goes to live in explains: “They had not converted; she is simply called Ruth. Another the felds of Moab, where the two sons and now they are coming to convert, approach is Israel Drazin’s, that Ruth marry two Moabite women, Orpah and as it is written, ‘For we will return did not formally convert at all. In his Ruth. Tragically, all three men pass with you’ (Rut 1:10): From now we explanation, legal conversion was not away, and Ruth and Orpah remain with will be one nation” (Rashi on Rut needed, since Judaism was simply a their mother-in law. Eventually Naomi 1:12). During this potential moment of nationality, and not a religion. When decides that she is going back to the separation between Ruth and Naomi, Ruth entered the land, she “converted” Land of Judah and tells her daughters- Ruth converts and joins the Jewish by de facto joining the Jewish nation. in-law to return to their homelands. people. Ruth’s famous words, “Your Orpah accedes and returns home with nation is my nation and your God is Another approach is one that an emotional goodbye; Ruth however my God” (Rut 1:15) are meant literally, blends the two classical positions of hangs along with Naomi for the journey. as this is her conversion to Judaism. Rashi and the Ibn Ezra. In his Tzitz Throughout the classic commentaries, The Targum’s interpretation of the text Eliezer responsa (17:42:5), R. Eliezer two main approaches to the timeline includes the words, “I will convert,” in Waldenberg offers a compromise of Ruth’s conversion arise: either she Ruth’s proclamation of beliefs. Hazal approach. He explains that Ibn Ezra is converts before marriage, prior to the even derive certain laws of conversion correct in judging Mahlon and Kilyon events of Rut 1:4, or when she insists on from Ruth’s proclamation in 1:15.4 favorably for not marrying non-Jews; staying with Naomi and states, “Amekh This interpretive position maintains on the other hand, Rashi is also correct ami ve-e-lohayich e-lohai - your people that Naomi wants to send Ruth back in understanding Ruth’s statements in shall be my people, and your God my to the Moabite people, and Ruth 1:16 as her conversion. R. Waldenberg God” (1:16).2 We will explore these converts, making Israel her people. compares Ruth and Orpah’s conversions two classic options and then two others. to the way Rambam assesses the With both approaches come conversions of the wives of Samson The frst opinion contends that many textual and conceptual diffculties. and Solomon:7 their conversions were both Ruth and Orpah convert at some In understanding that Ruth and Orpah technically valid, but since they were point before they marry Mahlon and converted before marrying Mahlon exclusively for marriage and without Kilyon. This could explain why Ruth and Kilyon, the Akeidat Yitzhak5 raises any pretense of genuinely joining the does not take on a Jewish name at a an issue with Ibn Ezra’s position: If Jewish people, the Tanakh views these later point – because Ruth in fact is her Ruth and Orpah had indeed converted, women as if they were still non-Jews. Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 7 8 KOL HAMEVASER h sd o ter ioe mother-in- widowed by their of stay side the heroically both they events both marry into a family; after horrifc Orpah and Ruth people. Jewish the to connection personal her and character, Ruth’sof essence the into insight great conversion. earlier her complete and complement to quasi-conversion a Judaism in accepts Ruth nation,” my is nation “your claiming By conversion. original her affrms Judaism, to stick Ruth, however, in her claim to willingly with. begin to into never converted properly she which people and religion the leaves and request this this listens Orpah nations. their to return to them Naomi tells and journey,daughters-in-law her to turns women’s three the and deaths tragic husbands’ the After convert when she remains with Naomi. “full” a becomes then Ruth However, a ta tee s lvl lyn feld playing level a is there that say the non-Jew, the rationalist opinion may than level higher the a on is Jew a of that soul show teachings Kabbalistic While like.” both “look non-Jews and of Jews souls is the what question for searching the than Rather, better non-Jews?” Jews “are more than much complex is question overarching the in in respectively.rationalists, The of works and Kabbalah found the of texts commonly the are positions different very two These topic. this to approaches extreme two the of either questions represents “no” or “yes” these a either with of each Answering scholars dating back to the time of the rabbinic Tannaim. amongst debate subject to been have questions answers these to The Come?” to reach “World to the ability same non- the and have Jews Jews do specifc, To more non-Jew? be a of that than different Jew a of soul the is beings: human of makeup spiritual the examining arises when question the However, His image. in non-Jew created the and God Jew the that both doubt world. no the is doctrine of There nations other substantial Jewish the and are Traditional there people Jewish the between differences that teaches The Non-Jewish Soul B www.kolhamevaser.com y i ssAc . adneg hs gives thus Waldenberg R. B ernstein h wr the were who sons two and husband a with Israel left in Marah, as she Indeed, bitterness. her known to reference be to opts herself: she of embarrassed extremely is she Israel to returns Naomi law.When Ruth clings to the Torah, sticking by its God. her also is Naomi’sGod as faith, family; she also chooses to embrace her declares Naomi’sthe of part only not is she that Ruth Judah, in Naomi with remaining in However family. Jewish a joined Ruth marriage, her Through Torah. the to also but not Naomi, to refer only can “vah” Ruth, This 1:14). option. (Rut the on vah however,“davekah up her takes tragedy, through mother-in-law her of side the by remaining after Orpah, out. an them gives daughters-in-law and embarrassment her her Naomi spare to women. offers two Moabite with return widowed would and ha-dor, h Tlui suc fr this for source Talmudic The discussion is found in Kabbalistic of way the non-Jew.the new of soul the about thinking a creates and with approach disagrees Maimonides that the fnd will on we matter, sources different of analysis Through non-Jews. and Jews between f h wrd efr i cutd as counted is these perform they since them, for sins perform world the nations of the that kindness of and acts charity the all that meaning as verse the of part this explains Hyrcanus ben Eliezer Rabbi sin.” is kingdoms the of kindness “The verse: the of end the is students the The amongst debate people. of cause Jewish elevates the charity specifcally to interpretation, Zakkai’s According people. this ben Jewish refers Yochanan verse the “nation” the to R. of the beginning the that in explain praiseworthy! students is kindness that opposite, the their think “sin?” would considered One be kingdoms the of kindness the would why troubling: is verse This sin.” is kingdoms the of kindness the but nation, a elevate will in verse the explain to students his asking Zakkai Gemara begins with Rav Yochanan ben Mishlei gedolei 43, “Charity 14:34, Bava Batra. – stuck to her” to stuck – and parnesei 8 The ie a wl a Nois jiig not only the Jewish joining people but Naomi’s,also its faith. as well as side, cetn te oa, e ok o this to convert heroine who stuck to the look Torah. we Torah, the accepting on the holiday when the Jews celebrate she is in fact part of our people, and so, and the Torah. Ruth sends a e-lohai.” message God of that embracement true exhibit Both ve-e-lohayikh ami “amekh will we listen” (Shemot and do will we – ve-nishma “na’aseh exclaimed, they Sinai Mount to got they when Yet,adversity. faced and tragedy witnessed the people Naomi, Jewish and Ruth Like family. were a they nation, a were they Egypt left people Jewish the When own. its the Jewish people relate Ruth’s story to pages 26-27 on appear issue this for *Endnotes hl “i” ees o te nations. other to refers “sin” while and “charity” people, Jewish the to refer “kindness” both concludes that Hakkana ben explaining passage Nechunya Rabbi with Talmudic act the to order Finally, deeds. their through in haughtily only kindness act with will world explains the of nations the similarly that Gamliel beneft. own Rabban their for and for king so their do world only the they of sacrifces, bring nations the when themselves. that elevate shows that verse a cites to Eliezer Rabbi only deeds leir oie acpal fr a Rashi for non-Jew? a for acceptable unacceptable yet Jew, motives are why ulterior wonders, one So, person.” Come, to World will then he is considered a the “fully righteous himself in spot he a that merit so be or will son healthy, his that so charity gives a is There charity. giving motives to regards with ulterior regarding question eus i nt ufld h wl regret having given charity in the frst place. will he fulflled, not is request his if non-Jew, a with that says Rashi will However, Hashem. Jew on focused be the still fulflled, is request his not or whether Hashem; on focused is ht tts ht f Jew a if that states that beraita 9 nwr ta a e’ mindset Jew’s a that answers Reading this story on Shavuot, on story this Reading h Gmr te ak a asks then Gemara The 24:7), parallel to Ruth’s Volume X Issue3 Whichever way one learns the has two souls. “There is one soul approach brings this distinction to a in Judaism The "Other" Gemara cited above, the outcome is the which originates in the kelipah and more extreme level, claiming that the same: non-Jews do not perform acts of sitra achra and which is clothed in the non-Jew is born and created with a kindness for the “right,” or altruistic blood of a human being, giving life to different soul than a Jew. Rabbi Kook reasons. It seems clear from the the body…From this soul stem also emphasizes that not only are Jews Gemara that when it comes to charity the good characteristics which are to different in their actions, but rather they and kindness, Jews and non-Jews are be the innate nature of all of Israel… are inherently different in their souls. different. Yet, the Gemara does not The souls of the nations of the world, make any distinction between the souls however, emanate from the other, The approach of the Kabbalists or the spiritual makeup between the Jew unclean kelipot which contain no good is diffcult for many reasons. First, the and non-Jew. Those who learn towards whatsoever…all good that the nations source in Bava Batra which they draw the Kabbalistic approach interpret do is done from selfsh motives.” The from seems to judge the actions and this Gemara to mean that there is an Baal HaTanya then quotes the opinion moral culture of non-Jews, rather than inherent difference between a Jew and of Rabban Gamaliel, found in the their spiritual make-up. Furthermore, non-Jew, beyond charity and kindness. above Gemara in Bava Batra, who says even if the reading and assumption that the phrase “the kindness of the of the Kabbalists is correct, does this Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri, kingdoms is sin” means that all charity apply to all non-Jews? Are there no in his commentary on Mishlei, gives and kindness done by the nations is truly good-hearted non-Jews, as Rabbi another reason for the ending of this only for their own self-glorifcation. Chaim Vital writes? Does everyone verse. The Meiri states that this verse agree with this morally troubling comes to warn the Jews against stealing Rabbi Chaim Vital, later in the approach? The answer to this last money.10 The Meiri goes on to state that Etz Chaim passage quoted,15 explains question is that almost everyone, the non-Jewish way is “to take from that the shevirat ha-keilim of the Arizal except for Rambam and the tradition him, and give to another.” He says that pertains to this subject, for when the that followed him, seem to accept the reason why the charity and kindness shevirat ha-keilim took place, there the notion that non-Jews have a done by non-Jews is considered sin is were parts of the vessel that were imbued different spiritual makeup than Jews. because they are using stolen money. with kedusha and those that were not. The Meiri calls their charity “a mitzvah Vital writes that Jews are made from Rambam holds an alternative that only comes about because of a sin.” the parts that have kedusha, while non- view and, by contrasting Rambam’s Jews are from the excess parts of the view to the views of those mentioned Rav Moshe Chaim Luzatto vessel which do not contain kedusha. above, it will be shown that Rambam’s (Ramchal), in his work Derekh view was indeed unique with regards Hashem, writes, “While a Jew and a The Kabbalists read the to the non-Jewish soul. Rambam non-Jew appear exactly alike in terms Gemara in Bava Batra to say that the emphasizes many times in his writings of their human characteristics, from difference between the Jew and non- that all human beings can come close to the Torah’s perspective, they are so Jew is not simply how they perform Hashem. Rambam says that, essentially, greatly different as to be considered a acts of kindness and charity: the Jew there is no difference between the completely different species.”11 The is a different type of being. This is Jewish soul and the non-Jewish soul. Ramchal also comments regarding the akin to the Meiri above who said, World to Come that “only Israel will “They (Jew and non-Jew) are so In Rambam’s famous “palace be found there, while the righteous of greatly different as to be considered parable,” he describes the different the nations will be given their reality a completely different species.”16 levels at which a person can stand only by virtue of their attachment to in relation to Hashem. He writes: them. They will be subordinate to Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Israel as clothes are subordinate to HaKohen Kook, a twentieth century “A king is in his palace, the body.”12 Notably, the approach Torah scholar and student of Kabbalah, and all his subjects are of the Ramchal seems to go against writes in his book, Orot, regarding the partly in the country, and the Gemara in Sanhedrin which states distinction between the Jew and non- partly abroad. Of the that “the righteous of all nations have Jew: “The difference between the Jewish former, some have their a place in the World to Come.”13 soul…and that of all the nations, at all backs turned towards the their levels, is greater and deeper than king’s palace, and their The above sources deal the difference between the human soul faces in another direction; with mainstream rabbinic sources and the soul of an animal.” This is the and some are desirous and addressing the topic of non-Jews. For most blatant and extreme expression of zealous to go to the palace, a deeper understanding, one must look distinction thus far expressed between seeking “to inquire in his to Kabbalistic teachings where the the Jewish and non-Jewish soul. temple,” and to minister non-Jewish soul is addressed. Rav before him, but have not Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as As demonstrated by the yet seen even the face of the Baal HaTanya, addresses the topic numerous aforementioned sources, the the wall of the house. Of of the non-Jewish soul by quoting the approach of most rabbinic scholars to those that desire to go to famed student of Rabbi Isaac Luria, this topic is similar to the Kabbalistic the palace, some reach Rabbi Chaim Vital. In Vital’s work, view: Jews are different from non- it, and go round about in Etz Chaim,14 he writes that every Jew Jews. However, the Kabbalistic search of the entrance gate; Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 9 10 KOL HAMEVASER doctrines.” belief, false hold to religion, happen but thought, and possess who those are palace, king’s the towards turned backs country,their the have in but are “who ones the and religion,” no have that those all “are king the from away far are who people the that mentions close to the King. Rambam specifcally non- come to ability their and of terms in Jews no Jews makes between He and regarding distinction subjects.” parable his terms of the general “all Throughout in speaks Rambam explanation, subsequent his wl-nw Msn in Mishna well-known a with in-line be to seems Rambam’s of parable This irrelevant. is person that with of background or one religion the king, the speak if to intellect that the saying possesses is Rambam seems It that not. do who those and king the with speak to intelligence the have who those between is makes Rambam s te cmetre sget but this for non-Jews suggest, and Jews both rather commentaries other as Jews, only not praise to wanted Akiva Rabbi that explains He mankind. of all clarifes Tov Yom to God’s Tosfot refers in image, created being The of beginning for praised is man where Mishnah, this the that states He this. the in then next two praises he specifes “Israel.” begins and “Man,” Akiva praising by Rabbi for non-Jews, and Jews between distinction obvious frst glance, the Mishnah makes a very Torah.At the them gave God because “sons” to God. Finally, he praises Israel called being for Israel praises then He God’simage. praises in created being for man Akiva Rabbi Mishna, this In www.kolhamevaser.com r ls b-ha his by--hear him.” to speak or words, close distance, before a or king--at stand the can before they required is effort another palace, the of part inner the entered having after for, king, him; to speak the or see palace the entering on immediately not do latter the even palace. But royal the in king the with room being same the in and palace, the of part inner the into entering in succeeded have others and ante-chamber; the in about walk and gate, the others have passed through 18 h ol dsicin that distinction only The iki Avot Pirkei 17 . f h Jw. hs supin would assumption This Jews. the of souls the to inferior are non-Jews of the souls the that believed Kabbalists Rambam The non-Jews? for possibility a which deems level spiritual the reach lofty to able is--be that sources, hs iw f abm is all-- at Rambam of pure having motives and of who incapable view possesses no is good who a non-Jew, the This could How within Kabbalah. of teachings reconcile to impossible Moses. biblical the herself as or has him virtuous person make as to every ability that the he twice Strikingly, non-Jews. says and Jews Rambam does not differentiate between passage, celebrated a this In or one. sinful life virtuous a leading between decide to ability the individual giving every person, every to given is in will Rambam, to decide his own fate. He insists that free man every of ability the describes “no good within him,” a la Rabbi Vital? has non-Jew the if nations” the among a non-Jew in the category of “righteous Rabbi Chaim Vital. How could there be is nations” of words the differentfrom completely the among “righteous of be a non-Jew who act falls into could the there category then that thought can The prideful. he self- that own so kindness his or for elevation either expresses so doing is who the that non-Jew states in explicitly Batra Gemara Bava The goodness. or pure, altruistic of trait the possess non-Jew not a does inherently, that, view the express sources agreed previous in them who with fgures rabbinic the and Kabbalists The Kabbalah. impossible of writings appears the in expressed view the to according category nations.” This the amongst righteous “the There, heights. Rambam speaks about a of spiritual category called great to opinion non-Jews reach the of ability to the regarding Contrary Melakhim in Rambam, Kabbalists, the mankind. praise of initial all about the speaking that is obvious it making praises, different the between language its differentiating in clear is Jews. to Mishna the for valid, is referring confusion His only is Mishnah who say that even the frst part of the commentaries other the by perplexed is Tov Yom Tosfot The trait. specifc 19 codn t te Kabbalistic the to according uts smlr idea similar a quotes iko Teshuva Hilkhot Hilkhot ol f nnJw s uey animal. purely is non-Jew a of the soul whereas essence, Divine the and God of part a literally is Jew a of soul the of claimed which HaTanya, Baal that from differs explanation of God, as it were, within himself. This a possess can non-Jew a even reject this view. Rambam is saying that Rabbi Chaim Vital would categorically and HaTanya Baal the Clearly, ever.” and forever inheritance and portion his this person, Rambam says, “God will be the highest levels of holiness at sanctifed be can world the bad of ways the from herself or him separate to willing is and God to close wants come to who world” the of inhabitants of all from person, single “every that non-Jews. and Jews of souls the of equality the worth expresses is noteworthy most and last ve-Yovel The that Rambam examining appears in of quote spiritual levels that Rambam describes. never allow non-Jews to reach the high pages 26-27 on appear issue this for *Endnotes h “oy f ois o spirituality, of holies” regardless of whether or not he of is a Jew. “holy the reach may he Hashem, of service the in Rambam righteousness and truth of path searches a for one truth. as long as the that believes from to away are who Gemara far non-Jews the this to apply reads only Rambam likely non-Jew. most a in true found no good be can there that claim their in Gemara the use teachings Kabbalistic distinction. this opposes Rambam while Jew, a various of the through is seen that to inferior and non-Jew different inherently As a of Kabbalists soul the that the believe above, cited sources attainable. holiness of levels highest for the reach may search he God, about truth to the intellect his continuously improves and God of service the to himself dedicates someone as long as Rambam, that expresses line, Thus, dramatic this in was it. Kippur, enter Yom to year, allowed the holiest of the day on Priest, High the Only Temple. words the the of part uses hidden here innermost, the Rambam was holies” of “holy The holies” person. of “holy I ti psae Rambam passage, this In . o support to Batra Bava Volume X Issue3 o ecie this describe to Hilkhot Shemitah abm insists Rambam . Regarding that the that portion 20

The "Other" in Judaism The "Other" Symposium Balancing Responsibilities Towards Medinat Yisrael

Contributors to this symposium were asked to respond to the following prompt: For many Modern Orthodox Jews who live in the Diaspora, there is a perpetual tension between dedication and focus to the State of Israel on the one hand, and to one’s own surroundings and community on the other. This tension manifests itself in a variety of ways, including decisions regarding voting, charitable donations, and budgeting time for supporting meaningful causes. Additionally, many Diaspora Jews understandably feel the pressure to make aliyah but struggle to balance that with other considerations regarding where to live. We asked guest contributors to respond to the following prompt relating to these issues: 1. How should a Jew living in the Diaspora balance responsibilities to one’s own community with responsibilities towards Israel as a religious zionist? 2. What factors, priorities, and values should one weigh when deciding whether or not to make aliyah?

The Challenges of Long-Distance Zionism

By rABBi dAniel feldmAn

1. The need for balance regarding alone justify prioritized attention. However, as American communal responsibilities in the Jews, the two axes are processed Diaspora with meaningful expressions More fundamentally, though, differently. Causes in Israel are in of religious Zionism is evident in many when properly understood, Israel’s need of support, but so are those in the areas, prominently including decisions cause is America’s cause. The support Diaspora communities. The apparent about voting and charitable donations. of a lone democracy committed to affuence of American Jewry masks Regarding voting, the American voter human rights surrounded by autocratic a profound crisis in the sustainability who places Israel-related concerns regimes bent on its destruction is the of its institutions and frameworks, at the forefront of his decisions is essence of American values. Further, most sharply in the area of education. often accused of being a “one-issue Israel’s struggle against terrorism is This predicament is the result of many voter,” of having “dual loyalties,” one in which it fghts on behalf of the factors, some of them organizational or of narrow-minded tribalism. entire free world, whether they realize and attitudinal, but it is undoubtable it or not. Is the targeting of innocents that among them is need for greatly It’s true that support of any for slaughter in the name of a political enhanced philanthropic attention. political candidate is a complex end acceptable, or is it not? If it is While the support of Israel is given decision, necessarily affected by acceptable in Israel, then it is also in great emphasis in the codifed laws multiple considerations, all demanding France, , Spain, and America. of tzedakah, most authorities rule that harmonization into one zero sum the standard of “the needs of your conclusion, one that more often than Regarding fnancial support, the locality take precedence” continue to not represents the lesser of two evils. question has additional complexities. apply (see Bach, Y.D. 251, s.v. aniyyei, That being said, there is much about the Prioritization among charitable causes who considers this point “obvious,” support of Israel that justifes an outsized is a multifaceted, subtle analysis, but and Shakh, 251:6; see also Birkei infuence upon electoral preferences, the issues can be organized around Yosef, 251:1; Chiddushei Sefat Emet and it is far more than tribalism that two axes: a) that which most urgently to Y.D., and Resp. Shevet Ha-Levi V, is involved. On a basic practical begs for our fnancial assistance, and 135:5). As these local needs indeed level, the challenges Israel faces are b) those causes which through our loom large, they do demand attention. existential, life and death threats on support give voice to our own most a national scale, and Israel is unfairly cherished values and ideals. From both The second axis, the expression targeted for exclusion and derision on perspectives, institutions and programs of personal values through communal the international stage. These aspects in Israel deserve prominent ranking. support, does speak loudly to the Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 11 12 KOL HAMEVASER ed, e hy prta o otherwise, or spiritual they be needs, the personal one’s to actual how of questions go but complex, and personal aspects. These considerations are both highly on impact other which in considerations, factor to need the eliminate aspiration. national the the of as fulfllment well the in role as a play to desire appropriate post, goal spiritual personal a as both true ideal. is an This as the minimum at mind, in and soul Jewish present ever be should sense, tangible most its in mission God’s of Israel, and of realizing the manifestation 2. The dream of ascending to the land of communities. Diaspora of of needs real assessed magnitude very the on impact be its against carefully must philanthropy the such Nonetheless, one benefts. or which connections personal has with institutions toward Israeli appropriate particularly and i Zionist a main compelling, only.is name instinct being This the avoid to seems avenue backing fnancial development, and its physically to demographically contributing land, of the and settling personally of step the taken not has he as Jew: American grown up in as a teacher in my native my in teacher a as in had up grown I community the to back give to wanted I much too was there that felt I undertake. to wanted I sure quite not an way, unspoken impossibly diffcult journey that I was an in remained, aliyah but there, getting ultimately of there. live to desire a not did into felt translate I that to love ready The not commit. was I and marriage, as same the not is love But heart. my all with Israel loved I Israel; to connected me. for priority higher had home, childhood my of butter and bread the were which community, the to and service Judaism, for passion , to other addition, Torah,of In love commitment like values to. want didn’t just actually I aliyah, make to wanted want always to I time. over evolved Aliyah: Personal, Complex... and Wonderful www.kolhamevaser.com B y s hAynA oehls, hs os not does this Nonetheless, Maybe I had a vague aspiration It is not that I didn’t feel deeply aliyah make to desire My G oldBerG n prta hmln o fo afar. from or to homeland contributions spiritual of terms the in and decisions, all development personal of in terms in both them maximize to plays in all of these values, and to strive role to the recognize Jew every on incumbent is it live, to where of decision personal Regardless one’s of people. Jewish entire the together bring to center unifying a of creation the and materialism; on focus of diminished a study; Torah especially enhancement areas, all in accomplishment religious the fulfllment; inherent the including the Land, inhabiting to benefts various the in (printed Tziyon, Shivat letter such in one In it, others. and about Kalischer Hirsch Zvi R. to eloquently letters wrote and Zionism religious of advocate rabbinic Zevulun Leib Barit other. the over option one pursuing of of Yisrael, mission the to contributing in be one will effective how of question will be affected, as well as to the second o te js lvd t n sal They Israel. in it lived just very they used to; not were we one was the from different life Their meaning. us fnding like and comfortable, happy, just were people that like recognized was Wemirror. the in lives ourselves at looking their Seeing before. months only Israel to moved had who we married, got visited my sister-in-law and her family, we before Shortly state. ambivalent my with identifed I was relieved to be with someone who and feelings, same the of many shared we husband, my met I When Israel. in in living of dream their actualize to order satisfaction professional sacrifce those with to ready were identify they that professed who not could I and happiness, general for important very and well Finding meaning and fulfllment in your job is inside. knew the environment I from understood that the culture in and and language klal, including the opportunity costs R. Barit prefaces his letter with R. grandfather, great great My And then something changed. something then And hte fo wti its within from whether vol, I, 43-52), he details he 43-52), I, vol, z”l, was a passionate YishuvYisraelEretz mitzvah am a citation from citation a evs s h Eeuie dtr f the RIETS initiativeofYUPress. of Editor Executive the as serves Wurzweiler School of Social Work, and Yeshiva the Sy and the at in instructor an as well as University, Seminary Theological Elchanan Isaac Rabbi Rosh the a at Yeshiva is Feldman Z. Daniel Rabbi humanity.and will. His be soon it May the talents, towards realization of God’s vision for the Jews resources instincts, and abilities, their harnessing picture, broader the towards together working and roles unique their playing all of harmony the be will it ultimately However, redemption. role the bringing primary in the play to wants Each representing the Torah and its scholars. the and sustenance, material the respectively the in to placement references are south and north the explanation, through his In entrance. all same the them brought between and peace them, made God same. the saying wind Southern the and exiles, Northern close. wind saying I will bring in the its the other, at each with fought winds The explains he which (4), n h wy ta te cud and could lot. their they with satisfed that overall ways were the in community their to contributing were — but live it in the land that God had God that land the in it live but — everywhere families typical like and live pizza, order school, to “regular” kids send work, even to go could We us. for like people attainable to was came aliyah of dream we the that acknowledge First, crystalize. fully to intentions our for time took still it so, even yet, and direction, our about barely had center. and front moved we about thought things had while blurry, now were that us to important immediately Things so seemed different. landscape looked the focus, into come unexpectedly and suddenly wanted had image a if As that. we of part a be to natural, completely yet and revelatory strangely felt that way e a a efud clarity newfound a had We a in instantaneously, Almost Yalkut Shir Ha-Shirim Shir Yalkut shulhan, Volume X Issue3 et Ha-Mikdash, Beit representing menorah, promised us. Then, as we started to about how we could move our four sons multifaceted decision that has no easy in Judaism The "Other" have children, our personal aspirations to a place where they would be drafted answers. We should encourage people began to take a back seat to our into the army. Some wondered how I to learn to live with the tensions of that familial ones. We thought a lot about could leave the communal roles I played decision and to be able to admit to others the meaning of raising children in a to go teach in Israel — a job that was what they have chosen to sacrifce in place where our traditions and our clearly, in their eyes, less meaningful the process. I am sometimes left with holidays are the national ones and and signifcant to them in comparison the feeling that cognitive dissonance where the stories of Tanakh played to what I was contributing at the time. profoundly warps discussion of out around the corner. We wanted And then there was the visiting educator aliyah, in both directions: I have heard them to understand intuitively the from Israel who caught me completely olim whitewash the hardships they words of the teflot they daven and off guard with this zinger: “I heard you encounter, as well as those who choose of the books they study. We wanted are making aliyah, throwing American to remain in America work to convince the history they learn to be their own. students to the dogs and moving to themselves and others that there Israel to steal other people’s jobs.” never really was a viable alternative. We wanted our children to feel comfortable and rooted in Israel and No one likes to be The decision of where to not to have to experience the tension judged. Not for making aliyah. live should be made from a place of that so many Jews in the Diaspora Not for not making aliyah. honesty and trust and, in turn, breed face. More, we wanted to spare our happiness and fulfllment. It is hard children the agony of the very dilemma We were aware then, and still to succeed and contribute anywhere that was gripping us. True, we would are, of the factors that enabled us to if you don’t really want to be there, likely never be fully fuent in Hebrew make a smooth, successful aliyah. Our on the one hand, or are overcome by or as accomplished professionally as children were relatively young, our guilt over the path not taken, on the we otherwise might have been, but parents are, thank God, healthy, and we other. To make aliyah or not is a critical somehow those tradeoffs seemed to were not leaving elderly grandparents question that I don’t think can be easily matter less when we considered the behind. We had decent job prospects dismissed or minimized. Still, I think meaning we would fnd in the ins waiting for us, siblings who had already we want to ensure that its sheer weight and outs of day-to-day life, as well made the move, and a community that doesn’t suppress other positive and as the fact that personal fulfllment we were thrilled to be joining. And yet meaningful expressions of love for and is not an all-or-nothing proposition. we tried to be very honest about all attachment to our land, with pride and that we knew we were walking away without burdening self-consciousness, Ultimately, we made aliyah from, which is why I still think that the by all Jews, wherever they may be. because we felt that Jewish destiny is decision to come here is not a simple one. going to play out in the Land of Israel and that we could choose to either remain on No one can ever know where he the sidelines or jump into the center of or she will make the biggest difference, Shayna Goldberg teaches in the Stella that process. We asked ourselves why or what is “really, really right” in some K. Abraham Beit Midrash for Women other people’s children should protect Divine sense. All we can do as human at . She previously taught the Land and not ours? Why should beings is to try to make the best decisions in Ma’ayanot Yeshiva High School other families live there and not us? that we can. And for us, that meant in Teaneck, NJ and served as a moving our young family to Israel. Yoetzet Halakha for Congregations Slowly, we embraced our Rinat Yisrael and Ahavat Torah, as newfound perspectives more and more. I do not think that there is one well as for Kehillat Kesher, all in New At the time of our eventual aliyah, right answer out there on the question Jersey. Shayna made aliyah to Israel almost 9 years after our wedding, of aliyah, and I don’t see great value in the summer of 2011 and lives in we were then challenged to really in debating whether the Israeli soldier Alon Shvut with her husband and fve own our lofty musings explicitly. or the American pulpit rabbi is more children. worthy. Instead, what is important to me We were confronted by others is embracing aliyah as a complicated,

Libi Ba-Mizrach and the Delicate Dance of Our Lived Reality By rABBi nAthAniel helfGot

On one level, the question of engagement with national Jewish these conficts are ones that may have balancing responsibilities to one’s own organizations versus engagement with different answers at different stages of community versus those to the State of one’s day school, and a myriad of one’s life. Moreover, they may have Israel is part of a larger canvas of how one other valuable and signifcant human different answers for different people balances conficting responsibilities. endeavors is one which is a perpetual whose talents and time can best be used The question of how one allocates time challenge. There are, of course, no in one area rather than another. Would to career versus family, Torah study easy answers or algorithms that can the Jewish people have been better versus hesed activities, general civic plot the proper choices to be made served if R. Aryeh Levin zt”l would involvement versus local shul concerns, in each circumstance. Additionally, have devoted a few more hours each Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 13 14 KOL HAMEVASER and the then fedgling State of Israel? r otn once t te severity the to of connected often are during focus unique his were which works tzedakah rather in engaging than adult an as Nesivos or Ketzos day iiay n pltcl upr from support political and military still we strong and robust for advocate that to need recognize State we the Israel, help of to desire and support exclusion of other values and concerns. our of list it, the priorities, even if on it up does strengthening not come high at the be and should enhancing to an exclusive one, and thus our devotion not if even value, primary a is Israel of can. we Our concern for the welfare way of the State every in welfare its out “ a being be-tziyon of sense our by animated be should we “yosheiv a be physically de-ba’ee of a war a of been usedwhenIsraelwasinthemidst have would balance different times, a while peaceful relatively in balance of type one be should and would there bring the issue home to our direct topic, the hometown advantage criteria. Or, to as the hometown starving are and of equivalent needs. However, if Sofer Hatam funds. others pointout,thisisonlyinthecase the of irkha as allocation However, “aniyei the of in kodem” concept the with the from analogy of world an make To is need dire. one when versus times calm weigh different zyn he “Tziyon commenting on the verse in Yirmiyahu- Ha-Shana (Rosh gemara famous us for the be framework should Diaspora the in live who driving major A force. heightened has issue the ethos, community and commitment, religious central part of our essential core values, and spiritually, of the State of Israel as a fourishing and growth, both materially religious Zionists who see the continued Ethiopia. or Union Soviet the from to need the as such situation extreme an www.kolhamevaser.com quickly oe os o simply not does one urgent, n need one to learning another section of the of section another learning to optn nes n relatively in needs competing Furthermore ial, n h cnet f that of context the in Finally, oee, s committed as However, , we are all familiar all are we tzedakah, for oes tziyon doreish ” vn f e cannot we if even derisha,” calculuses eete huad o Jews of thousands resettle in another city and in your in and city another in oes en lah-, ein doreish survival, or survival, ess h ohr Surely, other. the versus h blossoming the needs are not are needs tzedakah his tee questions these , myriad are ad seeking and ,” necessary experiencing and hesed mikhlal people Yishuv apply 30a)

to ,”

Given that this mitzvah a of others , and zt”l Feinstein Moshe Rav of language the speaking of When duress. literal under is one if or health of concerns for serious aside pushed be only can matzah as such obligation An Pesah. like eating matzah on the frst night of make to believe to be correct, that the obligation I which assumption, the makes prompt of the a religious and communal Israel of State the in themselves for future a envision to progeny their and children, our ourselves, to Encouraging able not are practically we and if towards even educate project, we that ethos needs it Moreover, individual. the for option” James’ religious William use its to remain, must it and vision, Zionist our community of health own the in For Jew Diaspora. committed the any considered by be seriously should that option is an It Jew. Diaspora committed the of aliyah is, and should be, a central value institutions. national its the and the country of of stability the and Israel possession of land continued ensuring to both central as man and God justice, social probity ethics, integrity, of level the to of words better the the of even spirit the an in society become to thoughtful Israel be should help be goal The targeted. should and citizens and Israel her to support communal and It schisms. in as is internal such and challenges corruption communal population, the and of segments various among gaps educational nots, have the frst economic divides between the many have and growing include of These nations. world challenges also the it faces However, and society. living thriving of a standard high a function. has to It simply not charity does our that need country tech high and nation powerhouse the a but longer 1960’s, and no is 1950’s the of state weak economically Israel that know also we pass, years the as But States. United the is that hesed, shel medinah the country, our and government our ia, e r sekn ised in instead, speaking are we aliyah, h cntnl pointed constantly who Prophets second question of th otx ta or personal our that context this At the same time, the language Regarding the second question, liyah is not an absolute one absolute an not is aliyah at f h communal the of part be to ufl t n u on lives. own our in it fulfll mitzvah is of a different n hmlt before humility and , agae a “live a language, is symposium desideratum kiyumit akhilat is , . . and make one’shome make and children, live to other choice the evaluating in many factors so for and risk, of tolerance options educational dynamics, fulfllment, family opportunities, career spiritual and personal of considerations various one to weight give should what sentences outline few to a impossible in is it too, Here obligation. pure of terms involves in formulated Israel, of be simply cannot that areas gray State many the is that history Jewish modern of drama grand the of part become and one’slife and family uproot to decision momentous mak should into factors go what framework that character f ogeain eio Sao in Shalom Teaneck, NJ. Netivot rabbi Congregation and School of High SAR at Peh is TorahShe-Ba’al of Dept. Azrieli the of Chair and RIETS, YC, YUHS, of graduate a Helfgot, Nathaniel Rabbi Aliyah. of decisions the in meaningful factors as needs communal and calculation personal both leaves which people the Jewish the in of narrative play current to role a has community Kook or the religious mold ala R. Zvi Yehuda ala mode A.B. Yehoshuasecular the of whether circumstances, contemporary tt, n oe ht nlds both includes of perspective that the reject We Diaspora. the and one Israel and state, Jewish The largera is Jewish nation the than entity out. tease to paper full a also requires this I though correct, be to hold which assumption, another to to reader the commend piece, that examine I (2011). Experience” Jewish of “Varieties his in reprinted and Refections” Some Current Zionism: Religious “Diaspora entitled 2007, in at Forum Orthodox presented the frst essay, seminal a in Zionist Religious the Diaspora committed of thinking the affect do— often should sociological that the considerations personal the and issues, factors, profound hashkafc and and halakhic the outlined already way sensitive, nuanced, customary Lichtenstein balanced, his in Aharon has, zt”l Rav revered mentor, and teacher esteemed my as me to try to articulate the issues at hand But the truth is, that it is not necessary for n hs icpe. Each disciples. his and zt”l eod te usin points question the Second, , it is proper to consider within n aliyah. ing n i patc most practice in —and shelilat ha-Golah shelilat Volume X Issue3 ve-ida or hak s uh the such, As h zil gemor.zil kh hatam. in our in The "Other" in Judaism The "Other" Revisiting Classical Essays Rupture, Reconstruction, and Revolution: Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's Landmark Essay on the Contemporary State of Orthodoxy By AvrAhAm Wein During my years of study at that any discussion in this feld published evaluation. A careful exploration of , I once had the subsequent to Soloveitchik’s essay Soloveitchik’s article, as well as a brief pleasure of sitting with Rabbi Dr. has needed to include a discussion of survey of main critiques levied at the Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l and Dr. Soloveitchik’s groundbreaking article. piece will provide deep insight into the Tovah Lichtenstein for a Friday night nature of Orthodoxy post World War II. dinner. While much of the meal I spent Dr. Soloveitchik’s central doing my best to catch what each of the claim in his article is that there has been Lichtensteins were saying, I had the a major shift from the Orthodoxy he opportunity to discuss with them the experienced in his early years (which Dr. Soloveitchik's Central Thesis differences between Jewish American existed in Orthodox Jewish Society for Orthodoxy in the 40’s and 50’s versus many centuries beforehand as well) to Prior to addressing our earlier the current day. The primary distinction the one that now exists in the post World questions, let us outline the central thesis they proposed was the polarization War II era. Ultimately, this leads him to of Dr. Soloveitchik’s article. At the very between different Jewish Orthodox make certain controversial observations outset of his article, Soloveitchik makes groups. I asked R. Lichtenstein how about the modern Jew’s sense of the a startling statement: “The orthodoxy Divine presence. In order to evaluate the in which I, and other people my age, this difference manifests itself. He 25 responded that when he was growing up, legitimacy of Soloveitchik’s claims and were raised scarcely exists anymore.” you went to the supermarket and picked their relevance to the modern day, the Later, when explaining his decision to up kosher meat. Everyone bought the following questions should be raised: study this topic Soloveitchik wrote: same kosher meat, regardless of what It seemed to me to that group of Orthodoxy they came from.21 a. How accurate are Dr. Soloveitchik’s descriptions what had changed radically Today, he said, you go to the store and was the very texture of fnd that there are endless hashgachot of what was like in the past? religious life and the entire for each branch of Orthodoxy! While religious atmosphere. this specifc example is perhaps of Put differently, the a more trivial nature, it does refect b. How accurate are Dr. Soloveitchik’s descriptions nature of contemporary a broader and more signifcant shift spirituality has undergone in Jewish American Orthodoxy. of what Orthodox Judaism is like in the present? a transformation; the Though studying the makeup ground of religiosity had of different groups along the spectrum c. How compelling are Dr. altered far more than of Jewish observance continues to Soloveitchik’s claims for the ideological positions be a major topic in contemporary why this shift occurred? adopted thereon. (65) 22 academia, the most important foray d. Are Dr. Soloveitchik’s Therefore, Soloveitchik set out into this area in the last ffty years was claims still relevant to understand this transformation made by Dr. Haym Soloveitchik in his 20 years later for the and studied the haredi community article “Rupture and Reconstruction: sociological realities in order to do so. Hence, his The Transformation of Contemporary of Orthodoxy today? article is a sociological analysis of Orthodoxy.” Dr. Soloveitchik’s article, Orthodoxy in the postwar world. published in the journal Tradition, As alluded to earlier, there were a wide has been described as the “most variety of critiques levied at the article, Dr. Soloveitchik argues that widely discussed article in the last 30 including some by signifcant scholars the social changes of the twentieth years of Tradition” by R. Yitzchak 23 like Isaac Chavel, Mark Steiner, and century, primarily as a result of the Blau. Moreover, Mark Steiner Hillel Goldberg. Each of these critiques Holocaust, led to a dramatic shift in wrote that “seldom does an article related to one of these questions, and traditional Jewish practice. Simply evoke such discussion as Professor created an important discussion of this put, Soloveitchik puts forth two Haym Soloveitchik’s ‘Rupture and 24 signifcant article. Dr. Soloveitchik also different types of traditions: mimetic Reconstruction.’” Soloveitchik’s addresses a number of other fascinating and text-based. A mimetic tradition is essay was landmark in the feld of topics by way of presenting his central one in which people learn how to act studying contemporary Orthodoxy, and thesis, which are also worthy of by imitating others. The alternative, a its signifcance is attested to by the fact Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 15 16 KOL HAMEVASER ihn hs framework, this Within to “slide the explains Soloveitchik that: arguing by home point hammers this dramatically own. its valid on Soloveitchik standing longer inherently no it being to received as viewing indicates practice from orientation transition in a shift practice. This common a for justifcation halakhic earlier often a provide then and literature explore practice, will a times evaluating when the halakhic Thus, with literature. squared be to needed the in whereas legitimacy, and value own its had practice common Ha-Shulhan, the and the centuries: few this demonstrates last Soloveitchik the of works halakhic signifcant most the of two contrasting by change Holocaust. the of result a shtetl lifestyle, the of absence the in lost were tradition mimetic the of The remnants last life.” religious play contemporary now in texts that role textual controlling Soloveitchik and “new the as a change this tradition. describes from mimetic disconnected follows the is and largely tradition postwar the era in Judaism contrast, In describes: He tradition. mimetic adhered a to strongly Judaism Orthodox written the pre-war arguesthat Soloveitchik word. through down passed is information when is tradition, textual www.kolhamevaser.com cmo practice common Berura, Mishna aahc ytm (67) system. the halakhic a of datum was correlative Custom the people. the of practices in regnant and codes), and canonized written corpus (the Talmud the in forms: two in itself manifesting Ashkenazic as law the saw community the to that exaggeration say no is It street, and synagogue home and school. (66) in conduct regularly observed on patterned and friends, and parents from imbibed mimetic, learned is Its transmission absorbed. not rather is but life of way a And life. constitutes of way a Halakhah… I the In Berura. Mishna rk Ha-Shulhan Arukh iha Berura, Mishna post facto post Arukh Finally, we would be remiss if remiss be would Finally,we more themselves upon their themselves maintain fdelity to authentic Judaism by taking to strive fnd now they now in, secular the Jews to culture due Second, don’t it. we writing, trust in it seen we haven’t if words, other In parents. our of instead guide our as books to resorted have and forefathers and fathers our of our confdence in the mimetic tradition lost have we so century, of twentieth the rupture mimetic the of result strong a as the tradition have we longer First, change. no this for proposed haredi the in many by adopted by new This increased. be practice, to this the that contending upended the totally beforehand, years of same the type used having Jews is that Despite references example prominent Soloveitchik most The word. printed the of Soloveitchik sums up this transition as: medium that the on concentration argues a been has there that religious and reevaluation” Soloveitchik traditional massive undergoing been has the practice of “much person, God-fearing them! to a referring is it thinks everyone to relevant a about writes Berura Mishna the when Nowadays, themselves. not one of think and midrash, beit the in student special would God-fearing all they a person, to directed were that the in sections read when yeshiva, in student was a he when observed, once Amital Yehuda on Rav As observance. emphasis halakhic been has heavy there that a is slide, this American by Jewish meant is What the community. Orthodox in right” the n tx clue (72) culture. text a occurs in religious that of performance in nature and change the essential of the refect and demands—simply proliferation complications position the y, c n e compliance,” g n i r t s “maximum — e the v o b a all Fundamentally, There are two primary reasons primary two are There o hnrd of hundreds for shiurim ie needed size shiur through chumrot iha Berura Mishna was chumra in chumrot ao Ish Hazon talmidim chumrot. shiurim. chumra world. topee a etrl different. during that entirely describes He irreligious was atmosphere largely the Europe, Eastern from immigrants of constituted Whereas, in his congregation in Boston, Brak: Bnei in yeshiva a at his experience about writes He Kippur. Yom on n tas ee hd” e continues: He shed.” were tears and palpable was tension The crowd. the synagogue flled and a hush set in upon ie Slvici ilsrts his illustrates of example an with Soloveitchik argument daily life. our within presence Divine sensing the life: Jewish of area text-based critical mimetic a entirely the on impact dramatic a an had has tradition to from tradition transition that that proposes the He article. the section of fnal the in found bombshell Soloveitchik’smention not to were we hr ws o er n the in thronged student body. fear (98) no was there but self-transcendence, of introspection, moments even self-ascent, was there that realized I Upon refection, granted. for taken had I perhaps, before, something, experienced something had I that was something missing, yet, there And than experienced. and previously powerful had I anything far more certainly intense, was uplifting, there long, Brak. prayer Bnei famous The in a yeshiva Yom Kippur—at to period—from Hashanah Rosh High entire Holiday the spent I ipe n drc. (99) judgement, direct.” and Divine simple of fear primal that was Brak Bnei in students thronged those among absent was instinctive lives...what their for fear an self interest, from from but religiosity rendered...these cried...not people was decision being fnal the Kippur, setting, was sun the as and was Yom on person judged was every that childhood their in earliest people these in instilled been had “What Volume X Issue3 Ne’ilah tefllot “the

Soloveitchik argues that Orthodox regarding his description of the past ruled based on theoretical in Judaism The "Other" Judaism has undergone a change in as a primarily mimetic tradition. argument in contradiction the sensed intimacy with God and Hillel Goldberg wrote that: to mimetic tradition. the felt immediacy of His presence. Chassidus could not have He attributes this to the way people That which he takes to emerged if people weren’t understand daily events. While in be “new and controlling” looking at the traditions modern times, a curious child may be is, in fact, part of a time- and looking for a new told that diseases come from viruses, honored pattern in Jewish justifcation for them.28 in the past he would have been told it history. Without insisting is the direct hand of God. Soloveitchik on too strict a parallel Berger instead proposes that instead of argues that “God’s palpable presence and without ignoring just one rupture, there were in fact really and direct, natural involvement in contemporary nuances, the two: the Haskalah and the Holocaust. daily life—and I emphasize both increased reliance on text He believes that the Haskalah “direct” and “daily”—, His immediate at the expense of mimesis movement led to the fall of mimeticism. responsibility for everyday events, was describes conditions that a fact of life in the East European shtetl, obtained in successive so late as several generations ago.” epochs when, for (101) This change is also attributed example, the Mishna was Critique of His Description of the to the infuence of natural science. formulated, the Talmud Present was formulated, and the Ultimately, Soloveitchik decisions of the Rishonim In this section, we will briefy powerfully concludes: were codifed in the relate to two important critiques Shulhan Arukh. In all these of Soloveitchik’s depiction of “I think it safe to say that cases, where previously contemporary Orthodoxy. The frst was the perception of G-d there was reliance on raised by Isaac Chavel, who took issue as a daily, natural force mimesis and a measure with Soloveitchik’s grouping of the is no longer present to of halakhic diversity, Modern Orthodox community with the a signifcant degree in now there emerged haredi community. Instead, he writes any sector of modern reliance on “texts” and that the Modern Orthodox community Jewry, even the most a reduced measure of has had a very different timeline than religious. ...individual halakhic diversity. Where the haredim for important reasons. Divine Providence, though previously there was a The second, and perhaps passionately believed as living teacher, now there far more crucial critique, was made a theological principle... was also a written one. by Hillel Goldberg. Goldberg found is no longer experienced Where previously certain Soloveitchik’s claim regarding as a simple reality.” (102) matters of halakhic the lack of Yirat Shamayim discussion had practical to be inaccurate. He wrote: import, now, with fxed decisions, they had mostly Critical Responses R. Soloveitchik has theoretical import. In confused lack of yirat short, while making due As is to be expected with an shamayim with lack of allowance for periodic essay that touches on so many important open, public proclamation coloration and local aspects of Jewish life, Soloveitchik’s of yirat shamayim. That’s conditions, that which R. thesis was subject to a wide variety not the style today. We Soloveitchik takes to be of discussion and criticism. These live in cynical times. For “rupture” is, in fact, part criticisms fall into three categories: his people publicly to proclaim of a familiar pattern.26 assessment of the past, his assessment of that they perceive God as a daily, natural force is the present, and the reasons he suggests Micha Berger, also took issue with for the transition from one tradition to to identify themselves as Soloveitchik’s description of the past relatively unsophisticated. the next. While limited by the scope of as a primarily mimetic tradition, but this essay, we will briefy explore the from a different angle than Goldberg: critiques found in these three as well as raise some of our own suggestions I fnd this characterization Critique of Soloveitchik's Reasons for why this transition occurred. ironic, given the identity of the author. His great In the article, Soloveitchik grandfather and namesake, argues that the proliferation of halakhic Critique of His Description of the R’ Chaim Brisker, was books on Orah Hayyim topics is due to Past famously textualist in to the transition to a text-based tradition. his approach to halakhah Hillel Goldberg disagreed with him 27 Two important critiques despite living pre-war. on this point, and understood this were directed at Soloveitchik Nor was Brisk the frst: phenomenon very differently. First, he the Vilna Gaon often contends that it should be seen as part of Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 17 18 KOL HAMEVASER hy r as ls fafl f God.” of fearful less also are they improved particular, in standards—and, material of generation because a primarily ago, than Jews aggressive and haredi fearful more less that general in wrote, are argue today He would community. “I haredi of the lack Steiner the Mark for explanation alternative vein, an for different argued a In and most importantly, Goldberg writes: more and Third, before.” ever producing than cheaper,decentralized easier, of is book “process a the Second knowledge. of systems advanced all in specialization towards trend broader a rdtos Ised h proposes: disagrees he in Instead, Steiner shift the to the traditions. led Finally, shtetl that the of loss claim Soloveitchik’s with www.kolhamevaser.com o h diminishment. responded the has to but creatively mimesis, not of has preponderance diminishment the texts caused new of The effect. and to cause confuses not Soloveitchik R. it. past, replace to living link the a reestablish to of process attempt there reconstruction-an textual in a that is is context long this It “contemporary Orthodoxy.” since before been have or missing who mentors, parents, Orthodox teachers, present in for flls the explosion textual most, For o hie u t tr to turn to but choice no had Will God’s fulflling in interested fold. truly the Those left course, of Most, right. the to and left the to to defections massive susceptible unstable, authority, inherently and religious fragile was any legitimizing without tradition a left, was What Zionism. to WorldNew or the to out sold having as its perceived leaders potential more, no was kehilla traditional The of authority. locus the in change a “[There] has been a change: ia Shamayim Yirat in 29

i nes o e en n writing.” in seen be to needs “it in order for something to be legitimate, to base observance on. In modern culture, texts not were there if historically legitimacy halakhic have that not does believing observance to prey fall discipline any would Many analysis. textual demands of study surrounding because: study Torah in-depth need for a was there essay, that the argued concluding Yehuda to Amital R. Prior First, mention. of worthy are considerations other two believe I Additional Considerations ep oa learning. without Torah life deep religious impossible to live a serious is It scholarship. Torah of void are bearers its if day of God will not survive in service our The study. of realms other to profundity intellectual in inferior way should be serious and in no Torahthat study important such a time, it is especially demand at Precisely intellect? of the not application strenuous God of service the should study, great efforts in various felds of such invest people when period a In service God. of the in be employed too, intellect, important the that is it intellect, the to importance much so In a generation that attaches corruption.” of foreign combat sources to also and issues, say new the about gedolim these what to Torah” handbooks “b’nei written the inform be to began halakhic options, new of and course), circles, Orthodox (in technological literacy universal change, of a In world “gedolim.” began call to they talmidei hakhamim those remnant, saving uncorrupted to the be considered they what aty te cdmc culture academic the Lastly, 28/No.%204/Repture%20And.pdf http://traditionarchive. at org/news/converted/Volume%20 found can be article Soloveitchik’s Haym Dr. Studies, Jewish and in Shevuot college fourth-year Tractate majoring Yeshiva a is at is half-century. student Wein last Avraham the of important most the articles of one as down it go discussion should it doubt, the a Without opened. as well as therein, contained ideas and the content of valuable because both piece important Soloveitchik’s incredibly an and that landmark a is article clear is it paper, despite this in conclusion, discussed critiques various the In trends. new these of result a as changed be should description of the Orthodox community of his if reinvestigate to worthwhile Soloveitchik for be nature would It the community. Orthodox the affected in observance religious all individualism have and postmodernism, community. The spread of signifcant neo-hassidut, essay, changes have occurred in the Orthodox publication Soloveitchik’s the of since the in years that note twenty to worthwhile is It Conclusion pages 26-27 on appear issue this for *Endnotes

, Volume X Issue3 and Psychology. . The "Other" in Judaism The "Other" Book Reviews

Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration? Edited by Rabbi J.J. Schacter

By mAtt luBin

Ask just about any student of Prize, the country’s highest award essay) is that while such a historical Yeshiva University, or more generally, for academic or Torah scholarship, discussion may indeed be useful if anyone who considers themselves to and the American authors and editor the intended “mark” is a question of belong to “Modern Orthodoxy,” what are the titans of Yeshiva University’s factual determination, the question distinguishes it from other strands of Judaic studies department—Professor that faces “the traditionalist,” as Judaism, and you are likely to be told David Berger is the dean of Bernard Blidstein calls him, is a normative one: that Modern Orthodoxy is particular Revel graduate school, and Professor how should the allegiant of rabbinic in its double commitment to Torah and Shnayer Leiman is known in Yeshiva Judaism look to rabbinic literature to the general surrounding culture. No University circles as its resident determine the acceptability of outside question could be more central, then, historical polymath. All of these cultures? On the other hand, “The to the ideology of Modern Orthodoxy authors are also frmly entrenched in historian’s agenda may yet be relevant than the subject of the recently the Orthodox Jewish community, their even from a normative point of view,”31 reprinted volume which centers on children (and grandchildren) having as historical behaviors of the Sages that very issue, Judaism’s Encounter attended Torah day schools, and so themselves indicate, by implication, with Other Cultures: Rejection or they can reliably speak to an audience the types of conduct that they deemed Integration?, (Maggid Books, 2017), who themselves are looking to inform acceptable. Despite his opening edited by Rabbi J.J. Schacter. Since its a Torah-based perspective on where reservations, therefore, Blidstein quotes frst appearance in 1997, this volume general studies and a commitment to liberally from historians of rabbinic (and particularly its fnal essay chapter) Judaism meet. Tackling each of their literature in assessing their reliance has become somewhat of the defning respective felds of expertise, the three on Hellenic and Roman culture. ideological statement of the “Torah historians provide a rich and detailed U-Madda” hashkafah, even more so picture of how rabbinic Judaism All in all, Blidstein concludes than the essay of Rabbi approached their intellectual cultural that the Sages condemned gentile of that name. Comprised of four essay- environments throughout the ages. culture when it smacked of idolatry or chapters, the collection takes a form immorality, but otherwise assimilated which is as crucial as it is ambitious, by The frst essay, written by (or were largely disinterested in) frst providing a highly detailed picture Professor Gerald Blidstein, is entitled, those elements which they considered of how this question was approached “Rabbinic Judaism and General benign. After reading through the throughout Jewish history (starting Culture: Normative Discussion and chapter, however, it is clear that this from the Mishnah), culminating in Attitudes.” As the byline suggests, conclusion is at least as dependent a highly practical assessment by Blidstein is interested in exploring upon studies of the Sages’ historical Rav Ahron Lichtenstein, who is for explicit discussions of “general milieu as it is on the reading of specifc many the greatest talmid hakham to culture” as a subject of rabbinic rabbinic passages, most of which have be frmly entrenched in the world normative statements, i.e. what the a decidedly more repudiatory favor. of Modern Orthodoxy since Rabbis rabbis themselves had to say about This study then presents a signifcant Joseph Ber and Aaron Soloveitchik. the integration of general culture. The potential problem: if we want to use the The book’s medium is very much its author admits at the outset that this Sages’ behavior to serve as a normative message: the collection is structured might appear to stray far from the example, it may be important to as a presentation of four historical intended mark: if we want to know determine whether these cases of clear studies, indicating the importance of to what extent the ancient rabbis outside infuence are merely a feature such studies for contextualizing this were infuenced by their surrounding of osmotic, unconscious diffusion, pressing halakhic-hashkafc issue. culture, would it not make more or if the Sages were decisively sense to conduct a historical study comfortable with integrating aspects For determining the Orthodox “observing the data of this interaction of the general culture into their world. Jewish perspective towards (what is themselves,”30 instead of looking to If their accepting of outside infuences referred to by the title as) “culture,” the sparse explicit remarks by the was not meant as an explicit seal of the choice of authors is essentially sages on the subject? The implicit approval, but merely “a recognition unsurpassable. Professor Blidstein answer provided by the author (and that the rabbis are part of a sphere of and Rav Lichtenstein, the two Israeli the editors of the volume, who could culture whose materials pass with writers, have both received the Israel have included a very different kind of considerable freedom between all its Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 19 20 KOL HAMEVASER ah n’ slet etrs Drawing features. salient one’s each out pointing and trends geographical historical- discussing by sources these of sense make reader the helps Berger though, essay the Throughout cultural shared. rabbis and medieval the all which wisdom inquiry philosophical that shows towards attitude singular no clearly was there study forest this coherent all; no at is there that say to accurate more be might it here but cause easily trees, many so in forest the lose to one can literature relevant vn hog conversion.” through unapproachable even their and above, ingrained and status apart set are Jews consensus; philosophic common a not race-nation; revelation, a unique a on rests “Judaism as people Jewish the of uniqueness the and philosophy for disdain his between connection deep a considering In , for example, Berger sees insights. fascinating his examples nonetheless brief, includes be some account individual each that members,” f uas itself.” Judaism of understanding the for both) sometimes often saw as crucial or problematic (and their intellectual profle and which they early modern Jews regarded as and central medieval to many which disciplines on culture, high will on [only] “concentrate he upon that writing infuence Jewry, Medieval cultural of purview second his limits also collection, the this in essay of author Berger, unavoidably.David statements, rabbinic explicit to himself or unthinkingly inculcated have already may we what beyond culture outside the in engaging intentionally in interested be may who provide little instruction for those of us uh es well-known) some less and much well-known their (some and works fgures rabbinic to of referring stone dozens although no and sweeping almost unturned, leaves Berger’s discussion Emden. R. to era Jacob Geonic the of rabbis from important spanning the controversies, Maimonidean including rabbis, the among reception its and philosophy of study the with concerned thus is essay h eitne f tm o DNA.” or atoms of existence the contemporary deny could evolution of critic religious a than intellect active more rid himself of the [concept of the] no could “Halevi however, time same www.kolhamevaser.com xlrn s mc o the of much so Exploring As Blidstein purported to limit to purported Blidstein As 32 hn hi eape can example their then 33 h bl o his of bulk The 34 necessitates 35 t the At 36

s tog esn o eiv ta a Montpellier that in sided with Jews the rationalists.” believe the incorporating to of majority reason strong sermons is “there that proved hear ideas philosophical communities to many of desire the that notes also Berger the leadership, rabbinic of views the for general Besides studies. viewed Provence and of Spain communities the how understand the can one which through lens a as works philosophical his of considers reception the and carefully controversies surrounding Maimonides scholarship, own Berger his of much upon e u t sae y hita za in God.” of service zeal the Christian by shame to put be not would they that demonstrate to out set pietists “Ashkenazi as movement, the was decisive” in the Ashkenazi pietistic that “It likely infuence of the Christian environment Additionally, overwhelmingly Tosafsts. is the of and methods dialectical studies the even biblical perhaps on effects had likely culture scholastic and Christian philosophical with in interactions their although more study, engage generally to reticent were Ashkenaz of becomes overwhelming,” becomes culture surrounding the in immersion “The evidence for Renaissance Jewry’s xenl otcs n infuences,” and contacts external from separate totally quest, spiritual a of part as reasons, religious “for often more was this studied, was literature philosophical when Even speculation. historical) of Rossi, de Azariah R. of philosophical (and later, in the example continued regarding the acceptability of h fc ta ams nn o R Isaac R. of none almost that as fact the points fascinating such including detail, in rich is Orthodoxy German of presentation Leiman’s . and Hirsch, Raphael Samson greatest Ettlinger, Jacob its Bernays, Isaac rabbis: of viewed four was by practiced ideology and showing an such and how R. Friesenhausen from history David its tracing by he does which Erets,” Derekh im “Torah in discusses concept, the of development Leiman the detail period, the literature of Jewish the of of all surveying task Instead impossible the approach. attempting Leiman of different a Shnayer takes Prof. modernity, culture. general of a reception of positive indicative not is and Yair Bachrach, R. of wrote Twersky Isadore as oig n o h ea of era the to on Moving 38 Regarding Italy,Regarding 39 37 but debates but The rabbis 40

h rae itrse i sc studies. such in interested reader the citation is provided where available for helpful a but leaders, Orthodox great differentthese the by taken approaches contrast and compare to chapter the in portraits, there is unfortunately no room intellectual these painting in involved n Rbi am fe preferred) Lichtenstein often Lamm hashkafa. Rav Rabbi and (as Orthodox” “Centrist or U-Madda,” “Torah version the of Lichtenstein’s his of Rav formulation as defnitive essay this looked to have reviewers Many Torah. today’s for education arts liberal nuanced defense of the value of a Lichtenstein’sequally modern but impassioned Rav Ahron is chapter, fnal its jewel, the more true through the study of the of study the through true more the all is this handiwork, His studying by God appreciate to comes one famously touted, Maimonides as If, scene.” socio-economic modern and terms classical the both of knowledge contemporary some without neighborly into relations concerning translate cannot ordinances including “One example, sciences, for the that, sociology,writing and the economics of of importance study the upon insists Lichtenstein Rav essay’s sensitivity. the spiritual is of depth authors, the by literary matched of dozens drawing upon his by evident educational background, own Lichtenstein’s Rav a sat. e i nt ed them.” need scholars not did He other scanty. was distance… with a intercourse at His kept he “he friends his even and friends that make freely not did contemporaries R. of one Hirsch’s by made remarks the and German) vernacular the in preaching his his (despite sermons hearing Shabbat weekly in interested even were or understood audience lay Bernay’s nweg ta te mgt actually might have. they that knowledge background more has audience his that may fnd that in doing so he assumes and fgures readers some though institutions, their these surrounded often that controversies rabbinic the of makes note also Lieman themselves.” for frst “speak can the leaders these that for so time) English into translated excerpts Leiman’s(some Sages these of writings the from many includes period, similar also the chapter and of Brauer historians Mordechai references to copious including While 42 eas o te ra depth great the of Because h vlm’ crowning volume’s The 43 h etniees of extensiveness The Volume X Issue3 benei 41 humanities, which, as its name suggests, the frst essay, for example, the vast the sages of medieval Ashkenaz likely in Judaism The "Other" is the study of the human experience, majority of Blidstein’s attention is paid had an “intense curiosity about the “His wondrous creation at its apex.”44 to pre-Talmudic rabbinic literature natural and mechanical phenomena Despite being fully forthcoming and Roman infuence, which was that surrounded them,” which likely about the religious risks and potential indeed the focus of academic studies extended to at least moderate study of halakhic problems inherent in such of rabbinics for most of the twentieth natural philosophy, Berger can only studies, Rav Lichtenstein argues that and twenty-frst centuries, but he cite in his footnote “a conversation general knowledge is essential for a full makes no mention of more recent with Ta-Shema,” but today the reader spiritually enriching education, as even scholarship on the Babylonian Talmud could be directed to a full monograph if it may be true that “everything is in and its signifcant borrowing of literary on the subject by David I. Shyovitz.54 it [the Torah],”45 we should not be so structures, themes, and concepts from The Jewish reception and involvement haughty as to believe that we can derive Persian culture.49 In discussing some in the Copernican Revolution and “all we need within our own tradition.” obvious legal loan-words that made it the new science of experimentation, into the halakha, Blidstein mentions the for which Berger provides a quick There is almost no argument prozbul and dyothiki, but not the foreign overview, is also now the subject of one can make against Rav Lichtenstein’s word that would be more familiar an entire book.55 Recent publications position that he has not already to any practicing Jew, “afkoman,” could even be cited to supplement Prof. anticipated in this remarkable essay, which would have been a good segue Leiman’s extraordinarily well-sourced and while this helps gives his positions to mention the Passover Seder’s essay, such as Adam Ferzinger’s the crucial authority of considered relationship to the Greek Symposium study of German Orthodoxy’s balance, such a presentation is likely not (more recently the subject of an relationship with the non-Orthodox going to convince any reader already excellent study by David Henshke).50 community,56—but this would inclined to disagree with his stance on In the penultimate section of the essay, scarcely have changed the content of the value of general studies. Although Blidstein suggests that the “distinction Leiman’s essay substantially, if at all. this is of course always true to a large between facts and values (wooly as it extent,46 here Rav Lichtenstein accedes may be) is perhaps at the heart of the Updating aside, a more to the severe spiritual dangers posited rabbinic assertion that the nations of the signifcant limitation of this collection by serious study of the humanities, world do not possess Torah, but they do is that although its title concerns the yet insists that “the advocacy of possess wisdom,”51 believing that the “encounter” of Judaism and “other Torah u-Madda can very well still be Sages were willing to unquestioningly cultures,” all of these essays are sustained, depending, of course, on the adopt scientifc knowledge as superior almost exclusively interested in what overall balance of beneft and loss.”47 to their own if it can be shown to be is sometimes called “high culture,” Presented with all of Rav Lichtenstein’s correct. In actually, this assertion is not the intellectual products of non- evidence, however, a reader can just as as simple as Blidstein would like it to Jewish nations—there is almost no easily come to the opposite conclusion, be, as he himself notes that the Sages talk of everything else we would today even if he recognizes that “we also will almost never accept a logical- associate with culture: food, dress, ignore hokhmah at some cost,” for scientifc argument without being language, entertainment, and on and on who is to say which path is flled able to provide a scriptural source for and on.57 In one sense this complaint is with more spiritual dangers? In an the same conclusion. As readers are nothing more than a pedantic quibble exchange published in the Orthodox probably aware, the question of where about a word in the title,58 but there is Union’s Jewish Action magazine,48 the rabbis’ scientifc assumptions are another sense in which this indicates Dr. William Kolbrener wrote that he sourced is (and to a large extent, has been a major shortcoming regarding the believes the modern university would for centuries) the subject of signifcant audience of this collection. While invariably fail a student attempting controversy among rabbinic thinkers.52 it may be true that any Yeshiva to put Rav Lichtenstein’s ideal into University student will likely say that action, and his proposed path has, in Despite the very detailed Modern Orthodoxy is distinguished by his experience, sometimes led to tragic account of medieval Jewry provided its approach to general culture, he or spiritual consequences. On the next by Berger, it too could potentially have she will understand the word “culture” page, Rav Lichtenstein concedes that been updated thanks to some more to refer to something very different perhaps there may be more signifcant recent studies, particularly with regard that the subject of this book. Beyond dangers inherent in his program, to his treatment of Ashkenazic attitudes Blidstein’s overview of the prohibition especially in a university, but his towards general learning. Referring to imitate the gentiles, there is little essential argument remains unchanged: to the peshat focus of Rashbam’s that speaks to the aspects of general he believes that the benefts of such commentary to the Torah, for example, culture that are much more pressing an education outweigh their costs. Berger writes that “it surely cannot for the vast majority of the Modern be ruled out—indeed, it seems Orthodox readership. As Kolbrenner Although each of the volume’s overwhelmingly likely—that some quoted from a student, “It’s not so historical essays are very thorough, it is taste of the exciting new approaches much that we are interested in Torah unfortunate that the new republishing was transmitted,” from Christian Umadda, what we are really interested has not inspired any updating, as certain exegetes to Jewish commentators. in is Torah and entertainment.”59 lacunas may appear to today’s readers Thanks to the work of Eliezer Touito,53 who are exposed to the scholarship this can now be stated with much Those who consider themselves to be of the past two decades. Starting with greater confdence. In his belief that Modern Orthodox in this sense would Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 21 22 KOL HAMEVASER hc te one o the of movement, founder the which I -Introduction of Chasidus.” of world the new…to be may who reader of Chasidic texts…for the Wolfsoninterested lay “an as Moshe introduction to words, the basic own terms and its ideas Rabbi in serves, and by lecture series a on based is book the Press, Kodesh by 2014 in Published Thought. Chasidic to Introduction An Faith: of Reichman’sZev Rabbi yielded others. in not may locations and ages certain in resonate or stressed are that Aspects others. teach to presented and true holds how analogy for This sustenance. planted. what upon is of depend will source grows wellspring What a a merely However, is world. the as a directive to inspire Jews throughout Lubavitch especially many, Hassidic world].” the of teachings the spread of to charge This rest the inspire and of teachings (the wellsprings your “When responded, Messiah The come. would Tov, met the Messiah and asked when he II – A Variety ofInfuences Faith that of dynamics spiritual and cultural, intellectual, the not to justice does do it but purpose, and content work’s the of self-description succinct mttn gnie rs ad similar and practices cultural dress gentile medieval of imitating prohibition the the understood how rabbis consider likely fact that R. Azriel Hildesheimer loved Hildesheimer the Azriel R. that in fact interested more be would and Aristotelianism, of embrace their than lms f at: Rve o a Itouto t Chasidic to Introduction an Thought forthe American Jew of Review A Faith: of Flames www.kolhamevaser.com B Hassidut) spread outward [to educate y t zvi hr i a is There hs s h peoeo that phenomenon the is This n wy te ok author, book, the way, a In A eie fo ad promotes. and from derived thought has been accepted by accepted been has thought Hassidic ryeh 62 Rabbi Yisrael Ba’al Shem 63 B At frst glance, this is a enoff 60 to be more relevant more be to ecig ae used are teachings Hassidic Hassidim, Hassidic tr in story Flames Flames

with the warmth of Polish of warmth the study with Torah Lithuanian the combine to sought Mendlowitz Rabbi such, As educational Judaism. to connection in emotional and grow to child school contemporary the for conducive that was environment an creating by Jew American the educate to but designed was decades, the throughout Vodaathevolved Torah 1921, in Mendlowitz Jewish famed Feivel Shraga Rabbi pioneer education a the by prominence is to he of Vodaath,paradigm of the yeshiva itself. Brought counselor) Torah Yeshiva guidance different, (spiritual albeit varied, the as Serving background. a has also Moshe Brooklyn. in Rabbi Park Boro with of Wolfson relationship a worlds, Rabbi Reichman also developed Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Modern the rabbi straddle to a the University Yeshiva for in of of background unheard not educational is it While lr-rhdx ehv i Israel. in yeshiva Ultra-Orthodox elite an Chevron, Yeshivas in studied he Isaac Seminary), Rabbi Theological Elchanan school, rabbinical RIETS and by ordained (Yeshiva University’s affliate yeshiva being Before Hill East Jersey. the New Englewood, in synagogue of rabbi the as well as Judaism, Orthodox Modern American many to be the educational fagship of by considered University, Yeshiva Program at Mechina the is of director Reichman the Zev Rabbi his biography, to were distinct According irreconcilable. inherently and that considered backgrounds once varied syntheses entities, of consider chimerical may be some to what are upon based is it classes whose lecturer and to sing German ee y a Lctnti cn e an be can Lichtenstein Rav by formulated here program educational example and shining the that hopes only one and perfectly, ideals its to up live to expected be can community no said, than in his mastery of Greek. That being Rabbi Moshe Wolfsonhimself Moshe Rabbi leider to his daughters to Hassidut Mashgiach 64 61

Rbi cnu Zla of Zalman Schneur Rabbi Lubavitch of Hassidut, founder the by written chapters of the famous Lubavitch work a whole is organized around the opening Hassidic thought. However, the book as delineating the fundamentals of general Thought, connotes a pathos-based work Chasidic to Introduction An Faith: of title, The book. Reichman’s III –Structure andContent homiletics. and thought or Hassidic supplemented general of lens the is through presented but teachings Lubavitch in sourced often is shares he the of much new to a of Jews. such, generation American As guide old, and of inspire from practically traditions forged path, untainted new the a create to backgrounds different of melding the Vodaath, Torah of microcosm a is he title, institutional his by to referred being only on insists modestly he (though right own his in Wolfsona into evolved Rabbi support, and guidance offering Teaching rabbi. de-facto the became he which at was founded, known as Emunas Yisrael, synagogue a inspiration, and guidance students his seek to continued and As older grew background. Hassidic general a of one into morphed the yeshiva in Lubavitch role his However, philosophy. in signifcant a education Rebbe received therefore Lubavitcher Schneerson) and Yitzchok Sixth Yosef (Rabbi the of follower a was Wolfson Moshe Rabbi create an Jew.create American pages 26-27 on appear issue this for *Endnotes hpd y h Trh n is values. its and Torah the be by culture shaped to approach their have to looking students future to inspiration The same can be said for Rabbi , leading a shul, and shul, a leading Hassidut,

hlspy that philosophy Hassidic . Thus, mashgiach). Volume X Issue3 Hassidic 65 In that vein, that In Hassidic Flames rebbe Liadi, Sefer Likkutei Amarim, known There are also other content The next chapters explain the in Judaism The "Other" colloquially as Tanya. Indeed, in his related differences. For example, the nature of evil. Based on verses from approbation, Rabbi Wolfson notes variety of Hassidic tales that span the Bible and teachings of Rabbi Isaac that explicitly.66 Yet, much like Rabbi the gamut of time and sect. Another Luria, Rabbi Reichman presents that Wolfson himself, the lectures adapted difference is the usage of gematriot73 evil is not an existence onto itself into the book explicitly and implicitly (teaching based on the numerical for there is nothing but God. Rather, evince both philosophical and value of the letters of words in Biblical evil is the concealment of Godliness content-based infuences from other texts) and word plays.74 Both of these and connection to God. Thus, it is Hassidic and non-Hassidic groups. facets are less used in Chabad thought. termed klippah, husk, which conceals Additionally, Rabbi Reichman will the inherent good and Godliness in For example, the frst chapter is sometimes incorporate teachings of the everything. He continues that there titled “The Commitment at Birth” and Vilna Gaon, an early opponent of the are two general categories of klippot: examines the Talmudic passage that the Hassidic movement, to buttress points. One type is comprised of klippot that Tanya opens with. The Talmud states are so strong that the Godliness inside that when a soul is about to leave its cannot be extracted in the current mother’s womb, the angel which taught reality in which the world as a whole the soul Torah makes it swear an oath: IV - Summary does yet recognize God as the true “I will be a tzaddik (righteous man). I and only ruler. Such klippot manifest will never take pride for virtue even if It is these very stylistic themselves as sins that Jews are the whole world calls me a saint. In my differences, however, that make charged to avoid. The second group, eyes I will remain like a wicked man.”67 the work an introduction to general called klippat nogah, is translated as In Tanya, the Alter Rebbe asks that this Hassidic thought. Divided into a translucent husk which can allow passage appears to contradict other small, conquerable chapters, Rabbi light to penetrate. This group manifests Talmudic statements and dictums.68 Reichman distills Rabbi Wolfson’s itself as items and actions that are not Rabbi Reichman, however, proceeds lectures on Hassidut into English inherently prohibited which can be to frst analyze the concept of a vow prose that transmit both the content elevated by allowing the Godliness to and its applicability and effcacy vis- and heart of Hassidic teachings. shine through. This is accomplished by a-vi an unborn, pure soul. He explains Using the opening chapters of Tanya utilizing these klippot for holy purposes that an oath is both compulsion and as a scaffold, the book elaborates (such as actual commandments or empowerment, imbuing the oath-taker on various themes of Hassidut by for the sake of heaven). The task that with the capability and fortitude to explaining and applying kabalistic Jews are charged with is to elevate the fulfll the oath. While this is an idea that thought about the nature of God, the physical world (including themselves) is explained by the Tzemach Tzedek, soul, creation, and evil to aspects of by uncovering and expressing its the third Lubavitcher Rebbe,69 Rabbi divine service such as prayer, Torah Godliness thereby making it a dwelling Reichman instead quotes the book study, and fulflling commandments. place, as it were for God, by the Ohr Gedaliahu, the seminal work of performance of commandments and The frst half of the book Torah Vodaath Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbi doing things for the sake of heaven. Gedaliah Schorr, and the Sefat Emet.70 (Chapters 1-13) discusses the nature of the soul and its relationship with The fnal chapters elaborate Although in this instance there the physical body, during which he upon a person’s personal development is little discrepancy between the purely uses these concepts as a springboard in the struggle to reveal that light Lubavitch commentary and others, to explain the nature and role of the 75 76 within themselves. To achieve a Rabbi Reichman then digresses to tzaddik, the signifcance of Shabbat, degree of “tzaddikhood.” To that end, Chapter 2 which discusses the sanctity creation and the ‘cosmic pipeline’ he explains how man, created in the of Shabbat. The connection between through which God interfaces with image of God, possesses intellectual the two chapters is the number seven, creation (tzimtzum), and the love of 77 (mochin) and emotional (middot) symbolizing the totality of creation. fellow Jews. More signifcantly, faculties that are analogs to the process Shabbat is the seventh day of the Rabbi Reichman explains how this in which God interfaces with creation week. Similarly, the Hebrew word for knowledge of the soul can be applied 78 and how they can be implemented “week,” shavuah, and by extension, to serving God. Because Jews have in one’s daily life. By fulflling the the Hebrew word for “seven,” sheva, a nefesh elokit, a soul that is a ‘piece commandment of following in the path are related to the word shevuah, oath. of God,’ as it were, they are instilled of God by following His traits, Jews Both entail the utilization of the totality with an inherent latent love of God are able to fulfll commandment and of their respective natural existences.71 that, when harnessed, can inspire overcome the struggles in life to grow. While the topic of Shabbos is certainly them to overcome any challenge or signifcant in Hassidic thought, its trial they may face. Thus, to achieve connection to the opening chapters a degree of what Rabbi Reichman of Tanya is tenuous at best. It is calls “tzaddikhood,”79 transforming V - Conclusion however, extremely important in the the physical into the spiritual (see thought of Rabbi Moshe Wolfson.72 next paragraph), one must stoke the While many of the broader Such digressions recur in varying size fames of that hidden love for God themes and particular teachings of and magnitude throughout the book. to manifest itself in one’s daily life, Rabbi Reichman’s work are certainly actions, and performance of mitzvot. timeless, the synthesis of different Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 23 24 KOL HAMEVASER description of the book on its back own Reichman’s Rabbi cover: from observed be can this Indeed, audience. and distinct new a to speaking genre, unique highlights how teachings, the applying of focus and tone the as well as sources, hs eiw I s te phrase the Haggadot decorative handwritten, to use reference in I manuscript” “illuminated review, and Throughout this illustrations. designs miniature borders, ornamental initials), or opening capitals as (known decorative) words colored, (hand rubricated as such elements decorative includes which text scribed a to refers manuscript illuminated An Haggadot. illustrated and illuminated Hebrew on literature popular the in lacuna needed Masterpieces Haggada recent Cohen’s book illumination. S. Adam Haggadah Professor besides of aspects text artistic the of treatments popular been Jewish Yet, Haggadah. No with few the exceptions, and there have as not much illuminated as been illustrated has Bible the www.kolhamevaser.com S. Cohen Adam by Masterpieces Haggada 100 Wonders: and Signs B y d lms f Faith of Flames Avid vn hs Jw who Jews those Even movement’s beginnings and refections. the at Chasidic look new a from beneft might community of modernity.Today’s Jewish winds storm the protection from a as emerged the Chassidus nation. of Jewish life spiritual the of preserved ravages and secularism the against millions inoculated has it For increase more than two passion devotion. centuries and observance constantly a to with inspire souls They revive and infame Jewish thought. movement’s Chassidic the of soul the meaning form Torah of inner the from in ad odr: 100 Wonders: and Signs s elis Te secrets “The ls much- a flls ersns a represents and present whatever that demographic from draw must one state, dire a such tumultuous modernity.of waves In deleterious the and by wrought spiritual vacuum a from its ancestors, like European suffering, the is believes which author audience, the Americanized of of application teachings and adaptation on one’s words, suit focusing other In interests. and needs that particular as elements well particular as has different sources, from one drawing of luxury inspiration, the and for searching meaning outsider an As home. different distinctly one’s to back bring to wisdom glean to hoping outsider an ee omsind n reproduced. illustrations and drawn commissioned were hand which for Haggadot in contemporary term to this using reference also am I books. printed in found elements artistic other as and words initial decorative woodcuts, such which elements Haggadot decorative printed include to refer to Haggadah” “illustrated term the original. use I manuscript a reproduction of a (facsimile) merely in not and text hand the as question was long fully produced by a scribal so illuminated manuscript an considered be would written during any period including the present features decorative written with hand text a period, Medieval the elements. decorative with associated commonly most While variety and wide artistic a of feature often which h wrt o Torah.” faltering of warmth with the experience our Jewish might fame passion a renewed literature, that Chasidic fll vitality soulful and depth the discover to we Were way. superfcial and frequently religious perform rituals in a lifeless their obligations fulfll is a marvelous a is Faith of Flames hs xep hs h tn of tone the has excerpt This Hassidut o distinctly a to 80

itnty mrcnJws audience. American-Jewish distinctly different a of minds and hearts the Judaism in to commitment and a variety instill passion to a sources and infuences of of themselves syntheses TorahYisroeland Emunas Vodaath, of Wolfsonhalls Moshe the from echoing Rabbi of voice the is it Thus, apathy. spiritual for panacea a as needs group zi re Bnf i a second- RIETS. a at is Student Benoff Rabbinical Aryeh year meaning. Tzvi spiritual community for Jewish breathe a searching to into life thought new kabalistic of and teachings the applying and synthesizing thinkers and leaders of product modern the of American-bred generations multiple is the It Jew. to for American introduction thought an Hassidic is It Chasidic Thought.” to “Introduction an merely pages 26-27 on appear issue this for *Endnotes o edr wt a itrs i Jewish in interest an with readers familiar to be may Haggadah Moss the recently, more and the Haggadot Rylands as and such Ashkenazi, Sarjevo, them Washington, of scholarly editions, Some essays. accompanying facsimile with often and being in editions manuscripts reproduced printed of of hundreds dozens with interest, popular of have subject a printings become fne illustrated and and manuscripts few illuminated past Hebrew the Holocaust, the of wake the Over in decades last America. the Israel and Europe, over across hundred years produced thousand were a that Haggadot illustrated highlight scholarly and illuminated to his training utilizes Toronto, of masterfully University at professor Rabbi Reichman’s book is not is book Reichman’s Rabbi oe, n r hsoin and historian art an Cohen, Volume X Issue3 Hassidic art. Each facsimile edition enumerated for further reading as was done by Haggadah being the only extant in Judaism The "Other" above includes a high quality and full Yerushalmi. Finally, I think Cohen’s Haggadah illuminated by a woman, color reproduction of an illuminated book would have greatly benefted while the Bouton Haggadah is unique in manuscript, with a translation of the text from being organized like an exhibition that it is molded on Arabic illuminated and accompanying scholarly essays. catalogue, with introductory scholarly manuscripts produced in Shiraz. essays followed by the one hundred Unlike these editions, Cohen’s Haggadot he chose; each Haggadah Cohen also includes over 50 present work reproduces selected pages would have been represented by Haggadot illustrated and illuminated from a diverse array of illuminated several images and accompanied by his between 1900 and the present, many of and illustrated Haggadot. Taking his commentary and a short bibliography. which are not included in Yerushalmi’s cue from Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi’s Haggadah and History. Of these masterful work on printed Haggadot, It must be noted that while contemporary illuminated Haggadot, Haggadah and History, Cohen provides Yerushalmi’s work occupies the grey mention ought to be made of the Moss short commentary on each image zone between an academic and popular Haggadah (#83) and the Rose Haggadah he reproduces and notes interesting work, Cohen chose to produce a work (plate #100) which are among the most artistic and historical dimensions of targeted at a popular audience. In view exquisite modern illuminated haggadot. each Haggadah. Yerushalmi’s work of the many scholarly works on Hebrew focuses on the printed Haggadah until illuminated and printed manuscripts, I submit that many of my the 1970’s with particular attention Cohen’s decision to not include critiques are likely not shared by the lay to the evolution of the printed extensive scholarly commentary is reader who is looking for an elegant and Haggadah, and the Haggadah as a eminently justifable as he seeks to informative work rather than something witness to the vicissitudes of Jewish expose the reader to the beauty of the which is both a coffee table book history. While Yerushalmi focuses illuminated and illustrated Haggadah. and scholarly source. While of little almost exclusively only on printed interest to the lay reader, as someone Haggadot, Cohen includes both a wide In discussing the Haggadot he with a keen interest in the history of the selection of manuscript and printed included, Cohen focuses on them as Hebrew book, I was pleased that Cohen Haggadot, with selections covering both artistic and ritual objects, whose included the location, call number the 14th century to the present, and illuminations refect the impact of and page numbers (in technical, spanning Central and Western Europe, evolving artistic trends. For example, bibliographic terminology, the folio Spain, Italy, America, and Israel. when discussing the Ashkenazi number) for each Haggadah and image Haggadah illuminated by the German included. I also appreciated that Cohen Cohen opens with a short scribe Yoel Ben Simon in the second included both a subject index and introduction providing a basic overview half of the ffteenth century, Cohen an index of scribes and illuminators. of the history and function of the focuses on the YaKNHaZ or hare hunt While as someone who is studying Haggadah, as well as an introduction to scene. On the surface, this scene is the history of the Hebrew book and the development of the Haggadah and its simply a visual fourish. However, this Hebrew manuscripts I have some manuscript and print tradition. Unlike scene is always found in Ashkenazic critiques of Signs and Wonders, on the Yerushalmi’s volume, which includes haggadot as the illumination for the whole it is an excellent work which will multiple scholarly essays, Cohen brakhot of Kiddush, and is in fact an greatly enrich the owner’s appreciation opens with a very short introduction acronym for the order of the Festival of the Haggadah as a work of art. to the Haggadah, its text, manuscript, Kiddush. The opening letters of the and print tradition. While I personally relevant Hebrew works sounds like fnd the lengthy essays in Yerushalmi’s the German phrase for hare hunt, introduction of great use and interest, thus leading to this illustration. *Endnotes for this issue appear on I submit that such an approach is not pages 26-27 the norm for popular books on Jewish Perhaps the most important art. That said, Yerushalmi’s scholarly element of Signs and Wonders is introduction to the facsimiles he the inclusion of early modern and presents in Haggadah and History contemporary illuminated Haggadot. have ensured that his book remains a While medieval illuminated Haggadot classic work in the feld of Haggadah produced between the fourteenth printing. In view of the wealth of and sixteenth centuries comprise recent scholarship on illuminated and some of the most opulent Haggadah illustrated Haggadot, I believe that manuscripts, it must be remembered that Cohen missed a golden opportunity the tradition of Haggadah illumination to create a work which could become continued well into the age of print a classic reference and overview of and has experienced a renaissance in the present state of scholarship on the last few decades. Of the pre-1900 the illuminated Haggadah, while at illuminated Haggadot Cohen discusses, the same time capturing the beauty my personal favorites are the Charlotte of his subject. In this vein, I fnd it von Rothschild Haggadah (#47) and unfortunate that Cohen did not include the Bouton Haggadah (#48), both of any selected bibliography or works which are unique with the Rothschild Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 25 Endnotes 21 It is somewhat ironic that Encounter with Other Cultures, 72. R. Lichtenstein used this as an ex- ample, since his father-in-law, Rabbi 34 Although Berger deserves Joseph B. Soloveitchik, was famous- credit for discussing many of Jew- 2 NJPS translation. ly involved in a major controversy ish philosophical scholars or writ- regarding hashgachot of meat in ers who are likely to be unknown to 3 Zohar Hadash Rut 32. Boston. readers with only a Yeshiva or day 4 TB Yevamot 47b, school education, he sometimes ne- Rambam, Hilkhot Is- 22 For example, see Menachem glects to mention fgures who may surei Bi’ah 13:14; Shul- Keren Kranz’s article in Tradition be more familiar (and whose opin- chan Arukh 268:2; and Levush ad (49:4) titled “Te Contemporary ions are therefore of greater interest) loc. Study of Orthodoxy: Challenging to residents of the traditional beit the One-Dimensional Paradigm.” midrash, so to speak, such as R. Nis- 5 Akeidat Yitshak Hamesh sim of Gerona or R. Simon b. Zemah Megillot 23 Yitzchak Blau, “From the Duran (author of “Tashbetz”). Ruth 1:16. Archives of Tradition,” Torah Mus- 6 Deut. 13:7. Tis refers to a ings, available at http://www.torah- 35 Judaism’s Encounter with person who convinces one to com- musings.com/2015/01/archives-tra- other Cultures, 95. mit idolatry, and leave the path of dition-8/. 36 Ibid, 93. the Torah. 24 Mark Steiner, “Te Trans- 7 Rambam Hilkhot Issurei formation of Contemporary Ortho- 37 Ibid, 133; Although Dr. Bi’ah 13:14 doxy: Another View,” Tradition 31:2 Berger does mention some mem- (1997), 41. bers of the more radical rationalist 8 Bava Batra 10b. movement, including Samuel ibn 25 Haym Soloveitchik, Rup- Tibbon, Moses Narboni, Joseph ibn 9 Rashi, Bava Batra 10b. ture and Reconstruction: Te Trans- Kaspi, Gersonides and Isaac Al- formation of Contemporary Ortho- balag, I believe that he intentionally 10 Meiri Commentary on doxy,” Tradition 28:4 (1994), 64. lef out any mention of those think- Proverbs, Mossad Harav Kook, ers who he thinks moved beyond 1969, 146. 26 Hillel Goldberg, “Respond- the limits of what was acceptable ing to ‘Rupture and Reconstruc- in their Jewish communities, such 11 Derekh Hashem 4:1. tion,’” Tradition 31:2 (1997), 40. as Levi ben Abraham or Nissim of Mersailles, (but it is hard to know 12 Derekh Hashem 4:7. 27 Also see Mark Steiner’s dis- how this cut of was made). cussion of Brisker chumrot. 13 Sanhedrin 105a. 38 Ibid, 151. 28 Micha Berger, “Te Fall of 14 Etz Chaim, Portal 50, chap- Mimeticism and Forks in the Hash- 39 Ibid, 158. ter 2. kafc Road,” Aspaqlaria, available at aishdas.org 40 Ibid, 172. 15 Ibid. 29 Mark Steiner, “Te Trans- 41 Shnayer Leiman, “Rabbinic 16 Derekh Hashem 4:1. formation of Contemporary Ortho- Openness to General Culture in the doxy: Another View,” Tradition 31:2 17 Moses Maimonides, Guide Early Modern Period in Western for the Perplexed, (Friedländer tr., (1997), 41-42. and Central Europe,” in Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, 224. 1904),Part III, Chapter 51, 384. 30 Gerald Blidstein, “Rabbinic Found on sacred-texts.com Judaism and General Culture: Nor- 42 For example, see ibid., 228- mative Discussions and Attitudes,” 229, 257. 18 Moses Maimonides, Guide in Judaism’s Encounter with Other for the Perplexed, (Friedländer tr. Cultures, ed. by J.J. Schacter (New 43 Alan Jotkowitz, “Rab- 1904), Part 3, Chapter 51, 384. Milford, CT: Maggid Books, 2017), bi Aharon Lichtenstein: Torah 2. Umadda Man,” Modern Judaism 19 Referring to Rav Chaim Vi- 35:3 (2015); Shalom Carmy, “Mu- tal in the Etz Chaim. 31 Ibid, 7. sic of the Lef Hand,” Traditon 47:4 (2015), 226. 20 Likutei Amrim-Tanya, 32 Ibid, 49. Rav Shneur Zalman Liadi, “Kehot, 44 Aharon Lichtenstein, “To- ”(Publication Society, Brooklyn, 33 David Berger, “Judaism and rah and General Culture: Confu- NY 1984),4. General Culture in Medieval and ence and Confict,” in Judaism’s En- Early Modern Times,” in Judaism’s counter, 310. 45 Avot 5:22. 55 Jeremy Brown, New Heav- er Shem Tov 3rd Edition, ed. Jacob in Judaism The "Other" ens and a New Earth: The Jewish Emanuel Shochet (NY: Kehot Pub- 46 See the infuential study by Recepton of Copernican Thought lication Society, 2004), 446. C. G. Lord, Ross, and Lepper, “Bi- (New York: Oxford University Press, ased assimilation and attitude po- 2013). Brown ofen discusses our is- 63 Zev Reichman, Flames of larization: Te efects of prior the- sue of Judaism’s response to its sur- Faith: An Introduction to Chasidic ories on subsequently considered rounding intellectual culture so ex- Tought (New York: Kodesh Press, evidence,” Journal of Personality plicitly as to sometimes border on 2014), back cover. and Social Psychology, 37:11 (1979). the polemical. Tese fndings have been largely up- 64 https://www.yutorah.org/ held in the past few decades; see the 56 Adam Ferzinger, Exclusion rabbi-zev-reichman/ updated and refned article by C.S. and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonob- Taber and M. Lodge, “Motivated servance, and the Emergence of 65 William B. Helmreich, Te Skepticism in the Evaluation of Po- Modern Jewish Identty (Philadel- World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate litical Beliefs,” American Journal of phia: University of Pennsylvania, Portrait of Orthodox Jewry (Aug- Politcal Science, 50 (2016). 2005). See also Matthias Morgen- mented Edition), Hoboken: Ktav stern, From Frankfurt to Jerusalem: Publishing House Inc., 2000) 26-30. 47 Lichtenstein in Judaism’s Isaac Breuer and the History of the Encounter, 366. Secession Dispute in Modern Jewish 66 Reichman, Approbation. Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 48 William Kolbrener, “Torah 67 Niddah 30b. UMadda: A Voice from the Acade- 57 A similar criticism of this 68 See Likkutei Amaraim, 5a. my,” and Aharon Lichtenstein, “To volume was made by Alan Brill, Sharpen Understanding,” Jewish Ac- “Judaism in Culture: Beyond the Bi- 69 https://www.chabad.org/ ton 64:3 (Spring 2004). furcation of Torah and Madda,” The therebbe/livingtorah/player_cdo/ Edah Journal 4:1 (2004), cf. Yitzchak aid/424364/jewish/A-Three-Part- 49 Much of this work, such as Blau, “Contemporary Fads and To- Vow.htm. Shai Secunda, The Iranian Talmud rah uMadda: A Response to Alan came later, but Zoroastrian infu- Brill,” The Edah Journal 4:2 (2004). 70 Reichman, 33 note 32. ence on the Babylonian Talmud was Brill’s main point, however, that the already discussed by fgures such as presented dichotomy between Juda- 71 33. R. Isaac Hirsch Weiss in his Dor Dor ism and culture is a false one, is not ve-Dorshav. one shared by this reviewer. 72 36-47, 240. 50 David Henshke, ‘Mah 58 It is of course no accident 73 118. Nishtannah’: The Passover Night in that Rav Lichtenstein chooses to de- the Sages’ Discourse [Hebrew]. fne culture in accordance with Mat- 74 227. Judaism’s Encounter with thew Arnold (“the best that has been 75 47-56. 51 thought and said in the world”) in- Other Cultures, 47 stead of deferring to anthropologists 76 36-46. 52 See Rabbi Moshe Meisel- or social critics such as John Bodley, man, Torah, Chazal and Science (Is- Cliford Geertz, and Raymond Wil- 77 121-133. rael: Israel Bookshop Publicatons, liams, but it is their defnition which 78 132-139. 2013), Rabbi J.D. Bleich, Contem- is closer to the colloquial. porary Halakhic Problems, Vol. VII 79 182. ( 59 Kolbrenner, “Torah New Milford, CT: Maggid Books, Umadda” 2017), and various responses by Na- 80 Back Cover. tan Slifin (available at rationaljuda- 60 See Tzvi Teichman, “Te ism.com). Jew in a Gentile Society: Chukat Ha’Akum” RJJ Journal of Hala- 53 Eleazar Touitou, Exegesis in cha and Contemporary Society Perpetual Moton 3 [Hebrew] (Jeru- (1981):64-85. salem, 2003). 61 David Ellenson, Rabbi Esri- 54 David I. Shyovitz, A Re- el Hildesheimer and the Creaton of membrance of His Wonders: Nature a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy and the Supernatural in Medieval (Uni- Ashkenaz versity of Alabama Press: Alabama, (Philadelphia: University 2003), 24. of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). 62 Israel Ba’al Shem Tov, Ket- Volume X Issue 3 www.kolhamevaser.com 27