for my remarks.
----------------------------
Update
----------------------------
However, this conventional view of Sephardic Judaism in general and of Sephardic rabbinic learning in particular is disturbingly misguided, the product of a deadly combination of ignorance and internal Orientalism. Indeed, in these respects Sephardic aharonim had (and have) a clear advantage over their Ashkenazic peers: All major and most minor Sephardic aharonim were well acquainted with the works of European Jewish poseqim and held Ashkenazic Torah learning to be no less valuable than their own. Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad, Rabbi Hayyim Palache of Izmir, Rabbi David HaCohen-Scali of Oran, Rabbi Khalfon Moshe HaCohen of Jerba and Rabbi Ovadiah Hedaya of Jerusalem are several who readily come to mind. Each of them routinely and casually cites numerous Ashkenazic aharonim in the course of his teshuvot and/or other Torah writings - but of which Ashkenazic poseqim can the converse be said?One must surely have the most severe and profound revulsion after reading what is brought by Professor Marc B. Shapiro (link):
Yet in a recent haredi work that discusses this episode, R. Yosef is referred to as "Ovadiah," without even putting a resh (for Rabbi) before his name. He is also derided as one who will "rely on a responsum, even if it from a book that is not accepted such as some author from Egypt or something similar." I [Professor Shapiro] would merely add that for most haredim, no author from Egypt in the last few hundred years would qualify as "accepted," as their perspective is entirely Ashkenazic-centered. Standard works of the Sefardic halakhic tradition, such as Erekh ha-Shulhan, Petah ha-Devir, Yafeh la-Lev, and the numerous books of R. Chaim Palache, as well as many less important Sefardic halakhic writings, are not regarded with any significance by the typical haredi poseq and are hardly ever quoted.Surely these Haredi rabbis are guilty of insulting talmidei hachamim, which, according to the Gemara, qualifies one as an apikorus. I am being only slightly facetious. Rabbi Adlerstein, with all due respect, although your words were far from this egregious and despicable, nevertheless, I feel you have unintentionally besmirched many Sephardic gedolim who are less less in stature than the Ashkenazim with whom you are more familiar. Rabbi Angel is not relying on rabbis of low stature.
I am personally unaware of "great rabbinic voices" who embraced a different conclusion, other than the single voice cited by Rabbi Angel – Rabbi Benzion Uziel zt"l.To be sure, Rabbi Angel quotes Rabbi Uziel preponderantly. In fact, Rabbi Angel's own childhood rav was a student of Rabbi Uziel himself, and Rabbi Angel later attached himself to Rav Haim David Halevi, also a student of Rabbi Uziel's. But we mustn't confuse a preponderance of quotations from Rav Uziel, with a sole reliance on Rav Uziel. There are plenty of sources who could be quoted in Rabbi Uziel's stead, were Rabbi Angel so inclined. As Rabbi Angel himself says,
Prof Shmuel Shilo, in his article "Halakhic Leniency in Modern Respnsa Regarding Conversion", Israel Law Review, 1988, discusses views akin to Rabbi Uziel’s held by 13 great poskim–Sephardic and Ashkenazic–and others could also be adduced easily enough. Rabbi Uziel is certainly not a daat yahid.I will personally add Professor Zvi Zohar's article, "Halakhic conversion of non-religious candidates" (see my bibliography). Students of Rabbi Soloveitchik will quote "The Rav", those such as myself will usually cite German Neo-Orthodox authorities, while Rabbi Angel will rely on Rabbi Uziel; to each his own, but this does not mean those citing do not have other authorities they could have cited had they so desired.
...I appreciate the reference in your recent Hakira article, and in your conversion book, to Bekhorot 30b. I believe it important for you to, when appropriate, cite every source which will support your shita or which your opposition is liable to cite. If you neglect to cite this passage, then people are liable to cite this passage against you, and conclude that you are wrong and missed this crucial source. ...Thus, to Rabbi Angel himself, I candidly pointed out a serious problem with many of his writings: while Rabbi Angel certainly has a myriad of strong sources, he often neglects to cite them, rather relying on his emotional and ideological arguments, accompanied by a brief notice that the regnant and accepted opinion of today is that of Rabbi Shmelkes alone, but without crucial analysis of the Rambam and Shulhan Arukh showing that Rabbi Shmelkes's opinion is innovative. That is, Rabbi Angel does notify the reader that there is another opinion on conversion besides Rabbi Shmelkes's, but he does not usually offer the reader access to the arguments and sources behind this assertion, though he does offer precisely this in his more scholarly works. Now, while emotional and ideological arguments are certainly important (one may provide technical justification for a lenient opinion, but only ideology can justify why we'd want to follow that opinion), they cannot replace the rigorous technical arguments. (I will note that I greatly revere Rabbi Angel; again, then, one will see that I do not let my affiliations get in the way of what I feel the truth is.)
...
I mentioned people using against you sources which you have omitted. A major problem, I believe, with Modern Orthodoxy in general, based on my vast and storied experiences with Orthodox Jews (I'm being sarcastic), is that the laymen do not realize how solid of a basis their rabbis really have, and so they are overawed by the Haredim; we need to make our sources transparent, and make it clear how much of a basis we have, and that we are not making an uncomfortable and untraditional concession to modernity without basis in the sources. At least for me personally, for example, your ideological justification for easing giyur is of little benefit; it doesn't take much to convince me that a more tolerant or more lenient opinion of any given issue is desirable. However, without textual sources, all I have are my feelings. Similarly, if someone argued that it'd be wonderful if kohanim could marry anyone they want, or if someone argued that it'd be wonderful to eat a certain food, I'd support the sentiment and agree that this is great; however, without halakhic justification, this doesn't mean anything. You yourself cite Rabbi Uziel (in Loving Truth and Peace) that compassion alone is of no avail in deciding halakha; we take compassion and mercy into account, but in the end, there must be a solid halakhic source. So when you argue that people are suffering and that we need to make giyur easier, my reaction, until you halakhically prove your case, is for me to say, "I agree that I'd love to make giyur easier, but the halakhah says what it says, so what can we do?".
Neither, for that matter, could I imagine too many going for R. Uziel, כבודו במקומו מונח, over the Bais Yitzchok.However, Rabbi Angel is among the last on earth who would ever appeal to charisma; he is not advocating Rabbi Uziel over Rabbi Shmelkes by virtue of popular appeal. Rather, Rabbi Angel is asserting that Rabbi Uziel's approach has a stronger foundation in the sources, for everyone to see.
Rabbi Angel’s position is the argument from silence. Because the Talmud, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch do not explicitly mention that the potential convert must, lechatchila, accept all mitvos, Rabbi Angel believes them to hold that there is no such requirement.In fact, perhaps Rabbi Adlerstein is correct, but let us move on, and see further sources.
Mishnah: If a man is suspected of [intercourse]...with a heathen who subsequently became a proselyte, he must not marry her. If, however, he did marry her, they need not be separated.Now, Rabbi Yitzhak Shmelkes, following the Hagahot Mordechai (who explicitly said his opinion goes against that of his teachers, and that his opinion should not be relied on; see Rabbi Dr. Isaac Sassoon's "Let No Ger Spend the Night Outdoors", in my bibliography) reinterprets this Gemara; I also saw that Rav Kook similarly reinterprets this Gemara, and presumably, many Ashkenazi poskim follow Rabbi Shmelkes did the same. Now, what is their reinterpretation? They say that although the woman is converting for marriage, this was only her initial motive; subsequently (though the Gemara never says this), she surely gained a second, religiously sincere motivation. But surely this is strained; if later she came to convert for the sake of Heaven, why did the Gemara see fit to indicate that once upon a time, she wanted to marry for marriage? What's the hava amina (i.e., why would we have thought otherwise)? Since a year ago she wanted to convert for marriage, but today she wants to marry for Heaven, we'll think (initially, as the hava amina) that perhaps she should be rejected, because of what she believed once but not anymore? This is very difficult. Moreover, it makes Rabbi Nehemiah into an absolute buffoon; according to this whole line of thinking, Rabbi Nehemiah considers this woman to be an invalid convert, despite her religious and for-the-sake-of-Heaven motives, simply because once in the past (but not any longer) she had non-religious motives. Is it not an insult to attribute such a ridiculous view to Rabbi Nehemiah? Therefore, we must understand this Gemara as everyone besides Hagahot Mordechai and Rabbi Shmelkes do: this woman is really really truly converting for marriage, nothing more, nothing less, as the plain sense of the Gemara's words indicate. Thus, Rabbi Nehemiah quite reasonably believes she is invalid as a convert (as do Hagahot Mordechai and Rabbi Shmelkes), whereas the conclusion is that even though Rabbi Nehemiah's view is a legitimate and reasonable hava amina, the halakha is nevertheless that she is a valid convert.
Gemara: This implies that she may become a proper proselyte. But against this a contradiction is raised: "Both a man who became a proselyte for the sake of a woman and a woman who became a proselyte for the sake of a man...are not proper proselytes." These are the words of Rabbi Nehemiah, for Rabbi Nehemiah used to say: "Neither lion-proselytes nor dream proselytes nor the proselytes of Mordecai and Esther are proper proselytes unless they become converted as at the present time..." Surely concerning this it was stated that Rabbi Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha said in the name of Rab: "The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of him who maintained that they are all proper proselytes."
Our rabbis taught: "If a heathen is prepared to accept the Torah except one religious law, we must not receive him." R. Jose son of R. Judah says: "even [if the exception be] one point of the special minutiae of the Scribes' enactments."However, Rabbi Angel notes that neither Rambam nor the Shulhan Arukh codified this as halakha, so it is meaningless for us, no matter what the passage's intent. Moreover, he notes that even if it were halakha (which it is not), some authorities have interpreted this sugya in a way that would still permit non-observant candidates. Personally (I have seen no one say this), I would say that perhaps, it is only l'hatchila (before the fact) that we do not accept someone who rejects a mitzvah; perhaps bediavad (after the fact), if someone (sinfully even) accepted such a candidate, it is a kosher conversion; for the Gemara says, "we do not accept", meaning that once someone does accept, it may be valid after the fact.
The distinctions that are found in the Talmud are between a Jew and an akum (heathen), whose societal standards, ethics and morality were so low as to be almost non-existent, and in no way has any bearing on the non-Jews our our time, as has already been noted by the Gedolei Ho'Ahcaronim (great halachic authorities of the recent past).Imagine how much wealth is to be found in the almost 500 pages that follow this passage!
...the Talmudic lesson in Yevamos (79a) concerning the public hanging of seven descendants of King Saul to avenge his "killing of the Givonites," as related in II Samuel, Chapter 21. Verse 10 states: "Ritzpah daughter of Aiah took a sackcloth and spread it for herself over a rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water fell down on [the corpses] from heaven; she did not allow the birds of the heaven to descend upon them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night." Commenting on this, the Gemara asks:Is it not written (Deut. 21:23), "His body shall not remain for the night upon the tree"? {Footnote 14: When a person is administered the death penalty by hanging, the Torah commands that the body not remain exposed; it must be removed and buried before nightfall. However, the bodies of King Saul's descendants were left out for many months, because King David commanded that the bodies not be removed until the rains began to fall.} Rabbi Yochanan taught in the name of R. Shimon ben Y'hotzodok: It is preferable to uproot one letter (i.e. one commandment) of the Torah, so that G-d's name will be publicly sanctified. For the passerby would say, "What is the nature of these corpses?" "These are the sons of kings!" "But what did they do?" "They acted against self-declared converts." {Footnote 15: The Givonites sought to convert to Judaism after Joshua's victories in Israel. Because they did not do so out of religious conviction, they were not accepted as authentic converts. They just voluntarily began to live as Jews.} [The passerby] then said, "No other nation is as worthy of becoming attached to as this one. For if the sons of royalty are held liable in this manner [and there is no favoritism], then this is certainly true all the more so for ordinary people. And if self-declared converts [are avenged] in this manner, then how much more so is this true for the Jews themselves!" Immediately, 150,000 converts joined the ranks of Israel.
[H] lit., 'dragged in'; proselytes who have not been admitted into the congregation, [or, 'self-made proselytes', a class of converts who Judaize in mass under the impulsion of fear. V. Moore, G. F. Judaism I, 337].I've been meaning to acquire for myself a copy of Moore, which I have seen cited and quoted often by the authorities whom I follow (chiefly the British ones), but in the meantime, I've only yet gotten Schechter's Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology and Urbach's The Sages, so I regrettably cannot check Moore here for what he says. So I'm assuming the Givonites were valid converts, but I may be incorrect; I am not learned in this specific subject.
The distinctions that are found in the Talmud are between a Jew and an akum (heathen), whose societal standards, ethics and morality were so low as to be almost non-existent, and in no way has any bearing on the non-Jews our our time, as has already been noted by the Gedolei Ho'Ahcaronim (great halachic authorities of the recent past).Imagine how much wealth is to be found in the almost 500 pages that follow this passage!
...the Talmudic lesson in Yevamos (79a) concerning the public hanging of seven descendants of King Saul to avenge his "killing of the Givonites," as related in II Samuel, Chapter 21. Verse 10 states: "Ritzpah daughter of Aiah took a sackcloth and spread it for herself over a rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water fell down on [the corpses] from heaven; she did not allow the birds of the heaven to descend upon them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night." Commenting on this, the Gemara asks:Is it not written (Deut. 21:23), "His body shall not remain for the night upon the tree"? {Footnote 14: When a person is administered the death penalty by hanging, the Torah commands that the body not remain exposed; it must be removed and buried before nightfall. However, the bodies of King Saul's descendants were left out for many months, because King David commanded that the bodies not be removed until the rains began to fall.} Rabbi Yochanan taught in the name of R. Shimon ben Y'hotzodok: It is preferable to uproot one letter (i.e. one commandment) of the Torah, so that G-d's name will be publicly sanctified. For the passerby would say, "What is the nature of these corpses?" "These are the sons of kings!" "But what did they do?" "They acted against self-declared converts." {Footnote 15: The Givonites sought to convert to Judaism after Joshua's victories in Israel. Because they did not do so out of religious conviction, they were not accepted as authentic converts. They just voluntarily began to live as Jews.} [The passerby] then said, "No other nation is as worthy of becoming attached to as this one. For if the sons of royalty are held liable in this manner [and there is no favoritism], then this is certainly true all the more so for ordinary people. And if self-declared converts [are avenged] in this manner, then how much more so is this true for the Jews themselves!" Immediately, 150,000 converts joined the ranks of Israel.
[H] lit., 'dragged in'; proselytes who have not been admitted into the congregation, [or, 'self-made proselytes', a class of converts who Judaize in mass under the impulsion of fear. V. Moore, G. F. Judaism I, 337].I've been meaning to acquire for myself a copy of Moore, which I have seen cited and quoted often by the authorities whom I follow (chiefly the British ones), but in the meantime, I've only yet gotten Schechter's Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology and Urbach's The Sages, so I regrettably cannot check Moore here for what he says. So I'm assuming the Givonites were valid converts, but I may be incorrect; I am not learned in this specific subject.
Although there were religious pietists who objected to singing love songs, the romances were very popular throughtout all strata of Sephardic society. Men and women often sang these songs together. It was not unusual for women to sing solo parts in the presence of men. [Emphasis mine.] People participated in the singing and enjoyed the songs in a natural, easygoing way.This quote deserves a few remarks. That the men and women sang these songs (viz. romances) together is already remarkable in itself. Even the German Orthodox, whose mixed-sex singing of Shabbat zemirot (religious songs) was considered liberal in the Orthodox community, never extended this leniency beyond zemirot; Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg justified the practice based on the Sdei Hemed, who said that there is no sexual pleasure derived from a woman's singing either zemirot or funeral dirges - but romances are obviously very different from these! The fact that the women would then sing romances solo(!!!) even can only be seen as even more fantastically remarkable then.
I [Rabbi Angel] was raised in the Sephardic community of Seattle, Washington, and well remember our many family gatherings where romances were sung. Jews of great piety sang right along with with those of lesser piety. I do not remember anyone ever objecting to the singing of love songs by men and women. In the early 1980s, Haham [the Sephardic term for rabbi] Dr. Solomon Gaon, himself a Judeo-Spanish-speaking rabbi, taught classes in Sephardic folklore at my Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City. I well remember him singing love songs, enthusiastically and nostalgically. Both of us participated in a program of Sephardic culture sponsored by the Hebrew College of Boston. A female soloist sang a selection of romances, after which Haham Gaon not only applauded loudly but rose to speak in praise of the singer for her beautiful rendition of the songs. [Emphasis mine.] Haham Gaon, who served as chief rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregations of England and as head of the Sephardic Studies Program of Yeshiva University in New York, was a very prominent Orthodox Sephardic rabbi and a man of impeccable piety.
Her voice was as beautiful as it was surprising. Seeing her triumph over the critics was exhilarating. But in the middle of her performance I started to wonder what would have happened if Susan Boyle had been mediocre or even downright awful?I will comment later on this, in disagreement, but first Josephs notes further, in what could easily be taken straight out of Messilat Yesharim (a classic 18th century Jewish work of ethics), and with which I agree completely, that
She would have been jeered and booed by the live audience and probably laughed at by many viewers watching from home. Most of us would have never heard her name, unless of course she shtank so badly that the video of her singing went viral for the sole purpose of ridiculing her.
So why was she spared from the meanness? Why was she an inspiration instead of a humiliation? Because she had been granted a beautiful voice. I'm sure she worked on it and honed that voice over the years, but a lovely voice, just like beauty, intelligence, and wit are all God-given.
When we are complimented for possessing qualities such as these, society tells us to say "thank you," but in truth, we should say "thank God". (We are so trained to take credit for such attributes, can you imagine how obnoxious a woman would sound if upon being told she was beautiful she responded with "thank God"?!)
Susan Boyle's inner qualities - honesty, generosity, compassion are unknown to us and have no real value when it comes to reality television. But for our own realities, we should consider two things: if we call ourselves Susan Boyle champions would we have taken perverse pleasure had she failed? We must also be sure to differentiate which of our own attributes are mere gifts and which are the ones we are responsible for improving.
Being awed by beauty that God put in the world is a wonderful thing, but actively working to create a beauty within yourself is nothing short of Godly.
Thus saith the LORD: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me, that I am the LORD who exercise mercy, justice, and righteousness, in the earth; for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.I once saw Rabbi Joseph Telushkin make the crucial point that whereas we praise and congratulate and reward our children for good grades in school, and the opposite the poor academic performance, really, a parent ought to praise, congratulate, and reward for good character. As Rabbi Telushkin continues, most of us acknowledge that we'd rather have moral and upstanding children who don't perform well academically, than we'd have immoral children who do well. The problem, however, he says, is that in practice, we don't show our children these values when we heap praise or rebuke on them.
A favourite saying of the Rabbis of Jabneh was: I [viz. the Torah scholar, the great rabbi] am God's creature and my fellow [the lowly farmer] is God's creature. My work is in the town and his work is in the country. I rise early for my work and he rises early for his work. Just as he does not presume to do my work, so I do not presume to do his work. Will you say, I do much and he does little? We have learnt: One may do much or one may do little; it is all one, provided he directs his heart to heaven.
Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down28 was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements.29 Rather, the truth is that this [issues from] the wonderful wisdom [and] profound insight of the Torah, [which teaches] that the interpretation of Torah [must be] given over to the sages of each generation in order that the Torah remain a living force with the nation, developing with it, and that indeed is its eternity.This, in general, leads to a radically different view of what the Talmud is. The student realizes the Talmud was composed by humans; these humans were the fathers of our tradition, and the masters of our mesorah, but humans nevertheless. What this means is that the student will not be so hung-up over the Talmud, because he won't try to square the circle, to view it all as the output of some omniscient mastermind beyond human logic. They'll expect the Talmud to make sense; they'll expect it to conform to human logic as they understand it. And if something in the Talmud seems outdated, they won't be afraid to admit that the thought is according to 6th century CE modes of thought, and they won't be afraid to update the thought, to say the same thing but in 21st century mode. One realizes that not everything in the Oral Law is sacrosanct; if Hazal said that this medicine will cure this disease, or that women are best kept indoors, we won't automatically assume this is Sinaitic. Moreover, as Rabbi Hayman writes, we'll realize that the Talmud ought to conform to human logic, and that its logic is not inscrutable. Rabbi Hayman says, as I quote at The Necessity for Academic Talmud Study,
Beyond these didactic issues, more basic problems present themselves in the realm of the faith positions and religious attitudes resulting from the prevalent approaches. According to the ideological program of religious education, a religious person is expected to relate to sacred texts as ultimate sources of authority which define one’s lifestyle, one’s values, one’s priorities and even one’s innermost thoughts. However, these same texts are seen to be beyond comprehension and logic, let alone independent textual inquiry. In a certain post-secondary institution, a student asked the Talmud teacher about the logical implications of the text under study. To this question, a second student retorted: “What? You expect the Talmud to be logical?” In such a situation, a student may come to the obviously threatening conclusion that there is not supposed to be any orderly connection between spirituality and intelligence, between religiosity and cognition, and that human awareness, sensitivity and reasoning has nothing to do with God-centered life and behavior. Once this dubious concoction has been internalized by the despairing pupil, what will be the reactions to the faith positions of others, to their logical challenges to his/her own dogmatic positions? How is a person to be expected to resolve loyalty to God with rejection of his/her own mind, under pressure of a general society which values empiricism and the reign of reason? The historic differentiation between Judaism as a spiritual national-legal system on the one hand, and dogmatic-charismatic spiritual systems such as paganism and Christianity on the other hand, becomes obscured, even eliminated, giving support to the secular position that spirituality as a whole is merely a vestige of the primitive, pre-enlightenment, pre-empirical darkness. ... It would appear, therefore, that the prevalent didactics for Oral Tradition studies in general, and Talmud in specific, create a contradiction between learning and life. Teachers of sacred texts claim that their fare is the deepest, most meaningful on earth, yet simple logic and normal cognition render them detached, even ridiculous. The intelligent student has no escape, and the choice is clear: if he/she accepts the texts and lifestyle being dictated by teachers, the result is potential rejection of one’s own mind, heart, and experience. Acceptance of oneself may lead to rejection of religious texts and, with them, religion itself. Learning leads to passive acceptance of the incomprehensible, life leads to active formulation of the necessary. Learning leads to submission to authority, life leads to the acceptance of responsibility. Learning leads to the precedents of the past, life leads to the needs of the present and the future. ... As a result [of the alternative pedagogic method, proposed by Rabbi Hayman and Revadim], the components of the Talmud text receive context: as one progresses through the discussion, one is called upon to pay attention to the prevailing circumstances surrounding each remark, each step in the evolution of the halakhah, and to relate to the religious, philosophical, social, economic, political, educational or communal motivations for halakhic change. Jewish observance becomes a prism through which the student can see religiosity as interplay between eternal values and temporal conditions, and Talmudics and halakhah become the map by which one charts the course leading to one’s own day - and beyond. Halakhah becomes a national-legal process which takes its rightful place alongside and among the dynamic historical and national processes which fill modern life, and Jewish values can justly claim once more to lead, not follow, human development.We'll also realize that our rabbis are not beyond reproach or criticism, because we'll realize that they are humans as well, albeit wise humans with authority. Obviously, we cannot blithely overwrite areas of the Torah, but we must ask the question: is this sacrosanct, or not? According to the Talmud, yafet toar is not; according to Rav Kook, milhemet reshut is not; according to Dr. Berkovits, many laws of women are not. We must have the courage to ask what is time-bound and what is eternal.
Beyond these didactic issues, more basic problems present themselves in the realm of the faith positions and religious attitudes resulting from the prevalent approaches. According to the ideological program of religious education, a religious person is expected to relate to sacred texts as ultimate sources of authority which define one’s lifestyle, one’s values, one’s priorities and even one’s innermost thoughts. However, these same texts are seen to be beyond comprehension and logic, let alone independent textual inquiry. In a certain post-secondary institution, a student asked the Talmud teacher about the logical implications of the text under study. To this question, a second student retorted: “What? You expect the Talmud to be logical?” In such a situation, a student may come to the obviously threatening conclusion that there is not supposed to be any orderly connection between spirituality and intelligence, between religiosity and cognition, and that human awareness, sensitivity and reasoning has nothing to do with God-centered life and behavior. Once this dubious concoction has been internalized by the despairing pupil, what will be the reactions to the faith positions of others, to their logical challenges to his/her own dogmatic positions? How is a person to be expected to resolve loyalty to God with rejection of his/her own mind, under pressure of a general society which values empiricism and the reign of reason? The historic differentiation between Judaism as a spiritual national-legal system on the one hand, and dogmatic-charismatic spiritual systems such as paganism and Christianity on the other hand, becomes obscured, even eliminated, giving support to the secular position that spirituality as a whole is merely a vestige of the primitive, pre-enlightenment, pre-empirical darkness. ... It would appear, therefore, that the prevalent didactics for Oral Tradition studies in general, and Talmud in specific, create a contradiction between learning and life. Teachers of sacred texts claim that their fare is the deepest, most meaningful on earth, yet simple logic and normal cognition render them detached, even ridiculous. The intelligent student has no escape, and the choice is clear: if he/she accepts the texts and lifestyle being dictated by teachers, the result is potential rejection of one’s own mind, heart, and experience. Acceptance of oneself may lead to rejection of religious texts and, with them, religion itself. Learning leads to passive acceptance of the incomprehensible, life leads to active formulation of the necessary. Learning leads to submission to authority, life leads to the acceptance of responsibility. Learning leads to the precedents of the past, life leads to the needs of the present and the future. ... As a result [of the alternative pedagogic method, proposed by Rabbi Hayman and Revadim], the components of the Talmud text receive context: as one progresses through the discussion, one is called upon to pay attention to the prevailing circumstances surrounding each remark, each step in the evolution of the halakhah, and to relate to the religious, philosophical, social, economic, political, educational or communal motivations for halakhic change. Jewish observance becomes a prism through which the student can see religiosity as interplay between eternal values and temporal conditions, and Talmudics and halakhah become the map by which one charts the course leading to one’s own day - and beyond. Halakhah becomes a national-legal process which takes its rightful place alongside and among the dynamic historical and national processes which fill modern life, and Jewish values can justly claim once more to lead, not follow, human development.
Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down28 was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements.29 Rather, the truth is that this [issues from] the wonderful wisdom [and] profound insight of the Torah, [which teaches] that the interpretation of Torah [must be] given over to the sages of each generation in order that the Torah remain a living force with the nation, developing with it, and that indeed is its eternity.
Posts
All Comments
International Women's Day is on March 8, and the country is overflowing with activities marking this event. Some are more worthy than others (not even ...
