מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים אין לו רפואה עד שתבעל לו. ימות ואל תבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה. ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבואו בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות:
Someone that sees a woman and becomes sick and is on the verge of death and the doctors say, "There is no cure for him except to have relations [with this woman that he saw]," he should die and not have relations with this woman even if she is unmarried. We don't even allow him to speak with her from behind a partition, rather he should die and we should not allow him to speak with her from behind a partition because it should not be that the daughters of Israel will be "loose" (harlot) and they will become, through these things, promiscuous in the city.
Obviously, this law has no connection to modern day. Why? Because there is no doctor, a real doctor, that would prescribe relations with a specific woman as a cure to a DEATHLY illness. There is just no way this would be a plausible situation that would occur today with modern medicine. However, there are a few ideas the Rambam brings up that CAN relate to us nowadays.
The first thing the Rambam says here is that the DOCTOR says this guy needs a specific cure. If there was no worry about the Jewish girls being treated as harlots then the Rambam would have said we listen to the doctor. This shows us that the word of the doctor, in a life threatening situation, can override halacha in almost every case. As we have shown before, if the doctor tells you to do something that will save your life you do it (unless it is a violation of one of the three big sins: illicit relations, killing and idol worship). Rambam gave so much authority to doctors, it is absolutely amazing.
The second idea here is a little bit more hidden. Rambam reveals that a Jewish girl being modest is so important that we would prefer that the man die rather than force the girl to discard her modesty, or do we? It seems to me that the logic behind the Rambam (or the Gemora) is that if we allowed anyone who was "deathly ill" to have relations with the woman that he desires, there are going to be a lot of "deathly ill" people and thereby the daughters of Israel would become harlots. Therefore, the Rambam's idea here protects women from sinister men that would try to abuse them. That is why the Rambam does not even allow the man to speak with them, because the Rambam is weary of those that are "deathly ill."
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Seeing VS Believing
The end of this week's Parsha, Ki Tavo, has an important idea. In fact, it is essential to understand this idea in order to truly connect to G-D, in my opinion. The Parsha says (Devarim 29:1-3):
א. וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְ־הֹוָ־ה לְעֵינֵיכֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל אַרְצוֹ:
1. And Moses called all of Israel and said to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, to all his servants, and to all his land;
ב. הַמַּסּוֹת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ הָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים הַגְּדֹלִים הָהֵם
2. the great trials which your very eyes beheld and those great signs and wonders.
ג. וְלֹא נָתַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
3. The Lord has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear until this very day.
This seems odd. Moshe is telling us that G-D did all these miraculous things, but it is only today, the day Moshe dies and the Jewish people go into Israel, that the Jewish people finally realize that G-D is G-D? Moshe is saying that the Jewish people did not know, see G-D or hear G-D until this day, does this make any sense whatsoever? Obviously, there is a deeper meaning to these words which must be examined.
Rashi attempts to clarify what Moshe is saying by relating to us something he once heard. This seems odd because usually Rashi quotes where he heard things from, but here it is:
עד היום הזה: שמעתי שאותו היום שנתן משה ספר התורה לבני לוי, כמו שכתוב (לקמן לא, ט) ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי באו כל ישראל לפני משה ואמרו לו משה רבינו אף אנו עמדנו בסיני וקבלנו את התורה ונתנה לנו, ומה אתה משליט את בני שבטך עליה, ויאמרו לנו יום מחר לא לכם נתנה, לנו נתנה. ושמח משה על הדבר, ועל זאת אמר להם היום הזה נהיית לעם וגו' (לעיל כז, ט), היום הזה הבנתי שאתם דבקים וחפצים במקום:
Until this day: I heard that on the very day that Moses gave the Torah scroll to the sons of Levi-as the verse says, “And he gave it to the kohanim , the sons of Levi” (Deut. 31:19)-all Israel came before Moses and said to him: “Moses, our Teacher! We also stood at [Mount] Sinai and accepted the Torah, and it was [also] given to us! Why, then, are you giving the members of your tribe control over it, so that some day in the future they may claim, 'It was not given to you-it was given only to us!’” Moses rejoiced over this matter and it was on account of this, that he said to them, “This day, you have become a people [to the Lord your God]” (Deut. 27:9). [This meant:] “It is today that I understand that you cleave to the Omnipresent and desire Him.”
The problem that I have with Rashi is that this is clearly NOT what the verse says. This understanding THROWS OUT any reading of this verse. G-D has given you eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to know can not mean that the Jewish people have revealed that they always loved G-D. That is not G-D giving something, that is just the Jewish people showing that they love G-D and cleave to Him. There must be a different meaning that can explain what in the world Moshe is, in fact, talking about.
I want to suggest the following explanation of the verse. Moshe says that G-D has performed all of these miracles for the Jewish people and yet it is only today, the day before the Jewish people enter the land of Israel and Moshe dies, that G-D finally gives them the ability to know, see and hear Him. What is Moshe telling the Jewish people?
The Ibn Ezra will help us understand this puzzling problem. He says (on the first verse of Devarim 29):
ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל -
לכרות הברית, על כן אחריה אתם נצבים היום.
And Moshe called to all of Israel: To make a covenant, therefore (the verse states afterwords) "You (PL.) are standing here today."
The Ibn Ezra allows us to understand what Moshe is telling the Jewish people. The Jewish people were taken out of Egypt with miracles, but they did not make this covenant. The Jewish people received the Torah after speaking with G-D, but they still did not make this covenant. The Jewish people were covered with the cloud of glory, got the water from a supernatural well, and received the Maan, but still they could not make this covenant. However, now they were able to receive this covenant. WHAT HAPPENED?
I think we can now bring Rashi's idea back and explain it so it does fit with the language of the verse. Rashi says that the Jewish people got upset when Moshe gave the Torah to the tribe of Levi and not to everyone. This sparked an EMOTIONAL passion in the Jewish people, that had not existed until this point. The Jewish people's passion and emotions for G-D were uncovered and came bursting forth. It was only when this emotion was uncovered and brought bubbling to the surface were they now able to receive from G-D "A heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear" Him.
However, why must emotion be evoked before one can truly know, see and hear G-D? This is simple. If a person simply chose to follow G-D because of rationale, that service of G-D would be stone cold and there would not be a very great connection to G-D. However, Judaism is not about simply seeing and believing, it is about emotion, love and passion. This is why a person connects to G-D in the best possible way through love and awe of G-D. Emotion allows a person to "know, hear, and see " G-D in his or her life. This is the only way to really connect to G-D, simply coming to a rational state of G-D's existence leads one to have a "cold" connection to G-D. However, a person that evokes his or her emotions can bring G-D into their life and have a "warm" connection. This is why the Jewish people were only ready to make this covenant with G-D at this point, because they finally tapped into the most important part to achieving a connection to G-D, emotions. Thus, G-D NOW allowed them to really have "a heart to know, an eye to see and an ear to hear."
א. וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְ־הֹוָ־ה לְעֵינֵיכֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל אַרְצוֹ:
1. And Moses called all of Israel and said to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, to all his servants, and to all his land;
ב. הַמַּסּוֹת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ הָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים הַגְּדֹלִים הָהֵם
2. the great trials which your very eyes beheld and those great signs and wonders.
ג. וְלֹא נָתַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
3. The Lord has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear until this very day.
This seems odd. Moshe is telling us that G-D did all these miraculous things, but it is only today, the day Moshe dies and the Jewish people go into Israel, that the Jewish people finally realize that G-D is G-D? Moshe is saying that the Jewish people did not know, see G-D or hear G-D until this day, does this make any sense whatsoever? Obviously, there is a deeper meaning to these words which must be examined.
Rashi attempts to clarify what Moshe is saying by relating to us something he once heard. This seems odd because usually Rashi quotes where he heard things from, but here it is:
עד היום הזה: שמעתי שאותו היום שנתן משה ספר התורה לבני לוי, כמו שכתוב (לקמן לא, ט) ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי באו כל ישראל לפני משה ואמרו לו משה רבינו אף אנו עמדנו בסיני וקבלנו את התורה ונתנה לנו, ומה אתה משליט את בני שבטך עליה, ויאמרו לנו יום מחר לא לכם נתנה, לנו נתנה. ושמח משה על הדבר, ועל זאת אמר להם היום הזה נהיית לעם וגו' (לעיל כז, ט), היום הזה הבנתי שאתם דבקים וחפצים במקום:
Until this day: I heard that on the very day that Moses gave the Torah scroll to the sons of Levi-as the verse says, “And he gave it to the kohanim , the sons of Levi” (Deut. 31:19)-all Israel came before Moses and said to him: “Moses, our Teacher! We also stood at [Mount] Sinai and accepted the Torah, and it was [also] given to us! Why, then, are you giving the members of your tribe control over it, so that some day in the future they may claim, 'It was not given to you-it was given only to us!’” Moses rejoiced over this matter and it was on account of this, that he said to them, “This day, you have become a people [to the Lord your God]” (Deut. 27:9). [This meant:] “It is today that I understand that you cleave to the Omnipresent and desire Him.”
The problem that I have with Rashi is that this is clearly NOT what the verse says. This understanding THROWS OUT any reading of this verse. G-D has given you eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to know can not mean that the Jewish people have revealed that they always loved G-D. That is not G-D giving something, that is just the Jewish people showing that they love G-D and cleave to Him. There must be a different meaning that can explain what in the world Moshe is, in fact, talking about.
I want to suggest the following explanation of the verse. Moshe says that G-D has performed all of these miracles for the Jewish people and yet it is only today, the day before the Jewish people enter the land of Israel and Moshe dies, that G-D finally gives them the ability to know, see and hear Him. What is Moshe telling the Jewish people?
The Ibn Ezra will help us understand this puzzling problem. He says (on the first verse of Devarim 29):
ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל -
לכרות הברית, על כן אחריה אתם נצבים היום.
And Moshe called to all of Israel: To make a covenant, therefore (the verse states afterwords) "You (PL.) are standing here today."
The Ibn Ezra allows us to understand what Moshe is telling the Jewish people. The Jewish people were taken out of Egypt with miracles, but they did not make this covenant. The Jewish people received the Torah after speaking with G-D, but they still did not make this covenant. The Jewish people were covered with the cloud of glory, got the water from a supernatural well, and received the Maan, but still they could not make this covenant. However, now they were able to receive this covenant. WHAT HAPPENED?
I think we can now bring Rashi's idea back and explain it so it does fit with the language of the verse. Rashi says that the Jewish people got upset when Moshe gave the Torah to the tribe of Levi and not to everyone. This sparked an EMOTIONAL passion in the Jewish people, that had not existed until this point. The Jewish people's passion and emotions for G-D were uncovered and came bursting forth. It was only when this emotion was uncovered and brought bubbling to the surface were they now able to receive from G-D "A heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear" Him.
However, why must emotion be evoked before one can truly know, see and hear G-D? This is simple. If a person simply chose to follow G-D because of rationale, that service of G-D would be stone cold and there would not be a very great connection to G-D. However, Judaism is not about simply seeing and believing, it is about emotion, love and passion. This is why a person connects to G-D in the best possible way through love and awe of G-D. Emotion allows a person to "know, hear, and see " G-D in his or her life. This is the only way to really connect to G-D, simply coming to a rational state of G-D's existence leads one to have a "cold" connection to G-D. However, a person that evokes his or her emotions can bring G-D into their life and have a "warm" connection. This is why the Jewish people were only ready to make this covenant with G-D at this point, because they finally tapped into the most important part to achieving a connection to G-D, emotions. Thus, G-D NOW allowed them to really have "a heart to know, an eye to see and an ear to hear."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Creating A New Life Form And Playing god
It has finally happend (a couple months ago), humans have figured out how to replace the DNA of a living organism with a synthetic code. Basically, a team of scientists created a synthetic DNA sequence and took a bacteria (Mycoplasm) and replaced this bacteria's DNA with the synthetic sequence. This is extremely exciting and could open the door to many possibilities. Creating an organism to do virtually anything that we can think of through replacing a simple bacteria's DNA sequence with any that we choose.
After I read about J. Craig Venter in Scientific American and what he and his team of scientists accomplished, I was amazed. Here is a little info on what exactly he accomplished (from here):
"Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines." (If you want to see the actual PUBLISHED research, it can be found here)
However, there is another reason I brought up this exciting scientific discovery. To quote from Andrew Brown's blog:
"Craig Venter's production of an entirely artificial bacterium marks another triumph of the only major scientific programme driven from the beginning by explicit atheism. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, was a militant atheist, who refused to accept a job at a newly founded Cambridge college if it had a chapel, and who invented molecular biology partly to prove there was nothing special or mystical about life: it was just the behaviour of complex chemicals acting in accordance with the normal laws of nature."
In fact, this idea is exactly what Arthur Caplan of Scientific American declares. He says, "When the hybrid bug began to reproduce (The Mycoplasm with the new DNA), it became the first artificial organism, putting to rest the ancient and tenacious conceit that only a deity or some special power can create the spark of life."
I think this is possibly one of the most foolish statements I have ever heard, or, at the very least, vague and purposefully misleading. As amazing as Venter's "creation" is, it is not the "creation" of life. Taking a fully functioning bacteria that already has the ability to reproduce and replacing it's DNA so that it changes function and creates different proteins is not "creating new life," it is altering already existing life.
Man can not and probably never will be able to create life. We do not understand how life is created, we do understand many complexities of life, but not the creation of life. To declare that this is the "creation of life" is very misleading. In essence, what Venter did is take a computer and replaced the microchip. He created his own microchip to replace a natural microchip that was already found in the computer. This is an outstanding discovery and innovation. However, it is not the creation of a whole new computer. It is the utilization of an already existing computer.
When a man can grow a living organism from non-living materials then we can declare to have created life. However, replacing the chromosomes in a living organism with different DNA is not "creating" new life. It is AMAZING and remarkable, but not a real creation.
Also, it is not like he created a new coding process or anything of the sort. He sequenced DNA in such a way that the organism would created proteins that he wanted that organism to create and would function in a manner that he wanted this organism to function in. He is able to MANIPULATE nature, but not create anything in nature. There is a difference and I think we must realize it. If someone is able to take inorganic elements and create a living organism, I will be the first one to admit that man can create life, but until then I will wait. I am unsure why people are jumping to the conclusion that this man has "created" life.
Anyone think I am wrong and this is the "creation" of life? If so, can you explain why this is the creation of life?
After I read about J. Craig Venter in Scientific American and what he and his team of scientists accomplished, I was amazed. Here is a little info on what exactly he accomplished (from here):
"Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines." (If you want to see the actual PUBLISHED research, it can be found here)
However, there is another reason I brought up this exciting scientific discovery. To quote from Andrew Brown's blog:
"Craig Venter's production of an entirely artificial bacterium marks another triumph of the only major scientific programme driven from the beginning by explicit atheism. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, was a militant atheist, who refused to accept a job at a newly founded Cambridge college if it had a chapel, and who invented molecular biology partly to prove there was nothing special or mystical about life: it was just the behaviour of complex chemicals acting in accordance with the normal laws of nature."
In fact, this idea is exactly what Arthur Caplan of Scientific American declares. He says, "When the hybrid bug began to reproduce (The Mycoplasm with the new DNA), it became the first artificial organism, putting to rest the ancient and tenacious conceit that only a deity or some special power can create the spark of life."
I think this is possibly one of the most foolish statements I have ever heard, or, at the very least, vague and purposefully misleading. As amazing as Venter's "creation" is, it is not the "creation" of life. Taking a fully functioning bacteria that already has the ability to reproduce and replacing it's DNA so that it changes function and creates different proteins is not "creating new life," it is altering already existing life.
Man can not and probably never will be able to create life. We do not understand how life is created, we do understand many complexities of life, but not the creation of life. To declare that this is the "creation of life" is very misleading. In essence, what Venter did is take a computer and replaced the microchip. He created his own microchip to replace a natural microchip that was already found in the computer. This is an outstanding discovery and innovation. However, it is not the creation of a whole new computer. It is the utilization of an already existing computer.
When a man can grow a living organism from non-living materials then we can declare to have created life. However, replacing the chromosomes in a living organism with different DNA is not "creating" new life. It is AMAZING and remarkable, but not a real creation.
Also, it is not like he created a new coding process or anything of the sort. He sequenced DNA in such a way that the organism would created proteins that he wanted that organism to create and would function in a manner that he wanted this organism to function in. He is able to MANIPULATE nature, but not create anything in nature. There is a difference and I think we must realize it. If someone is able to take inorganic elements and create a living organism, I will be the first one to admit that man can create life, but until then I will wait. I am unsure why people are jumping to the conclusion that this man has "created" life.
Anyone think I am wrong and this is the "creation" of life? If so, can you explain why this is the creation of life?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Importance of Righteousness in Business
In this week's Parsha, Ki Teitzei, there are several important moral imperatives that are discussed. The first one I would like to discuss is the commandment of Shiluach HaKein (sending away the mother bird). The verse says (Devarim 22:6-7):
ו. כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים:
6. If a bird's nest chances before you on the road, on any tree, or on the ground, and [it contains] fledglings or eggs, if the mother is sitting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother upon the young.
ז. שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים:
7. You shall send away the mother, and [then] you may take the young for yourself, in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days.
The best way to explain this verse is to bring in the Rambam on the subject. He says (The Guide 3:48):
It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. xxii. 28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases, however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow men. When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion. (That the commandments have reasons and are not JUST the will of the divine)
According to the Rambam a man must have mercy on ANYTHING that can feel emotional pain. A person must take into consideration the feelings of even an animal. This leads the Rambam to say that if the Torah is telling us to care about an animal's feelings, how much more so does the Torah emphasize how we should treat our fellow man and his or her feelings. This is especially true if we look at the reward that one gets for sending away the mother bird, "In order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days." Supposedly, the lengthening of ones days, whatever it really means, is one of the greatest rewards a person can acquire in this world. That is why it is also the reward for honoring ones parents as it says in Exodus (20:12), "Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you."
It is clear, according to the Rambam, that the point of the laws of the Torah are to make us into kinder and more caring people, as well as other things. G-D wants us to care about the emotions of animals, and even more so the emotions of people. Therefore, if the reward for caring about an animals feelings is so great then what is the reward for caring about people's feelings?
G-D, in all of His wisdom, does not solely focus on a positive way to care for the emotions of a person's fellow man like He did by the commandment of sending away the mother bird, rather He mentions both the positive and the negative aspects of not caring for one's fellow man and caring for them. It says (Devarim 25:13-16):
Here, G-D tells us that if one cheats in business and STEALS from his/her fellow man then they are an abomination, similar to a cross-dresser when it says (Devarim 22:5), "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a woman's garments, for anyone who does so is an abomination." If they are righteous in business then they will merit lengthened days on the land, similar to honoring one's parents and sending away the mother bird. However, why do we need to have both the positive and the negative ideas stated here? Could we not just have the positive aspect like by sending away the mother bird, or just the negative like by cross-dressing?
I think the answer is simple, but very important. The commandment of honoring ones parents is not an absolute type of commandment. There are no specifics here, it only says to honor ones parents. Therefore, one can honor their parents by doing everything for them, helping them when they ask, or sometimes helping and other times not. All are fulfilling the commandment, but there are varying degrees. Would you call someone who helps his or her parents 90% of the time not righteous? Would you say he or she is a despicable person? No, they are good. Even the person who helps out only 60% of the time is still pretty good, not the best, but a fine person. Therefore, the more you honor your parents the bigger reward you receive, but you are not considered evil if you do not help out ever second of every day.
By sending away the mother bird a person is considered to be extra sensitive because, as the Rambam tells us, he or she cares even about the emotions of a bird. A person who shows so much care for even a bird will, most likely, show even more compassion to his or her fellow humans. However, someone who does not show such overwhelming compassion is not, by definition, evil. That person can still be a righteous individual, just like the person who listens to his or her parents 60% of the time can still be a good person.
On the other hand a person who cross-dresses is considered not righteous, but a person who is not a cross-dresser is not, by definition, considered righteous. A person who cross-dresses denies the differences between men and women and this is an abomination to G-D. There are reasons why, that I will not go into, G-D made man and woman and to conflate them together makes a strong statement against G-D (and perhaps many other things that show the character of a person).
All of these are only one sided because performing these commandments either show how a person is righteous, but not performing them does not show that person to be non-righteous, or transgressing these commandments shows a person to be wicked, but not transgressing does not show a person to be righteous. However, in the case of business, a person who is honest in business shows himself or herself to be righteous, whereas someone who is not honest, a cheater, in business shows himself or herself to be a wicked person. This is why I think the Torah tells us the reward and punishment for this commandment and not just the reward or punishment. Also, this is why the reward for honesty in business is so great and the punishment is so severe, because, as the Rambam tells us, the point of the laws are to make us righteous. If we show we are righteous and following the Torah, we receive the highest rewards and if we show we are cheaters and wicked we receive the worst of punishments.
Just to reiterate the idea found in the law of business dealings at the end of the Parsha: A person's character can be assessed by how they conduct themselves in business. Someone who is honest in business is CLEARLY a righteous person. However, someone who cheats in business, even a little, is wicked at heart and unrighteous. We must make sure that we are always in the honest and trustworthy area of this law or else we will be considered abominations to G-D.
ו. כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים:
6. If a bird's nest chances before you on the road, on any tree, or on the ground, and [it contains] fledglings or eggs, if the mother is sitting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother upon the young.
ז. שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים:
7. You shall send away the mother, and [then] you may take the young for yourself, in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days.
The best way to explain this verse is to bring in the Rambam on the subject. He says (The Guide 3:48):
It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. xxii. 28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases, however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow men. When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion. (That the commandments have reasons and are not JUST the will of the divine)
According to the Rambam a man must have mercy on ANYTHING that can feel emotional pain. A person must take into consideration the feelings of even an animal. This leads the Rambam to say that if the Torah is telling us to care about an animal's feelings, how much more so does the Torah emphasize how we should treat our fellow man and his or her feelings. This is especially true if we look at the reward that one gets for sending away the mother bird, "In order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days." Supposedly, the lengthening of ones days, whatever it really means, is one of the greatest rewards a person can acquire in this world. That is why it is also the reward for honoring ones parents as it says in Exodus (20:12), "Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you."
It is clear, according to the Rambam, that the point of the laws of the Torah are to make us into kinder and more caring people, as well as other things. G-D wants us to care about the emotions of animals, and even more so the emotions of people. Therefore, if the reward for caring about an animals feelings is so great then what is the reward for caring about people's feelings?
G-D, in all of His wisdom, does not solely focus on a positive way to care for the emotions of a person's fellow man like He did by the commandment of sending away the mother bird, rather He mentions both the positive and the negative aspects of not caring for one's fellow man and caring for them. It says (Devarim 25:13-16):
Here, G-D tells us that if one cheats in business and STEALS from his/her fellow man then they are an abomination, similar to a cross-dresser when it says (Devarim 22:5), "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a woman's garments, for anyone who does so is an abomination." If they are righteous in business then they will merit lengthened days on the land, similar to honoring one's parents and sending away the mother bird. However, why do we need to have both the positive and the negative ideas stated here? Could we not just have the positive aspect like by sending away the mother bird, or just the negative like by cross-dressing?
I think the answer is simple, but very important. The commandment of honoring ones parents is not an absolute type of commandment. There are no specifics here, it only says to honor ones parents. Therefore, one can honor their parents by doing everything for them, helping them when they ask, or sometimes helping and other times not. All are fulfilling the commandment, but there are varying degrees. Would you call someone who helps his or her parents 90% of the time not righteous? Would you say he or she is a despicable person? No, they are good. Even the person who helps out only 60% of the time is still pretty good, not the best, but a fine person. Therefore, the more you honor your parents the bigger reward you receive, but you are not considered evil if you do not help out ever second of every day.
By sending away the mother bird a person is considered to be extra sensitive because, as the Rambam tells us, he or she cares even about the emotions of a bird. A person who shows so much care for even a bird will, most likely, show even more compassion to his or her fellow humans. However, someone who does not show such overwhelming compassion is not, by definition, evil. That person can still be a righteous individual, just like the person who listens to his or her parents 60% of the time can still be a good person.
On the other hand a person who cross-dresses is considered not righteous, but a person who is not a cross-dresser is not, by definition, considered righteous. A person who cross-dresses denies the differences between men and women and this is an abomination to G-D. There are reasons why, that I will not go into, G-D made man and woman and to conflate them together makes a strong statement against G-D (and perhaps many other things that show the character of a person).
All of these are only one sided because performing these commandments either show how a person is righteous, but not performing them does not show that person to be non-righteous, or transgressing these commandments shows a person to be wicked, but not transgressing does not show a person to be righteous. However, in the case of business, a person who is honest in business shows himself or herself to be righteous, whereas someone who is not honest, a cheater, in business shows himself or herself to be a wicked person. This is why I think the Torah tells us the reward and punishment for this commandment and not just the reward or punishment. Also, this is why the reward for honesty in business is so great and the punishment is so severe, because, as the Rambam tells us, the point of the laws are to make us righteous. If we show we are righteous and following the Torah, we receive the highest rewards and if we show we are cheaters and wicked we receive the worst of punishments.
Just to reiterate the idea found in the law of business dealings at the end of the Parsha: A person's character can be assessed by how they conduct themselves in business. Someone who is honest in business is CLEARLY a righteous person. However, someone who cheats in business, even a little, is wicked at heart and unrighteous. We must make sure that we are always in the honest and trustworthy area of this law or else we will be considered abominations to G-D.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Shrinking Brain, Yeridos Hadoros (Dumbing Down Through the Generations), and Aggressiveness
Over Shabbos I saw this great article in Discovery Magazine (September 2010 Issue). It was "The Incredible Shrinking Brain" written by Kathleen McAuliffe. I was absolutely shocked by the consensus of scientists, the human brain has been shrinking for the past 10,000-20,000 years (From 1500 cc to 1350 cc, the size of a tennis ball). That seems to be counter to evolution and the idea that man has been getting smarter. However, as with all things in life, there are differing opinions as to what this means. (Just for clarity, the article says that the human brain grew bigger and bigger over the past 2 million years. Only recently has it begun to shrunk. This is not a counter evolution post.)
The first opinion brought down in the article is the "Dumbing Down theory." David Geary, a cognitive scientist of the University of Missouri said, "The best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory." He is referring to a film made by Mike Judge in 2006 where the story line is that "Private Joe Bauers, the definition of 'average American', is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive." Geary and a colleague of his, Drew bailey, conducted experiments to back up this idea, but I won't bore you with the details.
The next idea is the polar opposite, that this brain shrinkage means we are getting smarter (which seems counter intuitive to me). This idea is present by the Anthropologist named Hawks. He performed research similar to Geary and Bailey and came up with the same exact data. In fact, he shows a large change between the Bronze Age and Medieval times. However, he interprets the data completely differently. Bailey and Geary just focus on the size decrease and say that it shows we have decreased our intelligence based on size. However, Hawks says that the decrease in size is in order to make the brain more efficient. A brain that is smaller, but gets the most output for the least amount of energy is the best possible brain and this is how our brains have changed.
There is a third school of thought that does not even relate this change to intelligence, but rather aggressiveness. According to a primatologist at Harvard University, Richard Wrangham, the same thing that has happened to domesticated animals has happened to humans. Domesticated animals have a 10%-15% reduction in brain volume compared to their wild progenitors. Wrangham says that this same trend has happened in humans. The easiest explanation is that, as Wrangham says, "Over the last 100,000 years, language became sufficiently sophisticated that when you had some bully who was a repeat offender, people got together and said 'We've got to do something about Joe (the bully).' And they would make a calm deliberate decision to kill Joe or expel him from the group." This would lead to natural selection weeding out aggressive traits and favoring those that are more calm and amicable. (He goes into a whole explanation as to why a less aggressive brain is smaller, if you want to read the whole science behind it get the magazine.)
Another shocking realization in this article comes at the end, the human brain has started to increase in size again. This finding was discovered by Richard Jantz, an anthropologist of the University of Tennessee. Hawks says this finding is most probably due to nutrition, since food today is much more abundant. Jantz and other scientists say that, based on their research (IQ tests), it seems like the brain size does correlate with intelligence.
Christopher Stringer, a paleontologist and expert on human origins at the Natural History Museum in London says the closing statement for the article, "It's perfectly plausible our modern brain is smarter in some ways, dumber in others and more docile overall."
I found this article absolutely fascinating for several reasons. Obviously, I think science is remarkable and the new information scientists of every field discover has a "Wow" factor for me. However, it is not every day that I come across an article that helps me understand ideas in Judaism in a new light. People always claim Yeridos Hadoros (Dumbing Down of the Generations) means that people get dumber and dumber as the years go by. At first, anyone who thinks evolution is probable (most people that think science makes sense) would write this off and say that evolution completely contradicts this. However, this article shows the EXACT OPPOSITE. Well, depending on which opinion we are going to give the most credence. However, the opinion that seems to make the most sense to me is that of Christopher Stringer, the last statement in the article. A shrinking brain can mean so many different things and it seems like a combination of all three changes (less intelligent in some areas, more intelligent in others and more docile) seems to be the most reasonable.
In light of this, it makes sense to say that Yeridos Hadoros could be that we have become less intelligent in certain areas and that is why halacha can not be argued on. However, hashkafa and science found in the ancient texts are not obligatory for this very reason (unless they are explicitly stated by G-D). An example as to why halacha would not be allowed to change, but hashkafa could is that halacha is based on memory. One must remember what Moshe said on Sinai and apply that ruling to a case. Hashkafa, on the other hand, is completely based on abstract thinking (Metaphysics is clearly abstract thinking. The beginning of the Universe and so on.) Perhaps we have been getting smarter in abstract thinking, but our memories are not as good (I mean, Einstein and others).
Also, the docile idea, we were more aggressive as a species in the past. Maybe this is why laws have changed in the way that they have. Also, perhaps this is why there are commandments in the Torah, from 3500 years ago, that make some people uncomfortable today (like killing Amalek). Back then it was necessary for the survival of a group to destroy their enemies, because that is how humans survived. However, today many groups (not all) are much more civilized and docile. The Torah was given 3500 years ago and needed to be able to relate to all times, especially at the time it was given. G-D knew that Amalek would not exist in the future, so maybe that is why He commanded them to be wiped out back then, because what was human nature back then is not what human nature is today (as shown in this article, the brain is smaller and more docile).
I don't know, but these are all possibilities. Only G-D really knows why everything is and how things have progressed. All we can do is guess and see if we are right.
The first opinion brought down in the article is the "Dumbing Down theory." David Geary, a cognitive scientist of the University of Missouri said, "The best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory." He is referring to a film made by Mike Judge in 2006 where the story line is that "Private Joe Bauers, the definition of 'average American', is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive." Geary and a colleague of his, Drew bailey, conducted experiments to back up this idea, but I won't bore you with the details.
The next idea is the polar opposite, that this brain shrinkage means we are getting smarter (which seems counter intuitive to me). This idea is present by the Anthropologist named Hawks. He performed research similar to Geary and Bailey and came up with the same exact data. In fact, he shows a large change between the Bronze Age and Medieval times. However, he interprets the data completely differently. Bailey and Geary just focus on the size decrease and say that it shows we have decreased our intelligence based on size. However, Hawks says that the decrease in size is in order to make the brain more efficient. A brain that is smaller, but gets the most output for the least amount of energy is the best possible brain and this is how our brains have changed.
There is a third school of thought that does not even relate this change to intelligence, but rather aggressiveness. According to a primatologist at Harvard University, Richard Wrangham, the same thing that has happened to domesticated animals has happened to humans. Domesticated animals have a 10%-15% reduction in brain volume compared to their wild progenitors. Wrangham says that this same trend has happened in humans. The easiest explanation is that, as Wrangham says, "Over the last 100,000 years, language became sufficiently sophisticated that when you had some bully who was a repeat offender, people got together and said 'We've got to do something about Joe (the bully).' And they would make a calm deliberate decision to kill Joe or expel him from the group." This would lead to natural selection weeding out aggressive traits and favoring those that are more calm and amicable. (He goes into a whole explanation as to why a less aggressive brain is smaller, if you want to read the whole science behind it get the magazine.)
Another shocking realization in this article comes at the end, the human brain has started to increase in size again. This finding was discovered by Richard Jantz, an anthropologist of the University of Tennessee. Hawks says this finding is most probably due to nutrition, since food today is much more abundant. Jantz and other scientists say that, based on their research (IQ tests), it seems like the brain size does correlate with intelligence.
Christopher Stringer, a paleontologist and expert on human origins at the Natural History Museum in London says the closing statement for the article, "It's perfectly plausible our modern brain is smarter in some ways, dumber in others and more docile overall."
I found this article absolutely fascinating for several reasons. Obviously, I think science is remarkable and the new information scientists of every field discover has a "Wow" factor for me. However, it is not every day that I come across an article that helps me understand ideas in Judaism in a new light. People always claim Yeridos Hadoros (Dumbing Down of the Generations) means that people get dumber and dumber as the years go by. At first, anyone who thinks evolution is probable (most people that think science makes sense) would write this off and say that evolution completely contradicts this. However, this article shows the EXACT OPPOSITE. Well, depending on which opinion we are going to give the most credence. However, the opinion that seems to make the most sense to me is that of Christopher Stringer, the last statement in the article. A shrinking brain can mean so many different things and it seems like a combination of all three changes (less intelligent in some areas, more intelligent in others and more docile) seems to be the most reasonable.
In light of this, it makes sense to say that Yeridos Hadoros could be that we have become less intelligent in certain areas and that is why halacha can not be argued on. However, hashkafa and science found in the ancient texts are not obligatory for this very reason (unless they are explicitly stated by G-D). An example as to why halacha would not be allowed to change, but hashkafa could is that halacha is based on memory. One must remember what Moshe said on Sinai and apply that ruling to a case. Hashkafa, on the other hand, is completely based on abstract thinking (Metaphysics is clearly abstract thinking. The beginning of the Universe and so on.) Perhaps we have been getting smarter in abstract thinking, but our memories are not as good (I mean, Einstein and others).
Also, the docile idea, we were more aggressive as a species in the past. Maybe this is why laws have changed in the way that they have. Also, perhaps this is why there are commandments in the Torah, from 3500 years ago, that make some people uncomfortable today (like killing Amalek). Back then it was necessary for the survival of a group to destroy their enemies, because that is how humans survived. However, today many groups (not all) are much more civilized and docile. The Torah was given 3500 years ago and needed to be able to relate to all times, especially at the time it was given. G-D knew that Amalek would not exist in the future, so maybe that is why He commanded them to be wiped out back then, because what was human nature back then is not what human nature is today (as shown in this article, the brain is smaller and more docile).
I don't know, but these are all possibilities. Only G-D really knows why everything is and how things have progressed. All we can do is guess and see if we are right.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
How Rashi and the Netziv Read "Which I have Not Commanded"
This week's Parsha, Shoftiim, contains a very peculiar verse. It says (Devarim 17:3):
ג. וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לָהֶם וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ אוֹ לְכָל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי:
3. and who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;
Rashi explains this verse in a very strange way. He says
אשר לא צויתי: לעבדם:
which I have not commanded: to worship them. — [Meg. 9b]
The question here is, what the is this verse saying according to Rashi? Apparently, according to Rashi's explanation this verse is telling us that the reason people are not supposed to worship other gods, the sun, moon and the stars is because G-D did not command us to worship them. This seems odd because in many places throughout the Torah G-D says explicitly that we are forbidden to worship anything but Him. Why does the verse tell us the reason is because G-D did not command us when the clear reason is that G-D commanded us NOT to worship anything but Him?
Rav Moshe Feinstein anticipated this question. He had the same exact problem as I did with this verse according to Rashi. He says (In Darash Moshe) that this verse is coming to tell us that even those that erroneously think that G-D wants us to serve His most important creations (like the sun, the moon, and the ANGELS) are still transgressing the commandment of not to worship idols. For, one might think that since these people believe they are doing the will of G-D their transgression is not to be considered idol worship. This verse comes to tell us that since G-D did not command them to worship the sun, moon or angels, it IS considered idol worship.
Rav Moshe's idea strikes a cord with me for the following reason: No one can assume to KNOW what G-D wants us to do. The only way we can absolutely know that G-D wants us to do something is if He tells us Himself or through a certified prophet. In fact, anyone claiming to be doing the will of G-D while they transgress one of His commandments is nothing but a common sinner. This can be seen in those who beat women, cause damage to property and those that perform, en mass, Chilul Hashem's (Desecrations of the Name). These people believe they are doing the will of G-D just like the crusaders or Jihadists believe they are performing the will of the one true G-D. Unfortunately for them, they are nothing more than common sinners and have nothing positive (in terms of G-D's favor) coming their way.
However, it is important to note that Rashi's reading is not the only way to understand this verse. The Netziv says:
Clearly, the Netziv did not read this verse like Rashi since he says, "And to the sun and to the moon: To be rulers in the universe. Or to all the hosts of the heavens that I did not command: to be rulers over the land."
Rashi's verse seems to be saying that the reason one can not worship other gods, the sun, the moon and the stars is because G-D never commanded the Jewish people to worship them. That understanding is explained according to Rav Moshe earlier in this post. However, the Netziv explains the verse in the following manner: "And who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;" It means, according to the Netziv, that one is not allowed to worship other gods that this Jew thinks are on the level of G-D. Nor can a Jew worship the sun or the moon even though the idol worshiper thinks G-D is greater than the moon and the stars, but the Sun and the moon are the most important creations in this world since they have dominion over the world. Nor can this Jew worship the hosts of the heavens that are not as great as G-D, the sun or the moon since they do not even have domain over the land, let alone the universe.
In essence, the Netziv breaks down the verse to be talking about the different types of idol worship. People worshiped beings they thought were as great as G-D. People worshiped beings they thought were great because G-D gave them greatness. Finally, people worshiped objects even though they had no real greatness. According to the Netziv, there is no special explanation needed (like Rav Moshe is needed for Rashi), the verse merely talks about three different kinds of idol worshipers that are to be punished.
The difference between Rashi and the Netziv's understanding is huge. Rashi is saying that G-D does not have to command someone not to do something, it is implicitly prohibited if it relates to a prohibited act. The Netziv might be telling us that only that which is explicitly prohibited can actually be made forbidden and punished. Perhaps the case that is different between them is the case of Rav Moshe. According to Rashi, if people think they are doing the will of G-D, they can still be doing something very wrong, in fact, Rav Moshe even says they get the death penalty in this case. However, maybe the Netziv would say that these people are not doing the right thing, but they can't be punished for doing what they think is the will of G-D.
UPDATE:
See Rabbi Josh Waxman's excellent post relating to this post here.
ג. וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לָהֶם וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ אוֹ לְכָל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי:
3. and who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;
Rashi explains this verse in a very strange way. He says
אשר לא צויתי: לעבדם:
which I have not commanded: to worship them. — [Meg. 9b]
The question here is, what the is this verse saying according to Rashi? Apparently, according to Rashi's explanation this verse is telling us that the reason people are not supposed to worship other gods, the sun, moon and the stars is because G-D did not command us to worship them. This seems odd because in many places throughout the Torah G-D says explicitly that we are forbidden to worship anything but Him. Why does the verse tell us the reason is because G-D did not command us when the clear reason is that G-D commanded us NOT to worship anything but Him?
Rav Moshe Feinstein anticipated this question. He had the same exact problem as I did with this verse according to Rashi. He says (In Darash Moshe) that this verse is coming to tell us that even those that erroneously think that G-D wants us to serve His most important creations (like the sun, the moon, and the ANGELS) are still transgressing the commandment of not to worship idols. For, one might think that since these people believe they are doing the will of G-D their transgression is not to be considered idol worship. This verse comes to tell us that since G-D did not command them to worship the sun, moon or angels, it IS considered idol worship.
Rav Moshe's idea strikes a cord with me for the following reason: No one can assume to KNOW what G-D wants us to do. The only way we can absolutely know that G-D wants us to do something is if He tells us Himself or through a certified prophet. In fact, anyone claiming to be doing the will of G-D while they transgress one of His commandments is nothing but a common sinner. This can be seen in those who beat women, cause damage to property and those that perform, en mass, Chilul Hashem's (Desecrations of the Name). These people believe they are doing the will of G-D just like the crusaders or Jihadists believe they are performing the will of the one true G-D. Unfortunately for them, they are nothing more than common sinners and have nothing positive (in terms of G-D's favor) coming their way.
However, it is important to note that Rashi's reading is not the only way to understand this verse. The Netziv says:
Rashi's verse seems to be saying that the reason one can not worship other gods, the sun, the moon and the stars is because G-D never commanded the Jewish people to worship them. That understanding is explained according to Rav Moshe earlier in this post. However, the Netziv explains the verse in the following manner: "And who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;" It means, according to the Netziv, that one is not allowed to worship other gods that this Jew thinks are on the level of G-D. Nor can a Jew worship the sun or the moon even though the idol worshiper thinks G-D is greater than the moon and the stars, but the Sun and the moon are the most important creations in this world since they have dominion over the world. Nor can this Jew worship the hosts of the heavens that are not as great as G-D, the sun or the moon since they do not even have domain over the land, let alone the universe.
In essence, the Netziv breaks down the verse to be talking about the different types of idol worship. People worshiped beings they thought were as great as G-D. People worshiped beings they thought were great because G-D gave them greatness. Finally, people worshiped objects even though they had no real greatness. According to the Netziv, there is no special explanation needed (like Rav Moshe is needed for Rashi), the verse merely talks about three different kinds of idol worshipers that are to be punished.
The difference between Rashi and the Netziv's understanding is huge. Rashi is saying that G-D does not have to command someone not to do something, it is implicitly prohibited if it relates to a prohibited act. The Netziv might be telling us that only that which is explicitly prohibited can actually be made forbidden and punished. Perhaps the case that is different between them is the case of Rav Moshe. According to Rashi, if people think they are doing the will of G-D, they can still be doing something very wrong, in fact, Rav Moshe even says they get the death penalty in this case. However, maybe the Netziv would say that these people are not doing the right thing, but they can't be punished for doing what they think is the will of G-D.
UPDATE:
See Rabbi Josh Waxman's excellent post relating to this post here.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 8- When and How One is Allowed To Use Forbidden Things
במה דברים אמורים שאין מתרפאין בשאר איסורים אלא במקום סכנה. בזמן שהן דרך הנאתן כגון שמאכילין את החולה שקצים ורמשים או חמץ בפסח או שמאכילין אותו ביוה"כ. אבל שלא דרך הנאתן כגון שעושין לו רטיה או מלוגמא מחמץ או מערלה. או שמשקין אותו דברים שיש בהן מר מעורב עם אסורי מאכל שהרי אין בהן הנאה לחיך הרי זה מותר ואפילו שלא במקום סכנה. חוץ מכלאי הכרם ובשר בחלב שהן אסורים אפילו שלא דרך הנאתן. לפיכך אין מתרפאין מהן אפילו שלא דרך הנאתן אלא במקום סכנה:
What case are we dealing with that a person can only be healed with any forbidden thing (other than the big three sins) when there is life endangerment? This is only speaking about a case where the forbidden object is used in a way that one can derive pleasure from it. For example, a sick person is allowed to eat creepy and crawly things, anything leavened (bread) on Passover, or even food on Yom Kippur in a manner that one can derive pleasure from this food. (A better example to understand today is that a person would be allowed to eat shrimp in a normal fashion, if it had medicinal qualities, if they were dangerously ill.) However, if the forbidden object is used in a way that one can not derive benefit from it, for instance, that this forbidden object is made into a bandage, an emollient of Chametz (leaven) or Orla (forbidden fruit that the tree is not 3 or 4 years old depending on the situation), or the sick person drinks something bitter combined with this forbidden object and there is no benefit from the forbidden object, this is permitted even if the person is not dangerously sick. This is true by everything except Klai hakerem (mixing species: planting two seeds of different species together is forbidden and called klai hakerem) and milk mixed with meat, because these things are forbidden even if they are used in a manner that one can not derive benefit from them. Therefore, one may not use these things (Klai hakerem and milk mixed with meat) even in an non-beneficial way unless they are dangerously ill.
I find it so interesting that almost all forbidden things are only forbidden to be used if there is a benefit that can be derived from them. What can we learn from this? To me, it seems like the idea is that G-D put us (Jews) in this world for two reasons, to follow the laws of G-D and to benefit from this world. G-D originally put Adam into this world to benefit and the only thing he was not allowed to do was eat from the tree of knowledge. G-D only gave him one stipulation that allowed him to enjoy everything else, but Adam sinned. However, now that we, the Jews, have received the Torah, there are a lot more stipulations. Why is this? There is a saying at the end of every chapter or so in the Mishna in Avos (Ethics of Our Fathers) that says, "Rebbe Chananya ben Akashya says, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to cause Israel to merit, therefore, He increased for them the Torah and Mitzvos (commandments) as it says (in Isaiah 42:21), G-D desired for the sake of his (Israel's) righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious.'" This statement clearly tells us why there are so many stipulations, because it allows us to merit.
However, what is this merit? Some might say that the Torah and Mitzvos only benefit a Jew in the world to come. This is NOT the position of the Rambam. He says (In The Guide 3:27), "The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body." Clearly, the Rambam believes that the Torah and Mitzvos were given in order that man can benefit in this world and the next world. The Rambam, later in The Guide (3:33) elaborates to tell us that:
IT is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise, and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare for the purpose of taking what another possesses. The cause of all this is the circumstance that the ignorant considers physical enjoyment as an object to be sought for its own sake. God in His wisdom has therefore given us such commandments as would counteract that object, and prevent us altogether from directing our attention to it, and has debarred us from everything that leads only to excessive desire and lust. This is an important thing included in the objects of our Law.
This idea seems to be present in this law here in the Mishna Torah as well. The Rambam tells us that G-D forbids pleasures that lead us astray. The laws of the Torah are there to guide us to the proper path of life. Not only so that we can merit the world to come, but also so we can enhance our enjoyment and life in this world. They help us curb hatred, lust (like cheating on spouses) and other despicable acts. This is why, when there is no benefit derived from these forbidden things, they are allowed, because if there is no pleasure or benefit, one will not come to perform these forbidden acts, or consume these forbidden objects. However, Klai Hakerem and milk mixed with meat are two things that their PREPARATION are forbidden and that is why even if there is no benefit or pleasure from them while eating them, they are still forbidden. However, a deathly ill person overrides all other commandments except the big three sins.
What case are we dealing with that a person can only be healed with any forbidden thing (other than the big three sins) when there is life endangerment? This is only speaking about a case where the forbidden object is used in a way that one can derive pleasure from it. For example, a sick person is allowed to eat creepy and crawly things, anything leavened (bread) on Passover, or even food on Yom Kippur in a manner that one can derive pleasure from this food. (A better example to understand today is that a person would be allowed to eat shrimp in a normal fashion, if it had medicinal qualities, if they were dangerously ill.) However, if the forbidden object is used in a way that one can not derive benefit from it, for instance, that this forbidden object is made into a bandage, an emollient of Chametz (leaven) or Orla (forbidden fruit that the tree is not 3 or 4 years old depending on the situation), or the sick person drinks something bitter combined with this forbidden object and there is no benefit from the forbidden object, this is permitted even if the person is not dangerously sick. This is true by everything except Klai hakerem (mixing species: planting two seeds of different species together is forbidden and called klai hakerem) and milk mixed with meat, because these things are forbidden even if they are used in a manner that one can not derive benefit from them. Therefore, one may not use these things (Klai hakerem and milk mixed with meat) even in an non-beneficial way unless they are dangerously ill.
I find it so interesting that almost all forbidden things are only forbidden to be used if there is a benefit that can be derived from them. What can we learn from this? To me, it seems like the idea is that G-D put us (Jews) in this world for two reasons, to follow the laws of G-D and to benefit from this world. G-D originally put Adam into this world to benefit and the only thing he was not allowed to do was eat from the tree of knowledge. G-D only gave him one stipulation that allowed him to enjoy everything else, but Adam sinned. However, now that we, the Jews, have received the Torah, there are a lot more stipulations. Why is this? There is a saying at the end of every chapter or so in the Mishna in Avos (Ethics of Our Fathers) that says, "Rebbe Chananya ben Akashya says, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to cause Israel to merit, therefore, He increased for them the Torah and Mitzvos (commandments) as it says (in Isaiah 42:21), G-D desired for the sake of his (Israel's) righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious.'" This statement clearly tells us why there are so many stipulations, because it allows us to merit.
However, what is this merit? Some might say that the Torah and Mitzvos only benefit a Jew in the world to come. This is NOT the position of the Rambam. He says (In The Guide 3:27), "The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body." Clearly, the Rambam believes that the Torah and Mitzvos were given in order that man can benefit in this world and the next world. The Rambam, later in The Guide (3:33) elaborates to tell us that:
IT is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise, and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare for the purpose of taking what another possesses. The cause of all this is the circumstance that the ignorant considers physical enjoyment as an object to be sought for its own sake. God in His wisdom has therefore given us such commandments as would counteract that object, and prevent us altogether from directing our attention to it, and has debarred us from everything that leads only to excessive desire and lust. This is an important thing included in the objects of our Law.
This idea seems to be present in this law here in the Mishna Torah as well. The Rambam tells us that G-D forbids pleasures that lead us astray. The laws of the Torah are there to guide us to the proper path of life. Not only so that we can merit the world to come, but also so we can enhance our enjoyment and life in this world. They help us curb hatred, lust (like cheating on spouses) and other despicable acts. This is why, when there is no benefit derived from these forbidden things, they are allowed, because if there is no pleasure or benefit, one will not come to perform these forbidden acts, or consume these forbidden objects. However, Klai Hakerem and milk mixed with meat are two things that their PREPARATION are forbidden and that is why even if there is no benefit or pleasure from them while eating them, they are still forbidden. However, a deathly ill person overrides all other commandments except the big three sins.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
What is The Blessing and The Curse G-D is Giving Us?
This week's parsha starts off with talk of a blessing (Bracha) and a curse (Klala). However, what are the mysterious blessing and curse? The Torah only tells us (Devarim 11:26-28):
These verses seem to tell us that there is a blessing and a curse that the Jewish people will receive, however, the Torah does not tell us what the blessing or the curse is, or does it? If the verse is telling us what the blessing and curse are then what exactly are the blessing and the curse?
Even though the verse seems to just be saying that the blessing will be given if one follows the commandments and the next verse seems to be telling us that a curse will be given if the commandments are not followed, I believe these verses are speaking about what the actual blessing and curse entail. Meaning, a superficial understanding of these verses seems to be that G-D is just telling us a condition, that we must follow His commandments in order to receive some blessing that is not specified and if we do not follow His commandments then we will receive some curse that is not specified. However, these verses seem to be telling us the actual blessing and curse and not some condition.
The verse about the blessing states, "The blessing, that you shall hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day." And the verse about the curse says, "And the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." This is reminiscent of a Mishna in Pirkei avos (4:2) that says:
בן
עזאי אומר: הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה, ובורח מן העבירה,שמצוה גוררת מצוה, ועברה גוררת עברח. ששכר מצוה מצוה,
ושכר עברה עברה:
Ben Azzai said: One should run to perform a lenient commandment like it is a stringent one and one should run away from a sin. This is because a mitzva (performance of a commandment) leads one to perform more commandments, while a sin (transgression) causes one to perform another sin, because the award for performing a commandment is the ability to perform another commandment and the reward for the performance of a sin is the performance of another sin.
With this Mishna we can now understand the blessing and the curse that G-D is telling to the Jewish people. The blessing that G-D is giving us is that if we are deserving of blessing, aka we are following all the mitzvos (commandments), then our blessing will be to be able to perform many more mitzvos (commandments). However, the curse is that if we are underserving, aka we have not been faithful to G-D's commandments, then we will be punished by being led astray and committing even more sins. This is what the blessing and curse are all about, G-D will give us the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the right thing and He will drain us of the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the wrong thing. Basically, G-D will reinforce the decisions that we make in our heart. In the case of us wanting to perform Mitzvos, it is a blessing that G-D reinforces our desire, however, in the case that we want to sin, it is a curse for Him to reinforce our desire.
There is a very valuable lesson that I think we can all learn from in this idea. G-D's most valuable blessing and His most feared curse work through the human will. G-D's curse is if man wants to sin, then man will be allowed to sin. Not only will man be allowed to sin, but since human nature is such that man continues to act in the way that is normal for him, the man that sins will continue to sin. On the reverse side, if a man follows G-D's word then those positive actions will be reinforced and the man that follows G-D will continue to do so.
In essence, G-D is not telling us that He will intervene in a miraculous way to give us a blessing or a curse. He is telling us a reality that exists in the human condition. If we allow ourselves to sin and transgress the commandments it will be very difficult to turn ourselves around and start to follow the ways of the Torah again. In fact, we can see throughout the Tanach that when the Jewish people start sinning they turn themselves around only after great hardships. Many examples of this can be found in Shoftim, every time the Jews start sinning, they are oppressed by a foreign power and only then do they repent and merit a savior. Therefore, G-D warns us in this week's Parsha by telling us to be careful not to fall in this cycle of transgression.
However, the question comes to mind, why must we follow the commandments if the reward is that we will continue to follow the commandments? Doesn't that seem circular? The same is true by the curse. How is it a curse if the punishment is just that we will perform more transgressions?
There are two possible explanations that I can think of, one according to those that say the commandments were given with reason and the other idea is according to those that say the commandments were given and we can't understand their reasons.
According to the Rambam and Ramban, there are reasons for the commandments. What are they? For simplicities sake I will group them together and say that the reason for the commandments is in order that a Jew become a good person. Now, if the commandments lead a Jew to become a good person then following the commandments obviously makes one a good person. Therefore, if one does not follow the commandments they will not become a good person. This would then be the curse, if you do not follow the commandments, you will not be a good person. However, if you do follow the commandments, you will be a good person. Also, the Rambam and Ramban would say that only a good person is able to connect to G-D and live in the afterlife. (For a more thorough discussion of this see the Maharal's Tiferes Yisroel Chapters 6-8).
If we do not say there are reasons for the commandments then there is a simple explanation. The commandments were given to us by G-D. One who follows them will be close to G-D and live in the afterlife. However, one who does not, can not possibly live in the afterlife or come to know G-D. Therefore, one who follows the commandments is blessed and one who committs sins and transgressions is cursed.
Therefore, one who believes in G-D and an afterlife would most definitely consider these verses in the beginning of our Parsha to be discussing a most severe curse and a most magnificent blessing.
These verses seem to tell us that there is a blessing and a curse that the Jewish people will receive, however, the Torah does not tell us what the blessing or the curse is, or does it? If the verse is telling us what the blessing and curse are then what exactly are the blessing and the curse?
Even though the verse seems to just be saying that the blessing will be given if one follows the commandments and the next verse seems to be telling us that a curse will be given if the commandments are not followed, I believe these verses are speaking about what the actual blessing and curse entail. Meaning, a superficial understanding of these verses seems to be that G-D is just telling us a condition, that we must follow His commandments in order to receive some blessing that is not specified and if we do not follow His commandments then we will receive some curse that is not specified. However, these verses seem to be telling us the actual blessing and curse and not some condition.
The verse about the blessing states, "The blessing, that you shall hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day." And the verse about the curse says, "And the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." This is reminiscent of a Mishna in Pirkei avos (4:2) that says:
בן
עזאי אומר: הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה, ובורח מן העבירה,שמצוה גוררת מצוה, ועברה גוררת עברח. ששכר מצוה מצוה,
ושכר עברה עברה:
Ben Azzai said: One should run to perform a lenient commandment like it is a stringent one and one should run away from a sin. This is because a mitzva (performance of a commandment) leads one to perform more commandments, while a sin (transgression) causes one to perform another sin, because the award for performing a commandment is the ability to perform another commandment and the reward for the performance of a sin is the performance of another sin.
With this Mishna we can now understand the blessing and the curse that G-D is telling to the Jewish people. The blessing that G-D is giving us is that if we are deserving of blessing, aka we are following all the mitzvos (commandments), then our blessing will be to be able to perform many more mitzvos (commandments). However, the curse is that if we are underserving, aka we have not been faithful to G-D's commandments, then we will be punished by being led astray and committing even more sins. This is what the blessing and curse are all about, G-D will give us the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the right thing and He will drain us of the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the wrong thing. Basically, G-D will reinforce the decisions that we make in our heart. In the case of us wanting to perform Mitzvos, it is a blessing that G-D reinforces our desire, however, in the case that we want to sin, it is a curse for Him to reinforce our desire.
There is a very valuable lesson that I think we can all learn from in this idea. G-D's most valuable blessing and His most feared curse work through the human will. G-D's curse is if man wants to sin, then man will be allowed to sin. Not only will man be allowed to sin, but since human nature is such that man continues to act in the way that is normal for him, the man that sins will continue to sin. On the reverse side, if a man follows G-D's word then those positive actions will be reinforced and the man that follows G-D will continue to do so.
In essence, G-D is not telling us that He will intervene in a miraculous way to give us a blessing or a curse. He is telling us a reality that exists in the human condition. If we allow ourselves to sin and transgress the commandments it will be very difficult to turn ourselves around and start to follow the ways of the Torah again. In fact, we can see throughout the Tanach that when the Jewish people start sinning they turn themselves around only after great hardships. Many examples of this can be found in Shoftim, every time the Jews start sinning, they are oppressed by a foreign power and only then do they repent and merit a savior. Therefore, G-D warns us in this week's Parsha by telling us to be careful not to fall in this cycle of transgression.
However, the question comes to mind, why must we follow the commandments if the reward is that we will continue to follow the commandments? Doesn't that seem circular? The same is true by the curse. How is it a curse if the punishment is just that we will perform more transgressions?
There are two possible explanations that I can think of, one according to those that say the commandments were given with reason and the other idea is according to those that say the commandments were given and we can't understand their reasons.
According to the Rambam and Ramban, there are reasons for the commandments. What are they? For simplicities sake I will group them together and say that the reason for the commandments is in order that a Jew become a good person. Now, if the commandments lead a Jew to become a good person then following the commandments obviously makes one a good person. Therefore, if one does not follow the commandments they will not become a good person. This would then be the curse, if you do not follow the commandments, you will not be a good person. However, if you do follow the commandments, you will be a good person. Also, the Rambam and Ramban would say that only a good person is able to connect to G-D and live in the afterlife. (For a more thorough discussion of this see the Maharal's Tiferes Yisroel Chapters 6-8).
If we do not say there are reasons for the commandments then there is a simple explanation. The commandments were given to us by G-D. One who follows them will be close to G-D and live in the afterlife. However, one who does not, can not possibly live in the afterlife or come to know G-D. Therefore, one who follows the commandments is blessed and one who committs sins and transgressions is cursed.
Therefore, one who believes in G-D and an afterlife would most definitely consider these verses in the beginning of our Parsha to be discussing a most severe curse and a most magnificent blessing.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Does Rav Moshe Feinstein Think Women Can Be Rabbis
On another blog someone told me that Rav Moshe goes against the Rambam and believes that women can be Rabbis. I decided to see for myself whether this was true or false. Based on this shiur that was given by Aryeh and Dov Frimer, it seems like Rav Moshe does not hold this way. However, let us look at the pertinent sources in Iggros Moshe (rav Moshe's responsa).
The first source makes it seem like Rav Moshe might hold against the Rambam. Found here (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 44):
אבל יש לדון בזה מצד
אחר, דהנה הרמב"ם בפ"א ממלכים ה"ה כתב וכן
כל משימות שבישראל אין ממנים בהם אלא איש,
ואף שלא ידוע לי בעניי מקום לדבריו דבספרי
שציין הכ"מ והרדב"ז ומ-ע לא הוזכר אלא מלך ולא
מלכה אבל רין כל משימות שלא יהיו נשים לא
הוזכר שם, וצריך לומר דהוא סברת עצמו כמו
שדרשינן לכל משימות שלא יהיו אלא מקרב אחיך
ביבמות דף מ"ה, דרשינן נמי כל הדינים שבפרשה
שנאמר על מלך גם לכל משימות שהוא גם לזה
שנאמר בספרי מלך ולא מלכה שה"ה לכל משימות
שלא ממנים אשה.
(Not a word for word translation) Rav Moshe says that it’s not clear to him what the source of the Rambam is for forbidding not only a malka but also a parnesset(any position of authority). Rambam may have analogized from a non-Jew to women, but that isn’t clear. [We now know that there is an alternate reading of the Sifrei, but that’s not our reading.] (From here)
So, this Rav Moshe seems to be saying that the Rambam's psak is based on his own logic. Some might want to read that as saying that Rav Moshe would not hold like the Rambam. This is especially true because of the next thing that Rav Moshe says:
ולכן לצורך
גדול בשביל חיות האלמנה ובניה היתומים יש לסמוך
על החולקים על הרמב"ם ולמנותה תחת בעלה
להשגחה.
(Not an exact translation) Then Rav Moshe goes on to note that the Rambam is not the only view, and demonstrates that there are a whole series of Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam and are lenient on parnesset. And then he says that bi-she’at ha-dehak – in a crisis situation, where we are dealing with a woman’s livelihood, certainly these other opinions could be relied on so that she could continue to be a mashgihat kashrut. In other words, he maintains that the Rambam is a pillar of Halakha, and we would generally prefer to be stringent and rule like the Rambam. However, since this is a dire situation, and there are major authorities- including, Ramban, Rashbah, Ran, and Rabbeinu Tam – who disagree with the Rambam, we can rely on these other sources to give us the flexibility to allow this woman to be a mashgihat kashrut. (From here)
So it seems like Rav Moshe is allowing for a woman to hold a position of authority against the Rambam. This would seem to indicate that Rav Moshe is open to the idea of women taking on leadership roles. (However, he clearly states this would only be allowed in a dire situation. I am still unsure why people would quote Rav Moshe's opinion here to say women should be in leadership positions where a religious man IS capable of doing the same thing.)
However, after this seemingly positive attitude of Rav Moshe for women in leadership roles, there is a turn against them having such roles. In the next part of the same responsa he says:
האסור כי הלא עיקר
האחריות שהקונים סומכים הוא על הרב ונחשבת
היא רק כעושה מלאכת הרב ברברים שיכולה לעשות
שנחשבת לגבי הרב רק כפועל בעלמא שאפשר לו
גם להעמיד אשה כיון שהיא נאמנת כלעיל
(Not an exact translation) But then Rav Moshe suggests what he believes is a better idea. We will ask some Rabbi to be the the rav ha-makhsir – that is, the one who will assume the ultimate authority for the Kashrut will be a male, while the almana will be the mashgiha and do the actual supervision work. The rav ha-makhshir is the person or the organization who assumes ultimate responsibility for the hekhsher, and the mashgiah is the employee who’s on the site doing the actual supervision. (For example, the OU is the boss – the supervising kashrut organization ultimately responsible; everyone else who works for them, including women, who supervise all the time for the OU, are the mashgihim.) Rav Moshe indicates that if we do it that way, then even the Rambam would agree, because she’s now working for the rav ha-makhshir, and not for the ba’al ha-bayit.(From here)
There is even a responsa of Rav Moshe's that goes further and straight out says that women are not even allowed to be shul presidents. He states in the very next siman (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 45)
הנה מש"כ כתר"ה שמצד תשובתי בזה שהקשתי
על הרמב"ם שפוסל נשים אף לכל משימות שלא
ידוע לי בעניי מקור לדבריו, וגם שמשמע לי שלא
כו"ע סברי כן יוצא מכשול..........
ולשמא ימנו
אשה להבתי כנסיות שבמדינתנו אמעריקא נמי לא
שייך שיוצא מזה מכשיל, דהבתי כנסי.ת והמוסדות
שמתנהגים ע"פ דרך התורה לא יעשו בלא הוראת
רב מובהק וממילא סגי לזה גם שיטת הרמכ"ם שלא
למנות אשה, ולאלו שסרו מדרך התורה הרי גם אם
הוא איסור ברור ומפורש שבתורה לא ישגיחו ע-ז
ואיז אנו אחראין עליהם. וממילא נמצא שליכא שום
מכשול ח"ו מברור ההלכה שכתבתי שלא כו"ע מודו
להרמב"ם
(Not a full translation)Regarding women as shul presidents, most shuls have rabbis. The rabbis are fully aware that the Rambam is against it, so that it’s not a default position. Therefore, they will not allow women to be president of the shul. (From here)
I would just like to add that anyone who can understand this last quote from Rav Moshe can see that he thought it was 100% against the Torah to have women as presidents of shuls. He goes so far to say that anyone who makes a woman president clearly does not care to follow halacha.
Based on this siman in Iggros Moshe I think it is impossible to claim that Rav Moshe would allow a female Rabbi. He doesn't even allow a female to be president of a shul! How could one assume that he would allow a woman to be a Rabbi?
This does not mean there are not other poskim that allow female rabbis. If one wishes to see the whole argument I would suggest reading the article that I link to for the translations of Rav Moshe's responsa. I was just disturbed that someone would say Rav Moshe argues on the Rambam and would hold female Rabbis are allowed. That is clearly not the truth.
The first source makes it seem like Rav Moshe might hold against the Rambam. Found here (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 44):
אבל יש לדון בזה מצד
אחר, דהנה הרמב"ם בפ"א ממלכים ה"ה כתב וכן
כל משימות שבישראל אין ממנים בהם אלא איש,
ואף שלא ידוע לי בעניי מקום לדבריו דבספרי
שציין הכ"מ והרדב"ז ומ-ע לא הוזכר אלא מלך ולא
מלכה אבל רין כל משימות שלא יהיו נשים לא
הוזכר שם, וצריך לומר דהוא סברת עצמו כמו
שדרשינן לכל משימות שלא יהיו אלא מקרב אחיך
ביבמות דף מ"ה, דרשינן נמי כל הדינים שבפרשה
שנאמר על מלך גם לכל משימות שהוא גם לזה
שנאמר בספרי מלך ולא מלכה שה"ה לכל משימות
שלא ממנים אשה.
(Not a word for word translation) Rav Moshe says that it’s not clear to him what the source of the Rambam is for forbidding not only a malka but also a parnesset(any position of authority). Rambam may have analogized from a non-Jew to women, but that isn’t clear. [We now know that there is an alternate reading of the Sifrei, but that’s not our reading.] (From here)
So, this Rav Moshe seems to be saying that the Rambam's psak is based on his own logic. Some might want to read that as saying that Rav Moshe would not hold like the Rambam. This is especially true because of the next thing that Rav Moshe says:
ולכן לצורך
גדול בשביל חיות האלמנה ובניה היתומים יש לסמוך
על החולקים על הרמב"ם ולמנותה תחת בעלה
להשגחה.
(Not an exact translation) Then Rav Moshe goes on to note that the Rambam is not the only view, and demonstrates that there are a whole series of Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam and are lenient on parnesset. And then he says that bi-she’at ha-dehak – in a crisis situation, where we are dealing with a woman’s livelihood, certainly these other opinions could be relied on so that she could continue to be a mashgihat kashrut. In other words, he maintains that the Rambam is a pillar of Halakha, and we would generally prefer to be stringent and rule like the Rambam. However, since this is a dire situation, and there are major authorities- including, Ramban, Rashbah, Ran, and Rabbeinu Tam – who disagree with the Rambam, we can rely on these other sources to give us the flexibility to allow this woman to be a mashgihat kashrut. (From here)
So it seems like Rav Moshe is allowing for a woman to hold a position of authority against the Rambam. This would seem to indicate that Rav Moshe is open to the idea of women taking on leadership roles. (However, he clearly states this would only be allowed in a dire situation. I am still unsure why people would quote Rav Moshe's opinion here to say women should be in leadership positions where a religious man IS capable of doing the same thing.)
However, after this seemingly positive attitude of Rav Moshe for women in leadership roles, there is a turn against them having such roles. In the next part of the same responsa he says:
האסור כי הלא עיקר
האחריות שהקונים סומכים הוא על הרב ונחשבת
היא רק כעושה מלאכת הרב ברברים שיכולה לעשות
שנחשבת לגבי הרב רק כפועל בעלמא שאפשר לו
גם להעמיד אשה כיון שהיא נאמנת כלעיל
(Not an exact translation) But then Rav Moshe suggests what he believes is a better idea. We will ask some Rabbi to be the the rav ha-makhsir – that is, the one who will assume the ultimate authority for the Kashrut will be a male, while the almana will be the mashgiha and do the actual supervision work. The rav ha-makhshir is the person or the organization who assumes ultimate responsibility for the hekhsher, and the mashgiah is the employee who’s on the site doing the actual supervision. (For example, the OU is the boss – the supervising kashrut organization ultimately responsible; everyone else who works for them, including women, who supervise all the time for the OU, are the mashgihim.) Rav Moshe indicates that if we do it that way, then even the Rambam would agree, because she’s now working for the rav ha-makhshir, and not for the ba’al ha-bayit.(From here)
There is even a responsa of Rav Moshe's that goes further and straight out says that women are not even allowed to be shul presidents. He states in the very next siman (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 45)
הנה מש"כ כתר"ה שמצד תשובתי בזה שהקשתי
על הרמב"ם שפוסל נשים אף לכל משימות שלא
ידוע לי בעניי מקור לדבריו, וגם שמשמע לי שלא
כו"ע סברי כן יוצא מכשול..........
ולשמא ימנו
אשה להבתי כנסיות שבמדינתנו אמעריקא נמי לא
שייך שיוצא מזה מכשיל, דהבתי כנסי.ת והמוסדות
שמתנהגים ע"פ דרך התורה לא יעשו בלא הוראת
רב מובהק וממילא סגי לזה גם שיטת הרמכ"ם שלא
למנות אשה, ולאלו שסרו מדרך התורה הרי גם אם
הוא איסור ברור ומפורש שבתורה לא ישגיחו ע-ז
ואיז אנו אחראין עליהם. וממילא נמצא שליכא שום
מכשול ח"ו מברור ההלכה שכתבתי שלא כו"ע מודו
להרמב"ם
(Not a full translation)Regarding women as shul presidents, most shuls have rabbis. The rabbis are fully aware that the Rambam is against it, so that it’s not a default position. Therefore, they will not allow women to be president of the shul. (From here)
I would just like to add that anyone who can understand this last quote from Rav Moshe can see that he thought it was 100% against the Torah to have women as presidents of shuls. He goes so far to say that anyone who makes a woman president clearly does not care to follow halacha.
Based on this siman in Iggros Moshe I think it is impossible to claim that Rav Moshe would allow a female Rabbi. He doesn't even allow a female to be president of a shul! How could one assume that he would allow a woman to be a Rabbi?
This does not mean there are not other poskim that allow female rabbis. If one wishes to see the whole argument I would suggest reading the article that I link to for the translations of Rav Moshe's responsa. I was just disturbed that someone would say Rav Moshe argues on the Rambam and would hold female Rabbis are allowed. That is clearly not the truth.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Rambam-Yesodei Hatorah Perek 5 halacha 7- Why The Big Three Sins Can't Be Transgressed Even to Save A Life
ומנין שאפילו במקום סכנת נפשות אין עוברין על אחת משלש עבירות אלו שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך אפילו הוא נוטל את נפשך והריגת נפש מישראל לרפאות נפש אחרת או להציל אדם מיד אנס. דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין מאבדין נפש מפני נפש. ועריות הוקשו לנפשות שנאמר כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה:
From where do we know that even in a life threatening situation [a Jew is not allowed] to transgress any of the three big sins? [The reason is because] it says (Devarim 6:5) "And you shall love Hashem, your G-D, with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your possessions" even if He takes your soul. [That is good for Idol worship, but how do we know that we are not allowed] to kill a Jew to save the soul of another Jew or to save a man from the hand of the one forcing him [to kill]? This is something that logic dictates, one can not destroy one soul to save another. Also, illicit relations is connected to murder [and, therefore, one can not commit illicit relations in order to save their life or the life of another] because it says (Devarim 22:26) "For as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter."
The Rambam only bases one of the three big sins, Idol Worship, on a verse. The prohibition for the other two big sins is based solely on logic: murder (because that is logical) and illicit relations because it is connected to of murder through a verse. This seems contradictory to the basis of the big three sins. If these are the only sins that are to be "special" and we are not allowed to transgress them for any reason, shouldn't they all be explicitly stated in a verse and not just implicitly extracted or completely based on logic?
Every other sin in the Torah can and must be transgressed when faced with a life or death situation. This is why Rav Moshe Feinstien would get upset with doctors who hesitated to violate shabbos in the hospital (found here). Pikuach Nefesh (A life in danger) trumps everything other than these three big sins. It stands to reason that, therefore, these three sins be explicitly prohibited or so logical that even the most simple person can understand why they must not be transgressed.
I think that it is extremely logical for the three big sins to be excluded from the rule of "A life in danger trumps everything" in the way that they are for the following reason. The first law the Rambam talks about is Idol worship. This requires a verse because it involves the direct connection between man and G-D. If a person decides to worship idols he or she is severing that direct connection. Since this is a direct connection between a person and G-D, the Torah must come and tell us that one must die rather than sever this connection, because it deals with a direct relationship between man and G-D. Murder is the opposite extreme, it deals solely with the relationship between man and man, therefore, it must be through man's logic that he or she realizes that one life is not greater than another. Finally, illicit relations is a combination between logic and a verse because it combines the relationship with man and the relationship with G-D. How? Relations is what leads to child birth and everyone knows the famous Midrashim that talk about the three way partnership that exists for when a baby is created: Man, woman and G-D. Therefore, the verse must be combined with the logic of man in order for this rule to stand.
From where do we know that even in a life threatening situation [a Jew is not allowed] to transgress any of the three big sins? [The reason is because] it says (Devarim 6:5) "And you shall love Hashem, your G-D, with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your possessions" even if He takes your soul. [That is good for Idol worship, but how do we know that we are not allowed] to kill a Jew to save the soul of another Jew or to save a man from the hand of the one forcing him [to kill]? This is something that logic dictates, one can not destroy one soul to save another. Also, illicit relations is connected to murder [and, therefore, one can not commit illicit relations in order to save their life or the life of another] because it says (Devarim 22:26) "For as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter."
The Rambam only bases one of the three big sins, Idol Worship, on a verse. The prohibition for the other two big sins is based solely on logic: murder (because that is logical) and illicit relations because it is connected to of murder through a verse. This seems contradictory to the basis of the big three sins. If these are the only sins that are to be "special" and we are not allowed to transgress them for any reason, shouldn't they all be explicitly stated in a verse and not just implicitly extracted or completely based on logic?
Every other sin in the Torah can and must be transgressed when faced with a life or death situation. This is why Rav Moshe Feinstien would get upset with doctors who hesitated to violate shabbos in the hospital (found here). Pikuach Nefesh (A life in danger) trumps everything other than these three big sins. It stands to reason that, therefore, these three sins be explicitly prohibited or so logical that even the most simple person can understand why they must not be transgressed.
I think that it is extremely logical for the three big sins to be excluded from the rule of "A life in danger trumps everything" in the way that they are for the following reason. The first law the Rambam talks about is Idol worship. This requires a verse because it involves the direct connection between man and G-D. If a person decides to worship idols he or she is severing that direct connection. Since this is a direct connection between a person and G-D, the Torah must come and tell us that one must die rather than sever this connection, because it deals with a direct relationship between man and G-D. Murder is the opposite extreme, it deals solely with the relationship between man and man, therefore, it must be through man's logic that he or she realizes that one life is not greater than another. Finally, illicit relations is a combination between logic and a verse because it combines the relationship with man and the relationship with G-D. How? Relations is what leads to child birth and everyone knows the famous Midrashim that talk about the three way partnership that exists for when a baby is created: Man, woman and G-D. Therefore, the verse must be combined with the logic of man in order for this rule to stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)