Why No One Should Act Holier Than Thou

I was learning a little bit of Sotah and I wanted to share the following Gemorah and my thoughts on it. Footnotes for explanations are found at the bottom as well as a link to the original site where the translation is from.

In the Gemorah on 22b it quotes the mishna and discusses the following idea (Soncino Translation):

AND THE PLAGUE OF PHARISEES etc. Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the 'pestle' Pharisee, the Pharisee [who constantly exclaims] 'What is my duty that I may perform it?', the Pharisee from love [of God] and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem.4 The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together.5 The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood to flow against walls.6 The 'pestle' Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: [His head] is bowed like [a pestle in] a mortar. The Pharisee [who constantly exclaims] 'What is my duty that I may perform it?' — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, 'What further duty is for me that I may perform it?'7 The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna [who was reciting this passage], Do not mention 'the Pharisee from love8 and the Pharisee from fear'; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake,9 because from [engaging in them] not for their own sake, he will come [to engage in them] for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed; the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls.10 King Jannai11 said to his wife', 'Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri12 but they expect a reward like Phineas'.13

The main point of this Gemorah is to show religious Jews how important it is to not act holier than thou. All of these different types of Pharisees represent character traits that were found among the Jews in the second temple period and how they represent false righteousness. It was because of these haughty attitudes that King Jannai told his wife to watch out for the Pharisees. At the end of his life, before his wife took over in his stead, King Jannai realized that there were some righteous Pharisees and not all were fakers. However, the hypocrites that existed among the Pharisees ruined all of their standings among the King. This was so unfortunate because it led to the King and the Pharisees constantly quarreling. The Pharisees represented the Jews that believed in the oral law and the reason they were shunned was because of these ridiculous impostors that were accepted among them.

The story that points out how some of the Pharisees acted foolishly because of their phony righteousness is found in Kedushin 66a. Yehuda Ben Gedidya, one of the Pharisees, had to insult the king. He claimed that the King was not allowed to be the Kohen Gadol. However, this was completely based on Motzei Shame Ra (false gossip). It was because he was trying to be overly righteous, like the Gemorah states here in Sotah that some of the Pharisees act overly righteous, he ruined the relationship between the king and the Pharisees. Not only did he ruin that relationship, but King Jannai ended up killing many Rabbis because of his newfound distrust of the Pharisees due to the statements made by Yehuda Ben Gedidya.

I think there is a very valuable lesson for us to learn nowadays from this story. There are many religious Jews that live their lives according to halacha and are not hypocrites. However, for all of their good deeds they allow the hypocrites and the wicked people to prosper among them without any type of confrontation. This was the same attitude of the Pharisees back in the day and it led to much tension with the king. Had they stood up to the hypocrites then who knows what would have happened in the second temple era. Unfortunately, they allowed these foolish people to prosper and continue on with their detrimental actions.

I hope we can all take a lesson from these Gemorahs and learn from them. No longer can we stand by and allow hypocrisy within our nation. People are always looking for the way to be more frum than the next guy. This is a complete sham and it is a disgrace to our religion. We need to realize that truth is more important than these false ideals.

The main thing I speak of now is the acceptance of other people's halachas. What do I mean by this? Well, if you have not noticed, for some reason a lot of people think that Rav Elyashiv has the last word on halachic matters, or other people that they consider "Gedolim." This is the most outlandish thing I have ever heard. Without a Sanhedrin, there is no unified halacha, there is no vote on the halacha and there is no consensus that is reached on halacha. As the Mishna in avos points out, Asseh Licha Rav, make for yourself a Rabbi. This is very telling of how we are supposed to live. Find a Rabbi that is learned in halacha and follow his psak. That is how every orthodox Jew should live their life. Whether it be ultra orthodox or modern orthodox, that is what being orthodox means, following your Rabbi's halachic psak. However, some people think that means that everyone has to follow the person that they consider to be a "Gadol." The most ridiculous thing I have seen is that people think it is absolutely crucial to not just follow one "Gadol" but every single "Gadol." What is really absurd about this is that the "Gedolim" often contradict one another. The type of person that tries to follow everyones halacha instead of making a Rabbi for himself is missing the boat and is someone who would be considered overly righteous. That is a HUGE problem.

This is what I think was the problem with Yehuda Ben Gedidya, he was overly righteous. This brings me to the Meiri. The Meiri says on Sotah 21, "Everyone who is overly righteous is someone who is removed from the world. Someone who is overly righteous is a person that his righteousness causes damage to himself or to others. For example, he fasts all the time, or if he sees a woman drowning will not save her because he does not want to look at her inappropriately or touch her(or come close to an Ervah)."

This Meiri points out exactly what Yehuda Ben Gedidya did. He did not want someone who he thought might have possibly been unkosher for the Kehuna to be the Kohein Gadol, even thought halachicly the King was fine to be the Kohein Gadol. Yehuda forgot one important fact, he based his opinion on false gossip. First off, not only was what he did against he Torah, but also listening to the false gossip was against the Torah. Secondly, even if it were true, it was a rumor without witnesses. A rumor without witnesses caused him to risk the Kings anger? It caused him to put all of his Pharisee brethren in harms way? He ended up causing hundreds upon thousands of Pharisees to die because of his holier than thou attitude!

The message is clear, do not act holier than thou and look down on others. This is a dangerous attitude and is clearly against the Torah. G-D wants us to help each other and unite in order to bring Moshiach. If we just point and say you are not holy enough because you only follow Rav so and so, but I follow 25 different Rabbis. That will bring our destruction, not our savior.

This is not to say that a Rabbi that does not follow halacha is appropriate. However, even if a Rabbi relies on a mesorah that is not in the majority, that does not mean he is unorthodox. If someone wants to follow the Nodah Beyehuda, even though all other achronim disagree, that is a Rabbi's choice. Again, without a Sanhedrin to vote and decide no one can say that another Rabbis decisions that are based on the Gemorah, rishonim and achronim is unworthy.

This brings me to the whole banning of Rav Nosson Slifkin's books. Why were they banned? One of the reasons was because someone thought the world was not older than 5770(see note 14 below) and that evolution was against the Torah. That is my point exactly, many Rabbis say that evolution is not against the Torah, as long as you believe that G-D is the one who guided evolution then there is no contradiction. Also, many Rabbis, since before the Gemorah was written believed that the world was older than 5770. True, there are some that believe the world is only 5770, but it is in no way against the Torah to believe it is older. Also, the scientific approach has been embraced by Rabbis of the past, to declare that it is against the Torah is to deny the truth.

In the end of the day one of the reasons for the ban on Rav Slifkin's books is the attitude of holier than thou. This is the exact problem that the Gemorah is dealing with. Unfortunately, we as a nation have not yet learned that the holier than thou bit destroys us as a people instead of bringing us together. Not only that, but it makes outsiders look at us as a ridiculous people, which delegitimizes us. This is why the Mishna says that these types of Pharisees bring destruction to the world, because they destroy the Jewish people and their reputation.

1. Tosaphoth explains this to mean after forty years of study. It may, however, be connected with the statement in Ab. V, 24, At forty for understanding.
2. He died at the age of forty; v. R. H. 18a.
3. Since they were not his superiors in learning, he decided questions although less than the requisite age. [Tosaf. s.v. [H] explains that Rabbah surpassed all other scholars in his town, and the restriction applies only where there are others equal in learning to the young scholar. For further notes on the passage, v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 101.]
4. Who was circumcised from an unworthy motive (Gen. XXXIV). The J. Talmud (Ber. 14b) explains: who carries his religious duties upon his shoulder (shekem), i.e., ostentatiously.
5. He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the J. Talmud: He says: Spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.
6. In his anxiety to avoid looking upon a woman he dashes his face against the wall. The J. Talmud explains: calculating Pharisee, i.e., he performs a good deed and then a bad deed, setting one off against the other.
7. As though he had fulfilled every obligation.
8. [Abaye and Raba understood 'love' and 'fear' to denote love of the rewards promised for the fulfilment of precepts and fear of punishment for transgressing them. In J. Ber., however, they are both taken in reference to God — i.e., love of God and fear of Him.]
9. From pure and disinterested motives.
10. In simulated humility. Others render: who wrap themselves in their cloaks. The meaning is that hypocrisy is of no avail against the Judge Who reads the heart.
11. Alexander Jannaeus. For his advice, given on his death-bed to his wife Salome, v. Josephus, Ant. XIII, XV, 5.
12. Num. XXV, 14.
13. Ibid. 11ff. [He probably had in mind the treacherous act by a group of Zealots — not Pharisees — in resisting foreign assistance — Demetrius Eucerus, King of Syria — in their struggle with Alexander Jannaeus. Josephus, op. cit. XIII, 13, 5. V. Klausner, [H] 11, 128.
14. The Brooklyn-based Rabbi Yitzchok Sheiner wrote a letter in Hebrew confirming that Slifkin’s books were “hair-raising to read…. He believes that the world is millions of years old—all nonsense!—and many other things that should not be heard and certainly not believed.”
     

Translation and footnotes of the Gemorah found on this site: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_22.html

Do We Really Think Judaism Has Always Been Like This?

Over at Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Slifkin mentioned something that I have been thinking about for a while. He talks about how his six year old came home with a picture of Adam in a kapata (long jacket) with a beard and payos (long sideburns and side hair). Basically, he was dressed like a man from 18th century Poland. This brings up many memories of people drawing Moshe, Aharon, Dovid, etc in 18th century Polish garb. The question here is why would anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history think this to be true?

In truth, I can understand why teachers would have their six year old students draw these people this way. They are drawing the picture of a man from the Torah, obviously they relate Torah with Judaism and Judaism with black hat and payos. That makes sense for six year old children. The problem I have is when these kids grow up, do they view Moshe, Dovid, Adam, and Avraham in the same way or do they realize that this was not how people dressed 3000+ years ago. I am not saying that it bothers me that these children might view our forefathers in these clothes, but it does bother me if they think this is how they observed Judaism and conducted their overall way of life. What I mean by this is that I think a simple understanding of the evolution of Judaism is necessary for all Jews to understand on some level. Judaism did not exist the way it is now in the times of King David. Anyone who thinks that is completely obtuse.

Why do I think it is important to understand the evolution of Judaism? If one does not understand the original form of Judaism, then they can not understand why and how Judaism exists today, except for the basic answer of G-D. However, I think that answering this question by saying G-D is like someone asking how an airplane can fly and then someone answers G-D. Well, obviously G-D is the ultimate reason, for someone who believes in Judaism, but you can also explain the dynamics and the physics of how an airplane flies. So too by Judaism, one can say that Judaism exists the way it does today because it was G-D's plan, or they can actually understand the evolution.

Why does not knowing the evolution of Judaism matter? I am so glad you asked! Someone who does not understand the evolution can not dictate or even presume to set rules for the Jewish religion. In my opinion, a Rabbi that poskins on societal issues, like what is appropriate dress, can only do so if they understand what the Torah expects from every person and how those expectations have been modified throughout the generations. If the Rabbi does not understand the history of the halacha then he can do one of two things, make up his own halacha based on nothing of substance, or a previous Rabbi that said something, but only verbatim. IN all honesty, this is a completely worthless Rabbi. I can make up halacha just as well as him and I can read previous Rabbis just as well, so why do I need you to tell me what the GRA said or to make up my own halacha?

What Rabbi is valuable? A Rabbi that understands how Judaism has evolved from the times of Har Sinai until recent days. He tells us that the reason why Jews in Poland wore kapatas and shtrimels were because those were what nobles wore and it was cold there. A Jew is a representative of the entire nation so they must always look appropriate, therefore people in Poland wore kapatas and shtriemels. This is a Rabbi that already understands the reason behind the minhag (custom) of wearing specific clothing. In Rome, the Jewish people most probably dressed in the Toga, especially when they had an audience with the senate or Caesar.

I thought good Rabbis were just people who knew a lot of Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim, why do they need to know about history? Well, if I haven't made it clear through my allusions to this answer I will try to be more blunt. It is very nice for a Rabbi to know Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim by heart, however, what makes a Rabbi valuable is his ability to understand a halachic question based on the circumstances and then navigate through halacha, custom and things that are completely worthless. Without knowing the history of halacha, the Rabbi would have no idea of the basis for the halacha and any ruling given would have to be verbatim from a previous Rabbi who did understand the history. The problem is, halacha would no longer be adaptable to the ever changing world. The point is this, how did the Rabbis of yesteryear deal with electricity? There were no previous rules. Some Rabbis who actually understood the laws of shabbos at their core made halachic rulings, others just made wild assumptions. With the advances in medicine, some Rabbis understand medicine and the halachas involved, others just forbid everything because they know nothing of either.

The point I am trying to make is that we must realize our rich and fruitful history. In certain time periods certain laws or customs were enacted for specific reasons. Chazal even tell us that if a custom was instituted for specific reasons and those reasons no longer apply, then we have no reason to follow that custom (See Aruch Hashulchan 303:21 and 22 and Shulchan Orech 303:19 with the Rema for an example of this idea). I am not saying that specific things should be thrown out or not, all I am saying is that a competent Rav should be able to realize what things are important and which things are not. To assume that Judaism has always been like this is to deny truth. We should admit that things have constantly been changing, that does not make Judaism less valid. Everything changed within parameters that were set forth by the Torah. If Judaism was not an adaptable religion then it would be worthless!

The most disheartening of all things involved here is when certain Rabbis who are called Gedolim treat the religion like they are the Pope. What I mean by this is that back in the days of when we first discovered heliocentricity (Sun is the center) the church put anyone in jail that would say this. Nowadays also, people think if you say that world is older than 5770, you are a kofer. I would love for someone to show me where the Torah says that. It would be enlightening. I know a lot of Rishonim that say against that, but they must be daas yachidim (single opinions). Then I guess they must have been kofers also. I am unsure why this is something that can not be told to the masses, it is not a basic tenant of faith in any way, shape or form. Judaism is not the religion that says the world is only 6000 years old, it is the religion that is adaptable to advances in science and other areas. The reason it is adaptable is because everything in the Torah is meant to be relevant forever. This is why, throughout every age, Judaism has been applicable. This is why it is so disheartening to see some people get stuck in the 18th century, this is not what Judaism is meant to be.

Ralbag On How to Observe Judaism

I am going to take two quotes from the Ralbag and just point out how amazingly beautiful his words are. He says (In his introduction to the WARS of the Lord),

"It is evident, as Maimonides (may his name be blessed) has said, that we must believe what reason has determined to be true. If the literal sense of the Torah differs from reason, it is necessary to interpret those passages in accordance with with the demands of reason (Guide 2:25)...... It is, therefore, evident that if reason causes us to affirm doctrines that are incompatible with the literal sense of Scripture, we are not prohibited by the Torah to pronounce the truth of these matters, for reason is not incompatible with the true understanding of the Torah. The Torah is not a law that forces us to believe false ideas; rather it leads us to the truth to the extent that is possible, as we have explained in the beginning of out commentary on the Torah (Ralbag commentary on the Torah 2a)."

Here the Ralbag, quoting the Rambam, tells us that the Torah must abide by reason. It therefore is incumbent upon us to understand the Torah in light of reason. If something is nonsensical through its literal meaning then that must not be the true meaning of the text and it must then be interpreted in a way that conforms to reason.

However, at the end of the Ralbag's first book in the Wars of the Lord he qualifies his statements. He says,

"Adherence to reason is not permitted if it contradicts religious faith; indeed, if there is such a contradiction, it is necessary to attribute this lack of agreement to our own inadequacy.... We, too, behave accordingly if we see that religion requires a different view from the one our reason has affirmed."

So there are two situations that the Ralbag is telling us: 1) Reason should be used to understand the Torah in the correct way, even if that means the literal understanding of the verse is not the correct understanding and 2) When our reason contradicts the Torah and no alternative explanation is sufficient then we must disregard our reason and accept the Torah.

I think the proper understanding of the Ralbag is as followed. There are certain aspects of life that are unexplainable through reason, those being G-D's existence and his ability to create miracles that are clearly non-natural occurrences. However, unless a prophet tells us that something is not natural, or G-D Himself tells us something is non-natural, then we should believe our reason. The Ralbag, Rambam and several others have the opinion that G-D does everything as close to natural as possible. This is why they would explain all types of occurrences through nature, except the miracles that are clearly outside of nature. However, even the events that are seemingly outside of the natural possibilities are still kept as close to nature as possible.

So the Ralbag, Rambam and countless others are under the impression that one should view the world through reason. Reasonable ideas should be at the forefront of a persons view of this world. One should not think that some great Rabbi walked on water or flew around the world, this is illogical and hence unnecessary to believe. Black magic is also something that seems to defy logic and belief in it is not a core of Judaism, therefore, it should not be believed in.

How Traditional Judaism Works

It has come to my attention that some people do not actually understand the definition of traditional Judaism. I was having a conversation with someone about what defines traditional Judaism. He was telling me about consensus, a historical consensus. However, when pressed to describe this historical consensus he would not or could not define it or describe anything about it. That means his definition of traditional Judaism being a historical consensus is a meaningless definition since it does not describe anything, at least not for him. This created a desire for me to define what traditional Judaism entails.

On a side note, this is why I think the whole Rabbi Slifkin ban was instituted and why people are so afraid to accept the possibility that Rashi was a corporealist, because there is a lack of understanding of what traditional Judaism entails. Obviously, Judaism in the time of Dovid Hamelech was practiced differently than it is now, but that is ok because times have changed along with halachic decisions. Anyone who says that traditional Judaism has always been the same clearly knows nothing about the subject.

However, there is a big difference in the halachic changes that have been made throughout the generations in traditional Judaism and the breakoffs from traditional Judaism. There are always some basic principles that are kept within traditional Judaism that separates it from other branches of Judaism. The main difference for earlier sectarian sects was the text of the written Torah. The Samaritans and others did not even accept the text of the written Torah. They changed it to follow their beliefs, in our (Judaism's) opinion.

The next breakoffs, the Tzadukim and Karaites, did not believe in an oral tradition. This is where the Pharisees differed from them. Traditional Judaism follows in the steps of the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that along with the written Torah there was an Oral tradition that explained the words of the Torah. This is where the Mishna, Gemorah and Midrash come from.

This is what traditional Judaism has today, an oral tradition (The Gemara). However, what is this oral tradition manifested as today? Well, we do not seem to paskin directly from the Gemara anymore. This is because there have been many great generations between us and the Gemara as well as many cultural and technological advances. Rabbis still use the Gemara in some ways, but almost every Posek uses Rishonim to back up their decisions. The way to derive halacha in this day and age seems to be by learning the Rishonim, the Rabbis of the middle ages, that comment on the Gemara as well as Achronim, Rabbis that comment on the Gemara and the Rishonim. This is what Rav Moshe Feinstein does in his Iggroes Moshe and this is what most great Rabbis have done for the past several years. Still, this is not the only defining factor, sometimes the idea of tradition (minhagim) comes into play. This is why Ashkenzic Jews do not eat kitniyos (things that look like wheat) on Pesach, even though there is no real halachic basis for this from the Gemara or most Rishonim. There is even a dispute when this Takana (Rabbbinical mandate) was instituted. However, no one is allowed to disagree with the Gemara, not even the Rishonim.

This leads us to the fact that traditional Judaism is a combination of the thoughts of the Rishonim and the traditions (Minhagim) that we have received from our forefathers. This is why Sefardim have their Minhagim that are very different than Ashkenazim. Also, this is why German Jews wait 3 hours between eating meat and milk, people from the Netherlands wait 1 hour and most other Jews wait 5-6 hours. These differences do not alienate these Jews from one another, but allow them all to fit nicely into traditional Judaism.

So, it seems to be that traditional Judaism is a combination of traditions passed on from father to son and Rabbi to student combined with strict halacha that is learned from the Gemara and Rishonim. Yes, the Gemara contained strict halacha, but it also combined that halacha with traditional teachings of its time. So really, the Gemara itself was similar to the Rishonim and current Rabbis in the sense that it created a tradition for its time. This is also why, in the time of Dovid Hamelech, they did not keep halacha in the same way we do now, there were different traditions (minhagim) that existed and a different interpretation of certain laws. There was no such thing as waiting between milk and meat, this tradition was not yet established. However, every generation has to take into account the traditions of the previous generation and maybe add or detract in some ways based on the needs of the community.However, why must we use the previous generations rulings to guide us? Why can't we just look at the Gemara and make our own decisions?

It is possible that a Midrash Tanchuma (Chapter 44:2) can answer this question. The Midrash tells us that when G-D was offering the Torah to the Jewish people He asked them who would be their guarantor that they would keep the Torah. They said Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. G-D said that was not good, because they needed a guarantor themselves. This caused the Jewish people to respond that their children would be their guarantors. Immediately, G-D accepted this idea. From then on, the children of the Jewish people were forever indebted to keep the Torah of their forefathers or suffer the consequences.

This Midrash points out a very important idea, fathers can make commitments that are binding on their sons. This is why traditional Judaism is not just about strict halacha that is learned out from the Torah or even just the Gemara. Every generation can make binding agreements on the subsequent generations. All of the traditions (minhagim) are based on this idea. However, this is why every community has its own traditions and everyone follows their own Rabbi, because these traditions are no longer uniformed throughout the Jewish people, as they were in the times of the Sanhedrin. True, there are some traditions that were accepted by every community, but there are many differences that occurred, because of the diverse situations of every different Jew. The Sefardim created their own traditions while in Spain and that is why many of their halachas are different than the halchas made in Germany and Poland by the  Ashkenazim. Also, the Taymanim (Yemenites) completely follow Rambam, because that is who their tradition is from. It is untenable to claim that there is a uniformed tradition with one set of rules.

With this in mind I think we can explain a couple of things. One is the idea of corporealism and the second is why people who reject the diversity of Judaism and the traditions in Judaism are fools. Firstly, in the time of Rashi there were clearly several Rishonim that held of corporealism. What this actually entails, I will not go into, but the Raavad CLEARLY says (Mishna Torah Hilchos Teshuva 3:7),

 והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:
(The Rambam states) that whoever says that there is One G-D, but he has a [physical] body and an image [is considered a heretic.] The Raavad says, why is this person called a heretic? There are many great and good people among us that go in this way of thinking because of what they saw in scripture and even more so from what they saw in the words of Aggadita (stories of the Rabbis) that confused the mind.

The Raavad seems to not believe in corporealism, but it is obvious that many of his knowledgeable contemporaries did and he considered them part of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. This leads us to believe that at this point in time, aka the Raavad's time, corporealism was an idea that was accepted in traditional Judaism. True, there were disagreements on this issue, but that is the same disagreement as Rav Moshe Feinstein saying a Jew can drink chalov stam (regular milk) and another great Rabbi disagreeing with him, according to the Raavad. According to the Rambam, however, these people were 'beyond the pale" of Orthodox Judaism. Nevertheless, just because there is a disagreement does not mean that one is representing the traditional view of Judaism and the other is not. The fact is that this was an idea that was not yet set in stone in traditional Judaism and either view was ACCEPTABLE. This leads me to believe that since Rashi is unclear on the subject, it is very possible that he believed in corporealism. It is also very possible that he did not. Either way, he would still be within the traditional Judaism of his time period.

The second point of the people who reject the fact that there were several opinions and that there are still several opinions within Judaism needs to be explained. There are people that believe there is only one way to follow traditional Judaism. This is a huge mistake because it denies the fact that there is no communal body that decides on what the tradition should be. The truth is that there are many ways to follow traditional Judaism. There are many different theological, philosophical and general ideas that are within the parameters of traditional Judaism. This does not mean that all or even most paths are correct, but there is definitely more than one. For one person to think their Rabbi is the only way, that is narrow minded and foolish. My last example using the great Rav Moshe Feinstein will be this. How could one person say that following Rav Moshe Feinstein is the only way to be part of traditional Judaism while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's halachic capabilities are just as great? Or how could one invalidate Rav Ovadia Yosef?

Hopefully, one day, all Jews will be able to accept each other and not feel threatened by another group's way of life. We are all traditional Jews that want to serve G-D, now we have to work on our man-man friendship skills, as childish as that sounds. Once that works out and we can stop the ridiculousness and Chilul Hashems (desecrations of G-D's name) hopefully the Moshiach will come.

As a final point, I would like to add that there are several things that push a group outside of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. A group that ignores all previous halachas, Minhagim (Customs) and logical arguments can not be said to be part of Traditional Judaism, rather they would be reformers in line with a non-Orthodox or "Reform" type of Judaism. This is exactly what Reform Judaism is, something that decided previous transmission of the Oral Law is worthless and antiquated. 

(Extra source for people who held of G-D's corporealism:
R' Moshe ben Hasdai Taku -- Ktav Tamim ed. Joseph Dan, pp. 7-27

R' Shlomo Simcha miTroyes -- Sefer Hamaskil

R' Joseph Ashkenazi -- "text published in Scholem, 'New Information'" (no I haven't read it)

Shadal -- Peninei Shadal, 316  )

Different Branches of Orthodox Judaism

In orthodox Judaism there are several different branches. There are the Litvaks, Chassidim, the moderns, the centrists, the left wingers, and countless others. The strangest part about all of this seems to be the extremes. Why is it that the extremes believe that the rest of the orthodox Jews are not valid? If you don't follow every single chumra, even the one made up by my rabbi last week, then you are a kofer. What? How does that make sense? Also, on the other side, Judaism was meant to make people respect one another so if you follow the stricter rulings than you are being ignorant. What?

How can it be that one sect of Judaism has so many conflicting ideas? How can it be that one sect that defines itself by a strict adherence to halacha can deviate so widely? Some people might want to say that left wing orthodoxy does not follow halacha. This is incorrect, as much as some would love you to think it. Sure, there are people in the group that do not follow halacha, but that doesn't mean the group as a whole should not be considered orthodox. I would counter and say that there are many Ultra orthodox people that do not follow halacha, however, they don't follow different halachas than those people found in left wing orthodoxy. In the end of the day, no group can be defined by its individual members, rather the group must be defined by its ideologies.

Left wing orthodoxy tries to adapt the Torah to be completely congruent with modern morals and acceptable behavior. Ultra orthodoxy does the exact opposite. They require a strict adherence to how life was 200 years ago. Notice how I say 200 years ago and not 2000. Then there are the centrist orthodox that believe there should be a balance of somewhere in between. Centrists believe that, although Judaism is meant to adapt with the times, there is not supposed to be a complete congruence with modern culture.

In general, what I have observed, there seems to be the following differences between left wing orthodoxy, right wing orthodoxy and centrist orthodoxy.

1) Left wing orthodoxy seems to say, there is such a thing as halacha, but we can push the boundaries as far as they can go. This has most recently been shown through the whole Maharat issue. Left wing orthodoxy seems to be saying that women can be Rabbis and you can not show me any place in the Shulchan Orech that says otherwise. The idea of minhagim seems to be unimportant to an extent and forget about classical ideals. It seems like they believe that modern morals, acceptance of everyone and equality should be the dominating ideas in Judaism. However, what seems to de-legitimize this approach in the eyes of those outside this branch of orthodox Judaism is that some of its followers are not strict adherers to halacha. For example, there are some that do not follow all of the rules of kashrus, taharas hamishpacha or shabbos. Some will value other things before halacha and the Torah. The biggest characteristic that I have seen in this branch is that very few people ask the Rav halachic questions. Apparently they all know the Shulchan Orech by heart.

2)Ultra Orthodoxy seems to be the exact opposite in certain ways, but very similar in others. Ultra Orthodoxy refuses to accept any modern morals. They do not think all things should be equal. They think that there should be a strict adherence to halacha, but that if their Rabbi says something and you don't follow him then you are digressing from the real mesorah. I have met many Ultra orthodox Jews that consider me to be eating non-kosher when I use chalav stam. There are many other examples, but why go into it? Unfortunately, Some of them do not follow halacha either. They all keep shabbos, taharas hamishpacha and kashrus, but when it comes to treating other people civil, there are some that do not follow halacha. For example, the protests that have been going on in Israel are just ridiculous. I am not even going to get into the Neturei Karta brand of "Judaism" Yemach Shemam. The most telling part of the Ultra Orthodox community is the clothes they feel obligated to wear and that they ask their Rav about everything, even when to get a job or move houses.

3)The Centrist Orthodox, where is their place in all of this? They hold onto traditional values, but also incorporate modern values into their lives. I mean, they believe in equality, but also hold onto tradition. This allows them to keep halacha without compromising. They learn Torah, study secular studies and get jobs. They have Rebbeim that are competent and are compassionate. They do not desire to change Judaism, but can adapt it in order for it to interact with the modern world. When people have questions, that is ok and a logical answer is searched for. They ask halachic questions, but they believe that everyone should be able to make some decisions by themselves.

I think these descriptions accurately describe the differences between the varying branches of orthodox Judaism. If you disagree or agree let me know why or why not. Any additions are welcome.

Medieval Commentators on Equality In Judaism

I was looking for the Meiri's position that further discusses Judaism and Morality. So to follow up on my previous post, found here, I wanted to translate a Meiri in Bava Kama that discusses this equality. He says (Bava Kama: 37B),

"An ox that belongs to a Jew that gores an ox of a non-Jew is exempt from paying from the law of neighbor and if a non-Jew's ox gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is a delinquent ox or not, pays full damages. This law only refers to a non-Jew that is not careful for the property of others (damaging them without care), therefore, we fine him that he, the non-Jew, should not become used to this type of action of damaging other people's property without care. This which is stated in the Gemorah only applies to nations that do not have laws and are barbaric people. For these types of people the Gemorah says that the non-Jews accepted upon themselves the seven Noahide commandments and if they are not followed then their property becomes unprotected by the law. However, all non-Jews that keep the seven Noahide commandments are considered like full fledged Jews."

First just to state the seven Noahide laws are:

1)Prohibition of Idolatry
2)Prohibition of Murder
3)Prohibition of Theft
4)Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity
5)Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6)Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7)Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

With these ideas in mind it is clear to see what the Meiri is saying. If a state does not have just laws, like protecting people's property then their property, in turn, is not protected. These seven Noahide laws are very moral laws, I don't know why anyone would say they are not a just basis for a law. Thus, if a person is unjust and cheats and steals, the Gemorah tells us that you do not have to respect his protection under the law. Obviously, you can not make these decisions yourself, but there must be a court that decides this, a beis din.

With this idea from the Meiri in mind, it is clear to see that even a Jew that acts unjustly would fall under this category of the "non-Jew" that does not have protection under the law. Therefore, I see equality in the laws of the Torah. The non-Jew is protected just as much as the Jew. If a state is unjust then their rules do not apply, because they are unjust. However, in a country like America since the laws are just a Jew must follow them. Anyone who says otherwise clearly misses the point of the laws of the torah.

UPDATE*****

The Rambam on the same Gemarah as the Meiri (Bava Kama 37B) states a very similar Halacha as that of the Meiri. He says,

"An ox of a Jew that gores the ox of a non-Jew, whether it is a delinquent animal or not, is exempt. This is because the non-Jewish courts do not require a man to pay for the damage his ox does, therefore we judge this case like they would judge it. An ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is delinquent or not, pays full damages. This is a punishment that is enforced on non-Jews since they are not careful in the laws and do not try to prevent damage. For if they were not punished in this manner they would not watch their animals and they would let them damage everyone and everything."

This Rambam clearly tells us the qualifications of what is going on in this case. At first glance, one would think that a non-Jew is discriminated against. However, this is not the case. The only reason the non-Jew is treated like this is because he is not careful to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property. However, if he would treat his ox like a Jew treats his ox, namely trying to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property, then this non-Jew would be treated like a Jew.

Rambam- All Things Under the Heavens- Yisodei Hatorah perek 4 halacha 1

In this section of the Rambam, he discusses the makeup of all things on Earth. He says,


ארבעה גופים הללו שהם אש ורוח ומים וארץ הם יסודות כל הנבראים למטה מן הרקיע. וכל שיהיה מאדם ומבהמה ועוף ורמש ודג וצמח ומתכת ואבנים טובות ומרגליות ושאר אבני בנין והרים וגושי עפר הכל גולמן מחובר מארבעה יסודות הללו. נמצאו כל הגופים שלמטה מן הרקיע חוץ מארבעה יסודות האלו מחוברים מגולם וצורה. וגולם שלהם מחובר מארבעה יסודות האלו. אבל כל אחד מארבעה היסודות אינו מחובר אלא מגולם וצורה בלבד:


"These four elements- fire, wind, water and earth - are the foundations of all the creations under the heavens. All things like Man, animals, birds, bugs, fish, plants, metals, precious stones, pearls, building materials, mountains, clods of earth, everything physical, is bound from these four elements. It is found that all bodies under the heavens, except for these four elements, consist of a combined form and shape and their shape consists of the four elements, but each of the four elements consists of just a combined shape and form."

In The Guide for the Perplexed (Section 1 Chapter 58) the Rambam uses the idea of the four elements to describe an understanding of G-D. He says,

"I would observe that, -- as has already been shown -God's existence is absolute, that it includes no composition, as will be proved, and that we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute: for He does not possess existence in addition to His essence: it therefore cannot
be said that the one may be described as an attribute [of the other]; much less has He [in addition to His existence] a compound essence, consisting of two constituent elements to which the attribute could refer: still less has He accidents, which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes, however, are those which are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe concerning God; for, on the one hand, they do not imply any plurality, and, on the other, they convey to man the highest possible knowledge of God; e.g., it has been established by proof that some being must exist besides those things which can be perceived by the senses, or apprehended by the mind; when we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible. We then perceive that such a being is not, for instance, like the four elements, which are inanimate, and we therefore say that it is living, expressing thereby that it is not dead."

The four elements can be contrasted to G-D in the sense that G-D can be understood when compared to the four elements. These four elements make up all physical beings and the only way that we, according to the Rambam, can understand G-D is through what He is not. With this in mind, an understanding of all physical material is essential if we are to truly understand G-D.

Equality Before the Law

In the book The Biblical View of Man it discusses justice. In this section it mentions an idea that one would think should be obvious. However, in this day and age it seems like this simple idea does not get proper attention. It says,

"Equality before the law is also proclaimed in order to protect the rich from the results of the poor winning unjustified sympathy. Thus, parallel to 'you shall not subvert the rights of the needy in their disputes' (Exodus 23:6) there is also the commandment 'nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute' (Leviticus 19:15)."

This seems to be something that escapes people nowadays. People are always ready to demonize the person with the upper hand. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor man's rights should be protected, like mentioned in Exodus. However, it seems like for some reason that people are considered undeserving unless they are the underdog. This article can illustrate my point:

"Conversation at a South Side fire station heated up when the topic turned to affirmative action. 'White firemen are mad because blacks get extra points added to their tests,' declared a white lieutenant perched on the bumper of a fire truck. If it were not for department policies that favor minorities, he said, he would have had his silver lieutenant's bars sooner.

The white officer did not get any sympathy from his black coworkers. 'These white folks are mad because they won't have as many jobs,' said the station's captain, who is black. 'What about all those years they were leaving us out, when the promotions were 100 percent white? Whites thought everything was fine and never said a word.'

True, there were horrible conditions back in the day where blacks were discriminated against, but did these white officers discriminate against those blacks? No, it was the whites of several years ago. However, this station captain thinks it is fine to "payback" the whites. That seems like revenge and not equality. Is that the American way? Is that justice?

Another situation happened recently at another fire station. The article can be found here: "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a Connecticut city's decision to scrap a promotion exam for firefighters because too few minorities passed violates the civil rights of top-scoring white applicants.

As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven, Conn., scuttled the test after it learned that no African Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be promoted based on the results."

These issues reveal a very telling problem in our society, discriminating against the majority in order to give an advantage to the minority. How is that fair? Shouldn't everyone be equal? Just because there has been discrimination against minorities in the past, does that mean that the majority should be discriminated against in the future? Is that how to fix the problem? Or maybe the real answer is to make everyone equal, that way there is no discrimination. This is what the Torah is telling us. That real justice discriminates against no one and treats all equally.