Monday, 16 May 2022

The Nachmanides Supremacy

 

 

Maimonides - Moses ben Maimon (1138–1204), commonly known by his acronym the RambaM , is one of the greatest mediaeval Rabbis and halachic authorities. Also a great scientist, doctor, astronomer and a notable philosopher.  His younger near contemporary,  Nachmanides – Moses ben Nachman (1194–1270) was referred to as RambaN and perhaps almost as celebrated as his illustrious predecessor. Nachmanides was more mystically oriented, in some respects, and an early Kabbalist, but still took a rational approach to Torah.  My personal view is that he was more rational in his plain reading of the Torah, at least in his commentary on the plain meaning of verses.

 

Rambam wrote a  vast Halachic opus which he calls the “Mishneh Torah” , and  based on the following verse from Devarim 17:

 

11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.

 

יאעַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹֽאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל:

 

 

 

he claims (Hil. Mamrim Ch. 1; 1-2) that this Torah verse commands us to adhere to all laws and decisions enacted by the Phariseeic Sanhedrin, namely all aspects of the Oral law . This is despite the fact that the verse is referring only to a dispute where the disputants are unable to reach agreement locally, and they take their dispute to the High court – i.e. only the specific judgement for the case.

 

And here is where Nachmanides takes issue with Maimonides.  He points out, that even according to the Talmud,  rabbinic law is inferior to Torah law, in certain situations, eg in case of a doubt , one takes a leniency for rabbinic law, but is strict to observe the Torah law.  According to Maimonides, all rabbinic law has Torah status, at least in his abovementioned statement.

 

Nachmanides is rejecting the claim that the verse from Devarim obliges us to keep rabbinic (oral) law.  Apparently,  Nachmanides does not claim that there is a Scriptural basis for rabbinic law! The implication for Bnei Mikra is quite obvious,  that Nachmanides  is essentially accepting the fundamental claim of Karaites!

 

Hence, the title of this post,  relative to Maimonides and many other rabbis, we see the Nachmanides Supremacy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday, 27 February 2022

Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk – Greatest Rabbinical Thinker

 

 

 

The great Rabbi, Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, also known as the Ohr Sameach, and the Meshech Chochmah (by the titles of his famous books), was a unique thinker, who was at once amongst the greatest Rabbis of strict orthodoxy, and at the same time an individual thinker, who went against the grain of  strict Orthodoxy in his interpretations of the Torah.

 

One might ask why I have designated him as the greatest Rabbinical thinker, at least in his era? There were Modern Orthodox thinkers such as Rabbis Kook, Soloveitchik, Goren, Sacks, as well as the philosopher Rabbis Eliezer Berkovits and Emanuel Rackman.

 

Rabbi Meir Simcha was not part of Modern orthodoxy, but was more radical than anyone within Modern Orthodoxy.  He was not part of the religious Zionist movement, but was fundamentally more Zionist  than many in that world.

I will try to present the case that he certainly was not a Karaite, but in some ways was one of the greatest Karaite thinkers too.

 

In his commentary on Bereishit-Genesis, we see an amazing interpretation , which has implications that go well beyond the topic of Adam and the forbidden fruit.

 

https://outorah.org/p/44190/

 

Quoting from the above summary:

 

The First Mitzvah and the Etz Hada’as

וַיְצַו ה' אֱלֹקִים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל. וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ.

Hashem God commanded man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do not eat thereof.” (2:16-17)

It is possible to sum up the contents of these two pesukim by stating that Hashem told Adam that while he may eat from any of the trees on the garden, one tree – the Etz Hada’as – remained forbidden. As such, the first mitzvah ever given to man was a negative one, i.e. a prohibition. However, the Meshech Chochmah states that this is not the case. The first mitzvah was in fact a positive one – to eat from all the other trees in the garden, for the words “אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל” as stated regarding those trees was also a mitzvah![4]

The implications of this understanding are twofold.

Firstly, it reflects the idea that benefiting from and enjoying this world is not merely something which is permitted; it is a positive expression of Hashem’s will and, as such, a mitzvah. This idea is summed up in the statement of the Yerushalmi[5] that a person will have to give a reckoning in the future for not having partaken of the enjoyments of this world which were permitted to him.

However, there is a further element. One of the properties of mitzvos is that they help protect a person from committing aveiros. As such, the mitzvah of eating from the other trees in the garden should likewise have protected Adam and Chava from sinning with the Etz HaDa’as. Why did this not happen?

The answer to this question will come from considering Chava’s words to the snake:[6]

מִפְּרִי עֵץ הַגָּן נֹאכֵל. וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹקִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ

Of the fruit of any tree in the garden we may eat. Of the fruit of the tree which is in the center of the garden God has said: “You shall not eat from it nor shall you touch it.”

We note that Chava does not mention Hashem’s name in connection with eating from the other trees. It is only with reference to not eating from the Etz HaDa’as that she prefaces: “אָמַר אֱלֹקִים – God said.”[7] This means that when Adam informed her regarding eating from the other trees, he neglected to tell her that this was also a mitzvah.

 

 

We see that for the verses  Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do not eat thereof.” (2:16-17)

The Meshech Chochmah is saying there is a positive commandment here , to indulge in the almost unending number of trees and their unique fruits, thus to avoid the single forbidden fruit.  He further argues that  Eve did not quite grasp this concept and that she therefore was unable to defend herself from the snake and its seduction or deception.

 

The Bereishit system of Law is centred on a single restriction, i.e. the fruit of the forbidden tree (of knowledge of Good and Evil).  To balance this, there are hundreds, or thousands of trees, perhaps also vegetables , that bear fruits of different flavours.

The later Torah from Sinai has a larger number of restrictions than what existed in Eden. But they are not infinite. The world still provides many “trees” that bear fruit.

It has been the systematic Rabbinic project to add to restrictions, and more and more restrictions.  And this has been for the purpose of self-mortification. It also led – historically to the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

 

Rabbi Meir Simcha is telling a truth that applies to rabbanism – which he must have subconsciously been aware of.  Namely, that the Torah did not command anyone to add restrictions, and in fact forbade it.

Saturday, 19 February 2022

Don't Believe Everything They Tell You

 

In   1 Kings  13, a prophet is sent to Bethel to warn Jeroboam about the altar he had set up, against the Laws of the Torah.   That same prophet is also instructed not to eat bread or drink water of the locals, and to return home via a different route.

 

 

Later on, an older prophet meets the prophet sent by God, and invites him to eat and drink at his local house. Initially he (young prophet) refuses. The older prophet says the following.

 

 

v.18

 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ גַּם־אֲנִ֣י נָבִיא֮ כָּמ֒וֹךָ֒ וּמַלְאָ֡ךְ דִּבֶּ֣ר אֵלַי֩ בִּדְבַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר הֲשִׁבֵ֤הוּ אִתְּךָ֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְיֹ֥אכַל לֶ֖חֶם וְיֵ֣שְׁתְּ מָ֑יִם כִּחֵ֖שׁ לֽוֹ׃ “I am a prophet, too,” said the other, “and an angel said to me by command of the LORD: Bring him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” He was lying to him.

 

 

 

He fails to maintain his resistance, and accepts the invitation of the older (dishonest) prophet.  For this, he is later on punished, and killed by a lion on his way back home.

 

 

 

There is contained within this story not only a philosophy of prophecy, but also a philosophy of religion.  Here are a number of inferences we can make:

 

 

a)      Even an old prophet can make up lies, if it suits him, eg for prestige, power, or any other personal gain.

 b)      The fact that somebody claims to be a prophet, a mystic, a receiver of visions or traditions, in no way verifies his claims.


 

Thursday, 6 January 2022

Chareidi Child Abuse – the Depth of Depravity

 

 

Numerous cases of child abuse, rape, homosexual abuse have occurred in Rabbinic institutions – yeshivas, or by supposedly Orthodox people, observant of both the Written and Oral law sets.  This has not been unlike what has happened in the Catholic Church for many years.

 

The response to these terrible crimes has often been suppression, denial, and threats against the accusers or publicisers, and calls of “informer”. Some changes have occurred in recent years. In the Religious Orthodox Zionist world, which was also hit by such scandals, a forum of leading rabbis was set up to tackle this problem, and they boldly took down some people who were even heads of yeshivot.  In the Ultra-orthodox (Hareidi) world  the leaders have at last advised any victims to go directly to the police. 

 

A current scandal is so contorted that it has to be explained in several steps:

 

1)      A Chareidi author, who wrote many books for children, as well as being a rabbi, also became a self-appointed child therapist.  He was accused of multiple rapes and abuse of children put in his care for “therapy”, as well as conducting adulterous affairs with married women. All this from a Bnei Brak “rabbi”.

2)      2 courageous Rabbinic courts, one of Rabbi Eliyahu, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Safed,  and another in Bnei Brak itself , under  the auspices of leading Ashkenazi rabbinic Dayanim , attempted to deal with this problem.

3)      The alleged paedophile, by the name or Chaim Walder, refused to cooperate with either Beit Din,  and in the meantime removed himself from public life.

4)      The Safed Bet Din received testimonies form 22 different people, who all accused Walder of various types of sex abuse, rape and adultery. 

5)      It was rumoured that the Police had received reports of these accusations, and had contacted Walder. 

6)      A recording of a phone conversation between a married woman and Walder was leaked to Haaretz newspaper, who originally broke the story. In this conversation, Walder appears to be telling his married lover who to lie her way through everything, the way he does. She was going through divorce proceedings as a result of her adultery, which was carrying on for 6 years.

7)      Some 5 weeks after the story broke, Walder had acquired a gun, and shot himself dead, leaving a suicide note, placing the blame of Rabbi Eliyahu of safed, and rabbi Silman of Bnei Brak, and claiming a fair trial is not possible in this world , and hence he is summoning these Dayanim to the great bet din in the sky!  Suicide is strictly forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, and is considered to be equivalent to murder.

8)      In the Orthodox Rabbinic world, several  groups have emerged, with varying opinions on this whole shameful episode:

 

 

  The Modern and Zionist orthodox have largely backed Rabbi Eliyahu, as have essentially the entire Sephardi world, whether modern or Chareidi.  I should add that secular Israelis who have followed the story also support Rabbi Eliyahu.

 

The Chareidi Ashkenazi world has split into several parts. The “modern” end of the hareidi spectrum, together with Chabad Lubavitch  have tended to back rabbi Eliyahu.   The leading Ashkenazi rabbi Gershon Edelstein has made 2 contradictory statements. The first one accused people who publicised  the matter of having shamed Walder, and ultimately are guilty of “murdering” him. A few days later, this statement was retracted, and attributed to other people. He then made a more measured statement, saying people should go direct to the police if they have suffered abuse, and also notes that suicide is strictly forbidden.

However, an extremist sector in the Chareidi world, has only accepted the first statement, i.e. blaming the press, and the court of Rabbi Eliyahu (whilst also ignoring the Bnei Brak court) of being guilty of “murdering” the mass rapist, Chaim Walder.  Also,  some “religious Zionist” rabbis, who are somewhat closer to the Chareidi world view, but not entirely, have also joined in the anti-Eliyahu  chorus.

 

 

 

The problems that this scandal raise are quite troubling. The Rabbanites, and the Chareidim in particular, are obsessed with the separation of the sexes, “modesty” eg in dress,  closing off the outside world, eg movies, TV, smartphones etc.

Yet, when their own people behave in the most depraved manner, they deny, cover, or even justify and consider them to be righteous.   Adultery, suicide, rape, which are severe crimes, are brushed off as being insignificant compared to those who speak “loshon hara”  - gossip.

 

The fixation on laws of “loshon hara” and embarrassing another person, are stifling them from doing what the Torah commands, eg to do justice, to plead the cause of the widow and orphan, to drive out evil from the Land etc.  At the same time, many Hareidi rabbis have no problem in embarrassing and speaking against those who don’t agree with their interpretations or politics.

 

 

Despite claims to the contrary, these episodes show that  even highly organised religion of Rabbanite Orthodoxy is subject to the same psychological drives as any other group of people. What occurs in the Catholic church , also sadly occurs in the orthodox yeshiva – and the psychological reasons are most likely the same.  Restriction heaped upon restriction has not managed to control this type of behaviour, and it is in fact not even a matter of great concern to some in that world.  Also , the other myth, that Talmud study is a cure all, and that mental illness is not so prevalent in the Orthodox world, appear to be completely false. 

 

Do the overly strict laws and regulation of the rabbanites cause mental harm? Or is the kind of mental illness that leads to such depravity something that is more genetic, and not learned form the environment?  Or would a relaxation of many restrictions actually make things worse?  These are important questions, but would require a systematic research programme, which I am unable to do at this moment.