Halakhah: More than Just Exegesis
BY: Jonathan Ziring
One of the most important functions of talmud Torah is “la-asukei shema’teta alibba de-hilkheta,” to learn Torah with the goal of deriving practical halakhic conclusions. However, to be honest, throughout high school, yeshivah in Israel and my first year in YU, most of my learning was purely theoretical. Then, this summer I attended the Summer Beit Midrash directed by Rabbi Aryeh Klapper, where the goal was to study a halakhic topic in-depth and eventually write a legal responsum, or teshuvah, answering a simulated question that encompassed all the aspects of the topic. Furthermore, this year, back at YU, I have been studying Hilkhot Shabbat in Rabbi Willig’s shi’ur, where the clear focus is to come to practical conclusions. Thus, for the first time I have had the opportunity to think seriously about the nature of pesak (legal ruling), and it is with this background that I share some things I have noticed. While I had often thought of pesak in almost Platonic terms as a result of pure halakhic exegesis and the application of theoretical principles, my recent exposure to the halakhic process has convinced me of the numerous other factors involved and has made me rethink how pesak works.
The process of pesak is almost always couched in exegesis, as it should be. Every posek‘s goal is to take all the sources of our tradition and come to a ruling that reflects what he feels is the best interpretation of the sources. However, as Gerald J. Blidstein, professor of Jewish thought at Ben-Gurion University, aptly puts it, “Texts can be interpreted … [and] Scripture is never a match for ingenuity,” or, as Hazal strikingly seem to say, “Ein moshivin ba-Sanhedrin ella mi she-yodea le-taher sherets min ha-Torah” – we do not seat someone in the Sanhedrin unless he knows how to render pure a [dead] rodent based on the Torah. Almost no exegetical claim can be proven conclusively; a clever enough scholar can take a text and interpret it in contradictory ways, and nothing in the text can prove which way is correct.
Continue reading »
Ha-Mahamir, Mah Tavo Alav?:
Religious Stringencies and Their Psychological Considerations
BY: Shlomo Zuckier
Continue reading »
Degrees of Separation: A Farewell to Yeshiva College
BY: Seth Herstic
1.
If the stereotypical Yeshiva College student suffers the pangs of some inner conflict unique to him, then what is the nature of that conflict? Over the years, many have found the answer in the “double-curriculum” that our college demands. According to this theory, YC’s emphasis on Torah study and secular knowledge is to blame for its students’ unique religious confusion and torment. Simply put, as the proponents of this theory say, the contents of the morning program and afternoon program clash, and this content clash creates inner clashes in undergraduates. Whereas the morning program preaches absolute faith in God, His Torah, and the Truth of tradition, the afternoon schedule teaches relativism, skepticism, and atheism. Apparently, these conflicting messages, taught by disagreeing pedagogues who do not respect one another’s worldviews, make a terrible mess in the hearts and minds of YC students.
Continue reading »
Creativity, Not Formalism: Towards A Survey of Rav Yoel Bin-Nun’s Halakhic Methodology
BY: Shlomo Zuckier
Rav Yoel Bin-Nun is known as one of the most creative minds of the past generation in the Orthodox world. His most acknowledged accomplishments are in the world of Tanakh, where he has been one of the leading revivers of Orthodox literary Tanakh scholarship in Israel over the last 30 years, presiding over the Tanakh revolution. He has lectured extensively in Talmud, serving as a Rosh Yeshivah at Yeshivat ha-Kibbuts ha-Dati for several years, until his retirement in 2006. He has spent significant time and energy in the realm of Mahashavah (philosophy) as well, recently finishing his dissertation on R. Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen Kook.
Continue reading »
Minhag and Halakhah in the Talmuds: A Cross-Cultural Study
BY: Rabbi Dr. Richard Hidary
This article will define the terms “Halakhah” and “Minhag” as used in Rabbinic literature, relate these concepts to their equivalents in secular legal theory, and analyze the relationship between the two as presented by the Talmud Yerushalmi and Bavli. The word Halakhah refers to a regulation or statement of law formulated by a legislator. The word Minhag, in both its nominal and verbal forms,
is used in rabbinic literature primarily to connote a habitual practice of laypeople that is related to but not directly legislated by Halakhah. This might be translated as “mere custom.” Generally, the rabbis recognize such customs as valid and generally encourage or require that their practice be continued, even though they are not officially legislated. In some cases, however, the practices of laypeople are considered mistaken by the rabbis because they have no basis in or even contradict the Halakhah. Rabbinic sources also use the term Minhag to describe the actual practice of laypeople regarding issues that have already been or are about to be legislated into Halakhah. In this sense, Minhag
could be translated as the widespread and commonly accepted form of the applied law. It is not always easy to distinguish which sense of the word Minhag
is used in any given text; that Hebrew uses the same word to mean “mere custom” as well as “widespread legal practice” shows that these categories are somewhat fluid.
Secular legal theorists have debated about the relationship between custom and legislated law. John Austin, a 19th-century British legal theorist, draws a strict distinction between custom, which has no legally binding authority since it is not explicitly commanded by the sovereign, and law, which incorporates custom only when officially legislated. Opposing this view is Friedrich Karl von Savigny, another 19th-century jurist, who expresses the view that custom arising from the spirit of the folk is valid law. James Coolidge Carter, arguing against the pro-codification position of Jeremy Bentham, both legal philosophers from 19th-century England, states in even more extreme terms: “Law, Custom, Conduct, Life – different names for almost the same thing – true names for different aspects of the same thing – are so inseparably blended together that one cannot even be thought of without the other.”
Continue reading »
The Synthesis of Heritage and Personal Innovation
BY: Ariel Pinn
The student of Torah, when reflecting upon its depth, recognizes that it must contain aspects not yet articulated by any of his predecessors. Which guiding principles should he use to determine if his unique insights subscribe to amittah shel Torah (the truth of the Torah)?
The Nefesh ha-Hayyim (whose fourth section is dedicated to describing the unparalleled exaltedness of Torah and its role of upholding all of Creation) magnificently describes the merit of one who reaches this priceless goal:
Continue reading »
An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter
BY: Staff
Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people?
To give an original pesak on a new she’eilah (halachic question) or a hachra’ah (decision) on an old machalokes is not easy. A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot “specialize” in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated.
Continue reading »
History and Liturgy: The Evolution of Multiple Prayer Rites
BY: Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman
The family tree of Jewish liturgy – the siddur and the mahazor (as it is correctly vocalized) – is a long and complex one. It spans the entire history of the Jewish experience, from the earliest origins of the Jewish people to the present day. The story of the many Jewish prayer rites (nusha’ot) is in fact the story of the diffusion of the Jewish people and their tradition throughout the world and the development of the great Jewish communities of past and present. We seek to present the history of Jewish liturgy in a short summary, hoping that our survey will reveal the manner in which local tradition and custom served to enrich Jewish life.
Rabbinic tradition attributes the core of the liturgy to the Men of the Great Assembly, the sages who led Israel after the time of Ezra (c. 400-250 BCE). Prayer texts, especially from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a section of Ben Sira preserved only in Genizah manuscripts, show that some of our contemporary liturgical language and themes were in use in the Second Temple period. Analysis of the usually-partial prayer texts preserved in Tannaitic literature indicates that already in the time of the Mishnah there were various versions of our statutory prayers. Further, our version follows the Pharisaic masorah that was paralleled by a variety of alternative texts used by other groups as evidenced in the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the Scrolls preserve blessings for each day of the month that parallel our blessing on the creation of the lights, the first benediction before the Shema.
Continue reading »
Rav Soloveitchik’s “A Yid iz Geglichn tzu a Seyfer Toyre”
BY: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
Translator’s Note: The following is a translation from the Yiddish of the sixth section of R. Soloveitchik’s yortzayt shi’ur entitled “A Yid iz Geglichn tzu a Seyfer Toyre” – “A Jew is Compared to a Torah Scroll.” (Previous sections appeared in prior issues of this paper.) Dr. Hillel Zeidman transcribed and published the shi’ur, with an introduction, in R. Elchanan Asher Adler (ed.), Beit Yosef Shaul, vol. 4 (New York: Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, 1994), pp. 17-67. A Hebrew translation by R. Shalom Carmy appeared in the same volume (pp. 68-103).
Continue reading »
Kol Hamevaser – Creating a Torah Community
BY: Jonathan Ziring
Recently, Kol Hamevaser held its first school-wide Shabbaton. Over Shabbat, I was thinking about the importance of such an event, one where people who have a common interest in Jewish thought took the opportunity to spend time together, learn and just hang out. A few dictums of Hazal came to mind. The first is a fascinating statement in Bava
Metsi’a: “Ula said, ‘Talmidei hakhamim in Bavel stand up for each other.’” Rashi explains that they stood “the way a student does for his teacher, as they sat together constantly in the beit midrash, asking and answering each other’s questions, with everyone learning from each other.” Ramban expands on this idea, saying that not only did they stand up when their friends came within four cubits of them, as would be required for any talmid
hakham, but they even stood up as soon as they could see them at a distance, the way one is required to stand up before his primary teacher, his rav muvhak.
He explains that although the talmidei hakhamim in Bavel did not actually learn the majority of their Torah from their colleagues, they still learned from each other constantly, and in certain respects they achieved the status of rav muvhak for each other. Now, while it is true that one Shabbat does not constitute “constantly,” over the course of those 25 hours I saw what promised to be the beginnings of a Torah community of people on both campuses (and beyond), who, by seriously discussing issues of Jewish thought and teaching each other, could grow together in their commitment as active members of broader Jewish society.
One might ask, as many people do, why we need Kol Hamevaser; why have students present their ideas in a public format like this? After all, we learn in YU with Rashei Yeshivah who are tremendous talmidei hakhamim, and while it is true that people can learn a lot from their peers, perhaps that is not an ideal? To me, this notion is absurd for several reasons. To begin with, when Rambam discusses the ideal friend that one should seek, he describes him as a “haver
ma’alah,” an exalted friend. According to Rambam, he is the type of person who shares your goals and who wants to help you actualize your potential, just as you want to help him actualize his. He gives as an example of such a relationship the type of friendship found between teachers and their students. I have always understood from here that Rambam does not simply intend to describe the relationship that students have with their teachers, but rather means to encourage us to actively create friendships that parallel this model, where we teach each other.
Continue reading »
The Forgotten Torah
BY: Periel Shapiro
Kabbalah is part of your life. Even if you are an only nominally observant Jew, you have likely partaken in Kabbalistic prayers and customs or studied works inspired by Jewish mystical concepts. If you have ever been to a Jewish wedding, you must have seen the bride circle the groom three or seven times, a custom based on interpretations of Hoshea and Yirmeyahu and the mystical implications of the number seven. It is a virtually universal custom in synagogues to sing “Lekhah Dodi,” a beautiful hymn written by 16th-century Safed Kabbalist Rabbi Shelomoh ha-Levi Alkabets, on Friday night, and much of the Shabbat liturgy and many of its customs are based on Jewish mysticism. A large number of the classic Jewish ethical texts studied throughout the world bear the stamp of Kabbalistic influence, and indeed the very Halakhah by which religious Jews live their daily lives was authoritatively codified by the renowned Kabbalist R. Yosef Karo in his Shulhan Arukh. R. Karo regularly cites Kabbalistic sources and mystical aggadot when they are relevant to halakhic practice, and commentaries such as the Hafets Hayyim’s Mishnah Berurah include substantial discussions of fundamental Jewish mystical concepts. When perhaps the authority on Jewish law was very much a mystic, a man who wrote a diary describing detailed conversations he had with an angelic being, it is certainly proper for a Jew to at least understand what Kabbalah is.,
The term “Kabbalah” in its wider sense signifies all the mystical movements within Judaism that have evolved over the past two millennia. Historically speaking, the origins and development of Jewish mysticism are uncertain and can only be traced as far back as the Jewish esoteric traditions being transmitted in the Roman provinces of Egypt and Palestine in the 1st century CE. Some scholars argue that Kabbalah was heavily influenced by Persian and Greek culture, while others, such as Gershom Scholem, emphasize the uniqueness and dynamism of 1st- and 2nd-century Jewish mysticism. Either way, the relationship between Kabbalah and various other mystical traditions beyond Judaism was certainly never one-directional, and indeed Scholem points out that the theologies of some of the most important non-Jewish Gnostic groups were based largely on Jewish Aggadah and esotericism. However, Scholem denies the efforts of some to demonstrate the existence of mystical trends in biblical times, vaguely dismissing the identified ideologies as unfit for the label “mysticism:” “Organized closed societies of mystics have been proved to exist only since the end of the Second Temple era.”
Continue reading »
Collective Memory and Haroset
BY: Daniel Fridman
Continue reading »
