The Legitimacy of the Oral Torah

One of the basic principles of Judaism is that when God gave the written text of the Torah to Moses at Sinai, He also gave over to Moses an Oral Torah. This Oral Torah is the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah, telling us how to perform the various commandments, and also providing us with a methodology for Scriptural interpretation (hermeneutic rules). Today, the teachings of the Oral Torah are embodied in the Talmudic literature (which includes much more than just the Talmud itself).

People often ask what justification is there for the belief in the Oral Torah. This question is sometimes rooted in a discomfort with the idea of giving human beings dispositive authority over the Torah. For these questioners, while they are willing to accept the authority of the written Torah as a Divinely revealed document, they are uncomfortable with giving authority to human beings to determine what the Torah really means.

More often, however, the question is motivated by a desire to give legitimacy to alternative interpretations. If, the argument effectively goes, there is no Divinely revealed Oral Torah, then my interpretation (or my sect/denomination/religion’s interpretation) has as much authority as any other. For some, such as the liberal Jewish movements, even the written Torah has little inherent authority, and the denial of the Oral Torah is just part of a larger argument against traditional authority. For others, such as for many Christian believers, the Divine origin of the written text of the Torah is fully acknowledged, but their understanding of the Scriptures differs dramatically from the traditional Jewish interpretations. They are therefore forced to challenge the claim that the traditional Jewish interpretation, i.e. the Oral Torah, is of Divine origin.

(In most cases, people who believe themselves to be in the first group are actually in the second. Their difficulty is that the preconceptions underlying their interpretation of Scripture are so taken for granted that they do not realize that they are engaged in interpretation in the first place.)

For the first group, the basic answer is that, while their concern is understandable, the fact remains that God wrote the written Torah in such a way that there is simply no way to avoid the need for human interpretation. Any attempt to use Scripture as a practical authority requires interpretation of the Scriptures and all such interpretation involves preconceptions that exist, at least in part, independently of the text. This is true even for those groups that entirely deny the existence of such a tradition. The Sadducees, the Karaites, the Christians, and even the modern “liberal” Jewish denominations (e.g. Reform) all have their own approaches to Scriptural interpretation that conform to and support their various beliefs and ideologies.

The point being that you can't avoid utilizing some kind of interpretive preconceptions in studying Scripture. A true "sola scriptura" approach has never really been possible. For someone who accepts the Divine origin of the Torah, there is no way of avoiding the fact that God clearly wrote the Torah to be interpreted by human authorities. This is actually explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 17:11, “According to the Torah which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; do not not turn aside from what they shall tell you, to the right or to the left.”

The existence of an unwritten Divinely revealed interpretive tradition is implicit in many places in the Torah. The mere fact that numerous major obligations (e.g. tefillin, mezuzah, and the prohibition against “work” on the Sabbath) are imposed without any clarity as to their practical nature indicates that this is so. The prohibition against work on the Sabbath is particularly telling, as Scripture mandates the death penalty for its violation. Is it really plausible that God would instruct us to give the death penalty for a crime which is never clearly defined? I mean, what, exactly, counts as "work"? Is this really something that we are supposed to determine on an ad hoc basis?

There are also explicit Scriptural references to Divinely revealed teachings that are not to be found in the Written Torah (e.g. Deut. 12:21 re:the laws of kosher slaughter). 

These facts clearly indicate that the existence of an authoritative oral tradition is not only supported by Scripture, but is actually demanded by it.

Obviously, those who deny, to whatever degree, the Divine origin of the Torah, will similarly have no reason to accept the authority of the Oral Torah. But for those who accept the authority of the Torah as a Divinely revealed document, there is no way to avoid the necessity of accepting that there is also an authoritative interpretive tradition that was revealed by God together with the Torah.

The question that remains is to determine which interpretive tradition has the strongest claim to authenticity. The first thing to determine is, from a historical point of view, whether a given tradition can plausibly claim to have originated at Sinai together with the Written Torah. Obviously, interpretive traditions that first came into existence long after the Sinai Revelation simply don’t qualify. 

Once we have eliminated all such obvious latecomers, we then have to deal with the second question. This is whether the specific interpretive tradition can be said to be consistent with the basic themes of the Written Torah. While the premise of the Oral Torah gives the Oral Torah the authority to interpret the Written Torah, this does not mean that the Written Torah is simply an inert piece of clay that can be reshaped at will. The Torah may be vague on some points, and there is certainly plenty of room for non-literal interpretation of many verses, but there are certain themes that are so central to the Jewish Scriptures that there is simply no way to deny them. An interpretive tradition that clearly flies in the face of these central themes is not plausibly authentic.

Of the existing, living, interpretive traditions, there are really only two that can can plausibly claim to be of genuine antiquity, the Rabbinic/Talmudic tradition and the Christian tradition. (I am using the term “Christian” in the broadest possible sense, referring to the mainstream beliefs held in common by most of the innumerable sects, denominations, and religions that fall under that term.)

Christianity claims to be fully in consonance with the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures, which Christianity refers to as the “Old Testament.” Indeed, Christianity claims that the Old Testament clearly attests to the truth of Christianity, and that the Christian interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures to this effect is not an innovation, but reflects the true interpretation and that the denial of this interpretation by the overwhelming majority of Jews who lived in the time of Jesus was a falsification of the true, indeed, self-evident, testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The problem with this claim is that it is simply not supported by the facts. On the contrary, many of the basic concepts of Christianity  - e.g. the identification of the human messiah with God (“the divinity of Christ”), the idea of the messiah coming (and then dying) without bringing about any significant political change, the abrogation of the laws of the Torah, and the supersession of the Jewish people by the Christian church - are fundamentally inconsistent with what one would get from a straight reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. These inconsistencies are not on minor details but on major Scriptural themes (e.g. idolatry, the eternal nature of the laws, the role and destiny of the Jewish people, the function of the messiah).

Accepting the basic premises of Christianity therefore has the effect not only of rendering the “Old Testament” a “dead letter”, but an extremely misleading and illogical “dead letter”. The most basic themes of the Hebrew Scripture are disposed of entirely, and are replaced with ideas that are completely unsupported by the text. It is simply not plausible that this was the authoritative interpretation given to the Jewish people at Sinai. (This is asides from the simple matter that, if it had been, then the Jewish people wouldn’t have rejected Jesus in the first place. It is this inconvenient fact that forced medieval Christians to conclude that the Jews were a consciously evil people, who knowingly denied the divinity of Jesus. From there it was only a short jump to the insane accusations of “Host desecration” and the blood libel that resulted in the death of untold thousands of innocent Jews.)

I am not going to attempt here to respond to the innumerable so-called “proof-texts” cited by Christians to support their claims (except to say that none of these “proofs” hold up under serious analysis). The question of how to deal with specific verses is not my topic here. There are all kinds of interesting verses in Scripture that can be interpreted in any number of ways, and misinterpreted in even more. The question is the underlying assumptions involved in that interpretation. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, then it is inevitable that the interpretation will be wrong as well.

The point in this post is not to critique Christianity. The point is to establish that the “Oral Torah”, as reflected in the Rabbinic tradition, is the only plausible candidate for an interpretive tradition of Divine origin, and that the need for such an interpretation is both self-evident and clearly attested to in Scripture. In practical terms, therefore, despite whatever questions one might have about the Rabbinic tradition itself, it remains the only viable candidate.

I would stress that, while here I am only making the case for the authority of the Rabbinic tradition by a “process of elimination”, in that there simply are no other plausible candidates, the case for the Oral Law is actually far stronger than that. There certainly are more direct arguments for the validity of the Rabbinic tradition. However, these arguments require studying many of the details of the Rabbinic tradition and would be too lengthy and technical for me to attempt in this post (and would also require a degree of competence in Talmudic study on the part of the reader).

---

Why Does God Allow Us to Do Evil Deeds?

The following question was once posed in an on-line discussion I participated in, to which I wrote the following answer. I have rewritten the question in a more concise fashion.

---

Q: Why did God give us the freedom to murder and torture other people? If the purpose of free-will is simply to enable us to freely choose to serve God, then why do we need to be free to behave in truly horrendous ways? Why didn't God restrict our free will to a more morally acceptable range? The only choice that really needs to be left free is the choice to serve God.

A: I have two basic points in response, the first dealing with the nature of the question and the second, more important point, dealing with the underlying premise.

The first point deals with the nature of the concern about human freedom being so broad that it allows us to engage in excessively evil acts. That fact is that the acts that we perceive as atrocities are precisely those that are at the extreme limits of the free will of the normal person. Thus, we see killing a baby - an act that few modern Westerners would do (after childbirth) - as an atrocity, but we see a bar fight as merely bad behavior. No matter where God would have drawn the line for free will, there would remain acts that are so close to that line that they would be perceived as "atrocities". The only possible solution would be to eliminate free will entirely except for the one, yes/no decision to serve God. Such a solution would create a host of problems, not the least being that it would result in a completely black and white moral universe with no gradations at all. You would either be totally good or totally evil.

The second point, which I believe is more important, is that the premise of the question is based on an overly simplified understanding of the purpose for free will. While the idea that freedom gives meaning to our choice to do good is certainly important, and provides the basis for "reward and punishment", it is not the entire story.

On a deeper level, free will is a product of the human "neshama" - "soul/breath" - that God breathes into every human being. It is "the image of God" in which Man has been created. Our purpose in existence is to connect ourselves to God. Such connection is achieved by our emulation of God, bringing our Divine image's potential into actuality. To the degree that we "resemble" God, we are connected to Him. The most basic characteristic of God is that He is "free" - entirely independent. For man to imitate God, to share His image, Man must also be genuinely free.

---

Beshalach - The Role of Philosophy in Judaism

At its most basic level, Judaism is about just one thing: Connecting with God. God created us so that we could enter into a relationship with Him and everything we do in Judaism is intended for that purpose. The first step, on our part, in that relationship is to believe – i.e. to be absolutely certain – that God exists.

At the time when the events of this week’s parsha were taking place, the Jewish people came to know God in a very personal and immediate fashion. They saw His hand in the ten plagues, the splitting of the Red Sea, and the gift of the manna. And then, in the central event of Jewish history, they heard God speak to them directly, as He introduced himself to them at Mt. Sinai, saying, “I am Hashem, your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.”

The Jews of that time knew God in the most personal way possible, the same way that we know our closest friends and family members. This direct, personal relationship with God continued for many generations, if to a lesser degree. Throughout the time in the desert, the Jewish people had daily experience with open Divine providence in the form of supernatural events that accompanied them constantly, such as the manna, the clouds of glory, the miraculous well, and much more. Even after their entry into the land of Israel, supernatural events continued to be normal parts of life. Prophecy flourished amongst the Jewish people for hundreds of years, and even after full prophecy ended early in the Second Temple period, lesser forms of Divine inspiration continued to function into the time of the Talmudic sages.

Eventually, however, we lost the privilege of these direct and obvious expressions of God’s presence. God “hid His face” from us, and we now have to struggle to reach the level of belief in God that was once self-evident to even the simplest Jew. In this new state, it became difficult for Jews to remain confident in their knowledge of God, especially in the face of outside challenges.

In response to this new challenge, a new genre of Torah literature emerged, Jewish philosophy. Although the Jewish people had long been known, from ancient times, as a “nation of philosophers”, they had never produced works of formal philosophy. The first such work was Emunos v’Deos (“Beliefs and Opinions”) by Rav Saadia Gaon. However, from that point forward, we see an explosion of such works, including such monumental works as Chovos Halevavos (“Duties of the Heart”) by Rabbenu Bachya ibn Pakuda, the Kuzari by Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and Moreh Nevuchim (“Guide for the Perplexed”) by Rav Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). These great classics of Jewish philosophy continue to be studied to this day, and new works are written in every generation.

One of the main goals of these works is to provide logical arguments and proofs for the existence of God. While the basic foundation of Jewish belief had always been, and always would be, the historical experiences of the Jewish people, there was now a need to supplement that knowledge with philosophical proofs. The knowledge gained from historical tradition, as important as it was, could not provide the sense of personal connection with God that Judaism demands. Without the direct experiences of God’s presence that earlier generations had experienced, it was necessary to introduce a new way for a Jew to come to “see” God in the world around him. One of the main ways to achieve this was through philosophy.

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz (d. 1630), the Shelah HaKadosh, finds an allusion to this idea in this week’s parsha, in the song sung by the Jewish people after the splitting of the Red Sea (ספר של"ה, עשרה מאמרות, מאמר ראשון). The Jewish people sang (Exodus 15:2):

זה א-לי ואנוהו, אלקי אבי וארממנהו

"This is my God, and I will glorify Him; my father's God, and I will exalt Him."

In a classic example of drash (homiletic interpretation), the Shelah Hakadosh interprets the verse to be contrasting two ways of coming to know God and the kind of relationship with God that results from each approach.

“זה א-לי” “This is my God” – If  my relationship with God is that He is my God, in that I have come to know Him through my own intellect and understanding, then I will have a close connection to Him, as alluded to by the term “ואנוהו”, which is interpreted midrashically as a contraction of the words “אני והוא” – “I and He” – together as one.

If however, my relationship to God is only as “אלקי אבי” – “the God of my father” – in that I only know God through the heritage I received from my ancestors, then “I will exalt Him”, I will only know God as an exalted Being, far above and distant from me, and I will not have that close relationship with God that Judaism demands.

It is not sufficient for us to simply rely on the teachings of our parents and teachers for our knowledge of God. Each one of us must find ways to know God out of our own understanding. What these means will be will vary from person to person, and they will also change as we grow ourselves. The means that worked for us as teenagers will need to be developed and supplemented as we mature. The knowledge of God is a life-long task which we will never fully complete, but which we also may never abandon.

---

Jewish Arguments for the Existence of God

This topic came up recently in a conversation with a friend, in which I laid out my thoughts on the role of these arguments vis-à-vis  David Hume's arguments against miracles. Then I came across this question in another website, so I put together this quick summary.

---

To my knowledge, the only "argument" for the existence of God given in the Torah itself is that He directly revealed Himself to us at Sinai:

Deut. 4:35 "Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him."

Deut. 5:4, "The LORD spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire."

In other words, direct experience does not require philosophical proof.

Rabbi Jacob Emden expanded this argument into our own time, saying that, "When I consider these wonders [of the survival of the Jews in exile], they appear greater to me than all the miracles and wonders that God did for our ancestors in Egypt, and in the wilderness, and in the land of Israel." (See the full text in this previous post.)

All philosophical arguments for the existence of God made in traditional sources are only intended to reinforce this basic experiential knowledge that is the heritage of the Jewish people. While these arguments can serve to shore up our beliefs against challenges, many sources appear to see these arguments as serving mainly to help us acheive a more personal, immediate connection to God.

The most common such arguments found in Jewish works are:

• The Argument from Design - Many aspects of the natural world appear to have been been designed with intelligence and intent.
• The Cosmological or "First Cause" Argument - What set the world moving? Where did it come from?
• The famous Kuzari argument, that the Sinai revelation was a historical event witnessed by the entire nation. (This argument is basically just an extension of the Biblical "argument" that is intended to enable us to rely with confidence on our historical tradition.)

In my personal opinion, the various philosophical arguments for the existence of God are mainly useful for countering Hume's arguments against miracles. Briefly stated, he argues that no testimony of a miracle should be believed unless the falsehood of the testimony would be more improbable than the miracle itself. It follows, therefore, that one's ability to accept the testimony of the Jewish people's historical experience of miracles has an inverse relationship with the degree to which you think miracles are improbable.

All of the classical arguments for the existence of God are, fundamentally, arguments that we can perceive an element of the supernatural in the natural world itself. Thus, each such argument makes the possibility of miracles more plausible. At some point, it becomes more plausible that the Sinai Revelation really occurred than that it was made up (which, per the Kuzari argument, is very unlikely). Once you reach that point, then you have the Sinai Revelation to rely on for everything else.

---

Bo - We Become What We Do

Parshas Bo tells us of the end of the Jewish captivity in Egypt. As the last of the ten plagues is brought upon the Egyptians, the Jewish people gather in their homes to celebrate the first Passover and to eat of the Paschal offering.

The Torah describes the numerous requirements of this offering that continued to apply for future generations. Among other requirements, the offering had to be eaten roasted, no bones could be broken, and the meat could not be removed from the location of the meal. The classic 13th century work of mitzvos, Sefer HaChinuch, explains all of these requirements as serving to help us remember our miraculous exodus from Egypt.

The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzva 16) then raises an important question. Why are all these details necessary? If the goal is simply to help us remember the past, then wouldn't a simple commemoration be sufficient? What is gained by all of these extra rituals and details?

The Sefer HaChinuch answers this question with a psychological principle which is one of the most basic concepts in the study and practice of mussar (character improvement). Stated simply, this principle is that our actions profoundly influence our character. As the Sefer HaChinuch puts it, "האדם נפעל כפי פעולותיו" - "Man is affected by his actions." Our hearts and minds are drawn after our physical actions, both for the good and for the bad. If we engage in good actions, even without the proper motives, the actions will gradually draw us towards becoming good people. And if, God forbid, we engage in bad actions, the actions will draw us towards becoming bad people.

For this reason, the Sefer HaChinuch continues, God gave the Jewish people numerous commandments, so that we would have numerous positive actions that make us into better people. It is therefore not surprising that God gave us numerous special commandments in connection to the Passover offering, as the exodus from Egypt is a "great pillar of our Torah" and needs to be firmly implanted in our hearts and minds.

---

Va’eira - The Names of God

In the beginning of Parshas Va’eira, God tells Moses (Exodus 6:3), “And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as E-l Sha-dai, and by My name Hashem^[1] I did not become known to them.” As the commentaries point out, this verse is difficult to understand, as we find several times in Genesis where the name Hashem was used by the Patriarchs, and that God Himself gave this as His name. For example, in Genesis 15:7, God speaks to Abraham saying, “I am Hashem, Who took you out of Ur Kasdim, to give you this land to inherit it.” Clearly, then, this verse cannot mean that this name had been hidden from the Patriarchs.

The commentaries therefore explain that the verse does not say that God did not make the Name of Hashem known to them, but that He did not make Himself known to them through this Name. Every name of God refers to one of God’s modes of interaction with His creation. This verse teaches us that God was now entering into a fundamentally new, more direct and open, mode of interaction with mankind; that the Jewish people would come to experience God’s presence in the world in a manner that the Patriarchs had not. Although the Patriarchs certainly knew of this mode of interaction, and God had even revealed it to them in prophecy, they had never experienced it themselves.

This verse helps us understand the role that the “Names of God” plays in Jewish thought. Whether it is in our understanding of Scripture or in our prayers, a proper understanding of this concept is essential. (This concept is particularly important for a proper understanding of the teachings of kabbala.)

The most basic principle to understand is that, in Himself, God is innominate; i.e. He has no name, and, indeed, He cannot be named. The Tikkunei Zohar (17b) states, “You [God] have no knowable name.” Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin expands on this concept (Nefesh HaChaim 2:2), explaining that the actual essence of God is completely hidden from us and cannot be referred to by any name whatsoever, even Hashem. All the Divine names that we find in Scripture, or that we use in prayer, are to be understood as referring only to aspects of God’s relationship with creation.

There is a very basic dichotomy in our relationship with God. On the one hand, we strive for an intimate connection (deveikus) with God. He is our Father and our Beloved. We speak to Him in prayer, we recognize His hand in our lives, and we strive to understand and obey His will as expressed in His Torah.

On the other hand, we also recognize that God is fundamentally unknowable, that we can never even begin to understand His true nature because He is infinitely beyond all of creation. Even the highest angels have no conception of God’s true nature.

This dichotomy is fundamental to Judaism and finds expression in many aspects of Jewish practice. For example, in every blessing that we recite, we find a startling grammatical anomaly. Every blessing begins in the second person, “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe…”, yet it ends in the third person, “Who sanctified us with His commandments…” or “that all came to be through His word.”

This grammatical shift is done to express our recognition that, while we have a personal relationship with God in which we can speak to Him directly, yet we cannot know Him as He truly is. He reveals Himself to us through His actions, yet He is hidden from us in His essence. (ראה רבינו בחיי, כד הקמח, ברכה)

At first glance, it might seem that this recognition makes it more difficult for us to have a proper relationship with God. Even if this were true, it would not diminish the importance of this recognition, as a relationship with God that is based upon a false conception of His nature is fundamentally flawed, and if the misconception is bad enough, it may not be a relationship at all.

The truth is, however, that it is only through our recognition that God is fundamentally above and beyond any human conception that it is possible for a person to have a personal relationship with God in the first place. If God’s true nature existed within the limited and finite realm of human comprehension, then it would be simply impossible to believe that He has a personal, intense, loving relationship with every single human being.

The “Names of God” are given to us, by God, as a means for us to connect to Him. He wishes us to develop an emotional, human, relationship with Him, as our Father, our King, our Beloved. In that mode, we are expected to use these names in a human manner, as if they refer to God Himself. Yet, at the very same time, we must always remember that, in His essence, He is above and beyond any possible human understanding, and we can only know Him indirectly, through what he reveals to us in His Torah and His creation. It is in this sense that Jewish tradition speaks of the entire Torah, and indeed, all of Creation, as being made up of "the names of God."

---

[1] The term Hashem literally means, "the name", and is used in Jewish literature to refer to the four-lettered "personal" name of God (the Tetragrammaton).

---

Cultural Jews in Our Midst - The Pseudo-Chareidim

Most people are aware of the current controversies surrounding the behavior of certain ostensible members of the chareidi community in Israel. I am not a political columnist, nor an expert on Jewish life in Israel, so I am not going to attempt to discuss most aspects of this topic, which have been ably handled by far more competent figures than I. I do, however, want to discuss one aspect of this issue.

What is an Orthodox Jew? What is a "chareidi" Jew? What do these terms really mean?

If the term "Orthodox Jew" means anything, it means a Jew who commits to conforming to the laws and values of the Torah, as transmitted through our mesorah (i.e. the Rabbinic tradition), even when, if it were left up to his own opinion, he would choose to do otherwise. A Jew who follows Jewish tradition, when and if he agrees with it, even if that agreement happens to be almost 100%, is not really an Orthodox Jew. Similarly, any Jew who considers a non-Torah source of values to have equal authority to the Torah, so that, at times, this alternate source of values overrides Torah laws and teachings, is not a genuinely Orthodox Jew.

The same is true for the term "chareidi". The origin of this term is from a verse in Isaiah (66:5), "Hear the word of Hashem, you that tremble (החרדים - the chareidim) at His word..." The term has come to refer to those Jewish communities that take the laws and teachings of the Torah to be their sole source of values. While chareidi communities are usually superficially recognizable by their modes of dress (ranging from the "Litvishe" black hat and jacket to the various forms of garb worn by chassidim), it is not clothing that makes one a chareidi. A Jew with a long beard and payos (sidelocks), wearing a long black coat, who derives his values from sources other than the Torah, is not a true chareidi.

In the Orthodox Jewish world, we are familiar with critiques of various left-wing groups, including groups that are nominally Orthodox, that attempt to modify Judaism to bring it into conformance with the values and mores of (the liberal elites of) modern Western society. Thus, attempts to change the traditional prayer services to conform to the dictates of feminism, or to create "kashrus" supervising agencies that focus on the importance of labor unions and environmentalism, among other such attempts, are seen as attempts to give religious value to foreign concepts.

(This actually points to the main difference between chareidim and non-chareidi Orthodox Jews. In admittedly over-simplified terms, while a chareidi will usually see the importation of a foreign value into Judaism as unacceptable in of itself, a non-chareidi will usually not see it as a problem unless he believes the foreign value to be in conflict with Torah values.)

My father, ע"ה, would often speak disparagingly of what he called "cultural Jews", referring to Jews who drew their values not from the Torah but from Jewish "culture". He would stress that Jews of this sort are to be found not just in the non-Orthodox world (where they are the dominant form) but also in the Orthodox world - including the most chareidi of communities.

These "Orthodox" cultural Jews are Jews whose value system is not derived from the Torah, but from the superficial norms of their particular community. When a person, or community, treats its own cultural idiosyncrasies (e.g. modes of dress, styles of food, etc.) as if they have inherent religious significance, then they are bringing foreign values into Judaism. (This is true even when those norms may well be legitimate, in of themselves, as attempts to maintain a certain mode of life that, in the judgement of that community, is more conducive to Torah values. While this may be acceptable, it is not acceptable to then treat these norms as if they are binding on all Jews like actual Torah law.)

When a group of Jews not only brings non-Torah values into their "Judaism", but grants these values status equal to or greater than actual Torah values, then that group is not only not truly chareidi, but not even truly Orthodox. They are, fundamentally, a break-off sect (or, more politely, "denomination"), who only share a cultural bond with Judaism. This is true whether the foreign values are rooted in obsession over modes of dress and gender segregation, political ideology, or messianism.

It is popular, in certain Orthodox circles, to bemoan the supposed shift in traditional Judaism from a "mimetic tradition", in which religious practice and standards are learned from the previous generation by observation and participation, to a "textual tradition", in which religious practices and norms are learned by studying the Torah literature. In reality, of course, both traditions must exist side-by-side and are deeply dependent upon each other. The bulk of our religious training, in the Orthodox world, has always been mimetic. There is simply no other way to effectively give over the vast array of information needed to function competently as an Orthodox Jew. However, the mimetic tradition, by itself, cannot effectively distinguish between Torah and culture, law and custom, community norm and religious obligation, especially in the face of changing circumstances. The textual tradition serves as an essential "checksum" for the mimetic tradition, a way to check that tradition for its inevitable errors of transmission.

He sure looks Orthodox!

What we are seeing with these pseudo-chareidi radicals is a triumph of the mimetic tradition over textual authority. Not only is their behavior in violation of Torah law, but even many of the ideals that they claim to be fighting for are nothing more than their own communal norms, which they have elevated to the status of the Torah. By doing so, these groups have stepped outside the pale of Orthodoxy itself and are no more Orthodox (let alone "ultra-Orthodox" or chareidi) than Woody Allen in a rabbi costume.

---

Shemos - Israel: The Firstborn Son of God

When instructing Moses of his mission to bring the Jewish people out of Egypt, God tells Moses that the first thing he must say to Pharaoh is, "My son, my first-born, is Israel." (Exodus 4:22) This famous verse is the first place in the Torah that speaks of the idea that the Jewish people are, in some unique sense, the son of God.

How is this to be understood? Like all human beings, the Jewish people, are descendants of Adam and Eve. We all come from the same ancestors, so in what sense can we be said to be the children of God, as distinct from the rest of humanity?

The key to understanding this is a concept that may be best summarized in a classic teaching of the Baal Shem Tov (18th century), "A person is located where he places his thoughts" (ספר הבעש"ט נח:נו). This means that our thoughts create our spiritual reality. Our relationship with God is dependent, almost entirely, on our achieving a proper mental perception of that relationship. Thus, for example, when a person thinks himself to be in the presence of God, then this becomes his spiritual reality; at that moment, he is standing before the Divine Presence.

This is a central concept in Jewish thought and is particularly important in understanding the Jewish approach to prayer. It helps explain, for example, why, in prayer, we engage in practices that mimic standing before a human king. Such practices help solidify our mental perception that we are standing before God, the true King, thereby bringing about the actual reality of God's presence.

This concept also explains why the Torah places so much importance on avoiding incorrect conceptions of God, as in idolatry and heresy. To the degree that our conception of God is incorrect, our relationship with God is weakened.

R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk

With this concept we can understand the commentary of the Meshech Chochma (Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk d. 1926) on this verse. The Meshech Chochma explains that the special status of a first-born son comes from the fact that he "made" his father into a father. In a similar sense, by recognizing God as the Creator and Master of the Universe, the Jewish people "made" God into their Father. We are the children of God because we recognize God as our father.

In a similar comment, Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin (d.1966) expands on this idea, pointing out that the time will come when all mankind will properly acknowledge their Father, and at that time all mankind will have the status of "children of God." However, even then, the Jewish people will continue to have the unique status of God's first-born son.

---

Asara b'Teves - Mourning the Loss of the Temple

Asara b'Teves (the 10th of Teves) is one of a series of four fast days through the Jewish year that commemorate the destruction of the Holy Temple. The other three fast days in this series are Shiva Asar B'Tamuz, Tisha B'Av, and Tzom Gedalia.

Asara b'Teves is the anniversary of the day Nebuchadnezzar began the siege on Jerusalem which ultimately led to the destruction of the first Temple. Asara B'Teves also commemorates two other unfortunate events that occurred around the same time of year. On the 8th of Teves, the Torah was translated into Greek by the decree of Ptolemy, king of Egypt. And on the 9th, Ezra and Nechemia died.

Like most fast days (except Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av), the fast begins at the break of dawn and ends at nightfall. During this time we neither eat nor drink any food whatsoever, not even water.

It is important to recognize that the primary idea behind a fast is to meditate on the fact that these sufferings came upon us because of the sins of our ancestors, sins which we continue to commit, and that we must repent. Someone who fasts but spends the day in frivolous activity has completely missed the point.

No matter how religious we are, all of us occasionally struggle with doubts about Hashem and His control over the world. We've never witnessed an outright miracle, where the laws of nature were clearly set aside before the Will of the Creator. So, even though we believe in Hashem, our belief often lacks confidence. We have to constantly work on ourselves to believe.

A Jew living in the days of the Holy Temple didn't have this problem. In the Temple there were regular open miracles, some happened every day! For example, the pillar of smoke rose from the main altar, which could be seen from miles away, always rose straight up to the sky - like a literal pillar - no matter how windy the day was. This means that any Jew, living anywhere within eye-shot of the Temple Mount, could turn at any time and see an open, supernatural miracle.

Tragically, like Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, our sins caused us to lose that close relationship with God. While this was certainly a punishment, it was also, perhaps more importantly, for our benefit. One who sins in the immediate presence of God, as it was when the Temple stood, is far more guilty than one who sins in a world, like ours today, where God is hidden from our perception. God took the Temple from us, not only to punish us, and not only because we failed to appreciate it and utilize it properly, but also to reduce our guilt.

When we pray, as we do several times a day, for the rebuilding of the Temple, what we are really asking for is a return to that close relationship with God. As such, we have to recognize that, for our own good, we cannot return to that relationship unless we abandon our sinful behavior. This is why the focus on these days of mourning is on teshuva - repenting for our sins. Our teshuva should particularly focus on those sins that, we are taught, were the root causes of the destruction. These include:

• Unjustified hatred of our fellow Jews (sinas chinam). We should all work to feel love towards our fellow Jews, and also for all human beings.
• Murder. We should work on ourselves to respect our fellow man and see in him the image of God that exists in every person. Even publicly shaming another person is likened to murder.
• Idolatry. We should recognize that only God is the cause of good and bad. No person or thing can hurt you or help you unless it is HaShem’s wish. Nothing else has any real power in the world. We should also focus on developing our relationship with HaShem and to realize that He cares about each and every one of us and hears our prayers.
• Immorality. Not only must we avoid outright acts of immorality, but we must train ourselves to avoid circumstances and situations that can lead us in that direction.
• Torah study. We must recognize that the Torah is HaShem’s direct revelation to us. As such, it is fundamentally different from all other forms of knowledge. All the other sciences are the product of human knowledge and thought and can only express partial truth. New knowledge is constantly being found, and old knowledge is proven incorrect. However, the Torah is from HaShem. HaShem is perfect and knows all. Therefore the Torah is also perfect. From the Torah we learn what our purpose is in this world and how to achieve that purpose. Our attitude towards the Torah must express this recognition. We must not treat the Torah like just any other form of study.

Ultimately, the time will come when  God decides that we are ready to renew our relationship with on an even closer basis than ever before and He will send us moshiach to rebuild the Temple. At that time, the prophet tells us that these fast days will be transformed into joyous festivals.

---

Why Study Jewish History? Part 4 – “Zechor Yemos Olam” – History as Torah

Perhaps the most powerful explanation of the importance of studying Jewish history is based on the following verses from Deuteronomy (32:7-9):

זכר ימות עולם בינו שנות דור ודור, שאל אביך ויגדך זקניך ויאמרו לך. בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם, יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל. כי חלק ה' עמו, יעקב חבל נחלתו.

Remember the days of the world, understand the years from generation to generation; ask your father and he will recount to you, your elders and they will tell you. When the One Above divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For His people is His portion, Jacob is the portion of His inheritance.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman

In an essay entitled, Maamar Zechor Yemos Olam,^[1] Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman (1875-1941) explains:

"זכור ימות עולם בינו שנות דור ודור" (דברים לב:ז) ... נראה דפשוטו של מקרא קאי על כל הדורות ועל כל המעשים הנעשים בעולם. דמאחר ד"בכל הארץ משפטיו" (תהלים קה:ז) ומשפטי ה' הם לפי דיני התורה, וא"כ כמו שצריך להבין דברי התורה ולהעמיק בה, כן ג"כ צריך להתבונן בכל המאורעות הבאות לעולם ולמצוא יסודם עפ"י משפטי התורה. אבל אל יסמוך האדם על בינתו, כי דעתו קצרה מלהבין דעת עליון, אלא צריך לשמוע להמקובל אצלנו בתורה שבע"פ. וזהו שהוסיף הכתוב "שאל אביך ויגדך, זקניך ויאמרו לך." וכגון הסיפורים שנכתבו בכתבי הקדש א"א להבינם מהכתובים לבד כי אם על פי פירושי רז"ל.

"Remember the days of the world, understand the years from generation to generation" … The simple meaning of the verse applies to all generations and all the events that happen in the world. For, "His judgments are throughout the world" (Psalms 105:7), and the judgments of God are in accordance with the laws of the Torah. Therefore, just as we must understand the words of the Torah and delve into it, so too we must contemplate all the events that take place in the world and find their basis according to the judgments of the Torah. However, a person must not rely upon his own understanding, for his intellect is insufficient to understand the knowledge of the One Above; rather, it is necessary to listen to he who is recognized in the Oral Torah ^[2]. This is the intent when the verse adds, "ask your father and he will recount to you, your elders and they will tell you." This is akin to the fact that it is impossible to understand the stories of the holy Scriptures from the texts alone, except with the commentaries of the Sages.

וכדי להבין דברי ימי עולם (וועלט געשיכטע) מסרה לנו התורה מפתח גדול, לידע את הציר אשר עליו תסוב ההנהגה העליונה בעולם, והוא בכתוב מיד, "בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל כי חלק ה' עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו," ופירושו כי מאחר שמובן מאליו כי כל היצורים נבראו לעשות רצון קונם, ומכל סוגי הנמצאים העיקר הוא המין האנושי, ומהמין הזה העיקר הוא עם ישראל שהם חלק ה' ועבדיו... ונמצא שתכלית כל הבריאה היא רק בשביל ישראל, וכמו שפירש"י (בראשית א:א) "בראשית — בשביל ישראל שנקראו ראשית." וא"כ גם המעשים הנעשים בעולם תכליתם רק בשביל ישראל. וזה מפורש בכתוב (צפניה ג:ו-ז) "הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם החרבתי חוצותם... אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר." ומזה למדנו שאין פורענות באה לעולם אלא בשביל ישראל (יבמות סג.). ולדוגמה, גבולות העמים והמדינות בשנים האחרונות שנקבעו אחרי המלחמה, צריך להבין ולזכור כי טרם שנכתבו בוורסייל כבר נכתבו ונחתמו בבי"ד של מעלה. ושמה עיקר השקפתם היא רק בשביל ישראל, לטובתם או לפורענותם להוכיחם, כמו שכתוב "הוי אשור שבט אפי" (ישעי' י:ה).

In order to understand world events, the Torah gave us an important key by which to know the axis upon which the Heavenly conduct of the world turns, and this is in the verses immediately following, “When the One Above divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For His people is His portion, Jacob is the portion of His inheritance.” The explanation of this verse is as follows. It is self-evident that all creatures were created to serve the will of their Owner. From all the categories of existence, the primary is the human race, and from this race, the primary is the people of Israel, for they are the “portion” of God and they are His servants. … The purpose of creation is only for the sake of Israel, as Rashi ^[3] comments [on Genesis 1:1], "B’reshis – for the sake of Israel which is called reshis (first)." Therefore, everything that happens in the world is only for the sake of Israel. This is explicit in Scripture (Zephaniah 3:6-7), "I have cut off the nations, their towers are desolate, I have destroyed their streets… I said, 'Just fear me, accept admonishment.'" From this [verse] we learn that no suffering comes to the world except for the sake of Israel (Talmud, Yevamos 63a). For example, by the setting of the boundaries between nations and countries that was done after the war,^[4] it is necessary to understand and remember that before they were set in Versailles, they had already been written and sealed in the Heavenly Court. And there the primary outlook is only for the sake of Israel, either for their benefit or to afflict them for the purpose of admonition, as it is written, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger” (Isaiah 10:5).

וזהו שכתוב "יצב גבולות עמים"—תמיד בכל דור—"למספר בני ישראל" (דברים לב:ח), והטעם "כי חלק ה' עמו," כי ישראל לבדו הוא חלק ה' ולא שאר האומות, וע"כ כל ההנהגה העליונה מתאימה לצורכי עם ישראל. ואף כי דעתנו קצרה מלהבין איזה יחס יש בין צורכי ישראל לגבולות איים רחוקים בקצוי ארץ, אבל קורא הדורות מראש יודע שיש בזה איזה צורך לישראל בהוה או בעתיד, כמ"ש הרמב"ם (פיהמ"ש, הקדמה) שלפעמים נבנה ארמון גדול ומפואר, וכל תכלית מציאותו הוא כי לאחר מאה שנה יעבור איש חסיד בעת זרם מטר ויכנס תחת גג השער מהארמון הזה לחסות ממטר או משלג

This is what is meant by the verse, "He set the boundaries of the peoples" — continually, in every generation — "according to the number of the children of Israel." The reason for this is, "For His people is His portion." Israel alone is the portion of God, and not the other nations, and therefore, all of the Heavenly direction of the world is directed for the needs of the nation of Israel. Even though our understanding is insufficient to grasp what connection there is between the needs of Israel and the boundaries of distant isles at the ends of the earth, but "He Who knows the generations from the beginning" ^[5] knows that there is some necessity for the Jewish people, in the present or future. As Maimonides writes, sometimes a great and glorious palace will be built, and the entire purpose of its existence is because a century later a pious man will pass by during a rainstorm and he will go under the roof of the palace gate to shelter himself from the rain or snow.

Reb Elchonon Wasserman teaches us that the study of history is akin to studying Torah, if one engages in that study with the proper perspective and guidance. The primary key to a proper understanding of history is the recognition that God conducts all the events of the world for the benefit of the Jewish people. Through the proper study of history, we can come to know the will of God in a manner akin to the study of the Torah itself.

---

[1] Printed in Kovetz Maamarim and in Dugmaos L’Biur Agados al Derech HaPeshat in the back of Kovetz Haaros.

[2] R’ Elchonon’s specific mention of the Oral Torah, rather than simply “the Torah,” may be to specifically limit the category to those who are true Torah scholars with a genuine mesorah (tradition) from their own rebbeim (teachers).

[3] Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105) – author of the most important and influential commentary on the Jewish Scriptures.

[4] Rabbi Wasserman is speaking here of the peace negotiations that took place after World War I, in which the map of Europe (and much of the Middle-East) was dramatically redrawn.

[5] From Isaiah 41:4

---

Why Study Jewish History? Part 3 - Strengthening Our Emunah

The study of Jewish history has an important role in strengthening our emunah – our belief in God and His Torah. The lesson we are supposed to learn from history is that God is running the world. Indeed, one of the primary tasks of the Jewish people is to demonstrate to the world through its history that God controls the events of history. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes:^[1]

While mankind was to be taught by experience, and from its fate it was to gain knowledge about God and itself, the attainment of this aim was to be assured and furthered by a special arrangement. …There would be introduced into the ranks of nations one people which would demonstrate by its history and way of life that the sole foundation of life is God alone; that life’s only purpose is the fulfillment of His Will; and that the formal expression of this Will, specifically addressed to this people, serves as the exclusive bond of its unity. This objective required a nation that was poor in everything upon which the rest of mankind builds its greatness and the entire structure of its life. To all appearances being at the mercy of nations armed with self-reliant might, it was to be directly sustained by God Himself, so that, in manifestly overcoming all opposing forces, God would stand revealed as the sole Creator, Judge and Master of history and nature.

Thus, the existence and unity of the Jewish people, after thousands of years of oppression and dispersion, proves beyond any doubt that HaShem controls the events of history. Rabbi Yakov Emden (1698-1776) writes:^[2]

ואיך לא יבוש הכופר בהשגחה ויעמוד נכלם מי שיעיין ביחוד עניננו ומעמדנו בעולם, אנחנו האומה הגולה שה פזורה. אחר כל מה שעבר עלינו מהצרות והתמורות אלפים מהשנים ואין אומה בעולם נרדפת כמונו, מה רבים היו צרינו, מה עצמו נשאו ראש הקמים עלינו מנעורינו להשמידנו לעקרנו לשרשנו מפני השנאה שסבתה הקנאה רבת צררונו גם לא יכלו לנו לאבדנו ולכלותנו, כל האומות הקדומות העצומות אבד זכרם, בטל סברם, סר צלם, ואנו הדבקים בה' כולנו חיים היום לא נפקד ממנו בכל תוקף אריכות גלותינו אפילו אות וניקוד אחד מתורה שבכתב וכל דברי חכמים קיימים לא יטה לארץ מנלם, לא שלט בהם יד הזמן ולא כלם, מה יענה בזה פילוסוף חריף, היד מקרה עשתה כל אלה? חי נפשי, כי בהתבונני בנפלאות אלה, גדלו אצלי יותר מכל נסים ונפלאות שעשה השי"ת לאבותנו במצרים ובמדבר ובארץ ישראל, וכל מה שארך הגלות יותר נתאמת הנס יותר ונודע מעשה תקפו וגבורתו, בשגם כל הנביאים כבר ראו עומקו והתאוננו והתלוננו על אריכותו הנפלא בטרם היותו, והנה לא נפל מכל דבריהם ארצה, איה פי המכחיש וכו'

How can the denier of Divine Providence not be embarrassed and ashamed when he thinks about our unique status and circumstance in the world? We, the exiled nation, the lost sheep, [even] after all the oppressions and changes which have happened to us over thousands of years—there is no nation that is pursued as we are, how numerous are our oppressors, how aggressively do they turn against us, since the time of our youth, to destroy, overturn, and uproot us, with a hatred motivated by jealousy—yet, despite our numerous oppressors, they were unable to destroy us and wipe us out. All of the mighty ancient nations, their memory has been lost, their countenance has been nullified, their image has been removed, but we, who cleave to God, are all alive today. Through all the powerful, long exile, we have not lost even one letter or dot from our Written Torah, and all the words of the Sages remain standing, not one of them has fallen. The hand of time has had no dominion over them, and they have not been destroyed. What response can you make to this, brilliant philosopher? Has all of this been achieved by accident? By the life of my soul! When I consider these wonders, they appear greater to me than all the miracles and wonders that God did for our ancestors in Egypt, and in the wilderness, and in the land of Israel.^[3] And the longer the exile lasts, the more verified the miracle becomes, and His might and power are made known. Especially because all of the prophets had already seen the depth [of the exile] and they mourned and bemoaned its great duration before it happened, and not one of their words has failed to be fulfilled. Where is the mouth that can deny? …

Many non-Jews have indeed noticed this unique characteristic of the Jews. In a very famous and widely quoted passage, Mark Twain writes:^[4]

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.   Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Similarly, the great French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662), wrote:^[5]

This family, or people, is the most ancient within human knowledge, a fact which seems to me to inspire a peculiar veneration for it, especially in view of our present inquiry; since if God had from all time revealed Himself to men, it is to these we must turn for knowledge of the tradition.

This people is not eminent solely by their antiquity, but is also singular by their duration, which has always continued from their origin till now. For whereas the nations of Greece and of Italy, of Lacedæmon, of Athens and of Rome, and others who came long after, have long since perished, these ever remain, and in spite of the endeavours of many powerful kings who have a hundred times tried to destroy them, as their historians testify, and as it is easy to conjecture from the natural order of things during so long a space of years, they have nevertheless been preserved (and this preservation has been foretold); and extending from the earliest times to the latest, their history comprehends in its duration all our histories [which it preceded by a long time].

Yet, while many writers have recognized the unique survival of the Jews, most of these writers, unlike Pascal, fail to take the next logical step of acknowledging the Source of that survival.^[6] Some, like Mark Twain, simply leave the topic as a mystery. Other’s attempt to explain it away or to deny its true uniqueness. Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, is an example of the latter. In his book, A Study of History, he discusses the case of the Jews:^[7]

Normally the establishment of a universal state, even for no longer than a single spell, has resulted in a permanent obliteration of the identities of the local states and people that have been incorporated in it. … Yet, without the political framework of a state or the territorial basis of a home, the Jews have managed to preserve their separate identity, as a people, from 586 BC – the year that saw the obliteration of the Kingdom of Judah – down to the present day. They have preserved it as a scattered minority (diaspora) living among non-Jewish majorities in countries outside the former frontiers of the extinct Kingdom of Judah and hundreds or thousands of miles away from its historic capital, Jerusalem.

This feat is remarkable and exceptional, but it is not unique. The Jews are not the only uprooted people who have achieved it. …

Thus, after detailing the amazing – "remarkable and exceptional" – survival of the Jewish people, Toynbee attempts to diminish its significance by claiming that other groups have achieved the same thing. However, if we look at the actual examples he gives, none of them are even closely comparable to the Jews. Among the groups he mentions are the Parsees,^[8] the Monophysite and Nestorian Christians,^[9] the Molokane, Skoptsy, and Dukhobors,^[10] the Quakers,^[11] and the Huguenots.^[12]

None of these groups is comparable to the Jews for several obvious reasons. Firstly, every one of these groups is of relatively recent origin, the oldest being the Parsees, which is less than 1,500 years old. By contrast, the Jewish diaspora is at least 2,000 years old, and about 2,500 years if we begin counting from the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah, as Toynbee does. Secondly, none of these other groups are of great prominence in the world, they are simply small religious groups of little interest to the world at large. The Jews, however, are extremely prominent, often to their great dismay, and are the focus of grossly disproportionate amount of attention on the world scene. And, finally, none of these groups were oppressed with the same aggressiveness and persistence with which the Jews have been oppressed. Toynbee himself actually acknowledges all of these factors later, when he states:

Of all the diasporas in our list [the Jewish diaspora] is the most famous, the most influential, and also perhaps the most unhappy, at least so far, in its relations with the gentile majorities among whom it has been living. It has also been in existence longer than any of the others, and has been more completely divorced from the cultivation of the land in its original home.

The story is told that King Frederick the Great once asked his pastor to provide him with a very brief proof of the truth of religion. The pastor answered simply, "The Jews, your majesty."^[13] For the Jewish people, the existence of God is not simply a matter for philosophical discussion; His hand has been present throughout our history. Our Sages tell us that the Roman emperor Hadrian once said to Rabbi Yehoshua, “Great is the lamb [the Jewish people] who survives amongst seventy wolves [the seventy nations]!” Rabbi Yehoshua responded, “Great is the Shepherd, who rescues and protects her, and breaks them [the nations] before her!”^[14]

We repeat this theme on Pesach at the Seder when we recite “V’He Sh’Amdah”:

This is what has stood up for our fathers and for us,
For not only one has stood up against us to destroy us,
But in every generation they rise up to destroy us,
And the Holy One, Blessed Be He, saves us from their hands.

A historically conscious Jew cannot help but be amazed by the open miracle of Jewish survival. In a world that often appears to be totally mundane, the mere existence of a Jew is a miracle. I have often told my students, "If you want to see an open miracle, look in a mirror!" Yet, it is a miracle that one can easily overlook, if you are lacking the historical knowledge to put it in context. Studying Jewish history is, therefore, a vital and powerful means of strengthening our Jewish belief.

This understanding, that the study of Jewish history can strengthen our emunah, brings us to a related issue. Because Jewish history provides such a powerful testimony to the existence and power of God, those who wish to deny Him or to deny the authority of the Torah will frequently attempt to revise history. The secular study of history is dominated by people with a strong ideological bias against emunah, who will rewrite history to fit with their prior misconceptions or to provide support for their false teachings. The Sages (Avos 2:14) teach us, דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס – “Know what to answer to an heretic.” It is important for us to know how to respond to such claims.

---

[1] The Nineteen Letters, Letter Seven

[2] In Sulam Beis El, printed at the beginning of his Siddur, in the first section of חווק ב'.

[3] Emphasis added.

[4] Closing paragraph of his essay,"Concerning the Jews".

[5] Pensées 619

[6] And even Pascal, and other Christian thinkers, failed to recognize the full implications.

[7] A Study of History, Abridged, One Volume Edition
, p. 65

[8] A Zoroastrian group that fled from Islamic persecution in Iran (Persia) in the 7^th Century and settled in India. Today, there are about 100,000 Parsees worldwide, most in India and Iran, and the population is steadily declining.

[9] Two Middle-Eastern Christian sects that separated from “mainstream” Christianity in the Fifth Century.

[10] Three Russian Christian sects that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17^th Century.

[11] A Christian sect that began in England in 1647.

[12] French Protestants who were persecuted in the struggles between the Catholics and Protestants.

[13] This story exists in a wide range of versions, but most are between Frederick the Great and an anonymous pastor. Some versions identify the speaker as the Marquis d'Argens (1704-1771), a French philosopher who was a friend of Moses Mendelssohn. Of course, in these stories, the supernatural survival of the Jews is cited as a proof for the truth of Christianity, which just goes to show that even open miracles can be misinterpreted.

[14] Tanchuma, Toldos 5

---

Why Study Jewish History? Part 2 - Learning the Lessons of the Past

The Torah makes it clear in numerous places that an historical awareness – consciousness of the past – is a fundamental aspect of Judaism. Thus, for example, we have the daily obligation of remembering the Exodus from Egypt, and many other such commandments – such as the Sheish Zechiros[1] many people say after morning prayers[2] – and, of course, we have the various holidays and fast days that commemorate historical events.

The basic reason for this emphasis on the past is because, fundamentally, our entire belief in God and His Torah is based on historical events like the Exodus from Egypt and Matan Torah (lit. "the Giving of the Torah", i.e. the Revelation at Sinai). However, we don't only remember the positive events of our past, we also remember the errors (such as the sins of the golden calf and the spies) and the tragedies (such as the destruction of the first and second Temples). There is an actual mitzvah d’Oraisa (Biblical obligation) to remember the sin of the golden calf and also to remember the sin of Miriam. The purpose of remembering these events is so that we can learn from them.[3] This is also the primary purpose of fast days.[4] For this reason, the Jewish Scriptures and works of the Sages do not sanitize Jewish history. On the contrary, Scripture will frequently exaggerate the sins of our ancestors so that we can learn from them.

In his introduction to his edition of Seder HaDoros, Rav Naftali ben R’ Avraham Maskil L’Eisan (1829-1897)[5] writes that this is one of the most important purposes of studying history:

הנסיון הוא ראש המורים בכל ענין אשר נתן אל האדם לענות בו תחת השמש, ראשון הוא לכל נותני לקח טוב ללמד להועיל, ומה יכלכלו ימי חיי אנוש הקצרים לצבור לו נסיונות איש איש לנפשו ודור דור לבדו? אך דור לדור יגיד נסיונותיו, אבות לבנים יודיעו, ובניהם לדור אחרון, כרבות הדורות ירבו הנסיונות וכספות ימות עולם תרבינה הידיעות והבחינות. כל מקרה וכל מעבר אשר יעבור על גוי ועל אדם יחד יורה דעה לבאים אחריו איך יאחזו אשוריהם. כל מכשול וכל תקלה, כל סבה וכל מסובב, יביא לבב חכמה לדור יבוא לעשות כמתכנתו או להנזר ממנו, בכל חכמת בינה, בכל מלאכת מחשבת, ובכל הליכות החיים. זכרון מפעלות הצדיקים ופרי מעלליהם אשר יאכלו המה נר לרגלי בני האדם ואור לנתיבתם, ועלילת רשעי ארץ ותוצאותם למות ולאבדון הם מוסר תוכחה לאחרונים לבל יזידו ללכת בעקבותם

Experience is the chief teacher in every matter that a man must deal with in this world. It is the primary giver of beneficial good teachings. What would the brief lives of men suffice to gather experience for each individual person and each generation by itself? Rather, each generation recounts its experiences to the next, fathers tell their sons, and their sons tell the following generation, and as the generations increase, the experiences accumulate, and as the days of the world gather, knowledge and insights increase. Every event, every barrier that is passed, whether for a nation or an individual person, educates those who come later on how to emulate their success. Every obstacle and mishap, every cause and effect, brings wisdom to the coming generation enabling them to do it correctly or avoid it. So it is in every art of wisdom, every skilled craft, and in all the ways of life. The memory of the acts of the righteous and the beneficial fruits of their deeds are a candle before the feet of men and a light for their path. Whereas the deeds of the wicked and their results in death and destruction are a reproof of admonishment for those who come later to not wickedly follow in their footsteps.

---

[1] The “Six Remembrances” – This refers to six Biblical commandments to constantly remember certain facts. These are (1) to remember the Exodus from Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:3), (2) to remember the revelation at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:9-10), (3) to remember the war with Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:17-19), (4) to remember the sin of the golden calf (Deuteronomy 9:7), (5) to remember the punishment of Miriam (Deuteronomy 24:9), and (6) to remember to sanctify the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8). With the exception of the last, all of these are commandments to remember events from the past.

[2] The Sheish Zechiros are printed in most Jewish prayer books immediately after the morning prayers, and it is a widespread custom to recite them every day at that point.

[3] The philosopher George Santayana is frequently quoted, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

[4] See Mishna Berurah 549:1

[5] The early editions of Seder HaDoros had numerous printing errors and was almost unusable. Rav Naftali Maskil L’Eisan issued a corrected edition. Although his editing of the Seder HaDoros is generally considered to have been his most significant accomplishment, Rav Naftali Maskil L’Eisan may be best known as the author of the so-called "Malbim Haggada".

---

Why Study Jewish History? Part 1 - As an Aid to Torah Study

This is the first of a series of four posts on why the proper study of Jewish history is a very important part of the development of a true ben Torah (a Jew who is focused on Torah study). The focus in these posts will be on the importance of Jewish history for a Jew’s spiritual development. Each post will focus on one major aspect of this topic.

This material was originally written for a course in Jewish history given at a yeshiva high school. I have modified it somewhat for a broader audience.

---

History as an Aid to Torah Study

The study of history, especially of the period of Chazal (Chachmeinu Zichronom Livrocha – “Our Sages, may their memory be a blessing” – a term used to refer to the Sages of the Talmud), is very important as an aid for Torah study. In fact, most of the major history seforim were written for this purpose. Rav Yechiel Heilprin (1660-1746), in his great historical work, Seder HaDoros, explains in his introduction:

...דע לך כי תועלת ידיעת הדורות רב הוא... ואם תורתנו הקדושה, שאין בה יתור אות וקוצי, התחיל מבראשית, שלא היה צריך אלא בשביל רנון אומות שלא יאמרו לסטים אתם, כ"ש ידיעת הדורות ממש, כל גופי התורה והלכה פסוקה יתבררו עי"ז, שמן הצורך להיות רשום בלב כל נבון. ואם הראשונים, שלבם היה פתוח כפתחו של היכל ואולם..., עכ"ז ר' יוסי, שנימוקו עמו, עשה חבור על זה וקראו סדר עולם, אלא שקיצר מאד כי היה די לדורות ההם, אבל בדור העני בדעת... מרבוי הצרות... ונסתמו מעינות חכמה ובינה, לא די שנחתם ונסתם שבילי ים הש"ס, כי גם בתורה נביאים וכתובים אשר "למקרא בן חמש" אם הוא בן שבעים אין בו ממש וכעור באפלה ימשש... ע"כ ערכתי לפניך סדר הדורות

You should know that the knowledge of the generations is of great benefit…. If our holy Torah—which does not contain an extra letter or point—begins with Genesis, which is only necessary because of the accusations of the nations so that they shouldn’t say, “You are bandits!”,^[1] then certainly the [history of the] generations [through which] all the basics of Torah and halacha (Jewish law) are made clear, must be imprinted on the mind of any intelligent person.^[2] Furthermore, [even in the time of] the early generations, whose minds were open like the entry to the Temple, … Rav Yosi [ben Chalafta], "whose learning is with him"^[3] nevertheless saw fit to write a book on [history] which he called Seder Olam,^[4] although he wrote very concisely, for that was sufficient for those generations. However, in [this] generation which is poor in knowledge… because of the numerous troubles… and in which the springs of wisdom and understanding have been sealed, not only have the ways of the sea of the Talmud been sealed and shut off, but even with regard to Torah, Neviim, and Kesuvim (Tanach i.e. Scripture), [of] which [we are taught that] “a five year old begins the study of Scripture”^[5], [even] seventy year old men have no knowledge and are like blind men groping in the dark…. For this reason I have assembled before you [this work], Seder HaDoros….

Rav Heilprin continues with a detailed discussion of the importance of this study and he gives many examples of the kind of errors in learning and halacha which can be made when one is ignorant of the order of the generations of the chachamim.

Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as recommending the translation of the Greek writings of Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian who lived at the time of the destruction of the second Temple, because his writings can help us understand chazal and their times.^[6]

A good basic knowledge of Jewish history is essential to any serious Torah scholar. Without it, a scholar will make many elementary errors in his understanding, and possibly even errors in psak halacha. As we shall see, in future posts on this topic, the study of Jewish history serves several other important functions for a Torah Jew as well.

---

[1] See Rashi on Genesis 1:1, that really the Torah could have begun with the mitzvos (commandments) and skipped the historical narrative of Creation and the Patriarchs, except to establish the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel so that the nations cannot accuse us of being robbers. For a full discussion of this issue, see Ramban and Nachalas Yakov on Genesis 1:1.

[2] Rav Heilprin’s reasoning is that if God is willing to insert historical information in the Torah just to respond to the accusations of the nations, then certainly we should be knowledgeable in that historical information that is necessary for our basic understanding of Torah and halacha.

[3] This was a special praise that was said of R’ Yosi ben Chalafta, see Gittin 67a and Avos d’Rabbi Noson 18.

[4] This refers to the classic rabbinic work, Seder Olam Raba.

[5] Avos 5:21

[6] The Encyclopedia L’Toldos Gedolei Yisroel (ערך ר' אליהו מוולנא) states:

ר' אברהם בן הגאון מספר שאביו הגאון אמר לו שהוא משתוקק לראות את ספרי יוספוס פלביוס מתורגמים עברית משום "שעל ידם נוכל לבוא אל כוונתם של רבותינו ז"ל בתלמוד ובמדרשים בדברם במקומות רבים בעניני ארץ קדשנו בימי קדם ההם."

Also see the Artscroll biography of the Vilna Gaon, p. 154

---

Book Review: "Maimonides:Reason Above All" by Israel Drazin

Maimonides was one of the greatest rabbinic figures in history. He made a profound and permanent impact upon the Jewish world, and his influence spread well beyond the borders of the Jewish community. He was universally recognized as a great scholar of the Bible and Talmud, and his works have become basic texts of the Jewish canon. At the same time, Maimonides was an original thinker who put forth a number of opinions that were controversial in his own time and some of these controversies resonate until today. The bulk of the controversy surrounds his efforts, mainly in his great philosophical work, Guide for the Perplexed, to resolve conflicts between traditional Jewish teachings and Aristotelian philosophy.

Because of the importance of Maimonides and the debates surrounding some of his opinions, a good introductory work to the thought of Maimonides and his contemporaries, clearly explaining where and how he differed from other major figures, would be highly desirable. Unfortunately, that is not what the reader will encounter when reading Israel Drazin's new book, Maimonides: Reason Above All.

Despite the book's promising description and the author's apparent qualifications, the book not only fails to live up to expectations, but it even fails to attain the most minimal standards of academic competence and intellectual honesty. The book is replete, page after page, with misstatements, distortions, and dishonest citations and quotations. After a great deal of effort, I was forced to conclude that I could not find a single redeeming characteristic in the book.

Drazin fails to understand the opinions of any of the scholars he is discussing, whether it is Maimonides himself, other Jewish scholars, or even non-Jewish philosophers. He appears to have difficulty with even basic reading comprehension. For example, on page 26, Drazin begins a detailed analysis of a statement from "the poet Yehuda Halevi" in which Halevi negatively contrasted Maimonides with his father. This is an amazing statement, in that Yehuda Halevi, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers and poets, died in 1141, when Maimonides was about two years old. (This should be immediately obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Jewish intellectual history.) The quote that Drazin is discussing - which he got from a secondary source (which does not ascribe the quote to Yehuda Halevi) - was actually written by L. M. Simmons, an English rabbi, in the Jewish Quarterly Review in 1890. Drazin's failure in this simple citation is unfortunately typical of his entire work. Over and over again, Drazin makes basic errors of fact and comprehension.

The quality of this work is so poor that it does not really deserve a detailed response. There is, quite literally, not a single issue that Drazin presents accurately. When attempting to present a dispute, Drazin usually gets both sides wrong, and misses the actual point of disagreement entirely. In other cases, Drazin creates disputes where none exist. Drazin's presentation of Maimonides is so heavily biased, that it quickly reaches the point of absurdity.

Drazin attempts to reconstruct Maimonides as a religious naturalist who rejected creation ex nihilo, miracles, providence, prophecy, the existence of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and any God-oriented purpose in religion. Drazin openly admits that it is only possible to do so by denying many - many!! - of Maimonides' own statements. Drazin believes that Maimonides' was simply lying when he said these things. This is a major theme of Drazin's work, that Maimonides engaged in a "holy lie" (a phrase coined by Nietzsche that Drazin uses repeatedly) and knowingly made completely false statements to deceive the masses (for their own good, of course). Drazin makes this claim not just of some of the more difficult passages in Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed (even this is debatable), but of vast swathes of his writings, including large amounts of material that was unique to Maimonides. For example, Maimonides was the first Jewish scholar to create a formalized dogma of Judaism, his 13 Foundations, which Maimonides argued must be fully accepted in order for one to be a legitimate member of the Jewish faith. This idea was original to Maimonides, and, indeed, many authorities disagreed with his formulation (although, by and large, they agreed with its content). Drazin, however, would have us believe that Maimonides himself did not believe many, possibly most, of these foundations.

Even when Drazin directly quotes Maimonides (and others), he does so dishonestly, carefully editing the quote (using ellipses to remove inconvenient material and inserting material in brackets) to support his point even when the full quote, in context, would not only fail to support Drazin's point, but actually contradict it. This betrayal of the reader's trust is exacerbated by the fact that many of Drazin's most radical assertions are supported by nothing more than anonymous "scholars" without any reference to who these scholars are, what they actually said, or where and when they said it. Given Drazin's repeated inability to comprehend the material he is writing about, and his dishonest citations of material that people can actually check for themselves, it is simply impossible to trust his assertion of the opinions of scholars whom he fails to even identify.

If Drazin's presentation of Maimonides is absurd, his presentation of other Jewish thinkers is grotesque. For example, Drazin apparently understands all anthropomorphic depictions of God, midrashic, kabalistic or liturgical, to have been intended in the full literal sense. Thus, his presentation of Lurianic kabbalah on page 241 is beyond laughable; it is a caricature of a caricature.

Even Drazin's discussion of non-Jewish philosophers is incompetent. For some reason, Drazin chose to include an entire chapter on Rene Descartes, apparently to argue that Descartes was not sufficiently "rational". In the course of this discussion, Drazin completely mangles Descartes, and demonstrates a complete failure to grasp even the most basic elements of his thought. Drazin's "refutation" of Descartes' "cogito" - again given in the name of anonymous scholars - is so shallow that it wouldn't past muster in a seventh grade classroom discussion.

If Drazin's work were of a better quality, it would be worthwhile to enter into a deeper discussion of some of the arguments he puts forth. For example, the relationship between the thought of Maimonides and the thought of his son, Abraham, is one that requires serious study. However, Drazin's presentation of the thought of both figures is so distorted that he contributes nothing to the discussion except confusion.

In short, Drazin's book is so... awful... that readers will not only learn nothing new, but, far worse, they will learn a large number of things that are not so. If a reader wishes to educate himself about the thought of Maimonides, there are many vastly superior works. My personal recommendation as a basic introduction would be A Maimonides Reader by Isadore Twersky.

---