Curing Cancer the Torah Way

A very thought provoking essay was posted on Cross-Currents on June 24 authored by Rabbi Dovid Landesman entitled A.Y. Karelitz, M.D.

Here is the part that interested me:

I brought an example once from the Iggerot Chazon Ish and was somewhat astounded to discover that none of my students had ever heard of the author. I digressed and told them the story of Professor Lev and what he had said. I then described the impact that the Chazon Ish had on halachah in our generation, especially in regard to mitzvos ha-tluyot ba-aretz. This led into a general discussion about great rabbis.

One hand in the back of the room shot up.

“Rebbi? Based on what you‘re saying about the Chazon Ish and the way you describe him, isn‘t it possible that if he had dedicated his time to medical research rather than full time Torah study, he might have discovered a cure for cancer?”

“That‘s a possibility although there is no guarantee that it would have happened,” I answered.

“Well, let‘s assume for a moment that he did discover the cure for cancer. Would that not have had a greater impact on the world than his contributions to learning?”

This is certainly a very legitimate question and one that is commonly asked in various forms (as I will illustrate shortly). I applaud Rabbi Landesman for providing a very fitting and poignant response:

“Quantitatively I think you might say that given that more people might have benefited. Qualitatively I‘m not sure, because none of us knows precisely how important Torah learning is to the preservation of natural order. When the Talmud tells us ein ha-olam mitkayem ella al hevel pihem shel tinokot shel beit rabban – the world only exists because of the study of the children – they were telling us that Torah study is the energy that fuels nature. Take it away and natural order collapses. Had the Chazon Ish gone into medical research – had he become A. Y. Karelitz M.D. – who knows how much quality Torah learning would be missing in this world.”

Although I thought that his response was a true answer and appropriate to a more secular mindset, I also thought that it slightly missed the mark.

He is saying that based on how we measure (qualitative vs. quantitative), the achievement in Torah can be considered no less far-reaching. With this response, Rabbi Landesman concedes that the Chazon Ish's great achievements in learning may have come at the expense of great achievements in medicine. Though Torah study supplies the energy that fuels nature, it does not directly alleviate the plight of cancer sufferers.

I am not so sure about that. And I think Rabbi Landesman missed out on an opportunity to deliver an hashkafic message that is simpler, less esoteric and more relevant to the petitioner's question about curing cancer. So I stepped in to fill the void. Here is the comment that I posted on Cross-Currents:

I have likewise dealt with the question of “If the Chazon Ish would have been able to cure cancer…” but in a slightly different guise. The way I am asked the question is: “If all of the Jews would sit and learn Torah 24/7 as advocated by Ravi Shimon Bar Yochai (Brachos 35b), who would be the doctors to heal those who get sick?” My response addresses both forms of the question and follows a more theological track.

For starters, we can always rely on the response presented by RaShb”Y himself in Brachos 35b which is that non-Jews would come voluntarily and fill that role. HKBH is the Chonen L’Adam Daas and He is quite capable of inspiring whoever He wants – Jewish or not – with the requisite wisdom to make the medical discoveries that would help mankind. If HKBH wants a cure for cancer to be found, He has no small pool of “servants” that He can choose Himself to lead to the right place.

Nevertheless, I might expect this response to fall short of satisfying the questioner because he would ask: “But the Chazon Ish was blessed with extraordinary brilliance and understanding, why not assume that he is the ‘chosen servant’?”

So here is where I take the theological track:

HKBH tells us Himself in no less than 3 places in the Torah (okay, once it’s through Moshe) that if we faithfully follow His dictates, we won’t get sick! What this says is that the only reason we have cancer is because we are not “mushlam” (complete) in our avodas Hashem. If we would be, there would be no cancer. This is G-d’s promise in no less than 3 places in the Torah (Shmos 16:26, 23:25 and Devarim 7:16).

What the Torah is telling us is that working toward “shleimus” in Avodas Hashem is the cure for cancer (or – the way to avoid getting it in the first place. ‘An ounce of prevention…’). As such, one who devotes his life to helping Jews fulfill their role as a Mamleches Kohanim and a Goy Kadosh - as the Chazon Ish did - is doing more to cure cancer than anybody in medical school.

Yes, I know we are far from mushlamim and in our day even Kedoshim are stricken with the dreaded disease R”L, but had the Chazon Ish been A.Y. Karelitz M.D., we would be that much further from true Avodas Hashem and the cancers that much worse.

Y. Hirshman - Achas L’Maala V’Sheva L’Matta (1a7b)

Incidentally, as I have written in the main theme of my book and in numerous posts, this concept applies to every malady that affects mankind, not just sickness. War, economic turmoil and poverty, infertility, Shalom bayis - all of it is here because we are not living up to our potential in Avodas Hashem.

So if anybody asks: If every Jewish male 18-26 is studying in Yeshiva, who would protect us and fight our enemies? Here is the answer:

Why is there war? And why do we need soldiers? Because we are not committed enough to Torah learning. If we were (Vayikra 26:3), there would not be any war (Vayikra 26:6) and we wouldn't need any soldiers.

Why is there poverty in the world? Because we are not careful in gezel (Targum YB"U Shmos 20:13).

And why are there droughts and water shortages? Because we bear false witness (Targum YB"U ibid.)

And why is there poor shalom bayis? Because we do not do G-d's will (Mishlei 16:7 and Yalkut Shimoni 954). If we did, we would not need marriage counselors and divorce courts.

And why are there infertile couples? Because we (i.e., collective society - not necessarily the individual couples) are not careful on the light mitzvos that people trample with the heels of their feet (Devarim 7:12). If we were, we would not need fertility clinics (Devarim 7:14).

And who tells us exactly how to perform these "light" mitzvos properly so we know all the Halachic nuances and can avoid "trampling them with the heels of our feet"? And how to do the ratzon Hashem so we can have Shalom Bayis? And how to deal in dinei mammonos so we can forstall poverty and avoid droughts?

The Chazon Ish, that's who. And other Gedolim like him.

So here they are (or were), doing the work of these cancer researchers and fertility experts and marriage counselors and of the entire IDF.

So what do we need them for?

Well, somebody has to win those Nobel prizes.

"Kuf" is for Kiddush Hashem

Klal Yisroel is still limping along lopsided. Here in Eretz Yisrael we are about to hear Parshat Chukas while those of you in Chu"L are going to hear Parshat Korach. Of course, next week, IY"H, everybody will hear Parshat Balak and we will again be one big happy family.

I heard a cute vort a few years back that applies to all three of these Parshiot and it goes like this:

In all three of these Parshiot there is an episode wherein a small faction of Klal Yisrael rebels against HKBH and thus initiates a Chillul Hashem. Consequently comes one of the Bnei Amram who channels G-d's revenge and, with this, brings on a Kiddush Hashem.

The name of each Parsha contains three letters and in all of them there is a "kuf". The kuf represents the Kiddush Hashem in each of these Parshiot. Thus, in Parshat Korach where the episode of Korach and his rebellion - and it's aftermath - are at the beginning of the Parsha, the kuf is the first letter of the name of the Parsha - Korach.

In Parshat Chukas, the episode in question is the demand of Bnei Yisrael for water after the passing of Miriam and HKBH answering their request by providing water from the rock. Although Moshe was reprimanded for not making an adequate Kiddush Hashem, it was nevertheless a Kiddush Hashem albiet of lesser impact. Since this episode occurs in the middle of the Parsha, the kuf in the name of the Parsha - ChuKas - is in the middle of the word.

Finally, in Parshat Balak, the episode of Kiddush Hashem is represented by Pinchas' valiant respo0nse to the transgression of Zimri. Since this occurs at the very end of the Parsha, the kuf is at the end of the word that is the name of the Parsha - BalaK.

Who is it that taught us this interesting tidbit?

Well, I heard it a few years ago from my wife. She attends a weekly woman's prayer group that meets at the Kotel HaMaaravi every Wednesday morning. The vort was relayed to the group by Mrs. Marsha Goldin. She is the mother of Binyamin Goldin, one of the autistic Jews who have been transmitting messages to the Jewish world by way of Facilitated Communication and who I have been referring to in some of my most recent posts.

In an FC session that took place approximately 9 years ago, the communicator asked Binyamin to say a dvar Torah. Since it was this time of year, this tidbit is what he said. The FC technician who managed the session was Rebitzin Kalmanovitz, the wife of the current Rosh Yeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. She had never heard this vort previously and none of the Rabbanim that it was relayed to had heard it as well. It does not seem to be in print in any known sefer or Pirush.

I confirmed the entire matter with Binyamin's father in a recent conversation. He said that the text of that session is still in existence and if he can locate it, he will send me a copy.

I had written in an earlier post that I do not know enough about FC to campaign for or against it. But to focus on the Kiddush Hashem in all these Parshiot is certainly worth campaining for.

ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל

Good Shabbos!

The Lunatic Club

My previous post drew numerous comments. Becaue of the outwardness of the post, I am more inclined to directly respond to the comments than in some less essential posts.

The following is part of a comment posted to the post. I initially wanted to respond in the comments section but I newly learned that there is a limit of 4096 characters to a post comment and I exceeded it. And so I will post the response here in a new post.

The comment was:

yechezkel:

"That's right. I am in cahoots with Fishman , Rav Amnon Yitzchok, the "Tzaddik nistars", the autistics, Chamish and all the other doomsday preachers and I am not afraid to admit it."

but the tzaddik nistar was shown to be saying falsehood. rosh chodesh sivan came and went, and people are still making aliyah. are you willing to state that the Tzadik Nistar was a lunatic?

See also comments from Ari, Baruch and Baal HaBos.

Now, my response:

Why don't you ask me a better question: Since all the time the "Tzaddik Nistar" was preaching R"Ch Sivan, the autistics were saying , "We don't hold by timetables", ergo, they are not in sync with each other, so how can I be in cahoots with both of them?

But, in Talmudic fashion, the kasha points to the terutz. And this also addresses the first question by Baruch, as well:

There are 2 aspects to theses "doomsday" preachers - (1) Their message and (2) their predictions. I buy into their message, but I have a guarded view on the predictions.

If you follow the autistics they have one major message: Every Jew ,if he knows what's good for him, should do teshuva and come closer to Hashem. People who remain distanced will have less chance of surviving the chavlei mashiach. This message is in line with chazal in Sanhedrin, Sota and Shabbos as well as in divrei neviim. They are just saying that the time is real close. As a secondary agenda, they are pushing 3 issues - to be mechazek in chessed, tznius, and to come to eretz yisrael. The only thing that I really took out of the "Tzaddik nistar" was another voice on the advisability to getting to eretz yisrael.

The arichus in my post with how I saw things in 1997 was trying to point out that I personally felt this way, way before I ever heard of the autistics or the "tzadik nistar". I am merely recruiting them as allies. As far as predictions, I never relied on them and, as the autistics say, make your judgements based on what it says in the neviim and chazal and on what is going on around you.

Also, just as many chashuva people have predicted the arrival of mashiach and it has not yet come but we believe it will - IOW, don't brush off "good" predictions just because somebody's "deadline" has passed, I don't think it's a good idea to so quickly dismiss some negative predictions just because their "deadline" passed. The gemara says that Ikvisa d'Meshicha and milchemes gog and magog will be horrific ordeals and we need to be zocheh to be saved from them, who needs deadlines?

Now, back to the Obama Deception, let me say that I heard about a push for a "Global Economy" or world government before I saw this (which was just last week, BTW) and the FEMA "Concentration" camps. As I said in an earllier response, the parts that impressed me were the statements made on camera by Obama, Kissinger, Imannuel and the cult-like worship of Obama. Again, most of these things I was aware of before I saw the film. The film just jazzes it all up. There is just too much of this "conspiracy theory" that isn't theory to brush it off. The economic downturn is very real, and if it was orchestrated, it's very scary. Anti-semitism is growing eveywhere, and this was not even mentioned on the film.

As for Ari's comment, I (and the autistics) are not trying to insinuate that the Jews in these other countries are not in just as much danger, just the opposite, it is Ari's "sanguine" perspective that somehow the American Jews are any bit safer that the autistics are trying to combat. As you can see, I am a "student" (and first generation descendent) of Holocaust history and the "It won't happen here" card was already dealt and lost. If that's all that Ari has to rely on, he is walking on thin ice.

Anyway, to summarize, my feeling is based mostly on maamarei chazal and neviim, historical precedent, and intuition. I don't need anybody's predictions. I only draw on these other sources for "comraderie". The more voices say the same thing, maybe somebody will listen.

So bottom line, it's too early to say if the "tzadik nistar" is a lunatic and so what if he is? I still agree with his message. I truly feel that every Jew should do teshuva, be mechazek in chessed and tznius and I also think that a Jew who is not already in Eretz Yisrael when things get really difficult, will need to have extraordinary zechusim to get out.

The only question is - are things really going to get that difficult?

I don't know! But I am not waiting around the US to find out.

Life of a Salesman - * A Must Read*

My fate is to live the life of a salesman (I sure just don't want to die the Death of a Salesman.) My father, AMV"Sh, is a salesman. And he is my role model. So my motto in life is "What's good for Daddy is good for me." So, he is a salesman and I am a salesman. There is only one slight difference. He is a successful salesman, and I am not.

My father's wit and charm (and chasdei shamayim) - i.e., his "salesmanship" - got him through the Holocaust. While in Melk, a Nazi guard took a liking to him and would slip him an occasional apple on the sly. My father got badly injured while in Melk. Whereas most people as badly injured were sent on a one way trip to the camp infirmary, a Nazi guard (perhaps the same one) "looked the other way".

After the war he went into the diamond business and (again b'chasdei shamayim) became one of the most successful diamond merchants in Natwich. He could sell coal in Newcastle.

So, following in my father's footsteps (no concentration camps though, B"H) I set out to be a salesman. My first try was - naturally - the diamond business. I did okay in Natwich as the ground support for Papa but when I moved to Eretz Yisrael to fly on my own it was flop city. Diamonds lost their sparkle, but I am a born salesman! So I don't give up. I tried my hand at souvenirs, plastic change purses, portable massage tables, jelly beans, odd lots of cell phones, vibrating chairs and even real estate.

Not a nibble.

But I am not one to throw in the towel so quick. As they say, "Old salesmen never die - they just go out of commission."

I had to find a market that wasn't saturated. Then it struck me. I will sell Torah Judaism! Not stam Shabbos and kashrus and tefiillin like Aish sells. No, I will sell G-d's Secret Recipe for success from Parshat Bechukosai. G-d made it Himself and it's guaranteed for life (this one and the next). It's so inexpensive and very few have already bought it. How can I go wrong?

So I wrote One Above and Seven Below. Who would turn it down?

Now I have about 800 books gathering dust in my machsan and Amazon moved 5 books over the last 6 months. (To order, click HERE).

So now I am getting desparate. What else can I possibly sell?

Well, my previous post kind of gave away the new line I took on. I decided to change tactics and instead of pushing what nobody is selling, I want to push what many others are selling. I am even going into competition with my own brother who works for Nefesh B'Nefesh.

I am selling Aliya!!

Why?

Because we are in danger!

That's right. I am in cahoots with Fishman , Rav Amnon Yitzchok, the "Tzaddik nistars", the autistics, Chamish and all the other doomsday preachers and I am not afraid to admit it.

I buy The Obama Deception theory lock, stock and barrel and I urge everybody to take it very seriously.

Here's why:

Back in 1997, when I first told my father that I planned to make aliya, he asked me: Why? Now, in everything I've written I have blamed my wife for duping me into making aliya but that's just half the story. And it's not what I told my father. I told him (in 1997):

"There is going to be a mahapecha - a cataclysm - in America that will force the Jews to leave. It happened in Egypt and it happened in Spain and it happened in Europe and, when G-d is ready, it is going to happen here as well. And I feel it coming. I don't think America will last another full generation. As such, there is no long-term future for my children here. Why should I live out my life here and when things get worse, my children will have to come as struggling 'greenhorns'? Let me go now and I'll be the greenhorn and my children can acclimate to Israeli society and be 'first class' citizens."

What bothered me? I noticed a few changes. Two things specifically. The first was that My parents' generation was one of upward mobility. Most Jewish families had 3-6 children and day school tuition and health services - though less advanced - were at reasonable levels so they did not consume such a major proportion of average income. Thus it was not hard for earners to pay for basic expenses and have earnings left over for savings and amassing equity. Note, this was the era before "global economics" when Mom and Pop businesses flourished.

In my generation, Jewish families (Torah community) were becoming bigger and less spaced out and tuition and health care expenses skyrocketed. Thus, young householders - I am talking about working ones - were always playing "catch-up" with no reasonable prospects of getting ahead. By the time I left America (6 children aged 9 and down), even if I were to receive a sudden earnings increase of, say, 20%, every dime would be swallowed up by the tuition shortfall. So why strain to earn more money? I saw that the "American dream" was fading away and it looked to me as if G-d is starting to close the faucet. Conversely, the 1990s became the most prosperous era ever to grace Eretz Yisrael. It ended with the "dot-com" crash in the year 2000 and never rebounded.

This was the classic line of, "If I am going to live here (US) and struggle, I may as well live there (EY) and struggle!"

But the second factor was that my adulthood saw the transition between the tyrannical Carter administration and the benevolent Reagen administration. No president before or since Reagen ever understood the importance of befriending Israel and the risk to American security posed by the Islamists. Of course our friend Ayatollah Khomeini helped him understand it. Regardless, his was a pro-Israel administration (despite the Pollard fiasco) and both Israel and America prospered. One would expect that the ensuing Republican Bush I administration would maintain the status quo. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bush went the other direction which was a let down in itself, but I could deal with that. He was an oil man so he sang the song of the Saudis and James Baker was no friend of Israel. But then something happened that I couldn't understand. A precursor of the current financial meltdown occurred in the guise of what was known as the Savings and Loan crisis. So in 1989 the United states banking industry was in trouble for making too many "bad loans". That means loans to people or businesses without adequate credit. A bit later, as the banking industry is trying to recover, Israel, who had a perfect credit rating, wanted to borrow $10B from private American banks - at interest - to absorb Soviets. All they needed was loan guarantees from the US government. This would have been a healthy jump-start for the sagging American economy and Bush could do nothing but gain. Yet, surprisingly, Bush withheld approval for the loan guarantees because of Israel's "policies" in the West Bank.

Something wasn't right. I understand that Bush doesn't give a tittle for Israeli interests, but this issue is American and his own interests. Let's understand this, this is way before Oslo. There were significantly less Moslems in the US (18 years ago) than today and the Jewish voting bloc, largely democratic, was much more substantial than the Arab one. The American economy is in recession after the S&L fiasco and Bush's popularity is down. Here comes Israel with a perfect credit rating and wants to give the American lending industry some much needed business in the private sector and all they want from the government are some loan guarantees. In a worst case scenario and Israel defaults, Uncle S becomes the creditor. You can bet, Israel won't want that to happen.

So it's a pretty safe deal. In fact, credit was never the issue. But what happens? Bush, on behalf of the American people tells Israel "No thanks. Take your business elsewhere." And I couldn't understand it. This was right before an election year! The economy stayed flat into the soon-to-come elections and Clinton whips Bush on the motto , "It's the economy, stupid!" And I even voted for Clinton the Democrat! America and Bush just shot themselves in the foot because Israel was maintaining the same status that were in place for 23 years! Does this make sense??

Something is going on behind the scenes. And America is on it's way down.

Then, for the next seven years, Bill Clinton, the liberal with all the Jewish friends and his Jewish-born, Holocaust refugee Secretary of State, Madeline Albright just continued dancing down the same road. I could understand Oslo, but what did America gain from Wye? America is inviting the Moslims in, along with opening the south border to millions of illegals to do American jobs at half price while manufacturing outsources itself to China and Thailand and we are buying Japanese and Korean. Meanwhile, Johnny can't read (Spanish) and Carlos can't read English.

I didn't see a future.

Until recently, I thought - like everybody else - that all of this social decay was just a result of goyish-minded shortsightedness mixed with complacency and the domination of today's hedonistic pleasures over tomorrow's hangovers. Kind of like America's policy of "Buy now, pay later." But the absurdity of the Obama election and his total reversal on all his promises of "change" for the better plus his dictatorial demeanor have led me to suspect that maybe something more sinister - and more dangerous - may be involved. And when I viewed The Obama Deception, as far out as it is, there was nothing about it that didn't make sense.

I think everybody needs to watch The Obama Deception and compare it to events as they unfold, and pack your bags and get the dickens over here. To understand what it is saying, you must be familiar with certain international and national organizations. So first check out these bodies:

• Bilderberg Group
• Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
• Trilateral Commission
• Federal Reserve Act
• FEMA

Then watch this:

• FEMA Detention Center

And then watch The Obama Deception all the way through (the scariest part starts at 1:23:00).

And then click here:

• Nefesh B'Nefesh

Am I convinced that Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve and IMF are all a bunch of sinister money lords plotting to take over the world?

Of course I'm not. But they are no tzaddikim and chazal tell us (Sanhedrin 71b):
כנוס לרשעים רע להן ורע לעולם

"An assembly of wicked people is bad for them and bad for the entire world!"

But believe it or not, that's not the part that got me. The part that got was the sight of the American mobs all starry eyed and mesmerized cheering (Yes, we can!) and saluting Der Feuhrer Obama right after he said something that is not in their long term interest. Whatever he says is gospel. They are doing it just like the Russians did it in 1917 and just like the Germans did it in 1937 and just like the Chinese did it (when?).

Watch out! Here we go again!

So, call me a gullible conspiracy alarmist nutcase or whatever, but I happen to find The Obama Deception to be quite plausible.

Why?

Because it all happened before.

Oh yeah, in another time, at another place, to other people...

But the other time was less than a century ago. And the other place was not so far away - where our grandparents used to live. And the other people were...well, my motto is: "What's good for Daddy is good for me."

So, do I have any buyers?

Augh-gh-gh!!! The life of a salesman!

Tova HaAretz Meod Meod

Anyone who has ever made aliya will tell you that you will never get here by talking about making aliya, no matter how much talking you do. There is only one way to make aliya – you must (figuratively) open a calendar and throw a dart at it. When the dart hits a date, you mark it as the day that you are going, and don’t pull out the dart! Our “dart” hit at July of 1997...

The above paragraph did not make it into the final cut of my book but, maybe, it should have. In any case, for those of us already here in Eretz Yisrael, Parshas Shlach is up this week. You folks still straggling behind in Chutz l'Aretz are - well - still straggling behind.

Parshas Shlach represents the challenges in bitachon that are part of living in Eretz Yisrael. Though I can attest that moving an established family to Eretz Yisrael is no small feat, once done, it is no small achievement, either. Not everybody is zocheh. But everybody can be zocheh. It depends on why you want to come. The key is bitachon and emunah. To make a successful Aliya one must be willing to feel like a grasshopper. But then he can become a giant.

In honor of Parshas Shlach I am presenting the complete Aliya story from my One Above and Seven Below autobiography. Some parts made it into the book but most of it did not. Some people will be able to relate to it, and others will say that their personal circumstances are not as favorable as ours were. Still, one thing I must tell everyone: if you have a serious opportunity to come here, it is a message to you. Do not ignore it. Don't get yourself wait-listed for the last flight out.

Still, at the end of the day, everybody winds up where HKBH wants him to. One thing I said over at my daughter's sheva brachos was:

40 days before the yetziras havlad, a bas kol goes out and says בת פלוני לפלוני . Taken at its word, this chazal is saying that sometime about 25 years ago, a bas kol went out and pronounced that the daughter of Yechezkel Hirshman is destined to be the wife of this young man. The interesting thing is that, 25 years ago, Yechezkel Hirshman didn't happen to be married! He was hanging around Lakewood, New Jersey and telling shadchanim that he needs a girl who is willing to follow him to Natwich (pseudonym for my home town) so he could go into the wholesale diamond business. Meanwhile, this fellow was a zygote by some family in Beit-El (not exactly the chareidi capitol of the world)! Yet, here we are 25 years later in Yerushalayim celebrating the sheva brachos of the new couple. How did we get here from there?

Well, here's how:

Aliya Story by binhersh on Scribd

Evolution - Fact or Mishu-Gosse?

For all you folks in Chutz L'Aretz who have not yet heard Parshas Naso, here is an excerpt from the Mirdrash on pasuk 7:1 (BaMidbar Rabba 12:8):

לכך אמר שלמה צאינה וראינה בנות ציון במלך שלמה ... ד"א במלך שלמה במלך שברא בריותיו שלימים ברא חמה וירח על מליאתן וכל מעשה בראשית בקומתם נבראו שנא' (שם ב) הארץ וכל צבאם בר קפרא אמר אדם וחוה כבני כ ' שנה נבראו

When King Shlomo said "Go out and see, you daughters of Zion, in the King 'Shlomo'..." he was referring to HKBH and called him "the King Shlomo" meaning the King that created all His creations complete (שלימים). He created the sun and the moon in their full state and all of the makings of creation were created in their full height (i.e., fully developed) as is written וכל צבאם (this is understood by Chazal to mean בכל צביונם - i.e., in their full majesty - see Chullin 60a). Bar Kapra said: Adam and Chava were created as 20 year old beings.

This is a Midrashic reference to what is known as the Gosse Theory - the assertion that G-d created an "old" world. A world that looks like it's been here for a real long time. Such a theory would, in one fell swoop, nullify all the "evidence" that the world created itself over billions of years by suggesting that all the "evidence" was planted by G-d. Accordingly, there would be no conflict between religious dogma and paleontological findings.

Now the Gosse theory is amazingly simple, unsophisticated, and un"scientific". And, besides, why would G-d do such a thing? Also, it alleviates much needed conflict, controversy, and skepticism. For these reasons, many "intellectuals" reject it. But not because it can't be true.

Personally, I am not an intellectual. Most of my commenters and other intellectuals have said that about me and they must be right. Most of them went to college and I didn't. But I did read The Man Who Never Was (in Yeshiva) and I figure that G-d must be at least as intelligent as British Military Intelligence (don't snicker now). The book also explains why G-d would "plant" misleading "evidence". For the same reason they did it - to mislead us. G-d doesn't want us to be able to prove that He exists. So He created an intermediary that we call "Nature" (teva). He allows "Nature" to rule the world and formed the world to look like it was created by his intermediary, "Nature".

Why did He do that? So we wouldn't be able to know for sure that it's Him. For our own benefit. (I wrote about this in my previous post.) So says the Navi Hoshea (Hoshea 14:10).

Because this all makes sense to me, I am quite willing to accept the Gosse theory. Simple minds like simple answers. Of course, there are other simple answers to age-of-universe issues. The predominant one is that even though we use the term "5769 years לבריאת העולם " in our Kesubos and wedding invitations, we don't necessarily mean 5769 years from the beginning of בריאת העולם, we mean 5769 years from the end of בריאת העולם meaning when Adam HaRishon was created on the 6th day of Creation. There were 5 days of creation that came before the debut of Adam HaRishon. 5 long days - or 5 short days, depending who you ask.

We measure time based on the rotation of the earth and it's movements vis a vis the sun and the moon. But there was no sun and moon until the 4th day. So, the first few days of creation could have taken a real long time to an outside observer. Also, it is feasible that G-d employed simulated evolutionary processes in forming the world which could have been accelerated into 5 real days. As Einstein said, it's all relative.

Thus, geological formations and fossil records don't really tell us much. They don't tell us how old the world is, only how old the world appears to be. As such, I wrote in a footnote on page 143 of my book:

There is quite a bit of debate among Torah scholars as to how much ‘real time’ the world was in existence before the debut of man. I am not taking sides in this debate. Whether the actual time was 5 days or millions or billions of years, our contention is that it was all a concerted preparation for the advent of man. Man is the culmination of Creation and, therefore, the entire span of Creation was one prolonged Creation of man.

Thus, I have a hard time understanding why so many people, including Jewish ones, are digging so deep into the earth in order to "prove" evolution. It will not help them decide whether or not to accept Rambam's 13 principles.

To date, I have not been too interested in discussing evolution as I wrote in the footnote on page 143. I feel there is no need for it. This topic is beaten to death in the blogosphere, particularly in the neighborhoods frequented by the Jewish skeptics. Bottom line is, if you want evolution, read Slifkin. He'll make you feel good. If you don't want it, read Rabbi Avigdor Miller - and Chovos HaLevavos.

But I decided to discuss it now, partly because it is an extention of my previous post about belief in G-d, and partly because, one day last week, (between the wedding and Sheva Brachos and Shavuos, I actually did show up at the office for 2 days) I passed by 2 co-workers - both American, one newly religious and one religiously "agnostic" - who were having a discussion. As I past them by, one asked me: Why is it that chareidim deny evolution?

I liked the way he termed it: deny evolution - not reject evolution. As I wrote in my book (page 128):

Every intelligent person knows that the whole world came about through evolution. That’s what the great scientists say; that is what they teach in all the great universities; that is what has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Only undereducated, unenlightened, primitive, backward people could question the truth of evolution.

Now, knowing this person (the "agnostic" one) and the subject matter and hearing how he asked his question, I knew in advance how this discussion will unfold. As I tried to give him the chareidi perspective, which required a few minutes of devoted listening to structured detail, he broke in to my diatribe at regular intervals (every 3 words) with a deflecting argument. As expected, we didn't get anywhere. All told, it meant that he clearly did not ask the question because he was interested in hearing a satisfactory answer. He asked it in order to reassure himself that there is no satisfactory answer. (It's hard to stay agnostic if you find answers to your questions.)

Skeptics don't like simple answers. It interferes with their skepticism.

Perhaps my blog audience is a bit more attentive and I can get in a full sentence and I can discuss the answer I started to give. So here is what I tried to tell him.

We chareidim, and Creationists in general, have no need for "evolution". We can get by just fine without it. Consequently, we can afford to be more discerning, skeptical and critical about the material that is presented as "evidence". Evolutionists must substantiate some form of evolutionary theory, so they are forced to accept loose fitting evidence as absolute, interpret inconlusive findings to match preconceived theories, and to artificially elevate theories into proven facts in order to substantiate other theories.

Here is how I wrote it on page 129 of One Above and Seven Below:

We chareidim think that evolution is absurd. Recorded history – which amazingly goes back no further than five to six thousand years – has yet to document any instance of any extant creature becoming more complex than it ever was. No one has yet caught a jellyfish even thinking about growing a backbone. But evolutionists have a lot at stake. So much so that they are compelled to advocate the absurd.

This is merely my way of pointing out that with all the literature and media that promotes evolution, there is not one bit of empirical proof that any organism can or ever has undergone a "developmental" anatomical change. Yet, it's not for lack of trying to come up with it.

I said so to my 2 questioners and one immediately challenged me with an account of one certain moth that used to always have a particular body color as that was it's genetic coding. When a population of these moths were moved to a different habitat where the trees were a lighter color, new generations of the moth were emerging with the genetic propensity to match the lighter color. The moths did not change color after they wrere born so it is not a physiological change like a chameleon but rather a genetic mutation to adapt to the environment.

I asked if there were any anatomical changes or is it just pigmentation. He said , "Only pigmentation. But it's not a big leap to assume genetic adaptation for anatomical changes as well."

What comes out is that this fellow concedes that there is no observed instance of a creature changing it's genetic code for anatomy to meet new conditions. Only pigmentation. This means that this moth which was a moth 5000 years ago is still the same moth but can reprogram it's genetic code for pigmentation. There is no reason to assume that it did not have this innate ability 5000 years ago. So the organism hasn't changed at all. It merely employed a congenital color adaptation mechanism that was always part of it, though it may have been dormant for some time.

I told him that this limited and confined level of genetic adaptation is not "denied" by anybody, especially since it is observable science and if you would like to call this limited mutation "evolution" then I will gladly concede this meager shadow of "evolution".

What we chareidim "deny" is what nobody has yet to produce - a species with one particular anatomical composition that gives birth to a second generation that sports something different about it's anatomy. Not a genetic mishap but an adaptation. Not an individual but a generation. With viable continuation (this means males and females would have to make the same genetic adaptation simultaneously).

Still he wanted to claim, "It's not a big leap to assume genetic adaptation for anatomical changes as well."

This is today's science, what you see you see and what you don't see you assume. And it boils down to how big a leap is it. Your opinion is that "it's not a big leap" and so evolution is a fact. My opinion is that so far a cat has never given birth to a fish or even to a catfish and a chimpanzee has never begat anything more intelligent than another chimpanzee. And it never will. A panda's thumb is not going to get any new digits.

I think it's an insurmountable leap.

So, IMHO, if you have to rely on "It's not a big leap" to establish evolution as a fact, excuse me for not signing on.

In my travels around the blogosphere to try to understand how skeptics (or non-believers) think, I chanced upon a site of one who calls himself Atheist Jew (R"L). His most recent post shows a video of a fascinating creature called the Hairy Frogfish which propels itself on its fins like legs. This poor soul (the blogger, not the fish) somehow thinks that the existence of this creature is a challenge to "creationism". That's Hoshea 14:10 for you.

In the blurb for this video, the blogger writes:

Yes, the frogfish doesn't have legs, but those fins are darn close, that it
doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a little time, fish can evolve
into amphibians if water and food sources started to dry up in a certain
ecosystem.

This is all very nice. And I am certainly not a genius. But why don't we take some of these fish and place them in a controlled "ecosystem" where water and food sources start to dry up and lets give them a "bit of time" and see them change into amphibians? How about just to see them start to change into amphibians?

I can assure you it isn't going to happen. Not in his lifetime, not in mine, and not in anybody's.

But he can rest assured that he's got "evidence". Plus a whole "fossil record" full of missing links. I just have Gosse.

But I'll take the Gosse theory, and you can have the Mishu-Gosse theory.

Doubting Thomases...and Yosselas

Over at Emes Ve-Emunah, Harry seems to be taking a much needed hiatus from his standard "Up With Centrists - Down With Chareidim" fare. Yesterday's post dealt with a much more serious issue, and one that I completely agree with: the issue of waning Emunah - belief in G-d - in the greater Orthodox community.

Until my recent foray in the blogosphere, I was ill-prepared for the depth and magnitude of this issue. There are a lot of confused people out there.

Harry's post was actually well written and I do not have much to add to it. Still I want to present a short analysis of the issues of Emunah, perhaps it can help some people reduce the confusion.

All the players in the game must be aware of one principle: There is not any and cannot be any irrefutable empirical proof of G-d.


How do I know?

G-d told me. (Of course, for those of you who do not believe in G-d, then the Torah was written by a deranged prankster. Thus, a deranged prankster told me.)


Where?

Shmos 33:20. Here G-d (or the prankster) tells us: כ ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את-פני כי לא-יראני האדם וחי:

And He said, "You are unable to see My face, for a man cannot see Me and live."

Although there are many ways to understand this pasuk, one simple understanding is that if there were irrefutable evidence of G-d, and thereby we would be able to "see" Him, we would lose our free-will, our bechira. Not having free-will is tantamount to death.

And so, for our own benefit, G-d does not allow us to "see" Him with unequivocal clarity. This being the case, it is impossible to prove the existence of G-d to another person. Don't bother trying.

Still, G-d leaves His imprint all over the place. Anybody who looks for G-d can find Him. And therefore, a person is capable of proving to himself, and only to himself, the existence of G-d.

Who told me this?

King David told me this. He wrote it for me in Tehillim 145:18 and he left instructions to read it over at least twice a day. There he wrote: קרוב ה' לכל-קראיו לכל אשר יקראהו באמת:

Hashem is close to all who call Him, to all those who call Him in earnest.

What does this mean? It means that anybody who looks for G-d can find Him, provided one thing:

He calls in earnest. In other words, he wants to find Him.

And herein lies the key to Emunah - one will never believe in G-d unless one wants to believe in G-d!

What comes out is a true example of G-dly irony. Only a believer will find proof of G-d - and plenty of it. A non-believer will find nothing. This is because G-d is actually a real nice Guy and gives everybody what they want. If you want to find Me - here I am. You don't want to find me, you never will.

Thus Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZT"L says in his tapes that a watermelon is a proof of G-d. To someone like me who is interested in seeing G-d, I agree with him and see G-d in a watermelon. Also in apples and oranges, chickens and eggs, birds and bees, flowers and trees, mountains and seas, and, more than anything, in children. (For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anybody who ever produced a child of their own can doubt G-d; but that's just me.) But the scoffer scoffs at Rabbi Avigdor Miller and at the watermelon and at the children and at everything else and believes in the "fossil record". (Incidentally, I see G-d in the fossil record, as well.)

This a variation of the age old adage:

To the believer, there are no questions and to the non-believer there are no answers.


So a non-believer is somebody who doesn't want there to be a G-d. And a doubter is somebody who is not sure he wants there to be a G-d.

The question boils down not to: "Is there a G-d or is there no G-d?" but rather to: "Do I want a G-d or do I not want a G-d?" Or, as Jack Nicholson  would say: "Can I handle a G-d?"


"What's in it for me?"
"Am I better off with a G-d or am I better off without one?"
"Is G-d good for me or not?"

Or - lets shorten that last question a bit: "Is G-d good or not?"


What is G-d, anyway?
Well, according to Rambam's 13 principles, G-d is: the supreme Creator of all that exists (Priciple 1), unique in his Oneness (Principle 2), and has no tangible form and thus cannot be perceived by Humans (Principle 3).
Most of us can handle that.
Why? Because it does not have much to do with us.
But let's move on.
According to Rambam, G-d also gave us the Torah through Moses (Principle 8), is aware of all of our actions (Principle 10), and will reward us for obeying Him and punish us for disobeying Him (Principle 11).
This means we have rules to live by and we are accountable to G-d for how we live up to these rules. It means that we cannot do whatever we want. It also means that when we leave this world, the game is still not over.
Some of us like this deal. We want G-d to be here for us and we are willing to be here for Him. And because this is what we want, we are willing to believe.
Others cannot handle this deal. As we say to the bee: We don't want your honey and we don't want your sting. They do not want G-d. And so they are not prepared to believe.
But, either way, nobody can prove it. It's not what you believe. It's not watermelons or fossils. It's what you want for yourself.
And so, G-d (or the deranged prankster) tells us in Parshat Bechukosai: If you walk in My ways and do My bidding - if you include Me in your life - I will make life very pleasant for you. It comes at a price but it is well worth it.
But, if you leave me out and refuse to look for Me, then you will never find me. If you want a G-dless existence I will give you a G-dless existence. And you can do whatever is within your power to do. I will not interfere. And you will become part of the "fossil record".
Sounds to me like the world is just one big foxhole.

Matter-o-money Leave

Okay, I am putting my blog on matrimony (matter o' money) leave. My daughter is actually getting married this evening, IY"H.

As I anticipated, I do not have time to do any serious blogging and I have to devise speeches for sheva brachos. I do not know if I will be able to post until after Yom Tov.

In the meantime, for good entertainment, there is a doozey post over at Emes Ve-Emunah where Harry bemoans the fact that Charedi'ism looks like it will trump "Centrism" and speculating why HKBH is letting it happen if, as we all know, "Centrism" is the "Derech emes" that HKBH really wants. It doesn't look like Harry caught on to my book, but, what is worse, I don't think that Harry ever really learned Maseches Brachos, specifically 35b.

In any case, back to the simcha at hand, I will leave the reader with a well known and amusing poem written by John G. Saxe in some time in the late 1800s. It tells of a young man asking his shidduch mentor for dating advice. The shidduch mentor is his own echo - and it comes back with some interesting answers. Here it is:

Echo - John G. Saxe


I asked of Echo, t'other day
(Whose words are often few and funny),
What to a novice she could say
Of courtship, love, and matrimony.

Quoth Echo plainly,--"Matter-o'-money!"

Whom should I marry? Should it be
A dashing damsel, gay and pert,
A pattern of inconstancy;
Or selfish, mercenary flirt?

Quoth Echo, sharply,--"Nary flirt!"

What if, aweary of the strife
That long has lured the dear deceiver,
She promise to amend her life,
And sin no more; can I believe her?

Quoth Echo, very promptly,--"Leave her!"

But if some maiden with a heart
On me should venture to bestow it,
Pray, should I act the wiser part
To take the treasure or forego it?

Quoth Echo, with decision,--"Go it!"

But what if, seemingly afraid
To bind her fate in Hymen's fetter,
She vow she means to die a maid,
In answer to my loving letter?

Quoth Echo, rather coolly,--"Let her!"

What if, in spite of her disdain,
I find my heart intwined about
With Cupid's dear delicious chain
So closely that I can't get out?

Quoth Echo, laughingly,--"Get out!"

But if some maid with beauty blest,
As pure and fair as Heaven can make her,
Will share my labor and my rest
Till envious Death shall overtake her?

Quoth Echo (sotto voce),--"Take her!"

From the Florida Sunshine Tree

From time to time, I like to discuss some of the pearls of wisdom that surface in my comments section. Today's comment (posted to my May 14 post) comes from a fellow who identified himself as E-Man, a 24 year old Capricorn from Miami who was born on the Year of the Rat and went to Skokie Yeshiva for High School (this means he left about 7 years ago so he wouldn't know Yaakov, 20 year old Pisces born Year of the Ice-Storm-on-Erev-Shabbos-Zachor) and on to other fine places.

E-Man writes as follows:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag. So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish. That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books? I read parts of your book, but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb. That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings. I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here. He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth. I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is, instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Okay. Let's try to understand what this guy is saying:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag.

Ralbag and who else? Can I get the whole list?

I am certainly glad that he thought I should know this because it is certainly news to me. At my age (way past 24), not much catches me unawares but this certainly does. Personally, I have never shunned the Ralbag and I never knew anybody in my Yeshivos (Lakewood, Mir) who shun the Ralbag but I guess there must be plenty of chareidim in Skokie and Miami who do shun the Ralbag. Of course, I do not learn much Ralbag on Chumash because my edition of Mikraos Gedolos does not happen to include any Ralbag on Chumash although I do have Ralbag in almost every edition of Nach. I've gone through most of Nach doing Rashi, Metzudos and Malbim. Not much focus on Ralbag but no shunning. I didn't learn much Radak or Minchas Shai either. Are they on the list?

Oh, I get it. He must mean Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag from the Triangle-K! Yes, it's true. Many chareidim do shun SunMaid Raisins and Mott's Apple Juice in favor of products from OU or other more "right wing" hechsherim. I also stay away from this hechsher (Hostess Twinkies are not for me) but sometimes my wife makes me buy the Craisins.

And it's true, we do shun many of his colleagues like the entire Rabbanut.

So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Probably not, but drinking lots of Mott's Apple Juice, Minute Maid Orange Juice and eating wholesome Wonder Bread and Sun-Maid Raisins might.

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible
according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and
other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say
anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish.

Let's go over that list again: Skokie Yeshiva, Shaalvim, YU, Lander College for Men, Talmudic University and looking to Med School and you are such an expert on Chareidim! And I am even learning new things from you! I guess Charedi'ism 101 must be a course in their curriculum (though they certainly do not feature my book!) I am very impressed.

That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Sorry. won't work. A typical chareidi will definitely go against most of the people who are called Rabbis at the current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

H-m-m-m. This sounds familiar. Let's see, let's see...Oh yes!! Here it is - One Above and Seven Below - page 82:

Q. In the previous chapter, I set out to explain the “meaning of toil”. Yet, aside from the three principles that were quoted from Maimonides, all I did was to describe what toil doesn’t mean. Didn’t I forget something?
A. Guilty! Here are some details that I omitted.
Like almost any commodity, toil can be measured by two attributes: quantity and quality. The three principles listed above provide a quantitative perspective. We have still not, as of yet, defined toil in Torah from the qualitative perspective.
Thankfully, we can always rely on our dedicated teacher. Rashi does not leave us totally in the lurch.
On the phrase “And my commandments you shall guard” (VaYikra 26:3) Rashi explains, “You shall toil in Torah for the purpose of observing and fulfilling [the commandments] as it states ‘and you will study them and you will observe them to perform them’.” There is an end purpose to our Torah study – that we observe the commandments and incorporate Torah principles in all our daily activities.

Apparently, it's according to Rashi on Chumash, too.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books?

From the FAQ section of my book (page 7-8):

Important Note - The intention is to promote the conventions that the chareidim uphold. It is not meant to challenge the conventions of those who are not chareidi although, in some cases, it is an inevitable cause-and-effect. Although to some readers - who do not [yet] wish to identify themselves as chareidi - parts of this book may inadvertently seem patronizing or antagonistic, be assured that this is certainly not its purpose. I apologize in advance should this occur.

For those who have trouble with this passage (you are not alone), it says this:
The book does not actively or aggressively insult anybody. Nevertheless, it is a given that when comparing A vs. B, anything that is promoted as a strength or advantage to A is automatically highlighting a shortcoming to B. This is called the see-saw syndrome - raising side A automatically lowers side B. Thus although nobody insulted B, B is passively ipso facto insulted (antagonized).
I am only interested in raising the One Above side. It is a truth of physics that when one does this, the opposite (the Seven Below) side goes down. I have no control over it except that my point is that one should not be on the side that is diametrically opposed to "Im Bechukosai Telechu".
A number of people have told me that they are put off by the "condescending" message of the omnipotent tefillin-clad arm patronizingly reaching out over the sinking bare arms. My message to the reader is that, according to Vayikra 26:3, it pays to identify with the upper arm. Anybody who still insists on identifying with one of the seven sinking arms will certainly feel threatened and antagonized, but, don't blame me. I didn't write sefer VaYikra. I am just analyzing it.

I read parts of your book,

One cannot read my book in parts (as I wrote on page 9).

but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb.

That's because you couldn't keep reading. Incidentally, I didn't write that I thought he would be wearing 18th century Polish garb. I wrote that he would be wearing 21st century Rabbinic garb. Either that of 21 century Chassidish or Misnagdish rabbanim (who may be styled after 18th century Poland) or Sefardic or Yemenite or whatever else is out there.

That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings.

The discussion is about what he would wear in public (formal settings, in your terms). We are not interested in what color his pajamas were. Most readers weren't confused.

I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Wow, a 24 year old non-chareidi (if I read you right) from Miami and you have it in with all the biggies! I take my black hat off to you. And, rest assured, your secret is safe with me.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here.

It must be because he's from Miami.

He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Evidently, this Rav was able to understand what you seem to grudgingly acknowledge - the book is not about "chareidim" but rather about Torah-true Jews. I just happen to call Torah-true Jews "Chareidim" because that was certainly the case by Yeshaya HaNavi and - when we use Hashkafa as our definition - it is true today. This is the theme of Chapter 9 and, subsequently, of the whole book. Once you agree with this, then it follows that the ones that are called Non-chareidi" are those who are not full scale Torah-true Jews. The objective of my book is to entice more people to be full scale Torah-true Jews. The knocking comes from VaYikra 26:14-46. G-d wrote that, not me. I am just quoting it. Apparently, what He wrote leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
It must be something you ate.

I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Excuse me? Is this somewhere in my book? I actually promote Maimonides' approach both on page 60 and again on page 114. But that was after you couldn't keep reading.

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is,...

No need. All you have to do is reread the book and substitue the word "Chareidi" with "Torah-true Jew". I suggested this in the last paragraph of the book on page 229.
Try it it works!

...instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Critics write about the way I define chareidim as if I am alone in my definition. This is a case of denial on their part. I have written profusely, in my book and out, that there are clearly 2 general definitions of chareidim. One used by chareidim and one used by non-chareidim. My definition of chareidim is very much in line with Rabbi Grylak's (Chief Editor of Mishpacha magazine). The one he wrote in his Hebrew language book way before I wrote mine. (It is quoted on page 121.) In fact, if you perceive there are any differences, you are invited to discard the differences and just go with the common denominator.
I use the definition that chareidim use, and to date, no chareidim have written to challenge me on my definition. Makes sense. But, evidently, non-chareidim fantasize that even chareidim think like them. And that there is only one way to define a chareidi - their way. And so, they write that "most people" don't use my definition. Of course, they are right - most people aren't chareidi! But they also seem to think that for some reason I am obligated to use the definition that chareidim in general do not agree with, though nobody has ever explained exactly why. And they never will. Because they do not acknowledge - or legitimize - any other more general, less derogatory definition. (See Chapter 9).

That's why I wrote the book, to enlighten them that chareidim themselves think differently, and why. Chareidim can understand this. That's why they like my book. Non-chareidim are not as broad minded. That's why I wrote in the FAQs:

This book is meant to reframe common perceptions of what constitutes a “chareidi” and will present a definition that may differ from your preconceived notions. If you are already certain about what constitutes a chareidi and are not open to new definitions, this book will not work for you.

And so, this book will not work for someone like E-Man and I am not sure why he even read beyond the FAQs.

Well, at least he made it to the beginning of Chapter 4.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Likewise.

At the Drop of a Hat

Yes, I got the hat.

My rendezvous at the Tachana HaMerkazit came off without a hitch except that it really bothered me that I had to buy a ticket to Raanana (just kidding).

The driver's name is Shmuel Almog, by the way. I guess he lives in Raanana or the vicinity. Sweet fellow.

Now, if anybody knows what happened to my 11-year old...

One Above and Seven Below - The Secret of Parshas Bechukosai

And so, for the first time since I opened this blog last July, Parshas Bechukosai has arrived.

For those of you who have read my book, you know that the first section of Parshas Bechukosai is the heart and soul of Judaism for here, G-d is telling us in no uncertain terms what makes a proper Jew and what does not. And it is the secret of the Chareidim.

However, as the few people who comment on my blog seem to indicate, most of the readers have not read 1A7B. And so, l'chvod Parshas Bechukosai, I have transferred the pilot chapter of my book to iPaper in its entirety and am posting it right here.

I also transferred Yaakov's Story to iPaper and will post it after the feature chapter.

Enjoy, and when you review the Parsha this shabbos, pay attention to Rashi!

One Above and Seven Below_S... by binhersh on Scribd

And now - Yaakov's Story

Yaakov by binhersh on Scribd

Hats Off to Egged (Drivers)

Did I say something about hats not finding their way home by themselves?

What was I thinking?!

Ferster Hats, the most popular hatseller in Yerushalayim, offers to make up labels that display the name and phone number of the owner to put on the sweatband. This is a very prudent idea because, I don't know if anybody else noticed this, many black hats look alike.

Now, I did not really give up on my hat. As soon as I realized that I forgot it - when I noticed that I wasn't sweating as much as I should be - I ran back to the bus depot at Har Chotzvim (it's a good thing I work there) and tried to find the bus. The bus was gone so I went to a supervisor who told me as follows:

It takes 3 days for them to gather up all the forgotton items on their bus fleet and to sort them out. Then they are brought to their lost and found center at the main Tachana Hamercazit (much more convenient than their previous one in Talpiot!) and I can try to find it then. Good luck!

Thanks.

Well, that was Tuesday and I have been counting the days (Today is day 1 of sefiras HaKova...) and, lo and behold, I get a call from the bus driver (he wears a knitted kipa, incidentally). He said that he didn't want to give in the hat to Egged because he thinks that I will never see it again. He is not based in Yerushalayim but he will be here tomorrow (Day 2 of Sefiras HaKova) when he does a run on the 950 line to Raanana. He will be here from 7:30 pm and his bus goes out at 7:55 so I will have this 25 minute window to reclaim my precious crown.

How will this drama end? Will I make the dropoff or am I headed for another trip to Ferster? Will some lucky Jew in Raanana turn chareidi (perhaps the driver ;-) )?

Hang on to your hats!

Populations Growing and Shrinking

Since I've come to Eretz Yisrael I have frequently toyed with the idea of going up to Meron on Lag B'omer but, until this year, I have never followed through. To a minor degree, this was due to claims of less than reverent conduct that is known to go on in some spots and admonitions from some Rabbanim (Litvaks, as you would assume) not to go there on Lag B'omer in particular. To a greater degree, it was due to laziness and frugality - it is cheaper and easier to stay home in Yerushalayim. But I think it has been to the greatest degree due to fear. Firstly, the fear of messing something up as I have never done it yet. Secondly, the fear of getting squashed - I hate crowds! And thirdly, the fear of coming back with less than I came with (besides the money). Most specifically, coming back with less kids than I came with. Even though such a development would probably save a good deal of money, my wife still insists that when I go out with any number of kids, I come back home with at least that many.

Well, this year I took the plunge and I took a midnight express trip with only 2 sons (11 and 14). The trip went very smoothly and I managed to brave the crowds but still my main fear was realized. No, I didn't lose either of my kids but I left my hat on the bus.

Aside from that hats cost more than kids :-), kids seem to have an uncanny ability to find their way home all by themselves, even after we vacuumed up the trail of breadcrumbs (and gum wrappers). Hats just don't do that.

Anyway, Meron on Lag B'Omer is a lot like Meron not on Lag B'Omer except for many more people and a lot of free food. That's why, if you can pack a lunch, many gedolim say there is more Kedusha to go not on Lag B'Omer. I could see their point. Yet, there is still something mystical about visiting the graves of these deceased holy people on Lag B'Omer and that is - that it is being done by so many people who aren't deceased. Lots of people. Lots and lots of people. Hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people!

Yep. An Arutz-7 news piece claims that there were already 450,000 pilgrims by 6:00 am on Tuesday. If this is so, even if the tide subsided, there still must have been well over half a million visitors all told and more like 6-700,000.

Do you realize what this is? This would be 1 out of every 10 residents in Eretz israel including Druze and Arabs! If we just talk about the Jews, it was probably more like 1 out of 7 (14%). Of course, they were not all Israeli residents. Many were tourists and foreign students in Yeshivas and seminaries.

600,000 Jews! And what kind of Jews?

Predominately religious Torah observant Jews. They were of all stripes and there were even some chilonim but the concentration certainly focused on the more devout. I would guess it was somewhere around 60-70% "Chareidi" (2/3) comprising chassidic, misnagdic, Yerushalmi, Chabad, Breslov and Sefardi-Chareidi - and the rest were Chardal, RW Mizrachi, Hilltop, traditional Sefardi, and smaller concentrations of standard "dati" and MO tourists.

How's that for labels?

In any case it was 600,000 or more Jews who all identify with the spirit of Lag B'Omer and Rashbi and there was no factional strife of any kind. Hatzala was there, ZAKA was there, and throngs of cops and I am sure they didn't see anything but the most trivial order of business.

The fact that so many Jews are anxious to participate in this pilgrimage and that this number keeps increasing from year to year tells us something very comforting:

We are alive and well and growing. and, except for our Yishmaeli cousins, we are the only ones.

A friend of mine sent me an email containing the following You-Tube clip. It is about demographics and it is alarming. It claims that for a culture to perpetuate itself, it must have a fertility rate of at least 2.11. That means that on average, every couple (2 people) must produce 2.11 people to maintain equilibrium. The minute it is less than 2 people (i.e. 1.9), they are not fully replacing themselves. Below 1.8 (lets say 1.75) there is a serious decline as every 2 couples (4 people) are only producing 3.5 people to replace them. At 1.5 you are down to 3 people replacing 4 and at below 1.3 the situation is called to be irreversible. I am not sure why that is but it means that out of evey 1M couples (2M people), there will be 1.3M offspring or maximun potential 650,000 couples. But not every person gets married (especially in the West) and not every woman conceives. (You may ask - how come it doesn't look like there are any less Chinese with their 1.0 policy? You got me there.) If this would produce even 500,000 fertile couples (a highly optomistic 77%), they would require no less than 4 kids/couple to restore the next generation to 2M total (which is not even 2M couples).

Pretty bleak, huh?

Well the video suggests that all Western societies (and this would certainly include secular Jews) - except for the US if we include the "illegal" immigrants - is well below the minimum 2.11 rate and many are courting the 1.3 "irreversible" figure. The developed industrial Asians (China, Japan, Korea) are not doing much better.

Not so our Yishmaeli cousins. They are beating the 2.11 minumum by more than 3-fold. Polygamy has its rewards. This means that in just a matter of time, they will simply overrun the West. All Western societies are shrinking, even the Westernized Jews.

But, as we see from our trip to Meron, the Jews that are not so Westernized stand a chance. Unfortunately we are not as fertile as the Moslems. This is partly because we only get one wife each, and we usually take them a bit older. Also, we do have hetterim for family planning and, unfortunately, ample reasons to take advantage of them. And the fact that they don't have to send their kids to Orthodox day schools (they are actually infesting the public school system in the West) and we do also takes it's toll.

Still we are holding our own and doing a great job of it under the circumstances. The people who oppose increases in child allowance payments should take a good hard look at this video.

Here is the video. According to the You-Tube listing, this video is up since March 30, 2009 - less than seven weeks and it hads already been viewed over 5,800,000 times! It is not for the faint of heart:



And as for us, even though Lag B'Omer may not be the best time to make a trek to Meron, we should take comfort in these numbers and keep the numbers growing, BE"H.


Because in 20 or 30 years it's going to be only us and them.


P.S. While we are in the neighborhood, let's have a look at another video about how a nice young Jewish girl is sidestepping the Shidduch crisis. I think it behooves us to do something not only about the Shidduch crisis but about the Jewish education tuition crisis but quick!

Ki Li HaAretz - This Land is My Land - Eminent Domain

והארץ לא תמכר לצמתת כי לי הארץ

And the land shall not be sold for permanance; for the land is to Me. (VaYikra 25:23)

With these words, the Torah introduces to us a concept that has been part of civil law in many cultures throughout the world for generations: the law of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. It basically says that the government is the ultimate owner of the land.

G-d's eminent domain is of significance. And a sovereign state's eminent domain is likewise of significance. How so?

In a recent post, I disputed the claim of a rival blogger that the chareidi world is living in a world of chumros. My contention is that the non-chareidi world is living in a world of kulos. Let us review part of what I wrote:

Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had to implement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is a kula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. We know that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keep Hilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversial Hetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.

I want to elaborate a bit on the issue of Hetter Mechira to explain why I (and the birds of my feather) think this way. There are 2 stipulations for a Hetter Mechira to be valid:

(A) It has to be a Hetter
(B) It has to be a Mechira

Stipulation A means that even if the "sale" is 100% Halachically valid and there is no question that "Halachic" ownership has been transferred to a non-Jew, we must establish that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta. In other words, the Mechira may be good, but does that make a Hetter?

Stipulation B means that even if there is no question that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta, we must establish that the "sale" is valid and that the land is, in fact, Halachically owned by a non-Jew. In other words, the Hetter may be good, but do we have a Mechira?

Unfortunately, both must be in effect. One without the other by definition invalidates the mechanism. So let's examine both stipulations and see if any of them are 100% valid or even close.

Stipulation A - The Hetter

This is relatively simple to deal with. We examine the simple case: If a non-Jew already owns land in E"Y with no mechiras necessary. Say his family [claims to have] owned the land for generations and all legal deeds and titles are in his name - does this suspend the laws of Shmitta?

As you would expect, this is a major machlokes in the opinions of the rishonim. There are numerous players, but 3 heavyweights stand out:

To the extreme right is the Mabit. He maintains that even if a non-Jew legally owns land, all the Halachos of shmitta remain in effect. This means that both the soil remains kadosh and the produce remains kadosh. As per the soil, this means that a Jew cannot work the land not as an employee, leasor, or sharecropper. Any produce that grows under these circumstances are fully prohibited. In terms of produce that grew from non-Jewish labor, it retains all Halachos of Kedushat Shviis. It may be consumed but... it cannot be sold for profit, cannot be exported, cannot be used for irregular consumption, is subject for biur, etc. According to the Mabit, selling the land accomplishes nothing since the Halachos don't change.

To the center is the Bais Yosef. He maintains that the land remains Kadosh but the produce grown through the labor of the non-Jew (or by themselves) does not. This is called Yevul Nochri. As such, a Jew may not lease and work the land and doing so makes the resulting produce forbidden. Thus, selling the land and "leasing" it back still accomplishes nothing with the minor exception of fruit trees and vines that produce by themselves. If the vines are tended by Jews, we are back to square one.

Most other poskim (I do not have names) support either the positon of the Mabit or the Bais Yosef.

The third and most lenient opinion is the Sefer HaTrumos and this is the foundation for the Hetter Mechira. The Sefer HaTrumos wants to say that, because we are in golus, all of Eretz Yisroel today has the status that the annexed land of Suria had in the times of the Bais HaMikdash. There, the Halcha was that only land that is owned by a Jew is subject to the Halachos of Shmitta. Land in Suria that is still owned by a non-Jew has no Kedusha of Shviis whatsoever and even a Jew may be employed to work on that land, or to lease with no restrictions.

The Sefer HaTrumos is certainly a "bar-samcha" yet this ruling came under much attack from his colleagues particularly because there is a Mishna in Challa that seems to negate this perspective. Regardless, the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos is recognized as a "daas yachid l'hakel" and the general rule concerning a "daas yachid l'hakel" is that it can only be relied on in times of great necessity - "B'shaas ha'dchak".

Thus we see that even if the land is unequivocally under the ownership of a non-Jew, "rov deos" (most opinions) hold that it does not constitute a Hetter. The opinion that it is a Hetter (Sefer HaTrumos) is a daas yachid l'hakel. This is very far from being 100% valid.

Stipulation B - The Mechira

The Hetter is not enough. Even if there were no opposition to the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos, we must verify the second stipulation, that the land becomes the rightful property of the non-Jew. Or, in other words, that it becomes "non-Jewish" land. There are numerous issues that play a role, many of them are technical issues were applicable in 1910 as much as today. But I only want to discuss one issue that not many people are aware of: Ki Li Haaretz - eminent domain.

As we wrote, eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. The implication is that a private owner is merely a junior partner in the land with a non-controlling (49%) share. Another perspective is that the state is the ultimate owner of the land under all circumstances and the legal "occupant" is merely leasing the land from the state on a long-term basis for a nominal fee. This implies that nobody who sells land from one person to the other is really selling it because the land does not actually belong to either of them. The seller is merely transferring to the buyer the rights to exclusive occupancy that he had procured from the state until now. Thus, no matter how thorough and "legal" a "Mechira" one does, the land belonged to the state beforehand and it still belongs to the state afterward.

What it Means

With this knowledge in hand, we note that there have been some very significant changes in circumstances from the time HaRav Kook, ZT"L, advocated the Hetter Mechira in 1910 to the present. The main change took place on 5 Iyar 5708 (May 14, 1948), 13 years after the death of Harav Kook, ZT"L. Both stipulations are affected.

Stipulation A - The main problem does not focus on 1948 but on more recent times (let us say from 1967 and beyond). In 1910 and 1917 (WW I), the drastic situation of a miniscule food supply was a clear matter of pikuach nefesh. No question about it. Thus, despite all the deficiencies in the Hetter Mechira, there was a clear Shaas hadchak which certainly justified relying on a "daas yachid". The direness of the situation was not merely related to the severe food shortage but to another aspect. I was told (I did not read this anywhere) that the Turkish authorities would not allow a farmer to leave farmland unworked. If one would neglect to work the land, the Turks would confiscate it. Thus, through the shmitta year of 1917, there was a double pikuach nefesh.

1917 relieved the second aspect of the dchak when the British overran the Turks and took over the country. They did not sustain this cruel policy (they implemented enough of their own), but, of course, we still needed to grow food for subsistance. Even this was not to the same degree, as the British opened up commerce to the West. Over the ensuing 80 years, our agricultural prowess (hydroponics and such)and commercial ties with the outside have steadily grown and, together with financial assistance from the diaspora (Keren Shviis, etc.), we see that even though shmittas may still be difficult - as they are meant to be - there is no longer any of the "pikuach nefesh" that was in place in 1910 and 1917 and even 1931 (Rav Kook's final shmitta year).

But there is one more ramification that does relate directly to 1948 and, ironically, it has more adverse "Halachic" significance for the Religious Zionists than for the chareidim. This is that the entire Hetter is based on the ruling of the Sefer HaTrumos that since we are in golus and all of the shmitta laws are Rabbinic, then we can consider all of E"Y as if it is Suria.

The problem is that the most extreme elements of the Religious Zionist camp, which happen to be the strongest advocates of the Hetter Mechira, want to maintain that the "conquest" of 1948 was a Halachic and divinely mandated conquest and we are no longer in golus! If not for the Western lackey government we would have rebuilt the Bais HaMikdash already! This is ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו and that is why it is appropriate to say Hallel with a bracha on 5 Iyar.

Well, if we are no longer in golus and the Kibush makes kedushas haAretz, then shmitta is d'Oraisa and we cannot consider mainland E"Y as Suria, can we? Now, for the chareidim this is no problem because nothing changed in 1948 and shmitta is still Rabbinic. But for the idealist RZs, even the Sefer Terumos is null and void. Obviously, they must hold that, since yad umos haOlam tekifa and we didn't build the Bais HaMikdash, the kibush falls just short of making Shmitta d'Oraisa. But if this is true, then אכתי עבדי דאחשורש אנן and I cannot figure out the justification to say Hallel. We must say that the kibush is just valid enough to justify Hallel but not valid enough to require proper shmitta observance. Hm-m-m. I suppose some people need to grow their hummus and eat it too.

Stipulation B - This is the real sticky problem. Remember that all this Hetter doesn't work if the land does not become "non-Jewish" land. Well, in 1910 when the Ottomans ran the place it can be argued that eminent domain made all the land into non-Jewish land even if the Jew did not sell it! And this can certainly be reinforced by the Turkish grow-or-go policy that I discussed earlier. Even after 1917 through 1935 when Rav Kook ZT"L passed away, the eminent domain was mandated to Bnei Eisav. 1948, however turns the situation on its face. Now, technically all the land is under the jusidiction of the Israel Land Authority or the KKL and they have no authority to sell it out of their authority! Hence, technically even rightful Arab owned land within the jurisdiction of the ILA is technically all Jewish owned land and possibly, even the kula of the Bais Yosef (that produce of non-Jewish land in E"Y does not have Kedushas Shviis) can come into question.

Obviously, all of this is perspective and not psak. Rav Kook is no longer here to give his opinion. There is no doubt that the circumstances that is was based upon have drastically changed. Also, the assurance that he gave to his chareidi colleagues that the Hetter would not be employed wily-nily and the essence of shmitta will not be forsaken due to the Hetter does not seem to have stood the test of time. We have no way of telling what Rav Kook, ZT"L would hold in today's circumstances. ואין לנו לסמוך אלא על אבינו שבשמים and Avinu SheBashamayim says this:

כי לי הארץ .

The land (alt.: the Earth) is Mine. Avinu SheBaShamayim - His A-lmighty Eminence - holds eminent domain.

It is not ours to work on the seventh year and it is not ours to sell on the seventh year unless He tells us otherwise. He talks to us through the tzaddikim and morei hora'ah of each generation. 99 years ago Rav Kook, ZT"L and Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector, ZT"L, were here to tell us that those who really need to can sell the land and work it. But neither of them are here to tell us this now.

משנה ח
שבעה מיני פרעניות באין לעולם, על שבעה גופי עברה: מקצתן מעשרין ומקצתן אינן מעשרין רעב של בצרת בא; מקצתן רעבים ומקצתן שבעים. גמרו שלא לעשר רעב של מהומה ושל בצרת בא. ושלא לטול את החלה רעב של כליה בא. דבר בא לעולם על מיתות האמורות בתורה, שלא נמסרו לבית דין; ועל פרות שביעית. חרב בא לעולם על ענוי הדין, ועל עוות הדין, ועל המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

משנה ט
חיה רעה באה לעולם על שבועת שוא, ועל חלול השם. גלות בא לעולם על עובדי עבודה זרה, ועל גלוי עריות, ועל שפיכת דמים, ועל השמטת הארץ. בארבעה פרקים הדבר מתרבה: ברביעית ובשביעית, ובמוצאי שביעית, ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה. ברביעית מפני מעשר עני שבשלישית; בשביעית מפני מעשר עני שבששית; ובמוצאי שביעית מפני פרות שביעית; ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה מפני גזל מתנות עניים.