Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita - Guidelines for calling the Police II

I thought Rav Sternbuch's comments were clear - and yet I just saw some pretty gross distortions of his views on another blog that cited my posting. In fact the comments on that blog reflected an understanding just the opposite of what Rav Sternbuch actually said. Rav Sternbuch’s point was that when there is present and future danger the police should be called. It is important to know that the previous posting was read, edited and approved by Rav Sternbuch himself. However some blogs have an automatic bias against rabbis and so they assume that Rav Sternbuch is trying to protect molesters. The truth is just the opposite. Furthermore these bloggers assume that if someone is a molester, it is obvious that one should always call the police and publicize the crime. Again it is not always simple and obvious as to how to proceed.

What follows is simply my own attempt to try to provide a clarification and context for his words and any misunderstandings are solely my responsibility.

Rav Sternbuch’s point was that when there is present and future danger the police should be called. This view is one not only contrary to the public perception of how the chareidi world deals with these issues but is also contrary to the rulings of many rabbis – especially in the past. Rav Sternbuch is not saying that the role of the rabbis is to stop a person from calling the police – but to clarify that there is a present and future danger. If it is clear that a person is a molester – i.e., he confesses or there are clear witnesses - then it is probable that the police need to be involved. If it uncertain whether the accusations are true – but there is a clear possibility and the trauma is real – the police are better equipped to investigate.

However the investigation by the police and social workers is not a pleasant or neutral experience. There can be a real danger of trauma for the child and his family because of the questioning of the police or social workers. Not all police departments, social workers or psychologists are properly trained to deal with these cases with sensitivity. Consequently parents and/or the prosecutor will sometimes decide not to press charges or will accept confession to a lesser charge – to avoid further trauma to the child and family.

I just received the following note from a rabbi who has been involved in these issues for many years.

"Excellent public service about child molesting. However you left out the main problem with calling the police. Here [in New York State] when you call the police the family courts and police gain control over the molested child and even parents are forced at times to go to therapy and satisfy secular people. Someone here caught a man molesting his children. He called me up foaming at the mouth and threatened to call the police. I told him that was fine but before he did he should find out what is going to happen to him once he calls the police about his child. He called me back later thanking me and he did not call the police.”

I was recently asked for advice from a man who had just discovered that his son was a child molester. He wanted to know whether and how he should inform his brother that his schizophrenic son had been molesting his brother’s ten year old son? I told him that even though his son was seeing a therapist, he needed to contact someone who had a lot of experience in this area as to how to proceed. Not every psychologist or social worker is competent to deal with these issues.

Rav Sternbuch told me that he is fully aware of the fact the condition is difficult to treat and success is not common. Therefore he says he typically will tell a person who contacts him that he should call the police.. His message was simply that rabbis who automatically advise people not to call the police in situations of present and future danger are mistaken.

Rav Sternbuch’s statement that a rabbi should be consulted, doesn’t mean any person with semicha can be consulted. The average rabbi is not equipped to deal with these issues – nor is the average therapist or social worker. You need to consult someone who is experienced and successful in this area.

I just spoke with another posek who concurred with Rav Sternbuch's position. I asked him why it seems so obvious now but that this what not the standard psak 10 or 15 years ago. He replied that the rabbis in those days were not aware of the serious impact these attacks have on children. This ignorance is not just in the chareidi world but also existed/exists in the Modern Orthodox world see the links on the Wikipedia article about R’ Yosef Blau mashgiach at Yeshiva University.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita - Guidelines for calling the Police

There is a widespread impression that the police and the chareidi world have an inherently antagonistic relationship. There is also a widespread perception that the chareidi world is more concerned with covering up crimes such as child or wife abuse and that pedophiles are given free run. In other words there is a perception that the chareidi community is more worried by adverse publicity then it is about the welfare of the individual.

This Shabbos I had an intensive discussion with Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita about these issues.

1) Child Molesters

He stated without hesitation and said that I can quote him - that if one knows that children are being molested that one should call the police. He noted that there is an important distinction to keep in mind. One calls the police when it is clear that someone is still in danger. Thus one does not automatically call the police concerning an event that took place once and is not going to be repeated. In such a case one should first consult with a rav. When I mentioned that many rabbis apparently felt differently – he dismissed such a view as being wrong. He noted also that it is important for the community rabbis to have a good working relationship with the police. That means that the police need to be sensitive to the needs and nature of the chareidi community and the community needs to be understanding of the police. He said that there is such a relationship with many police forces.

The rule is summarized simply – if one knows that someone is being physically abused or will be abused than it is required to call the police after consulting a rabbi who agrees he is a future danger as is common in such cases. It is self-evident that if there is danger that someone will be harmed or even might be harmed if a rabbi is consulted first  - then the police should be contacted first.

2) Vigilante actions

I mentioned the issue of vigilante actions in the chareidi community and whether they are to be praised or condemned. He noted that there are unfortunately disturbed and misguided individuals in the chareidi community – as there are in other communities. The general rule is not to make a public protest when the problem is rare and insignificant. He said that it only encourages these individuals when their activities are publicized. However if they progress beyond this stage then it is important to take action. He mentioned the Bedatz dealt last year with vigilantes who burned down a clothing store in Geula. I mentioned the recent incident in Beitar. He said he condemned such behavior. If it is clearly not a rare act of a disturbed person then it needs to be dealt with.

[This is also related to the recent outbreak of burglaries in Har Nof where Rav Sternbuch lives. The unanimous ruling of the rabbonim of Har Nof is that one can call the police on Shabbos if one witnesses a break-in as there is also life danger involved. As is explained in Shmiras Shabbos K’hilchosa (41:25-29) – this is because the possible danger associated with these break-ins. See also Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 388:7). Tzitz Eliezer (19:52) also permitted calling the police in the case of teacher molesting his students. He based his psak on the Aruch HaShulchan.]

Conversion crisis reflects fundamental changes in Religious Zionism

Haaretz has a thought provoking article by Avirama Golan

This Shavuot will find N. preoccupied and anguished. N., a young woman born in Switzerland, visited her local rabbinate a few weeks ago to register to get married and suddenly discovered she was not qualified to do so. All lobbying efforts were of no avail, including those waged by senior Orthodox rabbis. When she handed in her parents' ketubah (Jewish marriage contract), as requested by the dayanim (religious court judges), their eyes gravitated immediately to her mother's name, Bat Avraham Avinu, "daughter of our father, Abraham" - a code for "convert." The rabbinical court refused to register her, the validity of her mother's conversion was questioned, and N. was sent back to the drawing board. There is simply no one to talk to about it.

N. is humiliated and shocked. Her grandmother, the daughter of a well-to-do Christian family, married a Jewish refugee who fled from Eastern Europe to Switzerland, and paid a heavy price for it. Her grandfather, who became a successful businessman, dedicated his life to Zionist activities and to helping the State of Israel. N.'s mother was raised Jewish.

[...]

N.'s experiences constitute a mere corollary to the events of the last few weeks. The rabbinical court in Jerusalem retroactively canceled the conversion of a married woman with children, thus nullifying her marriage and the Jewish status of her children as well. In the course of these proceedings, one of the leading rabbis of the religious Zionist movement, Rabbi Haim Druckman, who was involved in the case, was treated like one of the worst enemies of Judaism by the court. This once again illustrates the change that has taken place in the religious Zionist movement as a whole and among its leadership in particular.

The public did not fully understand the rabbinical court's ruling and its bitter outcome. The media hype focused almost entirely on the ultra-Orthodox rabbinical court judges' "hazing" of Druckman; in the end, it seemed he had been dismissed from his position as head of the Conversion Administration. Between this media uproar and the facts there is a substantial gap. In any event, Druckman was nearing retirement age. The Civil Service Commission, following the state comptroller's harsh report, sent home several other senior conversion officials. Druckman was not among them.

The current Conversion Administration, which was hastily created by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon with the goal of bypassing ultra-Orthodox bureaucracy, suffered from its inception from internal power struggles, external pressures and efforts to delegitimize its decisions. In retrospect, it was clear also to the sworn supporters of Druckman (who is an educator, but not an authorized dayan - a halakhic conundrum that was resolved only in part with the approval of the chief rabbis and which was never accepted by the ultra-Orthodox establishment), that the idea of an administration that is separate from the rabbinical establishment is totally flawed. Its existence was a permanent subject of dispute, and the idea that conversions would be overturned and that over 1,000 converts would turn into Jews with questionable status constantly hovered above it.

Differences of opinion

The differences of opinion on conversion between the different streams of Orthodoxy (ultra-Orthodox and hardalim - a combination of ultra-Orthodox and religious Zionist) are very clear-cut, and focus on the legal and halakhic (i.e., relating to traditional Jewish law) question of whether a person who will not maintain a religious lifestyle can even be converted. This is similar, for example, to the question of whether it is permissible to marry a couple that will clearly not observe the laws of family purity, or to mourn someone who violates the Sabbath. These are serious halakhic questions, the answers to which are definitive and well reasoned.

The ruling of Rabbi Avraham Sherman, who was responsible for revoking the conversions in Jerusalem, answers this question unequivocally: As far as halakha goes, a person who tries to convert despite the fact that it is known (or even suspected) that he will not observe the mitzvot, will not be converted. The phrase "converts are as problematic for Israel as psoriasis," was never so fitting.

Sherman argued, based on detailed halakhic arguments, that anyone who converts such people is tainted by sin, and even went so far as to annul the ruling of the former head of the Tel Aviv rabbinical court, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky (who was always attacked for his enlightened positions), who ruled several years ago in a similar case that the rabbinical court is not authorized to annul a conversion executed by a special court. This matter will be presented soon before the High Court of Justice, but the dispute between those who want to protect the threshold of halakha and those who seek leniency for social-nationalist reasons, will remain in force.

Ever since the advent of religious Zionism, creative solutions have been found to social-national-halakhic disputes. Today there is no chance of that happening. Among the religious Zionists, not a single respected rabbi today would dare express what many conversion court judges would be willing to accept - that the vital need to absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants, not the ultra-Orthodox viewpoint, is the determining factor in the process, and that society and the nation are more important than the intricate, fine points of halakha.

Authorities ranging from the Tzohar rabbis (a young modern Orthodox organization of rabbis) to Israel's Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar know that conversion can turn into a sweeping national-social means to ensure the acceptance of thousands of people, all of whom tremble before the wrath of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who heads the Lithuanian sect of Israel's Haredi society. They explain their evasiveness by claiming that only a few thousand individuals want to convert, and many get married in Cyprus or don't get married at all, as if they did not know that this is not the cause but the result, whose main victims are those who observe tradition.

The Zionist rabbis have always tried to walk a fine line and upset the "blacks" - ultra-Orthodox - as little as possible, but there were times when leaders of great stature dared to breach the limits of halakha for the sake of social and nationalist values. What a difference from the Hardali rabbis of today, who speak out mostly on issues relating to modesty (or the "wickedness" of the state), and from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who told the pioneers of Merhavia in 1913 that he came "not to influence, but to be influenced," and danced in a circle with them dressed in pioneers' clothes. Or, take, for that matter, the former chief rabbi, Shlomo Goren, who explained his decision to absolve the status of a brother and a sister who are considered mamzerim (bastards) according to halakha, saying that the "commandment to settle the Land of Israel is as important as conversion."

Back to Haredi basics

The ultra-Orthodox Sherman, well aware of the tension between the needs of society, the nation and Jewish law, waved a red flag before the nationalist religious rabbis in ruling that halakha overrode any other circumstance - but they responded with silence. Their silence does not stem from a weak capitulation to the ultra-Orthodox. It is the reflection of a process that goes much deeper and is far more serious.

The concept of the Greater Land of Israel as a central theme is gradually losing steam. The settlements are indeed still standing, but the Israeli public's attitude toward them has changed. The connection, which for a dramatic and limited period of time seemed so enchanting, between religion and the nation and between messianic faith and the state, which attracted many ultra-Orthodox to the cause, was abruptly torn apart during the disengagement. The disengagement is not the cause. It just provided a signal to mark the peak of the ongoing process, which was accelerated following the Oslo Accords and the Rabin assassination, but started even before, as rabbis, guides and educators preferred to withdraw to ultra-Orthodox values and gradually abandon the official state.

Now it seems that the circle, which evolved some 100 years ago when a handful of rabbis bravely joined the inherently secular Zionist movement, is gradually being closed. A substantial proportion of religious Zionists have been absorbed back into ultra-Orthodoxy, even if the latter is not receiving them with open arms. The almost exclusive narrative of religious Zionism concerns a spiritual return to Zion - not pragmatic political nationalism - and prominent rabbis are reverting back to the Diaspora conception that places halakha above any other principle, and primarily above society.

In this process, conversion has become a symbol. It holds the key to the gate to the Jewish people and/or Israeli society, and it pits the social-national agenda against halakha, Israeliness against the Judaism that favors "a nation that dwells alone," and the choice of forming a civil society dwelling on its land against the old longing for an existence outside history and time.

The annulment of the conversion and the denunciation of Druckman revealed a gap that is hard to breach among the religious Zionist public, and optimists hope that some kind of change for the better will emerge from it. However, it seems that the religious and secular majority, Jewish and non-Jewish, is incapable of and uninterested in waging the fight to wrest power from rabbinical tyrants.
[...]

Agudath Israel defends Rev. Hagee's remarks about Holocaust

Cross-Currents has Avi Shafran's defense of Rev. Hagee's comment about the Holocaust

From the Mouths of Ministers

by Rabbi Shafran (Director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America).

“Tonight I humbly ask forgiveness of the Jewish people for every act of anti-Semitism and the deafening silence of Christianity in your greatest hour of need during the Holocaust.”

Those words were spoken before a crowd of several thousand Jews attending an AIPAC Policy Conference in March, 2007. The speaker was Pastor John Hagee, the evangelist who heads the group Christians United for Israel – the very same Pastor Hagee whom Reform Rabbi Eric Yoffie now accuses of “insult[ing] the survivors” of the Holocaust.

Rabbi Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, was referring to a speech Pastor Hagee made about a decade ago, about Jeremiah’s prophecy that G-d would one day “bring the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers” (16:15). In the next verse G-d proclaims that He will send “many fishers” and then “hunters.” The latter word was interpreted by Mr. Hagee as referring to Hitler, leading the pastor to regard the Holocaust as part of a Divine strategy to move Jews to the Holy Land.

One needn’t agree with the pastor’s take on history; or accept his assumption that simple people can identify events with prophecies; or even consider him to be in command of the facts (in his speech, he has Theodore Herzl, a resolutely secular Jew, invoking Divine command as the reason Jews should move to Palestine). But nothing in fact could be more Jewish than to accept that, no matter how inscrutable, G-d is just; and that as we look into the maw of tragedy we are to look inward as well.

And so, while the Reform rabbi may have seen the Christian minister’s words as “an affront” to those who perished in the Holocaust, I saw only an attempt, imperfect but without malice, to discern the fulfillment of a Jewish prophet’s words in recent history.

It is possible that Rabbi Yoffie’s harsh judgment of Pastor Hagee’s sermon reflects a broader disconnect between the two gentlemen. The Reform leader has long disdained the pastor’s politics. Hagee, after all, is a social conservative, believes that Iran should be militarily disabled and strongly opposes a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. As such, his position profile is something of a reverse image to that of the Reform movement.

The Jewish clergyman might also have resented the Christian one’s reference, earlier this year at a Reform temple in Los Angeles, to the object of Christian veneration as “a Reform rabbi” (intended as a compliment, no doubt).

But one suspects that what most profoundly divide the two clergymen are issues of theology. It is the pastor’s belief, but apparently not entirely the rabbi’s, that: The Torah is the word of G-d (“Truth is not what you think it is. Truth is what the Torah says it is”); G-d chose and charged the Jewish People with heeding His laws (“[The Jews are] the chosen people, a cherished people… with an eternal covenant that will stand forever”); and the Torah explicitly warns us of the repercussions of forsaking our mission.

[...]

Many of us Orthodox Jews tend to not be comfortable with Christian evangelists. Most, after all, want Jews to accept Christianity, which a Jew is enjoined against doing, even on penalty of death. Although Reverend Hagee has clearly stated that he has no such designs, he nonetheless remains a Christian evangelist. And for Biblical interpretations, we Jews look elsewhere.

At the same time, though, an inescapable irony emerges here:

Interpretations of Biblical prophecies aside, the pastor’s approach to Torah (that it is true), Jews (that they are chosen to serve G-d) and history (that it is Divinely guided) is the Jewish one; and the rabbi’s, tragically, is not.

Zionism - Christian, secular or Jewish?

Due to the unresolved debate concerning the nature of Zionism - just wanted to cite the Britannica on the subject. [Prof Yosef Salmon's article also indicates the complexity of the issue]

======================================

Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

In the 16th and 17th centuries a number of “messiahs” came forward trying to persuade Jews to “return” to Palestine. The Haskala (“Enlightenment”) movement of the late 18th century, however, urged Jews to assimilate into Western secular culture. In the early 19th century interest in a return of the Jews to Palestine was kept alive mostly by Christian millenarians. Despite the Haskala, eastern European Jews did not assimilate and in reaction to tsarist pogroms formed the Ḥovevei Ẕiyyon (“Lovers of Zion”) to promote the settlement of Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine.

A political turn was given to Zionism by Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who regarded assimilation as most desirable but, in view of anti-Semitism, impossible to realize. Thus, he argued, if Jews were forced by external pressure to form a nation, they could lead a normal existence only through concentration in one territory. In 1897 Herzl convened the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switz., which drew up the Basel program of the movement, stating that “Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.”

The centre of the movement was established in Vienna, where Herzl published the official weekly Die Welt (“The World”). Zionist congresses met yearly until 1901 and then every two years. When the Ottoman government refused Herzl's request for Palestinian autonomy, he found support in Great Britain. In 1903 the British government offered 6,000 square miles (15,500 square km) of uninhabited Uganda for settlement, but the Zionists held out for Palestine.

At the death of Herzl in 1904, the leadership moved from Vienna to Cologne, then to Berlin. Prior to World War I Zionism represented only a minority of Jews, mostly from Russia but led by Austrians and Germans. It developed propaganda through orators and pamphlets, created its own newspapers, and gave an impetus to what was called a “Jewish renaissance” in letters and arts. The development of the Modern Hebrew language largely took place during this period.

The failure of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the wave of pogroms and repressions that followed caused growing numbers of Russian Jewish youth to emigrate to Palestine as pioneer settlers. By 1914 there were about 90,000 Jews in Palestine; 13,000 settlers lived in 43 Jewish agricultural settlements, many of them supported by the French Jewish philanthropist Baron Edmond de Rothschild.

Upon the outbreak of World War I political Zionism reasserted itself, and its leadership passed to Russian Jews living in England. Two such Zionists, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration from Great Britain (Nov. 2, 1917), which promised British support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The declaration was included in Britain's League of Nations mandate over Palestine (1922).

Israeli Supreme Court to rule on validity of rejected conversions

Jerusalem Post reports on June 6, 2008

Do the rabbinical courts have the right to reject conversions approved by independent religious courts recognized by the state and the chief rabbis of Israel? That question will now be decided by the High Court of Justice as a result of a petition filed Thursday by attorney Susan Weiss of the Center for Justice for Women, who represents 15 petitioners.

The High Court will have to decide whether to accept or reject decisions made by haredi-controlled rabbinical courts that nullified the Jewishness of a woman who converted 15 years ago and all conversions conducted by Rabbi Haim Druckman, the head of the Conversion Authority in the Prime Minister's Office, since 1999.

The rabbinical court rulings has triggered infuriated reactions by religious Zionist political and spiritual leaders who regard the special conversion courts headed by Druckman as more tolerant than the haredi-controlled rabbinical courts. [...]

The petitioners in the case brought by Weiss include the woman whose conversion was nullified and her three children, the Na'amat women's labor Zionist movement, the WIZO-Women's International Zionist Organization, the Emunah National Religious Women's Organization and several NGOs trying to improve the situation of women in the rabbinical courts.

The petition is aimed at Dayan (Religious Court Judge) Avraham Attia, a member of the Ashdod Rabbinical Court, and Dayanim Avraham Sherman, Hagai Eiserer and Avraham Scheinfeld of the Higher Rabbinical Court.

The case began when the Danish-born woman and her sabra husband filed for an uncontested divorce in the Ashdod Rabbinical Court. According to Weiss, the matter should have been a simple one since the couple had agreed in advance on the divorce terms. Instead, Attia asked the woman a question or two about her religious observance and then ruled on February 22, 2007, that the woman was not Jewish because her conversion had been invalid. Since she was not Jewish, she could not have been married in a religious court and therefore did not need a divorce.

"Attia devoted eight pages of the nine-page decision to a crass diatribe against the woman and Rabbi Haim Druckman," Weiss said. "He used language unfit for any person, let alone a dayan."

[...]

In an interim decision, the Higher Rabbinical Court granted the couple a divorce but added that this did not reflect on the question of whether the woman was Jewish. Then, in February, during a conference including dayanim and others, Sherman, the presiding dayan in the appeal hearing, distributed a draft of the court's final 49-page decision. The decision itself was handed down only two months later.

The court ruled that the Jewishness of the woman and her children was in doubt and needed to be re-examined, that the family should be added to the list of people who may not marry for the time being, that all Druckman's conversion decisions since 1999 should be canceled, and that marriage registrars not register a convert who does not look observant from his or her external appearance.

According to Weiss, the language used in the Higher Rabbinical Court decision was also insulting. She included several quotes such as, "These [special conversion] courts are responsible for the fact that nothing will be left of the Jewish people," and, "The rabbi whose name begins with sin," a play on words because the word "chet" means "sin" while the letter "chet" is the first letter in Druckman's first name, Haim.

Weiss told The Jerusalem Post that the woman whose conversion was nullified approached the the Center for Justice for Women in the wake of the Higher Rabbinical Court decision. However, because the rabbinical decisions went much farther than the case of the woman itself by delegitimizing a court system established by the state and endorsed by the two chief rabbis, she finds herself defending the special courts and, by extension, the religious Zionist movement itself.

According to Weiss, the case highlights many of the faults of the rabbinical courts. "They have no concept of due process or fairness, and they display no sensitivity to those who come before them," she said.

Shavuos VII - why do we say it is the Time of the Giving of the Torah

We all know that Shavuos is the Time of the Giving of the Torah. However such a designation is problematic

1) There is no reference in the Torah that Shavuos is connected with the Giving of the Torah. It is specifically referred to as a harvest festival (Devarim 16:10/Devarim 16:16).
2) Magen Avraham (#494) asks why we say that Shavuos is the time of the Giving of the Torah.
3) Shabbos (86b) has a debate between the Chachomim and Rav Yossi as to whether the Torah was given on the 6th or 7th of Sivan.
4) Rosh HaShanna (6b): Says that Shavuos is sometimes on the 5th of Sivan, sometimes on the 6th and sometimes on the 7th.
5) Rivash (#96) states that there was no fixed link between Shavuos and the Giving of the Torah until the calendar was fixed by Hillel II.
6) Ritva (Shabbos 87b) also asks this question.

Rabbi Yosef Levinson discusses this in a column of De'ah v'dibur

[...]

Chachomim contend that the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan, while R' Yosi argues that Matan Torah occurred on the seventh of Sivan. Since the halacha follows R' Yosi's view (Yoreh Deah 196:11) how, asks Mogen Avrohom, can we declare on Shavuos that it is zeman matan Toraseinu (Mogen Avrohom introduction to siman 494)?

Furthermore, we know that the departure of the Jewish People from Egypt took place on a Thursday (Shabbos 87b), while the Revelation took place seven weeks later, on Shabbos (Ibid. 86b). A calculation of the number of days between that Thursday night, which would have been the beginning of the Omer period, and the Shabbos when the Torah was received, comes to fifty-one days. Inasmuch as the Chachomim concur with R' Yosi on this issue, we can conclude that the Torah was given on the fifty-first day of the Omer. Yet Shavuos is celebrated on the fiftieth day after the Omer was brought (Mogen Avrohom, ibid.; see also Rivash no. 96; Maharsha, Avoda Zora 3a; Tzelach Shabbos 88a and Pesochim 68b; Chok Yaakov 430:2 and 494:1).

The Maharal answers (Maharal, Tiferes Yisroel Ch. 27 p. 83a) that although we did not receive the Torah until the fifty-first day of the Omer which, according to R' Yosi, was the seventh day of Sivan, nevertheless Hashem had been prepared to present the Torah to us on the fiftieth day. It was only due to Moshe Rabbenu adding an extra day of preparation that the Revelation was postponed to the following day.

Thus, it is the fiftieth day that we celebrate since Hashem designated that day for Matan Torah. Thus, on Shavuos we declare Zeman Matan Toraseinu, the time of the giving of the Torah. We focus on Hashem's gift to us. Hashem was already prepared on that day to give us His kli chemdoh, demonstrating His deep love for the Jewish Nation, which was thus already fully evident on the sixth of Sivan.

Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld also has an extensive discussion of this issue

Shavuos VI - Na'aseh v'Nishma - willing or forced acceptance of Torah? - Written vs. Oral Torah

As mentioned in my previous posting Shavuos V there seems to be conflicting views as to whether the Torah was accepted willlingly - na'aseh v'nishma or whether the Jews were threatened with death if they refused to accept it - Sinai was held over their heads. Both statements are found in Shabbos(88a). In fact Prof Auebach asserts that the view that they were forced is a minority opinion which he claims was rejected by the gemora. The gemora there asks that if in fact they were forced then there is no obligation to keep mitzvos! The gemora then replies that while that is true - the Jews did in fact accept the Torah willingly many years later at Purim.

While Prof. Auerbach's explanation seems consistent with Shabbos (88a) it is not the traditional view. There are a number of explanations offered in the classic sources. This post will be limited to the view that it is related to the difference between the Written and Oral Torah. I will present the other views in a future post.

1) The earliest source to address this issue is the Tanchuma (Noach #3) which differentiates between the Written Torah - which was accepted willingly and the Oral Torah - which required force to be accepted.

Tanchuma( Noach 3): The Jews did not accept the Torah until G‑d forced them by threatening them with the mountain held over their heads as it says (Shemos 19:17): And they were camped under the mountain. R’ Dimi bar Chama said that G‑d told the Jews that if they would accept the Torah then it will be good and if not they would be buried there (Shabbos 88a). However this raises the question. If they were forced to accept the Written Torah then why when they were asked if they wanted to accept the Torah they all answered na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand). We can answer that there is no effort or strain in the Written Torah and it is not very large either. Therefore they readily accepted the Written Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma but they were forced to accept the Oral Torah which has much detail both for the minor mitzvos and the major mitzvos and there is a great quantity as well. The Oral Torah presents great difficulties and no one would study it except someone who strongly loves G‑d with his full heart and with his entire soul and with all his might…

2) The Maharal objects to a literal understanding of this medrash

Maharal (Ohr Chadash): Tanchuma (Noach #3) asks why G‑d had to force the Jews to accept the Torah by holding Sinai over their head when it says in Shemos (24:7) that the Jews willing accepted the Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then understand)? The Tanchuma answers that they only willing accepted the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah because the Oral Torah has many difficult details and therefore they had to be forced to accept the Oral Torah. However this explanation is also problematic in saying that in reality the Jews did not want to accept the Oral Torah. It doesn’t make sense that they did not want the full merit of the Torah whether it was the Oral or Written Torah. It would appear that the explanation is that they did not want to accept the Oral Torah until they were forced. That is because it is appropriate to be forced for the Oral Torah. In contrast the Written Torah which is the beginning of the process of acceptance of the Torah needs to be totally voluntary since the Jews were essential prepared to accept the Torah and thus it wasn’t relevant that they should be forced nor was it necessary. In contrast, the Oral Torah is not such a natural thing to accept as the Written Torah which is the basis to all the Torah. The Jews were inherently ready to accept the Torah and the Written Torah is Torah so the force was only needed for the Oral Torah. However it is not correct to say that the Jews did not want the Oral Torah and that therefore it was necessary to force them and reduce the merit of the Jews. Rather the Tanchuma is say that everything was done in the appropriate manner. The difficulty addressed by the Tanchuma is that it seems that na’aseh v’nishma was the acceptance of both the Written and Oral Torah and therefore there was no need for the forced acceptance. The answer is that na’aseh v’nishma was not in fact said concerning the Oral Torah which is much more difficult. Therefore the acceptance of the Written Torah and Oral Torah was distinct and separate from each other and each one was accepted in the appropriate manner. When you understand the words of our Sages in their full truth you will understand that this explanation which we have given is the essential one and this is clear…

3) However the Ohr HaChaim presents a similar understanding to the medrash - without actually citing it.

Ohr HaChaim (Shemos 19:5): The reason for the repeated verb of listening in this verse perhaps alludes to the acceptance of the two types of Torah. The first being the Written Torah which they received at Sinai and the second being the Oral Torah and the dikdukei sofrim and seforim as well as the legistaltion which would be taught by the rabbis in the future. This is hinted at by the mitzva of lo sassur (Devarim 17:11)…. Furthermore the verse mentions “My voice” after this double expression. This alludes to the principle mentioned in the Bamidbar Rabbah (14): “That which is heard from a sage has the same authority as hearing something from G‑d.” In other words, those decrees of the sages have the same authority as if they had been said by G‑d. Perhaps this insight that they were actually accepting two types of Torah at Sinai can explain a difficulty in understanding Shabbos (88a). This gemora understands the verse Shemos 19:17) to mean that G‑d forced them to accept the Torah by threatening to kill the Jews by holding Mt. Sinai over their heads - unless they accepted the Torah. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Shemos (24:7) says that they accepted the Torah willingly – naaseh v’nishma (whatever G‑d says we will do and afterwards will learn). In view of their ready acceptance why was it necessary to force them?… It is possible to answer this question with our explanation – that they in fact accepted two types of Torah at Sinai one directly from G‑d at Sinai and a second one that they would receive in the future from the sages. Their willing acceptance described in Shemos (24:7) was the acceptance of what they heard from G‑d even before they knew what it entailed. In contrast the Torah which they would be taught in the future by the sages they refused to accept before they heard what it contained. Their objection to accepting it was that the Torah of the sage is unlimited and in each generation new laws and decrees are generated. Thus G‑d had to force them to accept the Oral Torah while the Written Torah was accepted willingly. This forced state of acceptance continued until the time of Mordechai when they saw the importance of the sage through the actions of Mordechai and Esther. They saw that without their actions there would not be any remnant left of the Jewish people because of their enemies. At that time they also willingly accepted the Torah of the Sage. However it must be acknowledged that our sages (Shabbos 88a) understood the verse differently. They say that it indicates that the Jews willingly accepted the entire Torah willingly even before they knew its contents. Consequently they praised the Jews at Sinai as being like the angels who also accept obligation fully before knowing what it is. However this explanation of the sages is homiletics. According to our explanation they also said they would accept prior to understanding what it entailed – but we insist that was only the Written Torah that they heard directly from G‑d. In fact it might be possible to reconcile these two approaches by saying that these two explanations are describing two different types of Jews. Perhaps our sages are describing the total ready acceptance by the completely righteous Jew. We would then say that the resistance to accepting the Torah of the Sages only occurred amongst the masses. It is obvious that not all the Jews were on the same level of righteousness.

The distinction between the Written and Oral Torah is also found in many other sources. Here are are few more.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemos 19:8): All that G‑d said we will do. They agreed to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah and mitzvos and they did this willingly. However this that our Sages say that Sinai was held over them like a barrel and that they were told that if they accepted the Torah it would be good but if not they would be buried there – it only was in reference to the Oral Torah. That is because the Oral Torah has many prohibitions and punishments as well as additional restrictions. In contrast they Written Torah was willingly accepted by everyone with great interest and joy as well as good heartedly. There was no need to apply force except for the Oral Torah.

Alshech(Bamidbar 21:14): G‑d came to give sight to the blind and to reject the view of the Jews who mistakenly think that the Oral Torah wasn’t necessary but only the Written Torah. In fact this mistaken view was that held by the Jews at Sinai. That is the reason it was necessary for G‑d to hold Sinai over their heads and to tell them if they accepted the Torah it would be good and if not they would die. The Tanchuma (Noach 3) asked that since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand) then why were they forced to accept the Torah under fear of death? And how could it be that there was no genuine acceptance until Purim? The Tanchuma answers that they fully accepted only the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah with its many details

Beis HaLevi(Mishlei 2:1): Shabbos (88a) says that because the Jews were forced to accept the Torah they had an excuse for why they shouldn’t be punished for sins. Nevertheless they fully accepted the Torah in the time of Achashveros… Tosfos (Shabbos 88a) asks why was it necessary to force them since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand)? The commentaries have already explained the main reason for forcing their acceptance only concerned the Oral Torah. In other words that they should accept doing all that they would be taught by the rabbis in every generation. Thus their original acceptances was only for that which G‑d had already said. They had to be forced to accept that which the rabbis would teach in the future.

Haflaah(Kesubos – Introduction #3): …Because without the Oral Torah we would not know what to do even concerning a single mitzvah… And many commentaries write that the main reason for threatening them with the mountain if they didn’t accept the Torah – only applies to Oral Torah. In fact that is the reason that Korach was swallowed alive in the earth because he rejected Moshe who represented the Oral Torah. Consequently he perverted the foundation principles of Judaism. For example he asked whether a talis which was dyed with techeles required a blue thread in the corner. …

Rav Tzadok(Machshavos Charutz #17): And when prophecy departed - It appears to me that this was the result of the increased power of intellect associated with the Oral Torah after they accepted the Torah a second time during the days of Achashveros because of the love associated with the miracle. They accepted the Torah then strongly and passionately. That was because originally the forced acceptance concerned only the Oral Torah because of the great effort involved in extracting Torah through the intellect and in ascertaining the truth. This understanding is stated in the Tanchuma (Noach #3). However after the events of Purim they willingly accepted the struggle and toil connected with the Oral Torah and by means of this merited the prophecy of intellectual wisdom. This enabled them to know everything by means of the ruach hakodesh which was in their hearts [and therefore they didn’t need the traditional prophecy].

Impact of blogs - "Sometimes the good guys win"

Jonathan Rosenblum recently wrote sent out a column from the Yated Ne'eman (June 6, 2008). The conclusion of the column was the following.

The Good Guys Win

[...]

WHAT LESSONS CAN WE TAKE AWAY from this happy result? The first is that we should not abandon any playing field to our enemies, even when there are good reasons to suspect that it is not a level one and the chances of victory are slight. Community organizer Saul Alinsky once said, "Immoral enemies make stupid mistakes." And Enderlin's insistence on bringing a libel suit, even though the charges against his broadcast had gained almost no traction in the mainstream media (MSM) is one example.

A second lesson is that alternative sources of information have dealt a huge blow to the former monopoly of the MSM. We in the frum community tend to think of the blogosphere exclusively as a cesspool of character assassination and worse. But in many places in the world it is also a vital agent for freedom from oppressive dictatorships. Some of the greatest heroes on earth are anonymous bloggers in places like Iran and China casting a searching light on the leaders of their own societies. Dictatorships can no longer completely silence and terrorize their critics.

Nor is the salutary influence of alternate sources of information felt only in dictatorships. In the West as well, the oligopoly of the Left over elite humanities and social science faculties and the MSM has been largely broken by conservative think tanks and alternative news sources.

The French MSM paid almost no attention to Phillippe Karsenty or even Enderlin's libel action, at least until Enderlin's victory in the lower court. Only then did it proclaim Enderlin's vindication. And it is similarly downplaying the Court of Appeals decision.

But it can no longer keep the news of the hoax from getting out, and that should give us all at least a brief moment of optimism. Sometimes the good guys do win.

Israelis want more immigrants but only if they are Jewish or converts

YNET June 5, 2008

Poll: Majority of Israelis support conversions [Haaretz also had an article]

New data presented by Immigrant Absorption Ministry reveals Israelis are highly supportive of immigration, conversion process, but fear mass none-Jewish immigration may lead to assimilation

by Kobi Nahshoni

A special survey held by the Immigrant Absorption Ministry looking at public stances regarding immigration, assimilation and conversion, revealed Thursday that a majority of the Israeli public is concerned that increased non-Jewish immigration into Israel may cause assimilation of the Jewish culture.

Despite that view, said the ministry's poll, the majority of the Israeli public is highly supportive of immigration and is willing to support the conversion process in order to keep the Jewish nature of Israel intact.[...]

Among the secular participants, 88% said they believed most immigrants come to Israel for non-Jewish motives, 60% predicted immigrants would increase assimilation and 70% rooted for conversions. An additional 52% said they would have no problem with non-Jews marrying into their family.

As for the halachic need of observing a religious way of life, 74% of the poll's secular participants said all immigrants should be converted, even if they are not keen on the idea; but 26% said conversion should be denied when applied only for the purpose of marriage. Moreover, 74% said they believed only the Orthodox conversion should be considered as valid, compared to 50% who said Reform conversion should be recognized as well.

Among the religious participants of the survey, 87% said they feared mass assimilation of the Jewish people in Israel. Fifty-five percent of the respondents said they thought conversion should be denied when applied for any other reason than that of observing mitzvahs; but 45% said conversions for the purpose of marriage were acceptable. Over 90% also said conversion should be a matter of free choice and should not be forced on anyone.

"Converting non-Jewish immigrants in a national, strategic mission for Israel is one which is crucial for the State's future," Minister of Immigrant Absorption Jacob Edery told Ynet.

"The study disproves the notion that the Israeli public loves immigration but doesn't like immigrants. The Israeli public is ready and willing to make its fellow immigrants feel and be a part of Israeli society.

"The State and its religious establishments must create more solutions which could facilitate immigrants' conversion," he added. "This challenge should be our top priority. These people have chosen to become a part of the Jewish people. It is up to us to help them do that."

Ed Koch defends Rev. Hagee's Zionist theology

Jerusalem Post June 5, 2008

Koch's Comments: The Christian-Jewish alliance

by Ed Koch

[...] Several years ago Rev. Hagee delivered a sermon that was caught on tape in which he preached, "Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun, and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, 'My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

Anyone hearing the tape would conclude that Hagee is hostile to the Jews, but nothing could be further from the truth. He and his congregants are among Israel's strongest supporters. For religious reasons, they want Israel to rule supreme over all of the lands that made up the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea. Evangelicals believe that the Messiah - Jesus Christ - cannot return to the earth until the Jews return to the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), they having been expelled by the Romans in 70 AD after the Second Temple -- the one built by Herod -- was destroyed.

Christian fundamentalists believe that every word of the Old and New Testaments represents the will of God. Other Christians believe that the words were inspired by God, but written by humans, and therefore are fallible. Still others believe that the Bible, while sacred, is comprised of ancient myths and allegories and is intended to teach. Rev. Hagee, being a fundamentalist, believes that each word is the word of God, and that everything that occurs on Earth happens as a result of God's direction. Events caused by people like Hitler, for some fundamentalists, are explained as a punishment visited by God on Jews who had fallen away from the faith and did not follow all of God's mandates.

Other fundamentalists would not accept that view, believing instead that while God makes it possible for one to do evil, He is angry when such evil is committed. The evildoer cannot be excused by saying, "God made me do it," because human beings have free will. Finally, as a friend and scholar said, "We don't know why God does what He does. Look at a rug on the reverse side and you see inexplicable knots of wool, while on the front, there is a beautiful pattern."

Rev. Hagee apparently believes that Hitler was used by God to bring the Jews back to the promised land.

After enormous pressure from those comparing Rev. Hagee to Senator Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, John McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement, stating that Hagee's views as expressed in the years-old sermon being distributed on the web are "crazy." McCain also said, "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them."

Hagee was not praising Hitler the monster, he was simply offering the fundamentalist opinion that Hitler was used by God to cause the creation of a Jewish state to which the Jews of the world would return.

Hagee's followers have supported the State of Israel in many tangible ways. Evangelicals continue to visit Israel as tourists even during the most dangerous times, which is more than can be said for some Diaspora Jews.

It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists. I do not. I appreciate their support of the State of Israel and thank them for their enormous contributions to the Jewish state.

This is not to say that I agree with Rev. Hagee's view of Hitler or his other views. For example, I strongly disagree with Rev. Hagee's statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexual sin in New Orleans. I also deplore his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," for which he has since apologized. [...]