Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 4:8): Since the Torah has permitted a person to be cured by a doctor and according to the Rambam(Hilchos De’os 4:23) and the majority of Rishonim (Tur and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 336) it is a Torah obligation - it is absolutely certain that a person must go to an expert doctor even if the doctor is a heretic. This obligation exists even if the doctor is a non-Jew who worships idols because there is no concern today that they might intentional kill (Yoreh Deah 155). One should not be bothered by the issue of how G d sends his cures through heretics. The existence of medicine means that we are commanded not to rely on miracles as long as it is possible to be cured with drugs which were created by G d to cure the sick. The doctor knows about the sickness and he knows which drugs cure the best. However since it is possible for a doctor to err on occasion - it is necessary to pray to G d that the doctor not err and succeed in treating him. Furthermore we find in the gemora that our Sages went to non-Jewish doctors and heretics - in circumstances where there was no concern that the doctor would try to kill them (Avoda Zara 28a). However if the doctor is a missionary, it is prohibited to utilize him even if there is no other doctor. In reality the overwhelming majority of doctors - whether non Jews or sinful Jews - do their work and don’t get involved in missionary activity. Thus one need not be concerned with this unless it is known that the doctor is in fact a missionary. (See Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:57 concerning psychologists and psychiatrists who are heretics that it is prohibited to utilize them).
Thursday, August 24, 2023
The Temple and its mitvos mirrored idolatry
Moreh Nevuchim (3:45) THE precepts of the tenth class are those enumerated in the laws on the Temple (Hilkot bet ha-beḥirah), the laws on the vessels of the temple and on the ministers in the temple [Hilkot kele ha-miḳdash veha-‘obedim bo]. The use of these precepts we have stated in general terms. It is known that idolaters selected the highest possible places on high mountains where to build their temples and to place their images. Therefore Abraham, our father, chose Mount Moriah, being the highest mount in that country, and proclaimed there the Unity of God. He selected the west of the mount as the place toward which he turned during his prayers, because [he thought that] the most holy place was in the West; this is the meaning of the saving of our Sages, "The Shekinah" (the Glory of God) is in the West" (B. T. Baba B 25a); and it is distinctly stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father Abraham chose the west side, the place where the Most Holy was built. I believe that he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the Sun]. Abraham turned therefore on Mount Moriah to the West, that is, the site of the Sanctuary, and turned his back toward the sun; and the Israelites, when they abandoned their God and returned to the early bad principles, stood "with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East, and they worshipped the sun toward the East" (Ezek. 8:16). Note this strange fact. I do not doubt that the spot which Abraham chose in his prophetical spirit, was known to Moses our Teacher, and to others: for Abraham commanded his children that on this place a house of worship should be built. Thus the Targum says distinctly, "And Abraham worshipped and prayed there in that place, and said before God, 'Here shall coming generations worship the Lord'" (Gen. 22:14). For three practical reasons the name of the place is not distinctly stated in the Law, but indicated in the phrase "To the place which the Lord will choose" (Deut. 12:11, etc.). First, if the nations had learnt that this place was to be the centre of the highest religious truths, they would occupy it, or fight about it most perseveringly. Secondly, those who were then in possession of it might destroy and ruin the place with all their might. Thirdly, and chiefly, every one of the twelve tribes would desire to have this place in its borders and under its control; this would lead to divisions and discord, such as were caused by the desire for the priesthood. Therefore it was commanded that the Temple should not be built before the election of a king who would order its erection, and thus remove the cause of discord. We have explained this in the Section on Judges (ch. xli.).
It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship; because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone, on which there were written the commandments "I am the Lord," etc., and "Thou shalt have no other God before me," etc. Naturally the fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an angel. Comp. "The angel of the Lord called" (Gen. 22:15); "The angel of the Lord said unto her" (ibid. 16:11); and other innumerable instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through an angel. "And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of fire" (Exod. iii.). It is therefore clear that the belief in the existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed, God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the belief in God's Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it for God's image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By making two cherubim and distinctly declaring "the Lord is our God, the Lord is One," Moses clearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those figures as deities, since [he declared that) God is one, and that He is the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.
Since many beasts were daily slaughtered in the holy place, the flesh cut in pieces and the entrails and the legs burnt and washed, the smell of the place would undoubtedly have been like the smell of slaughter-houses, if nothing had been done to counteract it. They were therefore commanded to burn incense there twice every day, in the morning and in the evening (Exod. 30:7, 8), in order to give the place and the garments of those who officiated there a pleasant odour. There is a well-known saying of our Sages, "In Jericho they could smell the incense" [burnt in the Temple]. This provision likewise tended to support the dignity of the Temple. If there had not been a good smell, let alone if there had been a stench, it would have produced in the minds of the people the reverse of respect; for our heart generally feels elevated in the presence of good odour, and is attracted by it, but it abhors and avoids bad smell.
Is Tuma real?Rambam vs Ramban
Maharetz Chajes (Darchei Hora'ah #6): I disagree with the Chasam Sofer’s ruling that one should say that a Rabbinic prohibition is a Torah prohibition i.e., to upgrade the nature of prohibitions. Even though we see our Sages viewed it permitted to frighten with their descriptions of the seriousness of prohibitions as we see in the Rambam (Sanhedrin 7:4)…They said that certain things are equivalent to murder and worshipping idols. Many other things they have described as deserving of the death penalty. All this is only to frighten and scare. However to say that a Rabbinic prohibition is really a Torah prohibition - the Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 2:9) clearly states that this itself violates the Torah prohibition of adding to the Torah. Such a practice also violates the Torah prohibition of lying - even if it is done for a good reason. Our Sages were always very concerned to identify and keep separate that which is from the Torah and which are Rabbinical legislation - even if there were no practical halacha involved.
Mishna Torah (Mikvos 11:12) It is obviously clear that the laws concerning defilements and purities are biblical decrees, and not things which the human mind can determine; they are classified as divine statutes. So too, immersion as a means of ridding oneself from defilement is included among the divine statutes. Defilement is not mud or filth to be removed with water, but is a matter of biblical decree; it depends on the heart's intent. Accordingly, the sages have declared: If a man immersed himself, but without a definite purpose in view, it is as though he had not immersed himself at all. Nevertheless, there is some ethical allusion to this: just as one who sets his mind on becoming clean becomes clean as soon as he has immersed himself, even though nothing new is produced in his physical being, so one who sets his mind on purifying himself from all the spiritual defilements, namely wrongful thoughts and evil traits, becomes clean as soon as he made up his mind to abstain from those notions, and brought his soul into the waters of reason. Indeed, Scripture declares: "I will pour clean water over you, and you shall be clean; from all your impurities and idolatries I will cleanse you" (Ezekiel 36:25).
This is the great principle which you must never lose sight of. After having stated this principle, I repeat that the object of the Sanctuary was to create in the hearts of those who enter it certain feelings of awe and reverence, in accordance with the command, "You shall reverence my sanctuary" (Lev. 19:30). But when we continually see an object, however sublime it may be, our regard for that object will be lessened, and the impression we have received of it will be weakened. Our Sages, considering this fact, said that we should not enter the Temple whenever we liked, and pointed to the words: "Make thy foot rare in the house of thy friend" (Prov. 25:17). For this reason the unclean were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary, although there are so many kinds of uncleanliness, that [at a time] only a few people are clean. For even if a person does not touch a beast that died of its own accord (Lev. 11:27), he can scarcely avoid touching one of the eight kinds of creeping animals (ibid. 29, seq.), the dead bodies of which we find at all times in houses, in food and drink, and upon which we frequently tread wherever we walk; and, if he avoids touching these, he may touch a woman in her separation (ibid. 15:18), or a male or female that have a running issue (ibid. ver. 1, seq. and 25, seq.), or a leper (ibid. 13:46), or their bed (ibid. 15:5). Escaping these, he may become unclean by cohabitation with his wife, or by pollution (ibid. 15), and even when he has cleansed himself from any of these kinds of uncleanliness, he cannot enter the Sanctuary till after sunset; but not being enabled to enter the Sanctuary at night time, although he is clean after sunset, as may be inferred from Middot and Tamid, he is again, during the night, subject to becoming unclean either by cohabiting with his wife or by some other source of uncleanliness, and may rise in the morning in the same condition as the day before. All this serves to keep people away from the Sanctuary, and to prevent them from entering it whenever they liked. Our Sages, as is well known, said, "Even a clean person may not enter the Sanctuary for the purpose of performing divine service, unless he takes previously a bath." By such acts the reverence [for the Sanctuary] will continue, the right impression will be produced which leads man, as is intended, to humility.
The easier the diffusion of uncleanliness is, the more difficult and the more retarded is its purification. Most easily is uncleanliness communicated by the dead body to those who are under the same roof, especially to relatives. The purification can only be completed by means of the ashes of the red heifer, however scarce it may be, and only in seven days (Num. 19:11). The uncleanness caused by a woman having running issue or during her separation is more frequent than that caused by contact with unclean objects: seven days are therefore required for their purification (Lev. 15:19, 28), whilst those that touch them are only unclean one day (ibid. 7:18). Males or females that are unclean through running issue, and a woman after childbirth, must in addition bring a sacrifice, because their uncleanness occurs less frequently than that of women in their separation. All these cases of uncleanliness, viz., running issue of males or females, menstruations, leprosy, dead bodies of human beings, carcases of beasts and creeping things, and issue of semen, are sources of dirt and filth. We have thus shown that the above precepts are very useful in many respects. First, they keep us at a distance from dirty and filthy objects; secondly, they guard the Sanctuary; thirdly, they pay regard to an established custom (for the Sabeans submitted to very troublesome restrictions when unclean, as you will soon hear); fourthly, they lightened that burden for us; for we are not impeded through these laws in our ordinary occupations by the distinction the Law makes between that which is unclean and that which is clean. For this distinction applies only in reference to the Sanctuary and the holy objects connected with it: it does not apply to other cases. "She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary" (Lev. 12:4). Other persons [that do not intend to enter the Sanctuary or touch any holy thing], are not guilty of any sin if they remain unclean as long as they like, and eat, according to their pleasure, ordinary food that has been in contact with unclean things. But the practice of the Sabeans, even at present general in the East, among the few still left of the Magi, was to keep a menstruous woman in a house by herself, to burn that upon which she treads, and to consider as unclean every one that speaks with her: even if a wind passed over her and a clean person, the latter was unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans. See the difference between this practice and our rule, that "whatever services a wife generally does to her husband, she may do to him in her separation"; only cohabitation is prohibited during the days of her uncleanness. Another custom among the Sabeans, which is still widespread, is this: whatever is separated from the body, as hair, nail, or blood, is unclean; every barber is therefore unclean in their estimation, because he touches blood and hair; whenever a person passes a razor over his skin he must take a bath in running water. Such burdensome practices were numerous among the Sabeans, whilst we apply the laws that distinguish between the unclean and the clean only with regard to hallowed things and to the Sanctuary. The divine words, "And ye shall sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy" (Lev. 11:44), do not refer to these laws at all. According to Sifra, they refer to sanctity by obedience to God's commandments. The same interpretation is given in Sifra of the words, "Ye shall be holy, "i.e. obedient to His commandments (xix. 2). Hence the transgression of commandments is also called uncleanliness or defilement. This term is especially used of the chief and principal crimes, which are idolatry, adultery, and murder. In reference to idolatry it is said, "He hath given of his seed unto Molech to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name" (ibid. 20:3). In reference to adultery we read, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things" (ibid. 18:24), and Defile not the land" (Num. 35:34) in reference to murder. It is therefore clear that the term "defilement" [or uncleanliness] is used homonymously of three things: 1. Of man's violation and transgression of that which he is commanded as regards his actions and his opinions. 2. Of dirt and filth: comp. "Her filthiness in her skirts" (Lam. 1:9). 3. Of the above-named imaginary defilement such as touching and carrying certain objects, or being with them under the same roof. In reference to the third kind, our Sages said, The words of the Law are not subject to becoming unclean (B. T. Ber. 224). In the same manner the term "holiness" is used homonymously of three things corresponding to the three kinds of uncleanness. As uncleanness caused by a dead body could only be removed after seven days, by means of the ashes of the red heifer, and the priests had constantly occasion to enter the Sanctuary, the Law exceptionally forbids them to defile themselves by a dead body (Lev. 21:1), except in cases where defilement is necessary, and the contrary would be unnatural. For it would be unnatural to abstain from approaching the dead body of a parent, child, or brother. As it was very necessary that the high-priest should always be in the Sanctuary, in accordance with the Divine command, "And it shall always be on his forehead" (Exod. 28:38), he was not permitted to defile himself by any dead body whatever, even of the above-named relatives (Lev. 21:10-12). Women were not engaged in sacrificial service; the above law consequently does not apply to women; it is addressed to "the sons of Aaron," and not to "the daughters of Aaron." It was, however, impossible to assume that none of the Israelites made a mistake, by entering the Sanctuary, or eating hallowed things in a state of uncleanliness. It was even possible that there were persons who did this knowingly, since there are wicked people who commit knowingly even the greatest crimes; for this reason certain sacrifices were commanded as an atonement for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its hallowed things. They were of different kinds; some of them atoned for defilement caused ignorantly, others for defilement caused knowingly. For this purpose were brought the goats on the Festivals and the New-moon days (Num. 28:15, 27, etc.), and the goat sent away on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:16), as is explained in its place (Mishnah Shebnot, 1:4). These sacrifices serve to prevent those who defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord knowingly from thinking that they had not done a great wrong; they should know that they obtained atonement by the sacrifice of the goat, as the Law says, "That they die not in their uncleanness" (Lev. 15:31); "That Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things" (Exod. 28:38). This idea is frequently repeated.
Mitzvos deal with people as they are to erase idolatry
Moreh Nevuchim (3:32) Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God. Comp. "Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know that the Lord is God (Deut. 4:35); "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God" (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service; comp. "and to serve him with all your heart" (ibid. 11:13); "and you shall serve the Lord your God" (Exod. 23:25); "and ye shall serve him" (Deut. 13:5). But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. "And they shall make unto me a sanctuary" (Exod. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp. "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me" (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. "If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord" (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. "He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exod. 22:19); "For thou shalt bow down to no other God" (ibid. 34:14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. "And they shall minister unto me in the priest's office" (ibid. 28:41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing: as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which win cure your heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea," etc. (Exod. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants. It was the result of God's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. "At the commandment of the Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (Num. 9:23). In the same way the portion of the Law under discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is the chief object [of God's commandments]. You ask, What could have prevented God from commanding us directly, that which is the chief object, and from giving us the capacity of obeying it? This would lead to a second question, What prevented God from leading the Israelites through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance, instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. 5:26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire] the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.
I now return to my theme. As the sacrificial service is not the primary object [of the commandments about sacrifice], whilst supplications, prayers, and similar kinds of worship are nearer to the primary object, and indispensable for obtaining it, a great difference was made in the Law between these two kinds of service. The one kind, which consists in offering sacrifices, although the sacrifices are offered to the name of God, has not been made obligatory for us to the same extent as it had been before. We were not commanded to sacrifice in every place, and in every time, or to build a temple in every place, or to permit any one who desires to become priest and to sacrifice. On the contrary, all this is prohibited unto us. Only one temple has been appointed, "in the place which the Lord shall choose" (Deut. 12:26); in no other place is it allowed to sacrifice: comp. "Take heed to thyself, that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest" (ibid. 5:13); and only the members of a particular family were allowed to officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind of worship, and keep it within those bounds within which God did not think it necessary to abolish sacrificial service altogether. But prayer and supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person. The same is the case with the commandment of ẓiẓit (Num. 15:38); mezuzah (Deut. 6:9; 11:20); tefillin (Exod. 13:9, 16); and similar kinds of divine service.
Because of this principle which I explained to you, the Prophets in their books are frequently found to rebuke their fellow-men for being over-zealous and exerting themselves too much in bringing sacrifices: the prophets thus distinctly declared that the object of the sacrifices is not very essential, and that God does not require them. Samuel therefore said, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord" (1 Sam. 15:22)? Isaiah exclaimed, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord" (Isa. 1:11); Jeremiah declared: "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offering or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my, voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people" (Jer. 7:22, 23). This passage has been found difficult in the opinion of all those whose words I read or heard; they ask, How can Jeremiah say that God did not command us about burnt-offering and sacrifice, seeing so many precepts refer to sacrifice? The sense of the passage agrees with what I explained to you. Jeremiah says [in the name of God] the primary object of the precepts is this, Know me, and serve no other being; "I will be your God, and ye shall be my people" (Lev. 26:12). But the commandment that sacrifices shall be brought and that the temple shall be visited has for its object the success of that principle among you; and for its sake I have transferred these modes of worship to my name; idolatry shall thereby be utterly destroyed, and Jewish faith firmly established. You, however, have ignored this object, and taken hold of that which is only the means of obtaining it; you have doubted my existence, "ye have denied the Lord, and said he is not" (Jer. 5:12); ye served idols; "burnt incense unto Baal, and walked after other gods whom ye know not. And come and stand before me in this house" (ibid. 7:9-10); i.e., you do not go beyond attending the temple of the Lord, and offering sacrifices: but this is not the chief object.--I have another way of explaining this passage with exactly the same result. For it is distinctly stated in Scripture, and handed down by tradition, that the first commandments communicated to us did not include any law at an about burnt-offering and sacrifice. You must not see any difficulty in the Passover which was commanded in Egypt; there was a particular and evident reason for that, as will be explained by me (chap. xlvi.). Besides it was revealed in the land of Egypt; whilst the laws to which Jeremiah alludes in the above passage are those which were revealed after the departure from Egypt. For this reason it is distinctly added, "in the day that I brought them out from the land of Egypt." The first commandment after the departure from Egypt was given at Marah, in the following words, "If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give ear to His commandments" (Exod. 15:26)." There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them" (ibid. ver. 25). According to the true traditional explanation, Sabbath and civil laws were revealed at Marah: "statute" alludes to Sabbath, and "ordinance" to civil laws, which are the means of removing injustice. The chief object of the Law, as has been shown by us, is the teaching of truths; to which the truth of the creatio ex nihilo belongs. It is known that the object of the law of Sabbath is to confirm and to establish this principle, as we have shown in this treatise (Part. II. chap. xxxi.). In addition to the teaching of truths the Law aims at the removal of injustice from mankind. We have thus proved that the first laws do not refer to burnt-offering and sacrifice, which are of secondary importance. The same idea which is contained in the above passage from Jeremiah is also expressed in the Psalms, where the people are rebuked that they ignore the chief object, and make no distinction between chief and subsidiary lessons. The Psalmist says: "Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, they have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds" (Ps. 50:29).--Wherever this subject is mentioned, this is its meaning. Consider it well, and reflect on it.
"Frum" halachic concerns about abuse - causes mental constipation
Pesachim (113b): Three the Holy One, blessed be He, hates: he who speaks one thing with his mouth and another thing in his heart; and he who possesses evidence concerning is neighbour and does not testify for him; and he who sees something indecent in his neighbour and testifies against him alone. As it once happened that Tobias sinned and Zigud alone came and testified against him before R. Papa, [whereupon] he had Zigud punished. ‘Tobias sinned and Zigud is punished!’ exclaimed he, ‘Even so,’ said he to him, ‘for it is written, one witness shall not rise up against a man, whereas you have testified against him alone: you merely bring him into ill repute.’
However in fact according to most poskim we are dealing with the issue of preventing harm - not poskening guilt or innocence. We are dealing with rodef which doesn't require beis din or a psak. If you know someone is a molester he is a rodef and thus you can call the police to stop him harming others. Even if it is only a sofek rodef you can call the police.
If there are only children who are witnesses then see C.M. 35. and the Sho'el U"meishiv. If there are only rumors or circumstantial evidence - you can still act to protect yourself or others. See Rav Yehuda Silman's article in Yeschurun vol 15. Following Nida 91 you don't believe that the rumors are necessarily true but you still need to take protective action. See Rav Sternbuch's teshuva dealing with a principal who refused to listen to allegations and rumors (because it is lashon harah). Our society has gotten so obsessed with the horror of lashon harah it ignores the other half of the posuk - "Don't stand idly by the blood of your brother." As I have noted from Rav Elchonon Wasserman and others - there is no prohibition of lashon harah in a case where it is beneficial. It really is as simple as that. [See Piskei Teshuva O.C. 156] Furthermore taking the view of the Maharal regarding lashon harah - if you are willing to say directly to the person you suspect that you have heard rumors that he is a molester - then you can say the same to others and it is not lashon harah. The Maharal holds that the issur of lashon harah is to say nasty things behind someone's back.
In addition you are ignoring the issue of mandated reporting which we learn from BM 83 regarding Rav Eliezar ben Rav Shimon. In addition you are ignoring the discussion of public welfare found in Rambam(Chovel U'mazik 8:11) and the Chasam Sofer on Gittin 7a.
Regarding your second point, it is clear to anyone who is involved in child abuse - that the problem is not a local problem. Molester readily move between neighborhoods - in fact they are often sent away to another community without providing any warning to the new community.
In sum, you are getting tangled into a halachic knot that causes mental constipation. The cure for this is using seichal - which is discussed in C.M. 2. - especially the Rashba cited by the Aruch HaShulchan. Instead of frum excuses that we don't have two witnesses etc etc - you should be asking - what do we have to do to protect the children. The problem is the frum questions blinds you to the reality that children are not required to be sacrificed on the altar of frumkeit. By taking the mistaken view that we can't speak lashon harah, we can't do anything without proper witnesses, we can't call the police, we can't act on circumstantial evidence, we can't decide anything of significance without rabbinic permission, we can't use the secular courts, we can't shame the community or the family of the pedophile, and we surely can't cause him to be punished with jail (which is not a Torah punishment) - you cause children to be abused and experience a living death. You cause children to give up religion. You cause a disgusting chilul hashem when it becomes known that you have betrayed the weak and dependent children - in the name of halacha.
Dr. Joy Silberg - what is her role in the Sanhedria Murchevet Satanic abuse hysteria?
After exchanging a number of emails with Dr. Silberg, I think it is important to try and clarify her role in this hysteria.
===================================
- 1) She does not support the claims of Satanic abuse and has not seen any evidence for it.
- 2) She supports the Jerusalem police in their investigation of the matter and tells people to report all cases and suspicions to them
- 3) She is not endorsing and referring people to the two therapists she trained and are the major proponents of the Satanic abuse ring
================
When therapists are lunatics
The book also contains an endorsement from one Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., Past President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) which, if anything, says something negative about the ISSTD more than it tells us anything substantive about Byington’s book. Silberg claims that she and her peers “are all too familiar with the kinds of crimes and disorders described in 22 Faces.” Indeed, this year the ISSTD is hosting a conference which will feature a lecture on the topic of Ritual Abuse given by one Ellen Lacter, whose website offers helpful (if hardly coherent) tips such as “Pray a perimeter of protection against everything of witchcraft”, and discredited British therapist Valerie Sinason.====================
Sanhedria Murchevet: The problematic paranoid thinking needed to accept the allegations of Satanic Abuse Rings
Second of all you have not researched the children of this case as Rabbi B. has.
Third of all you claim he has done it solo, without professionals, which is not true, an you know it.
As for my video, Prince Andrew is one the people mentioned there, you are so evasive, and it is obvious why. That was just to show you it does exist, The internet is not where I will get my information from, nor could it be used in court , Din Torah or Din shomayim.
Reb Moshe in Igres Moshe was not matir blogging against a choshuve Talmid Chochom, when you take things out of context, to write your own book.
I am not publishing information into the WWW, which could damage the true askonim trying bimsirus nefesh to help a very unfortunate chelek of klal Yisroel.
The fact you are so adamant to find out where I am who I am & what I know, shows me a little insight into who you may very well be.
It seems from all your posts on this subject that you have been bought out by the sitra achara (the other side & the soton), not to say that you are a satanic, but you will go to great lengths to protect them as you do, at the expense of the abused kids, of who'm the only way you may know who they may be is from the Satanic abusers themselves.
It is no surprise that the chief of police who dropped this investigation in Yerushalayim was later forced to resign for very horrible aveiros. The Satanic cult were able to blackmail him, with info they had on him, so as not to prosecute them.
For all practical purposes the dark Satanic is just a nick-name, it isn't there actual trade name, but that they want to be machtie Yiddishe children & do it through multiple forms of abuse has been corroborated.
The fact that you claim to know all the children & parents are lying tells me something about you.
You are trying to disprove Rabbi B. in blog space rather than in person, where you may hear the facts if you have a good reason to know them, and have the nerve to say that I think he is infallible.
You don't know the facts of this story he does, unless the Satanic abusers have informed you of them.
Imagine I, together with another person would witness a man biting a dog. We would then come to beis Din and testify man bit dog, you would be the dayan, & would Google man doesn't bite dog so it never happened. Even if you would pasken that way, we would still know it happened because we saw it, no matter how much you prove it didn't happen we would know it did.
Without speaking to Rabbi B. you have no case, and the Tshuva you quote from Reb Moshe isn't about a metzius, which could be proven by speaking to the other person,(if he will speak to you, which after how you blog, he may have good reason not to)& you know it here again you are writing your own book & if you sleep well at night it says something about you.
Learning from a teacher who is not fit
Maharal (Nesivos HaTorah 1:14):It is prohibited to learn from a teacher who is not fit. However, this is not a valid objection since the prohibition applies only to learning from a heretic in person. It is only close personal contact that is prohibited and thus reading a book composed by a heretic would not be present this problem. Nevertheless the question remains whether it is permitted to study their books when they contain attacks against the Torah concerning such thing as the Creation of the world, G‑d’s knowledge, survival of the soul after death and whether the World to Come exists. Perhaps they should be prohibited because they might be a harmful influence? ... However Avos (2:14) says that one must know how to respond to heretical views and if one has not been exposed to heresy how would it be possible to respond to these views? Obviously, it is necessary to be aware of the views of heretics. However, this is obviously permitted only if the intent is to learn their views in order to be able to refute them. If he has this motivation, then it is permitted to read their books and there is no need to avoid them out of the concern of being influenced. However to learn their books and quote their views in order to explain Torah when these heretics have no portion in the Torah—the name of the wicked is to be obliterated... Recently these types of heretical works have circulated and they have negatively influenced people even concerning the foundations of faith... However, if the discussion found in these works supports and reinforces the words of our sages then it appropriate to accept. However if it against our sages even in the slightest, G‑d forbid that it be accepted at all. The general rule is to study their words in order to be able to refute their criticisms…. One should always be careful and diligent with his entire being to establish the truth. This is what our Sages commanded forcefully that one should be very diligent in their studies to learn what to reply to the heretic… It is obvious that this is not limited to Greek philosophy in which they analyzed things entirely with their intellect. In fact, it is a caution to be very diligent and to think carefully to be able to reply to their assertions in order to establish the true religion…
Authority of Gedolim II - Because they are accepted - not because of their knowledge
Daas Torah first failure
Sotah(12a) The verse states: “And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took for a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: To where did he go? Rav Yehuda bar Zevina says: He went according to the advice of his daughter Miriam, as the Gemara will proceed to explain.A Sage teaches: Amram, the father of Moses, was the great man of his generation. Once he saw that the wicked Pharaoh said: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22), he said: We are laboring for nothing by bringing children into the world to be killed. Therefore, he arose and divorced his wife. All others who saw this followed his example and arose and divorced their wives. His daughter, Miriam, said to him: Father, your decree is more harsh for the Jewish people than that of Pharaoh, as Pharaoh decreed only with regard to the males, but you decreed both on the males and on the females. And now no children will be born. Additionally, Pharaoh decreed to kill them only in this world, but you decreed in this world and in the World-to-Come, as those not born will not enter the World-to-Come.Miriam continued: Additionally, concerning Pharaoh the wicked, it is uncertain whether his decree will be fulfilled, and it is uncertain if his decree will not be fulfilled. You are a righteous person, and as such, your decrees will certainly be fulfilled, as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you” (Job 22:28). Amram accepted his daughter’s words and arose and brought back, i.e., remarried, his wife, and all others who saw this followed his example and arose and brought back their wives.
Age of the Universe
https://www.torahmusings.com/2006/06/age-of-universe/
I received this via e-mail from R. Daniel Eidensohn, with permission to post:
This Shabbos (June 17, 2006) I had the opportunity to ask Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky about the issue of the age of the universe. As some of you are aware, the issue is heating up again. There are some who would claim that Rav Shmuel has changed his position on the matter or deny that he ever permitted belief in a greater than 6000 year old universe. I had only a short time to speak to him so I limited myself to this issue.
I asked him, “Is it permitted to believe that the world is more than 6000 years?”
He responded that it was permitted since we don’t have a clear understanding of the view of Chazal in this matter. He supported this assertion by citing a number of medrashim e.g., that there were worlds before this that were created and destroyed. Consequently we simply don’t know how much time the original process of creation took. I mentioned that there are gedolim who have asserted that since the majority of gedolim reject the view that the world is more than 6000 years old that is is kefira to assert such a position today. He said he was aware of such an assertion but disagreed with it. He noted that in fact the discussion about the age of the universe is not a new topic. He said that Rav Avraham ben HaRambam disagreed with the approach of these gedolim and that after Techiyas HaMeisim these gedolim would have to explain to Rav Avraham ben HaRambam why they disagreed with him.
In sum, I have recently asked two gedolim [Rav Shmuel and R. Yisroel Belsky – GS] about whether it was permitted to believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old and both unequivocally responded that it was permitted. Both based themselves on
the fact that we don’t have an unambiguous mesora regarding the meaning of relevant statements of chazal and rishonim. Both of them also acknowledged that the majority of gedolim today disagree with them.Daniel Eidensohn
Was Yakov referring to G-d or an angel?
There seems to be a major dispute whether to understand Yaakov's bracha as referring to an angel or simply an agent of G-d
Rashi under stands it is simply an agent of G-d
המלאך הגאל אתי THE ANGEL REDEEMING ME — The angel who was usually sent to me in my trouble, as it is said, (Genesis 31:11) “And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob etc. … (Genesis 31:13), I am the God of Beth-el.”
SUMMARY HALOCHOT ON MO'US OLAY AND SHAMING A HUSBAND BY RABBI GESTETNER"
Rabbi Eidensohn,
I spoke with Rav Gestetner and he reviewed and approved the English summary of his mo'us olay letter that is copied below.
Rabbi Gestetner asked that you please post the English summary under the Hebrew image of his letter that was already posted.
Thank you.
------------------------------
INFORMAL SUMMARY of RAV GESTETNER'S LETTER ON MO'US OLAY
The whole letter applies to the case of where a wife claims mo'us olay, meaning that the wife is disgusted by her husband.
Being that there is a new trend in our camp to pressure husbands who refuse to give a Get through publicly shaming him with letters from Batei Din and rabbanim (something that rabbanim in previous generations never did) we are publicizing here the clear halacha in this issue that all the poskim unanimously agree upon.
Summarizing what's been written here with all the sources:
Even a husband who is disgusting and has bad character traits, and his wife left him for many years, and she declared that she will never come back to him:
1. He is still not obligated to ever give her a Get,
2. Its prohibited to deny him any benefits if he doesn't give a Get.
3. Its prohibited to tell even him privately that he's obligated to give her a Get and that if he doesn't give a Get, he's a transgressor. If he is told this, then the Get is pasul. (*)
4. All the more so, its prohibited in any manner to shame him in any way, even with a husband who is obligated to give a Get.
5. We can't take any action until one of them changes their mind. Either she wants to come back to him, or he wants to give a Get.
(*) Just to emphasize the extent that this halacha applies, even in a case where a husband betrayed his wife and disappeared for many years, and even after he married another woman in violation of halacha, if after they caught him, he says he's willing to come back to his first wife, and the first wife doesn't want to accept him, the halacha is that we aren't even allowed to tell him that he's required to give her a Get, even though she was a real agunah up to now.
The letter is emphasizing that shaming a husband is equal to beating him up for a Get. Once a husband is willing to come back to his wife, we can't claim she's an agunah.
In sum, Rav Sternbuch's printed teshuvos which I have translated below clearly disagree with the view of Rav Gestestner. The fact that he does not acknowledge the legitimate differences regarding this issue is simply not acceptable - nor does he either bother citing them.
=======================================