Sunday, April 22, 2007
Dealing with religious dissenters Part II
During the period of the 2nd Temple the Chachamim and Zadokin disagreed on many biblical mitzvohs. Depending on the group controlling the sendhadrin, decisions relating to the proper interpretation and execution of mitzvohs at times swung from one point of view to the other. One example of such a transition is given in the following story in megilas taanis chapter 10 (“megilas taanis” is a 2nd temple work that is cited, referenced and quoted in mishna and gemara many times. Mesachtes Rosh hashana (18b) discusses when the holidays mentioned in megilas taanis ceased to be observed)
“On the 28th of Tevet the assembly was properly seated: When the zadokin were seated in their sandhedrin, KingYanai had queen Shalminin sitting by him, and no other Yisrael other then Shimon ben Shetach sat with them. And they were asked for response and laws but could not bring proof from the torah. Shimon ben Shetach said to them: Whoever can bring proof from the torah is fit to sit on the sandhedrin but whoever can not bring proof, is not fit to sit on the sendhadrin. One time an issue requiring action occurred and no one could bring proof from the torah with an exception of an old man who babbled at him. He said to him give me time and he went and sat alone. When he realized ho could not bring a proof from the torah, on the next day he was too embarrassed to come and sit on the great sandhadrin and Shimon ben Shetach elevated one of the students to sit in his place. He said, a sandhedrin can not have less than seventy-one. So he did every day until he removed all of the Zadokin and sat a sendhadrin of yisreal according to his thinking. That day that the sendhadrin was removed and sandherdrin of yisreal was seated was made a holiday.”
This story offers interesting insights into the early period of the zadokin. And it also clearly states that the Sanhedrin was under the complete control of the Zadokin. This situation may have been a result of the fact that with the exception of “Shimon ben shutach”, all the chachamim had previously been killed by “Yanai” (kedushin 66a). We do find many stories in the gemara where zadokkin openly disagreed with the chachamim and holidays were declared when the chachamim’s position were validated, i.e.
1. 1st to 7th of Nissan – Karban tamid must be brought from public monies
2. 8th day of Nissan – “Mimmachrat hasshabas” does not mean Sunday
3. 14th of tamuz – capital punishment and meaning of “eye for an eye”
However, it is not clear in these cases who dominated the sandhedrin. If it was the zadokin, why was the final ruling according to the chachamim? If it was the chachamim majority, why would their victory result in a yom tov? Perhaps the answer lies in Rashi’s comment on the significance of the days recorded in Megilas Taanis (Ros hashana 18b):
Rashi’s description that these days were days in which miracles occurred seem appropriate for the 28th of teves story since the single handed expulsion of the zadokin from the sandhedrin by “shimon ben shutach” could not have been anticipated. What, however, was the miracle in the other days we have listed? Perhaps this implies that in those days as well, the zadokin were in the majority but the chachamim were able to mobilize enough support amongst the zadokin to get their point of view adopted. Perhaps, a comparable example would be concerning “semicha” (beitza 20b) on yom tov. The issue had been hotly debated for a very long time and one day when “bais shamai” was in the majority of the senhadrin , they tried to push through a decision that ruled in their favor. However, one of the chachamim in their own group “bbuba ben buta” was convinced that bais hillel was correct on this subject and maneuvered that the final decision be rendered according to them. It is thus possible that even with a majority of zadokin, a sincere effort on the part of the chachamim could have convinced enough zadokin sanhadrin to rule according to the chachamim. This truly would have been a reason to rejoice.
The rambam discusses the attitude towards the zadokin at length in many places and the repercussions they face because of the danger they pose for jewish society. Yet, despite his disconnect with their philosophy, he does not deny the Jewishness of the zadokin and the rights they derive from it. In a variety of different halachos where jewish idolaters and their ilk are given the status of gentiles, the rambam has zadokin maintaining their jewish identity. For example in “schita” ramabm bans non-jews, people who openly violate shabbas and deniers of torah from slaughtering an animal even in the presence of a jew but still asserts that zadokin are different (Hilchos schita chapter 11, 9:4) he admittedly does not allow zadokin to slaughter animals ”unsupervised” , but that is not because they are not jewish, but because their laws are different than ours. And he furthers rules that they are countable for “minyan” and their “kedushin and get” are valid.
Based on all of the above, it is clear that we must not confuse groups with whom we have serious philosophical differences with groups that are non-believers. While rambam at times argues for serious repercussions for the former group, he at no time writes them off as not being members of the Jewish faith and repeatedly stresses they maintain their Jewish rights and privileges.
Concluding remarks
We began this analysis to see how dissenters to the fundamentals of the Jewish faith are to be treated, and it is pretty clear from the rambam, that they must be treated respectfully, not ostracized and can be relied on in many aspects if they agree with our halacha on the point. While we debate whether current “non-orthodox” groups are truly people of faith, or are respectful of our chachamim, it seems true that most people in the spectrum of today’s orthodox world, from left-wing to centrist, to modern orthodox, seems suitable candidates, according to the rambam regardless of any views they believe on a certain specific issue: to be denigrated; to have their schita outlawed; to not be included in a minyan; to not be included in a construction of an eiruv. The fact that they deviate in certain matters of “Hashkafah” from what some of our accepted chachamim have deemed proper, is no reason to demonize them. Not agreeing with the opinions of chachamim is not equivalent to disrespecting them.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Dealing with religious dissenters Part I
Introduction
The history of Judaism from its inception until the present is replete with stories of people and movements within its ranks who dissented from the prevailing view of “normative” Judaism at that time. Example of such dissenters include: “Eisav and Yishmoel (time of the avos), Korach and Moshe, Jesus (2nd temple era), Karaites, Sabbateans(17th century) and reform and reconstruction(19th and 20th centuries). The first two dissenters Yishmoel and Eisav refused to accept monotheism and rejected the teaching of their upbringing. Because their dissent touched the essence of Judaism, the consequences were swift and direct: they were written out of the Jewish people and became separate entities and nations. Korach and his adherents did not focus their dissent on a rejection of monotheism or the torah per se, but rather challenged moshe’s leadership and governance style. When Moshe was unable to come to an agreement with them, they were killed by heavenly intervention to demonstrate to others that Moshe was the true leader of the Jewish people. the more “severe” fate that awaited them was evidently the result of the threat that they posed for the future of Judaism. Yishmoel and Esuv walked away uninjured but lost a connection to the Jewish people and thus could cause them no theological harm. Korach died a Jew but was punished to discredit his believes in the eyes of the faithful.
Whereas the results of the dissent of Yishmoel, Esuv and Korach were immediate, and left no visible trace within Judaism, the short term reaction to the other dissenters in the above list, and the consequences they suffered is less clear. Jesus died a totturous death and eventually became the central entity in a world religoiun. But his initial followers were jewish. How were they viewed by the “Chachumim”? Zadokim / Baisusin may have left little or no impact on our current society, but they were very influencial during the second temple era. How were they viewed and treated by our “tannaim”? Finally, in the time of the “rishoinim” how were the karaites viewed and treated? Which, if any of the groups were ostracized, and to what degree, from devout jewish circles, i.e. did the rabbis condone: visiting with them? Circumcising their children – even on shabbas? Burying their dead? Accepting their marriages?
The answer to the question of how to deal with dissenters is critical to us in today’s world. We live in a time where even within the “Orthodox” community there is significant disagreement on what constitutes the basic beliefs in laws that Orthodox Judaism demands of its adherents. In the past , the physical/geographical separation of orthodox communities with different view points may have muted and softened the fallout of underlying differences espoused by each group. Being insular meant that taking opposing positions on issues did not generally pit the two factions together on the local community level (e.g. pro or con Eruv). This insularity is now gone. For all intents and purposes, whether communities are next door to each other or separated by continents, we all mingle together, go to the same schools and are aware of what stand everyone takes on each hot button issue. It is not unheard today of that groups from different ends of the spectrum (and sometimes from the same end) ban the books and “schita” of other groups
In part II we will take an in depth view on how the previous dissenters were viewed and handled by their generations.
The history of Judaism from its inception until the present is replete with stories of people and movements within its ranks who dissented from the prevailing view of “normative” Judaism at that time. Example of such dissenters include: “Eisav and Yishmoel (time of the avos), Korach and Moshe, Jesus (2nd temple era), Karaites, Sabbateans(17th century) and reform and reconstruction(19th and 20th centuries). The first two dissenters Yishmoel and Eisav refused to accept monotheism and rejected the teaching of their upbringing. Because their dissent touched the essence of Judaism, the consequences were swift and direct: they were written out of the Jewish people and became separate entities and nations. Korach and his adherents did not focus their dissent on a rejection of monotheism or the torah per se, but rather challenged moshe’s leadership and governance style. When Moshe was unable to come to an agreement with them, they were killed by heavenly intervention to demonstrate to others that Moshe was the true leader of the Jewish people. the more “severe” fate that awaited them was evidently the result of the threat that they posed for the future of Judaism. Yishmoel and Esuv walked away uninjured but lost a connection to the Jewish people and thus could cause them no theological harm. Korach died a Jew but was punished to discredit his believes in the eyes of the faithful.
Whereas the results of the dissent of Yishmoel, Esuv and Korach were immediate, and left no visible trace within Judaism, the short term reaction to the other dissenters in the above list, and the consequences they suffered is less clear. Jesus died a totturous death and eventually became the central entity in a world religoiun. But his initial followers were jewish. How were they viewed by the “Chachumim”? Zadokim / Baisusin may have left little or no impact on our current society, but they were very influencial during the second temple era. How were they viewed and treated by our “tannaim”? Finally, in the time of the “rishoinim” how were the karaites viewed and treated? Which, if any of the groups were ostracized, and to what degree, from devout jewish circles, i.e. did the rabbis condone: visiting with them? Circumcising their children – even on shabbas? Burying their dead? Accepting their marriages?
The answer to the question of how to deal with dissenters is critical to us in today’s world. We live in a time where even within the “Orthodox” community there is significant disagreement on what constitutes the basic beliefs in laws that Orthodox Judaism demands of its adherents. In the past , the physical/geographical separation of orthodox communities with different view points may have muted and softened the fallout of underlying differences espoused by each group. Being insular meant that taking opposing positions on issues did not generally pit the two factions together on the local community level (e.g. pro or con Eruv). This insularity is now gone. For all intents and purposes, whether communities are next door to each other or separated by continents, we all mingle together, go to the same schools and are aware of what stand everyone takes on each hot button issue. It is not unheard today of that groups from different ends of the spectrum (and sometimes from the same end) ban the books and “schita” of other groups
In part II we will take an in depth view on how the previous dissenters were viewed and handled by their generations.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Shaking a woman's hand.
Touching
As opposed to any touching between husband and wife when she is in state of Niddah, which is explicity forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch, no such blanket prohibition is found in relation to other Arayot. Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch forbids numerous forms of interaction with Arayot, including winks and gestures and pleasurable gazing, simple touching without intention of affect is not one of them.
The Gemara in mesachtas Beitzah (25b) says. R. Nachamn permitted his wife Yalta to “go out on alonki” Rashi explained that two man placed their hands on each others shoulders, thus forming a place to sit for a third person, which means that Yalta sat directly on the arms of two men.
All this, of course, does not constitute permission for members of opposite sexes to casually touch each other prior to marriage. Particularly among the young,the tendency, of one thing leading to another is too great to allow for any breach by unmarried couples of a rigid policy of ‘Shomer negiah.
Lo Tikrevu
The Rambam applied a torah prohibition not only to sexual relations but also to pre- and proto-sexual behavior such as kissing and hugging: actual relations are prohibited under the penalty of Karas while kissing etc, is punished by Malkus.and the rambam further explains that from the words LO Tikrevu (written twice in the same pussuk) the torah teaches us “you shall not come close” i.e. forplay. I use the words forplay in its widest sense – action or even speech of a sexual nature of the sort that serves as preliminary to or accompaniment of sexual relations.
This proviso precludes social handshakes from being subsumed under the Lo Tikrevu, since a handshake is not a preliminary to relations. This is so even if the handshake includes an element of affection or pleasure; affection alone without the feature of desire is not a torah violation. The Shach already wrote this when he stipulated “the way of desire and affection of intercourse” rather than simply “affection”. In “Sefer Hamitzvos” the Rambam stresses that “Lo Taaseh” proscribes activities that costumarily leads to sexual relations. Handshaking is not one of those.
The controversy
In the community, nevertheless, handshaking between men and women remains controversial. Some rabbis will shake a woman’s hand when extended to them, while others demur even at the cost of embarrassing the woman. I believe that those who wish to be stringent may do so – but not claim that such is basic halacha
As opposed to any touching between husband and wife when she is in state of Niddah, which is explicity forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch, no such blanket prohibition is found in relation to other Arayot. Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch forbids numerous forms of interaction with Arayot, including winks and gestures and pleasurable gazing, simple touching without intention of affect is not one of them.
The Gemara in mesachtas Beitzah (25b) says. R. Nachamn permitted his wife Yalta to “go out on alonki” Rashi explained that two man placed their hands on each others shoulders, thus forming a place to sit for a third person, which means that Yalta sat directly on the arms of two men.
All this, of course, does not constitute permission for members of opposite sexes to casually touch each other prior to marriage. Particularly among the young,the tendency, of one thing leading to another is too great to allow for any breach by unmarried couples of a rigid policy of ‘Shomer negiah.
Lo Tikrevu
The Rambam applied a torah prohibition not only to sexual relations but also to pre- and proto-sexual behavior such as kissing and hugging: actual relations are prohibited under the penalty of Karas while kissing etc, is punished by Malkus.and the rambam further explains that from the words LO Tikrevu (written twice in the same pussuk) the torah teaches us “you shall not come close” i.e. forplay. I use the words forplay in its widest sense – action or even speech of a sexual nature of the sort that serves as preliminary to or accompaniment of sexual relations.
This proviso precludes social handshakes from being subsumed under the Lo Tikrevu, since a handshake is not a preliminary to relations. This is so even if the handshake includes an element of affection or pleasure; affection alone without the feature of desire is not a torah violation. The Shach already wrote this when he stipulated “the way of desire and affection of intercourse” rather than simply “affection”. In “Sefer Hamitzvos” the Rambam stresses that “Lo Taaseh” proscribes activities that costumarily leads to sexual relations. Handshaking is not one of those.
The controversy
In the community, nevertheless, handshaking between men and women remains controversial. Some rabbis will shake a woman’s hand when extended to them, while others demur even at the cost of embarrassing the woman. I believe that those who wish to be stringent may do so – but not claim that such is basic halacha
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)