Torah Scholars Tend To Be Frail

One does not usually associate ruddy health with the most religious Jews.

Adam Kirsch writes: Yet Talmud scholars, the chapter also teaches, did not often get a chance to indulge in such dainties. Whether because they were too poor, too busy with study, or too ascetic in general, the sages were expected to be frail…

Rabbi Shimon would decline a dish of figs, saying, “These do not leave the intestines at all.” Here as at many earlier points in the Talmud, we see that the rabbis placed a particular emphasis on digestion, as we see in a story about Rabbi Yehuda. A “heretic” once tried to insult him by saying, “Your face is similar either to usurers or to pig breeders.” The meaning of this insult seems to be that Yehuda looked too well-fed, rather than having the refined pallor appropriate to a scholar. The reason for his glow of good health, Yehuda replied, was not that he followed a low and profitable occupation, but that he had regular bowel movements: “I have twenty-four bathrooms on the way from my home to the study hall, and all the time I enter each and every one of them.”

…In addition to being physically frail, we learn, some mighty scholars were also unattractive.

Posted in Health, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Torah Scholars Tend To Be Frail

TabletMag: The White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews–and a sitting senator–as dual loyalists to make their case

From TabletMag:

As heated as the arguments between us can get, we can all agree that all of these positions, and their many variants, are entirely within the bounds of legitimate political debate—and that none of them are evidence of anyone’s intent either to rush America to war or to obliterate the State of Israel.

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.

If you identify as a Jew, that may be your primary peoplehood identity. An identifying Jew often has more loyalty to his fellow Jews wherever they are in the world than he does to any other group. As the Bible says, the Jews are a people who dwell apart. An Orthodox Jew who lives in Australia or America or England is a Jew who just so happens to be living in a Gentile country.

This tribal mentality is not unique to Jews. Chinese, blacks, Muslims and other groups have it too. Tribes don’t have the same commitment to the nation state that Anglos do.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on TabletMag: The White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews–and a sitting senator–as dual loyalists to make their case

What Made Hurricane Katrina Different?

Walter Isaacson writes:

Walker Percy had a theory about hurricanes. “Though science taught that good environments were better than bad environments, it appeared to him that the opposite was the case,” he wrote of Will Barrett, the semi-autobiographical title character of his second novel, “The Last Gentleman.” “Take hurricanes, for example, certainly a bad environment if ever there was one. It was his impression that not just he but other people felt better in hurricanes.”

…Will Barrett’s hurricane insight is prompted by the recollection of a date he had with a girl named Midge. Driving through Connecticut, they are caught in a Northeastern hurricane and seek shelter at a diner. When the wind breaks a window, they help the counter attendant board it up. “Midge and the counterman,” Percy writes, “were very happy. The hurricane blew away the sad, noxious particles which befoul the sorrowful old Eastern sky and Midge no longer felt obliged to keep her face stiff. They were able to talk. It was best of all when the hurricane’s eye came with its so-called ominous stillness. It was not ominous. Everything was yellow and still and charged up with value.”

…That’s what makes hurricanes therapeutic. “Why is a man apt to feel bad in a good environment, say suburban Short Hills, N.J., on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon?” Percy wrote in one of his essays. “Why is the same man apt to feel good in a very bad environment, say an old hotel on Key Largo during a hurricane?” Part of the answer is that when a hurricane is about to hit, we no longer feel uncertain about our role in the world. Everyone is focused, connected, engaged. We know what we’re supposed to do, and we do it.

But Percy’s theory about the redemptive power of hurricanes goes beyond the fact that dangerous situations allow us to become action heroes or saints. “True, people help each other in catastrophes,” he wrote in “Lancelot.” “But they don’t feel good because they help each other. They help each other because they feel good.” The hurricane blows away our alienation. “I knew a married couple once who were bored with life, disliked each other, hated their own lives, and were generally miserable — except during hurricanes,” Lancelot recounts. “Then they sat in their house at Pass Christian, put a bottle of whiskey between them, felt a surge of happiness, were able to speak frankly and cheerfully to each other, laugh and joke, drink, even make love.”

Hurricanes may be redemptive for upstanding white communities because people pitch in and help each other. Hurricanes are disastrous for black communities because blacks don’t usually construct such supportive communities. What sane non-black wants to live in a black country/state/city?

From the Wikipedia entry for Steve Sailer:

Sailer’s article on Hurricane Katrina was followed by accusations of racism from left-wing organizations Media Matters for America and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[41][42] In reference to the New Orleans slogan “let the good times roll”, Sailer commented:

What you won’t hear, except from me, is that “Let the good times roll” is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.[40]

Conservative columnist John Podhoretz, responded in the National Review Online blog by calling Sailer’s statement “shockingly racist and paternalistic” as well as “disgusting”.

Posted in Blacks, Whites | Comments Off on What Made Hurricane Katrina Different?

Who’s better at kvetching? Blacks or Jews or women? The black orthodox Jewess of course!

I wonder who will be the lucky man to catch this prize?

Is it egregious cultural appropriation when blacks play classical music composed by whites, perform in plays written by whites, play games invented by whites?

Elisheva Ester Rishon writes:

Single frum men, specifically, can be clueless morons. They come into adulthood thinking they can drop on me what they perceive to be great pick up lines such as: “Hey, I dated a black girl once. She wasn’t Jewish and you know we did lots of freaky stuff.” (Mind you, this was said to me during a Shabbat seudah. Needless to say, I was fuming and couldn’t wait to leave! I do not know what angered me more—the transference of the racist stereotype that all black women are sexually loose and like to be spoken to as such, or the audacity to wear a kippah and say such things to me with pride at a Shabbat meal of all places!)

But wait, there’s more. Back in college, a guy at a party I liked “complimented” me by saying, “Wow you have a really nice goy butt!” My crush instantly dissipated and I excused myself from the party. Yet whenever the occasional non-Black Jewish girl with a big butt chilled with me and my friends, she never received such a name for her ample derrière. She just had a “big booty.” That was all. Yet she would also refer to my endowments as a “goy butt” just the same.

I vividly remember sitting on park bench years back some with frum friends, including this stereotypical “white boy with a hoodie” who had his jeans hung low. While I was speaking to my friend, he interrupted me. ” Yo, you are the first Black girl I heard talk right,” he said. “Why do you talk like that?” As his friends nodded in agreement, I felt fiercely upset. And I felt cornered, too: To them, being black means talking “not right.” Couldn’t play into the “Angry Black Woman” stereotype, now could I?

Then there was the time when one of my non-black frum college friends braided her hair into cornrows. Everyone in our social circle said she looked “fierce” and “cool.” But when I braided my hair to preserve its health that same summer, my frum friends told me it looked “too black.” And I got a lot of attention from guys and spoken to like a slut. Apparently the more “black” I looked the easier I must have appeared. Apparently I didn’t have to be won over like any other Jewish girl.

Experiencing double standards of beauty and language when it comes to race, and watching members of my frum community appropriate black culture so as throw away their religious identity, brings deeper questions to the forefront: Why do these double standards exist within my Jewish community? Why do frum white Jews adopt black culture when they want to rebel against their religious upbringings? And what does that say about my existence?

Those that engage in this practice are telling me that involving themselves in what they perceive to be the representation of “Black Culture” is a complete departure from being a religious Jew, or Jewish at all for that matter. In essence they are saying that being “Black” is being “Not Jewish.”

This disturbing concept further reinforces the false ideology that being Black and Jewish is inconceivable and contradictory. If you want to rebel, rebel—don’t make your rebellion a “thing” by listening to rap music and acting “black” because it co-opts other black identities—namely Jewish people who also happen to be black. It goes without saying that not all black people are the same, talk the same, etc. However, I have come across many people who have yet to grasp this reality.

Posted in Blacks, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Who’s better at kvetching? Blacks or Jews or women? The black orthodox Jewess of course!

The Noble Lie

Marc B. Shapiro blogs:

1. Amichai Markowitz called my attention to a talmudic text that I overlooked. Nedarim 23b states: “The Tanna has intentionally obscured the law, in order that vows should not be lightly treated.” This relates to the issue of the truth not being made available to all. See also Kovetz Iggerot Hazon Ish, vol. 2, no. 78, that one should not reveal to the masses that the Sages forbade things that the Torah permitted.[22]

2. R. Joseph Ibn Caspi writes that at times it is appropriate for members of the intellectual elite to lie.[23] This explains how Joseph lied to his brothers when he accused them of being spies (Gen. 42:9). In support of this view Ibn Caspi cites both Maimonides and Aristotle.[24] The mention of Maimonides no doubt refers to the latter’s notion of “necessary beliefs”

…In the next issue of Masorah le-Yosef my article on “necessary beliefs” will appear. In this article I discuss how Maimonides and other figures say things that do not reflect their true opinion, but are merely “necessary beliefs”, i.e., “beliefs” that the masses should accept but which are not really true at all. If these authorities think that the masses can be fed false ideas when it comes to theology, why should halakhah be any different?

…9. See R. Mordechai Eliasburg, Shevil ha-Zahav (Warsaw, 1897), p. 27-28, who claims that both Nahmanides and R. Jacob Emden recorded things in their writings that they did not really believe.

10. R. Chaim Sunitzky called my attention to R. Israel Weltz, Divrei Yisrael, vol. 3, no. 170, who doesn’t see such a problem with false stories if they lead people in a good direction.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Noble Lie

Artscroll Prints The Censored Talmud

Marc B. Shapiro blogs July 29, 2015:

ArtScroll is still worried about creating anti-Semitism and thus continues to print a censored Talmud. While I think everyone agrees that the ArtScroll Talmud translation is a masterpiece, opinions will obviously differ as to whether ArtScroll made a mistake in not restoring the Talmud to its pre-censorship state.

ArtScroll’s approach is different than that of other publishers who are very happy that they can now include the complete uncensored words of the Talmud.

…Sanhedrin 43a has a number of lines dealing with the execution of Jesus and his disciples. While the entire section is found in Soncino (in translation), Steinsaltz, Wagshal and Oz ve-Hadar, it is not to be found in ArtScroll. Both the English and Hebrew editions of ArtScroll tell the reader that a section has been deleted from the Vilna Shas. However, in Sanhedrin 67a, where another section has been deleted and is found in the other editions just mentioned, ArtScroll does not inform the reader of the deletion.

An allusion to the Sanhedrin 67a text is found in Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin, attributed to R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz. This explosive text, which remained in manuscript for almost three hundred years, has just appeared in print, edited by Pawel Maciejko.[5] Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin is very important to understanding the controversy over R. Eybeschuetz. (I hope that the manuscript Gahalei Esh, a treasure trove of documents dealing with eighteenth-century Sabbatianism, will also soon appear in a scholarly edition.) Quite apart from the radical theological notions found in Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin, Maciejko describes the work as follows: “[I]t is blatantly pornographic (in fact, it is possibly the only truly pornographic text ever written in the rabbinic idiom.)”[6]
Speaking of pornography let me add the following. Not long ago I was visiting a certain synagogue for Shabbat. When it came time for Torah reading I took out the chumash that was near me. It happened to be the one published by R. Aryeh Kaplan. I actually am not a fan of this chumash for use in synagogue as its focus is entirely philological, and doesn’t deal with any of the issues that a typical person would want explained in reviewing the Torah portion. But this was what I had so I used it. In Exodus 35:22 an unusual word appears: כומז. It means some sort of golden bodily ornament. The word also appears in Numbers 31:50. According to the Exodus passage, this was one of the items the Israelites in the desert donated at the time of the building of the Tabernacle. The passage is Numbers refers to booty taken from the Midianites. Among the different interpretations Kaplan offers for כומז is “a pornographic sculpture.” This is quoted in the name of R. Aaron Alrabi (fifteenth century). I was quite shocked when I saw this and later saw that this interpretation is also quoted by R. Kasher in Torah Shelemah, which must have been where Kaplan saw it…

What this means is that the item in question had a picture of a woman’s private parts. The Israelite women would have their husbands look at it in order to sexually excite them before they had marital relations. Since this pornographic viewing was for a good purpose, it was permitted for these items to be donated for use in building the Tabernacle…

Soncino translates this as “cast of the womb” and ArtScroll translates it the exact same way. Koren translates “a mold [in the shape] of the womb.” In general I would say that disagreeing with these three translations is not a smart thing to do, yet in this case I must do just that. The translations I have cited are incorrect as they do not reflect what the Talmud is saying. בית הרחם in Shabbat 64a does not mean “womb” but rather something else. In order not to cause problems for those with internet filters I won’t spell it out completely, but I think the reader already understands…

The very text in Shabbat 64a also lets us know that this matter has nothing to do with a “womb”, as immediately following the explanation of דפוס של בית הרחם the Talmud explains that the wordכומז is an acronym of כאן מקום זימה “here is the place of lewdness”, and there is no issue of lewdness with the womb. ArtScroll itself, in its note on this latter passage, explains the matter well: “The place encased by this ornament is the part of the body which is the focus of lewdness.” In other words, in its commentary ArtScroll tells us that we are not dealing with the womb at all, but with another part of a woman’s anatomy. As such, it was a mistake for ArtScroll in its translation to adopt Soncino’s rendering of כומז as “cast of the womb”.
In his commentary to Berakhot 24a s.v. תכשיטין שבפנים, Rashi explains that a כומז is a chastity belt. From the context of this talmudic passage we see that it also had ornamental significance…

In its commentary, ibid., ArtScroll summarizes Rashi as follows: “The kumaz was an ornament that covered a woman’s private parts.”

Returning to the matter of “pornographic viewing” as described by Alrabi, I wonder if this could also have halakhic significance. I mention this only because of the controversy some years ago by an answer given by R. Shlomo Aviner that in a she’at ha-dehak (i.e., there are serious marital sexual issues) it would be permitted for a husband and wife to together view explicit pictures in a book. See here.

The entire conversation with R. Aviner was a set-up, and the anti-Aviner website used it to attack R. Aviner, and portray him as permitting viewing of pornography. Yet it is obvious that he was referring to sexual self-help books (which would have explicit pictures) since he refers to books found in Steimatzky. R. Moses Feinstein had earlier permitted a soon-to-be-married man to read sexual self-help books.[9] There is no indication in R. Feinstein’s responsum that he is also including the viewing of pictures in such books, but I do not know if he would regard this as a problem if the pictures are not of real people but are drawings.

…In other words, by referring to the Mishneh Torah after mentioning Meiri, ArtScroll is alerting readers to the fact that the Rambam does not agree with Meiri and believes that the passage in Avodah Zarah 6a indeed refers to Christians. Yet this is never spelled out in ArtScroll, and you need to take their suggestion to consult the Mishneh Torah in order to learn that not everyone agrees that when the Talmud mentions those who make Sunday their holiday that it is referring to Babylonian pagans. (In fact, as already mentioned, only Meiri advocates this position.) Does the average person who learns daf yomi realize this?

…Rashi tells us, just like Maimonides, that when the Talmud refers to those who celebrate נוצרי יום it means the Christians who follow Jesus. ..

I find it significant that even in the Hebrew edition ArtScroll feels the need to only allude to the explanation of Rashi and Maimonides, while presenting Meiri’s explanation as the standard understanding of the text. ArtScroll certainly knows that this is not the standard understanding, and ArtScroll itself cannot believe that Meiri’s understanding is what the Talmud really means. After all, every other medieval commentator agrees with Rashi and Maimonides. In this case, the only explanation is that ArtScroll is following a long apologetic tradition, which was based on fear of what the non-Jews would say if they knew the true meaning of certain talmudic passages…

Another example of this tendency was called to my attention by R. Moshe Maimon. Ketubot 15a discusses the case of A killing B, when A actually intended to kill another person. In its discussion the Talmud refers to “Canaanites”, which in the current context simply means non-Jews. In fact, in all manuscripts and early printings what appears is not “Canaanites” but “goyim”.[12] “Canaanites” is simply a “correction” of the censor. Yet ArtScroll has a note explaining that “The Canaanites were the pagan people who lived in Eretz Yisrael before the Israelites entered the land.” The implication of this comment is that the halakhah stated in the Talmud was only applicable with the ancient Canaanites but not with regard to other non-Jews. This is false and ArtScroll knows it is false, but it is no different than the “note to reader” found in many seforim that all the halakhot about non-Jews only refer to the pagans in faraway places. In the latter case everyone knew (and knows) that these words are not to be taken seriously, but I would assume that the typical user of the ArtScroll English Talmud does not realize this…

The last sentence is making the point that there are certain things in the Talmud that should not be published for all to see, as these are the sorts of things that could create great problems with non-Jews. The Prague scholars then state that it is actually a good thing to cut out certain passages from the Talmud. In other words, they are acknowledging that even without Christian demands, it would be best in internally censor certain passages so as to prevent problems from arising. This is exactly what ArtScroll is doing today. No one is forcing them to self-censor, but they see matters as the sages of Prague…

R. Moses Rivkes in his commentary to Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 425:5, who responds to a particular anti-Gentile law as follows:

“The Rabbis said this in relation to the pagans of their own times only, who worshipped stars and the constellations and did not believe in the Exodus or in creatio ex nihilo. But the people in whose shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and amongst whom we are dispersed do in fact believe in creatio ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in the main principles of religion, and their whole aim and intent is to the Maker of heaven and earth, as the codifiers have written. . . . So far, then from our not being forbidden to save them, we are on the contrary obliged to pray for their welfare.”

Some, such as Jacob Katz,[30] have seen R. Rivkes’ words as reflecting a new tolerant approach. However, the sages of Prague, who were closer to the time R. Rivkes lived, saw his words as merely designed for non-Jewish eyes and not to be taken seriously by Jews. R. Rivkes’ comment would therefore be no different than the declarations found at the beginning of many seforim that all negative statements about non-Jews are only directed towards pagans but have nothing to do with the Christians of Europe who worship God and allow the Jews to dwell among them.

Posted in Artscroll, Marc B. Shapiro, Talmud | Comments Off on Artscroll Prints The Censored Talmud

Jewish Press Interviews Marc Shapiro

LINK: Your book is filled with examples of historical revisionism and omission. Let’s go through a number of them. First: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position on lashon hara between a husband and wife.

He thought if someone is having a bad day and has to get something off his chest, he can mention a certain individual to his wife. Under normal circumstances, that would be lashon hara, but he thought among spouses it is permissible because they’re like one person.

This p’sak, though, was removed in a later edition of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s work because it’s not in accordance with the Chofetz Chaim’s position.

The Vilna Gaon’s comments on Greek philosophy.

The Vilna Gaon states that the Rambam was led astray by “accursed philosophy.” But the people who published the Vilna Shulchan Aruch – the Romm publishers – were enlightened Jews and they were troubled by the phrase “accursed.” So they removed it. And until the recent Machon Yerushalayim printing, that’s the way it appeared in standard editions of the Shulchan Aruch.

Rav Yosef Karo’s view of kapparos.

He calls it a “minhag shtut.” That was removed for obvious reasons – because it was thought to be offensive to those who practice the custom. It appears in the first edition of the Shulchan Aruch, but it’s not in the Vilna edition or any of the other standard editions.

The Chasam Sofer’s position on the beginning and end of Shabbos.

There was a practice in Europe that Shabbos began after sunset, in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam’s position. This is an old practice that has pretty much fallen out of favor, but for much of Jewish history Shabbos started after sunset.

What I quote in the book is a protest [letter] that criticized Jews in Williamsburg who still were observing this custom. [The main point of that letter, though, concerned] the end of Shabbos. When Rav Moshe Stern published a volume of the teshuvot of the Chasam Sofer, it was censored because the Chasam Sofer doesn’t rule like Rabbeinu Tam. The Satmar Rav didn’t want that to be known.

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s comments about non-observant Jews.

In the original text, he says that you don’t mourn for irreligious Jews, and you don’t really have anything to do with them. They’re wicked people, and we should rejoice when the wicked die. But if you look in later editions of this work, those comments are completely removed.

The Rema’s teshuvah on yayin nesech.

The Rema [confronted] a situation where Jews were drinking non-kosher wine in Moravia. The water was not very healthy, so people started drinking wine. The question was: Can this be justified? In his responsum, Rav Moshe Isserles is very upset that they’re drinking the wine. However, he attempts to justify them ex post facto so that they would not be viewed as sinners.

The censors, though, were worried that people would see the teshuvah and say, “We can drink non-Jewish wine,” so they removed it. It was a valid concern because Israel Silverman from the JTS actually used Isserles’s responsum to justify drinking non-Jewish wine today. He was attacked for that – and rightly so – because this was only an ex post facto justification.

The speech of the Belzer Rebbe’s brother in 1944 when the Rebbe and his family escaped Hungary.

He said the Rebbe wasn’t leaving because there was anything to be afraid of, and that the people don’t need to be worried. When the drasha was reprinted in 1967 that was cut out – for obvious reasons, because the Nazis did move in to Budapest and destroyed as much of the Jewish community as they could.

Last question: Your critics argue that many of your books make one cynical and disillusioned with Judaism. What’s your response?

If that’s what they feel, they shouldn’t read them.

But I’m not writing as a yeshivish-type person or spiritual leader putting forth a vision. I’m writing historical books. If certain people find them troubling, that’s fine; they shouldn’t read them. I don’t take any offense at that. Not every book is for every person.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Jewish Press Interviews Marc Shapiro

Letters To A Secular Young Jewess Seeking A Shiduch

Jewess: I don’t understand Ivanka Trump’s Orthodox Judaism.

Luke: It was a hurdle to marry. There are many paths to the one true God. Most people don’t care about truth like we do.

J: Oh I know. What if I really want to marry this guy who is Orthodox but I don’t want to be full Orthodox?

L: You have to go along with things in public, and privately you do what you want.

J: But shouldn’t I tell him the truth if I want to marry him?

L: Of course. If you meet a man you love, you’ll conform to whatever he wants, even if it’s Islam. Nature of woman. If he’s alpha enough, no holes barred.

J: Alphas are the best.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off on Letters To A Secular Young Jewess Seeking A Shiduch

Censors For The Sake Of Heaven

Paul Shaviv reviews Marc Shapiro’s new book: “I just spent the recent holiday weekend reading this important and fascinating (if somewhat depressing) book from cover to cover. Marc Shapiro has given us another excellent work. With meticulous documentation he shows a series of different examples of how Orthodox rabbinic works have been altered, censored and mutilated to hide what the original authors wrote or thought (or wore – it includes a few examples of doctored photos), in order to conform with later, and, inevitably, narrower opinions. By removing evidence, the effect is to delegitimize and narrow the range of opinions, beliefs, views and behaviors within the Orthodox Jewish world. Two chapters are devoted to the overall treatment of two major Orthodox thinkers – S.R. Hirsch and Rav Kook – at the hands of subsequent editors. As he points out, his examples – which are many – are, however, only a representative selection. He also discusses the Orthodox view of the “function” of history, and the notion of historical or other truth in Jewish tradition. Although this serves as an explanation of the thought-processes behind the revisionist activity, it also strongly suggest that there is an unbridgeable gap between “history” and “Orthodox ‘history'”. Marc Shapiro has the gift of being an excellent, clear and easy-to-read writer. An excellent book for anyone interested in Jewish history and trends and currents in the Orthodox world.”

Another Amazon review: Having been a reader of Marc Shapiro’s writings for about twenty years, I’ve often been made to wonder about what motivates and animates Jewish thinkers to do and say the things that they do. His current book on Jewish censorship and revisionism places the question of motivation and psychology front and center.

Shapiro is, as always, encyclopedic in the scope of the sources he brings down. His observations on some outlandish forms of Jewish censorship and revisionism are often wry and witty, with minimal personal editorial and without being either cynical or unsympathetic to the subject matter. The one possible slant to which his book lends itself, of which Shapiro himself is aware, is that in accumulating every possible example of Jewish religious censorship and revisionism one could walk away with the impression that there are no Jewish authorities that defend being sincere and transparent, which of course is not the case.

There is a certain charm to Shapiro’s writings, as in how in the midst of a much broader discussion, Shapiro will share an embarrassingly true but conveniently forgotten insight, such as the fact that over hundred years ago the majority of Jews started (and ended) Shabbos later than they do nowadays, a practice that at present is rare and is deemed scandalous.

While modern scholarship would not condone any form of censorship, when reading Shapiro one can nevertheless distinguish between more excusable forms of hiding the truth versus completely inexcusable ones. At the excusable end of the spectrum are: censoring passages from non-Jews that, if revealed, could endanger the Jewish community; hiding awkward revelations about the personal failings or peccadilloes of a religious sage, especially sexual ones; genuinely believing a falsehood, without any ulterior motive and then propagating it; censoring gratuitously abusive language between respected scholars; the altering of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook’s writings by his handlers, for fear that some of his ideas would alienate his intended readership. In all these cases we can sense the imperfect choices being presented between on the one hand being completely transparent but on the other hand wanting to either exercise common sense or display good taste.

What appears, however, to be altogether inexcusable is the constant theological posturing that goes on in the Haredi world, to give the impression of a form of religious orthodoxy that is consistent throughout all time and space. Examples where historical photos are altered to either make Orthodox women from the past appear to be dressed more modestly than they actually were or to color a skull cap onto a rabbi’s bare head are only a small sampling of it. Much larger and more damning are the chapters devoted to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and the aforementioned Rabbi Kook. While Hirsch’s philosophy and the community he advocated were forcibly made to appear more palatable to Haredi sensibilities, Kook, once the darling of the Orthodox world, had been rendered a persona non grata. This persistent practice of disfiguring history by making it more homogenous is absolute cultural vandalism. The censors in these cases have found it expedient to lie and cover up numerous facts, all in order to control the religious experience of the masses, to ensure uniform thought and practice. As Shapiro himself points out, people in power, by lying and hiding the truth, have predetermined how Judaism should have looked historically (evidence to the contrary be damned) and in the process they have chosen to be the judges over the great luminaries that preceded them.

And in no way do the Haredim have a monopoly over this sort of censorship, though they are the most persistent practitioners of it. Shapiro gives examples of censorship in other branches of Judaism. And it’s clear to any reader that rewriting the past is a standard practice in any sort of orthodoxy, whether it be political or ideological in nature, whenever the facts as they are do not conveniently corroborate what people “need” to believe at present.

Shapiro’s last chapter, which deals with the Jewish literature on when it is permissible to lie and to deceive is the most painful to read through. Shapiro frames the discussion in terms of the overarching problem: the Torah is replete with statements to the effect that it is important to be truthful and that lying is evil. Many rabbinical sermons are in fact delivered in which Judaism is couched as an unrelenting search for truth. How then to defend the frequent practice by religious publishers of deceiving their readership? The answers on the whole are of an extremely legal, technical nature, arbitrary in their application and completely inelegant. And even worse than the inorganic loopholes that various religious figures relied upon to allow themselves to be untruthful is a statement by Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler. In line with the thinking of certain secular philosophers, Dessler redefines the truth to be whatever is most expedient, whichever statement most practically achieves a desired outcome, i.e., extracting greater religious observance and devotion from the masses. The intellectual acrobatics Dessler uses to justify being deceptive come off as flippant, not too clever and disingenuous.

The notion that the greatest truth is whatever achieves a desired outcome begs the question: Isn’t there a greater truth to strive for than achieving mass obedience? Especially in an age in which orthodoxies of all sorts are on their way out, what exactly are we sacrificing in order to achieve uniform behavior? People en masse are leaving organized religion, especially Western organized religion –Judaism is being hit especially hard – and are pursuing more experiential/less dogmatic strains of spirituality such as Easter religion. There’s a good reason that Jews as a whole are over-represented among the numbers of Westerners who flock to either trendy new age spiritual movements or to Buddhism and Hinduism. Instead of addressing the spiritual poverty engendered by un-self aware orthodox dogmatism, we’re expending precious mental energy on hosting a beauty pageant of sorts, on upholding appearances of piety. In the end, Orthodox Judaism can end up becoming self selecting – retaining the traditionalists who would have naturally gravitated towards it anyway, while losing all of the sincere seekers who are genuinely curious and trying to understand.

Shapiro had me considering the subject matter from different vantage points. What, for instance, drives people to want to believe something to be true? I remember meeting a religious man a few years back, whose father was among the Jews who was saved during World War II by Sugihara, the courageous Japanese diplomat who defiantly gave out numerous visas to save Jewish lives. With complete conviction, the man related to me how later in life Sugihara converted to Judaism. Of course, nothing of the sort happened and I politely kept quiet. I sensed how the man very much wanted to believe that Sugihara was Jewish, as if a goy altruistically saving thousands of Jewish lives weren’t good enough. As with other urban legends, people find comfort in believing that certain things are true.

Urban legends, for course, are a universal phenomenon, not at all unique to Orthodox Jews, and people tend towards being suggestible. And it is sometimes hard to get at what is really true versus what we wish to be true. With the internet, however, becoming more ubiquitous and especially with the advent of web sites such as Snopes that devote themselves to debunking false legends the likelihood of people continuing to believe a bubbe meise are smaller. The question is whether this trend towards greater transparency will have the same sort of impact in the Haredi world. If so will the censors in Haredi world continue to be able to spin their personal story to their own liking or will they need to adjust their spin for an evermore skeptical public?

And what can we say about the cynical mindset that encourages censorship? In a world that is moving towards greater transparency and towards empowering individuals more and more, censors are elitists who continue to believe that people “can’t handle the truth.” It is possible that there are facts that are too damning and too overwhelming for people to process, but when people are constantly infantilized and lied to, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy by which the public can no longer stand to hear anything remotely threatening to their beliefs.

I highly encourage anyone interested in the subject of Judaism and its relationship to the truth to read Shapiro’s well written book.

* The book is fascinating and as usual Dr. Shapiro is second to none in his research. Most of the facts he quotes are just plain fascinating. How he manages to collect these sources is amazing. However, that being said, there are some downsides to the book.
For one thing the chapter on Sex which includes pictures of nudes is totally unacceptable. Why does he have to show pictures of nudes? Is he advocating for women to appear in such immodest ways?
Also, the book reads as just one long blog with examples following more examples.
That being said, the chapters on Rav Kook and Rav Hirsch are excellent and they are highly informative and enjoyable to read.
The chapter on halachik matters is also fascinating and certainly is worthy of reading for anyone interested in the development of the Halacha.
One more point, the last chapter about ‘truth’ and what is the Truth, is in many ways the most important of the chapters as it deals with the issue which is at the core of the book, namely, is truth always the accurate description of facts?
This chapter is certainly critical as it sheds light on the entire subject under discussion.
Dr. Shapiro has certainly made an important contribution to the world of Jewish scholarship.
I hope he continues to write and contribute to the world of Jewish education.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Rabbis | Comments Off on Censors For The Sake Of Heaven

Orthodox Jews Know Who They Are

The more traditional the Jew, the less he has angst about his identity — he’s a Yid first, second and third.

The more modern the Jew, the more assimilated and confused.

That’s why the Orthodox increasingly dominate Jewish life. No other form of Jewish identity has shown it can grow in strength over the generations.

It’s either the Torah Corral or marching for gay rights.

Gal Berkerman writes:

My identity as a Jew doesn’t lead to much questioning. Which is to say it’s the uncomplicated Jewish identity of a secular Israeli. It just is. In substance it’s a mix of the very lightly religious (candles on Hanukkah and perhaps an attempt at fasting on Yom Kippur) combined with emotional (if not always patriotic) attachment to Israel. But at its center is not substance but an ineffable sense of being comfortable in my skin because there is nothing else I can be. There is no other identity to assimilate to.
In other words, I don’t think I was asking, at 5, what it means to be a Jew.
But I’ve come to understand this anxiety well. It’s actually been my bread and butter over the past four years during my time as opinion editor of this newspaper. If I didn’t always recognize it as anxiety, I do now, writing in my last days at this job, before I head off to work on a new book and finish a doctoral program.
As I try to sum up for myself what I have gained after reading through and editing thousands of opinion pieces, it’s simply this: an intimate familiarity with the gut-churning, fraught, panicked and uncomfortable state of being an American Jew today.

Posted in Jews, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Orthodox Jews Know Who They Are