My friend Nechama* puts out the plastic cups. She drops several on the floor. She picks them up and puts them on the table. I seize those cups, take them to the sink, wash them out, and put them back on the table.
Nechama’s sister Jackie* comes out. I ask her if she’d drink from a cup that fell on the floor. She says yes. I drop one to the floor and challenge her to drink from it.
She picks it up, goes to the frig, pours herself a cup of juice, and drinks.
Nechama’s man Sid* comes over.
He is like me and would not drink from a cup that had fallen on the floor and was not washed.
The third roommate, Jez, comes out. She drops something to floor. Despite wearing a short skirt, Jez bends over to pick it up, her skirt riding her on her thighs.
I stare.
Jez is rooting around on the floor for her lost object, her skirt riding higher.
"Carry on!" I say in my most nonchalant voice.
Jez straightens up. "Levi!" she says.
At 9:30 pm, the rest of the guests arrive. We have about 20 for Shabbat dinner. Two are goyim, about 15 are frum yidden and the rest are non-Orthodox Jews.
I sit next to the rabbi, Avi*, and across from the goy Sean*, a graduate student in engineering at USC.
He says he took off Thursday night and went to a Depeche Mode street concert.
I try to explain to the rabbi, who’s never been to a rock concert, what happened. "It was a Gentile pride event, rabbi," I say. "Gentiles such as Sean like to gather with other Gentiles and affirm each other in their goyisha identity through the performance of certain exotic rituals such as swaying side to side with one another while listening to goyisha music that says that being Gentile is cool and that one can have a meaningful life without HaShem’s commandments.
"The goyim get to feel good about their meaningless lives as goyim and frequently these rubbing rituals leads them to pair off and take matters further behind closed doors.
"Depeche Mode is a New Wave rock group from England from 1980.
"You should behold the goyim at such events. They look sweetly innocently happy. You’d never realize they were capable of genocide at the least provocation.
"They say they only want their human rights — to have their marriages recognized as every bit as valid as Jewish marriages, they want to count in a minyan, and they want to be admitted into rabbinical schools as (openly) goyim according to the same percentage they make up in the American population."
From Dr. Shapiro’s third lecture on R. Shlomo Goren:
"Rabbi Shlomo Goren was machmir (strict) on many mitzvos. He wouldn’t carry within the eruv in Jerusalem."
"When his term ended in 1983, there was widespread relief that he was off the stage… Even many religious Zionists tired of what they regarded as his grandstanding."
"From the perspective of Torah law, copyright is a different matter. I don’t know that Torah gives anyone authority to copyright their Torah. Even your children don’t own your Torah. Torah belongs to Klal Yisrael… In the Torah world, people usually don’t pay attention to [copyright]."
"You open up an Artscroll and it says you can’t copy it even for personal use. You can ignore that completely. The law in the United States is that personal use is permissable. I’ve never heard anyone say that halacha does not allow for copying for personal use. This is a perfect example of following the custom of the land."
"Rav Hayyim Hirschenson was more radical than Shlomo Goren, but they both had the approach that halacah could solve every problem. They were both of the opinion that it was a galut (diaspora) mentality that doesn’t allow us to solve a lot of these problems."
"Rav Goren was the last advocate for a dynamic halacha. He points out that the halachos of the Rambam will not work today. Ultimately he fails. Even the religious Zionist rabbis would not go along. Following the path of Rav Goren would’ve meant a complete break with the charedim. At the end of the day, the religious Zionists did not want a schism with the charedi world. Rav Goren believed with Hayyim Hirschenson that every halachic problem had a solution. We don’t have to be bound by hundreds of years of halachic decisions in galut. The Charedim regard living in the land of Israel as just another galut."
"The liberal Orthodox have a problem with Rav Goren in that his politics are very right-wing. He does not believe in giving back any land. He believed in Daas Torah — that the rabbis have to have a veto power over politicians."
"In Israel, you don’t have charedim coming in to teach in religious Zionist schools. In America, all of our Mizrachi (religious Zionist) day schools are full of charedi teachers."
"Rav Solveitchik would let Rav Goren speak in his shiurs. Then Rav Goren would leave and the next day the Rav would speak out against him. They did not have such a good relationship."
"Yes, you have to give credit also to this guy from Minnesota who in many ways is a thorn in the side of Orthodoxy. But he has exposed a lot. This Failed Messiah blog. I know him a bit because he emails me. He has exposed a lot of the scandals and a lot of problems. He has done real investigative work. He was quoted in the New York Times. He’s exposed that Rubashkin’s advertising firm was using phony names on blogs. It is unfortunate that we have to give someone who left Orthodoxy credit for this sort of thing. We should be out in front." (40 minutes into Marc Shapiro’s first lecture on Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Reines)
Seventy minutes into his second lecture on R. Yitzchak Yaakov Reines, Marc B. Shapiro talks about his decision to publish excerpts of letters by R. Yaakov Weinberg to Reform rabbi Samuel Atlas: "Would I make the same decision to publish knowing what I know? I believe I would. I would perhaps put more context around the letters… I have other unpublished stuff that I haven’t published. I am afraid of the reaction. Other explosive stuff. Maybe in the future… Some of it is personal. In the book, I took out personal stuff because I didn’t think it was relevant."
Third lecture: "Congregational singing is an American phenomenon borrowed from the Protestants…started by the Young Israel movement… If you go to a yeshivish minyan, they don’t sing. The Hasidim don’t have congregational singing. They will hum niggunim… The Rav opposed congregational singing."
In his second lecture on R. Yizthak Nissim, Marc says that Iranian Jewry hasn’t produced a Torah giant in a thousand years.
In his third lecture on R. Yitzhak Nissim, nine minutes in, Marc says that if the IRS investigated the books of yeshivas, they would likely find a lot of wrongdoing.
Marc says a student of Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik — Rabbi Yehuda Leib Forer — served as the rav of a Conservative and an Orthodox shul at the same time in Holyoke, Massachusetts (about 70 years ago).
Marc says: "Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu (the son of the former Sephardic chief rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu who succeeded Ovadia Yosef) is basically a fascist… R. Mordecai Eliyahu said that God would never allow Gush Katif to be evacuated and that God would not allow him to look like a fool."
"Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is not only the most important rabbi in the world, but the most important rabbi in many generations."
Rabbi Gil Student writes: "R. Dr. Asher Meir published an article from two weeks about an AIG executive’s Op-Ed in the NY Times in which he announced his resignation (Op-Ed in NYT, Asher Meir). Dr. Meir calls the letter "a monument of misdirection." He says that the letter displays "the culture of entitlement that permeates Wall Street.""
Anon comments: In 2001 none of the upper level people in the FAA got bonuses, even if their groups did very well. Why? It should be fairly obvious why. There was no way that agency (or administration if you prefer) could be considered having a successful year with occured. This was even if their group had nothing to do with preventing planes from being hijacked. As as I understand it, this was a group decision, as they felt it be inappropriate for them to get bonuses (which at most would be measured in the 10s of thousands of dollars) after what occured.
Just because an executive is not directly involved with the bad behavior, sometimes things are so bad at a company that no one who is part of the management should get a bonus.
HABTBG WRITES: I also disagree with R. Dr. Meir’s contention that insistance on the bonus was unethical.
1. Mr. De Santis had a contract legally binding so long as AIG did not declare bankruptcy. Even arguing later changed circumstances is difficult. When Congress prevented the AIG bankruptcy it had the option of canceling these bonuses and chose not to. Indeed, it was only the public outrage when it became known after the fact that led to the Congressional outrage. The key is ‘after the fact.’
If De Santis completed the terms of his employment (and no one has yet suggested he has not), then how can he be faulted for wanting remuneration due?
Maybe it would be saintly of De Santis to reject the bonus. But he has no obligation to be saintly. Nor is it unethical to not be saintly.
Similarly we may feel the terms of the contract were ridiculous but there were two points before the terms were completed where this should have been addressed but was not: (i) the original employment negotiation, and (ii) at the point of Congressional intervention. At both points it was parties other then Mr. De Santis that were supposed to reign in expectations of salary and bonus (first his employers and then our government).
2. De Santis had a contract. Ergo if someone wants deviation from the contract the burden is on them to show a reason for the deviation. Asher Meir attempts to wrongly shift the burden unto De Santis to justify keeping to the contract. Meir does this by saying De Santis had to prove he was not involved in the debacle at AIG. That there was a debacle in his department does not mean De Santis was part of the debacle. Yet Meir assumes he was.
3. When we allow Goldman Sachs, as an AIG counterparty to get about $10 billion from the AIG bailout – and GS is certainly a bunch of sophisticated investors – then I fail to see the distinction that should outrage me more by De Santis, an AIG employee. Why is money to sophisticated investment firm GS something we can tolerate (indeed was part of the point of the bailout) but money to the employee unethical?
Of course, in fact, I am outraged that GS got all that money. To me its even ‘unethical’ in the obvious sense that the people who caused the mess and gotten rich by doing so are the ones getting bailed out – by me and people poorer then me. But yet bailing them out was part of the point of the legislation. And wording affecting employee bonuses was specifically removed from the legislation. How is GS’s acceptance ethical and De Santis not? We supported GS indirectly because of third party affects. Similarly De Santis has an obligation to his family to get paid his due.
4. One of the most troubling things out of this (other then that the taxpayers now own a massive dying insurance company) is the notion of the confiscatory tax.
A. WRITES: I’m surprised by this piece. Rabbi Meir is wrong.
There is a difference between "bonus" as it is usually understood, and a "retention bonus" as it was used here.
Di Santis, who does claim not to have had anything to do with default credit swaps, contra Rabbi Meir’s assertion, had an agreement with AIG that he would be paid to wind down his job. The incentive for him to stay and do it was the back-end payment, which they called a "bonus". He could have left to a competitor at any time, which AIG clearly feared. This fee structure guaranteed that 1) he would stay to complete the work and 2) he would be paid appropriately, but only if he completed the work.
There is nothing unethical about DeSantis expecting to be paid.
MOISHE POSTS: I read Dr. Meir’s piece twice, and he quite clearly does not know what he is talking about.
1. Insurers are not "required" to create a fund for natural disasters. Under both GAAP and statutory (i.e, insurance-specific) rules, they are prohibited from doing so until an event occurs.
2. The extremely risky bets that Dr. Meir blames for AIG’s troubles have consistently been profitable for AIG, in both the short- and long-terms. They mis-priced their CDS sales, to be sure, but Dr. Meir has no basis for asserting that other "extremely risky bets" explain AIG’s difficulties.
3. De Santis’"real compensation" originally included both salary and bonus – in agreeing to an annual salary of $1, he was, in fact, sacrificing a great deal of revenue.
The most useful point of De Santis’ letter, in addition to offering much more clarity than Dr. Meir perceives, is that it reasonably describes the capitalist mindset. In an imaginary world, perhaps, people would be more willing to produce more for less compensation, but in reality, whenever policies that attempt to limit compensation, productivity declines.
IBNR can only be recorded for an event that has occurred (or is believed to have occurred). European insurance accounting allows (or insists) on accruing an annual catastrophe reserve to smooth results for the inherent lumpiness of catastrophes, but neither US accounting standard permits it.
It might well be a good idea (US P&C stocks tend to over-respond to "good" and "bad" quarters that are largely out of management’s control), but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "required".
I’m venting more than I should – in my professional life, monitoring the employment situation at AIG is a big deal (and it’s largely why I’m required to post pseudonymously), but in general, most of the commentary surrounding AIG’s compensation is both uninformed and enormously destructive.
Joel Rich writes (my favorites are anything by Marc B. Shapiro):
Dr. Ya’akov Elman – Historical Context & Background of the Talmud: link
Understanding history helps you understand Talmud. There are assumptions that “everyone knows” at the time but later "no one knows" (e.g. door construction). Political history may explain why shmuel was the expositor of dina dmalchuta. Fascinating discussion of a story of R’Yochanan and R’Cahana [my chiddush – perhaps the story that R’Cahana was “resurrected” by R’Yochanan explains why the gemara elsewhere can give the answer to a seeming contradiction as “there were 2 R’Cahana’s” and the differing versions in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Historical struggle for dominance?
Dr. Ya’akov Elman – Sources & Typology of Sugyot: link
Note – the Talmud contains different genres and the rules of storytelling may change over time. 55% of the Bavli is anonymous and provides the framework for the other 45%.
The gemara doesn’t seem primarily interested in final halacha, it does use sophisticated logic but can’t reconcile all sugyot (there really are differing viewpoints). Rishonim are aware of many sugyot added by gaonim (was this by mesora or logic?).
There’s a dynamic tension between Avdut (slavery) and cheirut (freedom) throughout the Haggada. Discussion of the difference between Sippur (telling) and Zichira (remembering). Requirement of hodaah (giving thanks) for both the ups and downs – Halacha and Hashkafa of Pesach.
Rosh HaYeshiva Norman Lamm – Sefirat HaOmer-Ideological Background, Halachic Consequences: link
Hashkafik insights from sfirat (counting) of the omer – is it viewed as bitulit (counting down) or kiyumit (positive build up) – Open vs. closed world views!
Rabbi Sitorsky – Shmot: link (go to this website – Shmot 5769)
Parshat Shmot as the story of both galut (exile) and geula (redemption). Focus on the period and purpose of shovavim. A somewhat nistar (hidden) kabbalistic approach.
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg – Lessons and Inspiration from the Life and Teachings of the Rav zt’l: link
(A lighter shade of pale?)Daily Talmud shiur dealing with general approach to Aggadita (a’la Rambam) and Sheidim (little devils?). General rule sheidim can’t act if their actions would be recognizable (perhaps related to miracles only occurring if samui min haayin (out of sight) and general rule of not assuming HKB”H will intervene).
Dr. David Berger, Rabbi Michael Broyde – The Seal of G-d is Truth: link
Coincidence? He starts early with the same gemara in Pesachim. He then gives a nice summary of a number of approaches to how to deal with (me – perceived – I’m still hoping to get an artscroll biography written about me ) contradictions between science and chazal (reason and revelation).
1. Pachad Yitzchak (18th century) – science hasn’t changed, it is correct & halacha should change (killing lice on Shabbat example).
2. R’Dessler – All halacha of chazal is correct & “sort of” halacha moshe misinai – chazal may have given reasons based on then current science, but that was their addition (or as I learned in my brief visit to Gush – descriptive not prescriptive).
3. Chazon Ish says in order to save scientific and chazal truth, R’Dessler sacrificed "learning" (i.e. what’s the point if its all really chok) thus we must answer nature changed but we have no authority to change halacha.
4. R’Moshe Feinstein – by case of Ptzuah Daka – reality changes and so does halacha.
5. R’Menashe Klein – current science is wrong (or scientists are….)
Interesting dicta at end re: how one chooses an approach (me – IMHO it’s a symbiotic relationship between the individual (personality, experience) & Torah and even if you’re a 1. or 4. how to decide where to change without too much disruption to “make the world a better place” (did I hear someone say meta halacha?)
It would be nice if R’Broyde could post the exact Mareh Mkomot for each approach.
Rabbi Daniel Stein – Hilchos Hechsher Keilim Review: link
Everything you ever wanted to know about the rules of koshering utensils.
Chief Rabbi Sacks on behalf of Lubavitch on the occasion of Hakhel. There are 3 mitzvot – Hakhel, Birchat Hachama and Pesach which reflect creation, revelation and redemption as well as the individual, the family and the nation. Bottom line – unity of the Jewish people is important! [me – seems like we all agree on this – just many want the unity on their terms].
Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber – Can Halacha Allow Change? Women’s Spiritual Expression and Community Traditions: link
Halacha generally conservative get society changes and halacha evolves (e.g. heter iska (interest), prozbol) and some change becomes so accepted we don’t think about it. Obviously evolution in society of women’s roles, evolution in women learning (large scale) started with chafetz chaim. Now we have Toanot and poskot. Within halachik world we see evolution of bat mitzvah from forbidden to accepted [me – meta discussions].
Bottom line – when societal changes create religiously dangerous tension, halacha must react. Women aliyot also discussed (maybe ok for new communities).
Dr Marc Shapiro – Facts and Faith: Is Truth the Ultimate Value in Orthodoxy?: link
R’M Shapiro discusses the rewriting of history and censoring of books.
Examples included retouching – pictures of gedolim (putting on kipot in German University), their wives (so they can meet R’Falk’s rules), title pages (to take out some “art” {think Dan Akroyd as E. Buzz Miller}, haskamot (who wants R’Kook’s these days)…
MO do as well (but should know better) Israeli Charedim do it the most (view that the elite must control what the masses see).
It’s no surprise – the charedi, world view truth more as an instrument than as a value and there’s ample precedent [me – but even then, will it work?]
The Jewish Journal takes a snide shot at Rabbi Boteach in its Calendar section selection for April 28: "…an Orthodox rabbi whose self-proclaimed Eleventh Commandment is ‘Thou Shalt do anything for publicity and recognition’…"
In a world where celebrities release sex tapes for publicity, what awful things has Shmuley done for fame? I’ve been following his career for more than 15 years. What’s he done that is so terrible? He’s written good books and delivered provocative. What’s so terrible? What has he done that has demeaned himself or Judaism? OK, so he said that knowing Michael Jackson has made him a better father. That is easy to mock. Shmuley is easy to mock. But the rabbi keeps producing quality work, which is more than can be said for the Jewish Journal.
The best vehicles to fame for regular folk are writing and charity. The rabbi does both well and gets the fame he deserves.
PS. I was wrong to knock the Jewish Journal for this. Rabbi Boteach says this about himself: "Thou Shalt do anything for publicity and recognition."
From Nessah Synagogue: "Join Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, host of TLC’s "Shalom in the Home" and author if the #1 relationship book "The Kosher Sutra," and Patti Stanger, host of Bravo TV’s "Millionaire Matchmaker" and author of the #1 dating book in America "Become Your Own Matchmaker" as they debate the age-old myth around money and love."
From the 2007 Fatherhood Awards (Shmuley’s dad Yoav Botach on the left):
Rabbi Shmuley accepts the Fatherhood Award, accompanied by Roland Warren, President of National Fatherhood Initiative; John Segal, Chairman of the National Fatherhood Initiative; Michael Haynes, National Fatherhood Initiative Board Member and Director of Player and Employee Development of the NFL; and Leon Harris, Anchor at ABC7/WJLA Washington.
I was a specimen this afternoon at an acupuncture college. Ten students — all female — asked me questions about my every ache and pain as well as my views on Alexander Technique and Kundalini Yoga.
It was the greatest high. There’s nothing I enjoy more than the attention of pretty young women.
I bet this was how Jesus felt when he headed into the desert with his disciples riding an ass while all of Jerusalem threw palm branches at him and sang hosannas.
There was also a male doctor in the room to make sure I wasn’t violating Judaism’s laws about secluding yourself with a woman.
And the whole thing was for the sake of science.
One student said I seemed pretty happy despite my excruciating back pain of the past ten days.
I lay on my stomach with my pants rolled up to my knees and my shirt around my neck while they all checked me out and oohed and aahed as the good doctor needled me and I made various pagan ejaculations about the pain.
Afterward, an Asian student asked me if I felt shy being in a room with so many women.
Shy is not the word. Would a drunkard feel shy in a bar full of quality free liquor? Would a glutton feel shy in front of a delicious and free ten-course meal? Would Bill Clinton feel shy meeting his new interns?
No, I did not feel shy. I felt like the King of the World.
R. Aharon Lichtenstein reminds and exhorts us to respond , but not to offer theodicy-based explanations for the Holocaust: link
R. Tamir Granot explores various hashkafic perspectives on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust: link
R. Hershel Schachter discusses how a Torah observant Jew should approach the Holocaust: link (audio)
Insights into Tumah and Taharah
R. Ezra Bick provides an overview of Tumaah and Taharah: link
R. Aharon Lichtenstein explains how the Halachos of Tumaah and Taharah differ from the magical and scientific approaches to purity and impurity: link
R. Michael Rosensweig illustrates how the Halachos of Tzaraas are rehabilitative in nature: link
R. Yonasan Sacks explores the relationship between the Halachos of a Metzorah and an Avel: link
R. Dovid Horwitz, based upon the teachings of R Chaim Shmuelevitz, ZTL explores the connection between a poor man, a leper, a blind person and a childless person as stated in Nedarim 64b: link
R. Yitzchak Etshalom explores the sequencing of the Halachos in both Parshiyos and their relationship to contemporary Jewish issues revolving around Jewish statehood: link
R. Berel Wein suggests that Tumaah and Taharah are concepts that have much significance to contemporary society and mores: link
R. Yissocher Frand, based upon the Tefilah of Rav mentioned in Brachos 16b-17a, as explained by R Nisson Alpert, z"l, explains why the efficacy of our Tefilos is dependent on clean speech: link
R. Baruch Simon explores the hashkafic implications of why a spread of Tzoraas is Tahor: link (audio)
Bris Milah
R. Jonathan Sacks explains why Bris Milah is the sign of the covenant: link
The Sacrifices of a Mother After Childbirth
R. Issac Bernstein z"l and R. Shlomo Riskin explains why a mother offers a Korban Olah and a Korban Chataas, but not a Korban Todah: link 1,
R. Asher Brander delves into the question why Tummas Leidah is doubled from seven days to 14 following the birth of a daughter: link
Halachic and Hashkafic Aspects of Lashon Hara
R. Dovid Gottlieb discusses Halachic and Hashkafic aspects of Lashon Hara: link (audio)
Avodah Zarah is loosely translated as idolatry or polytheism. I don’t know much about Hinduism but as I read Dr. Nathan Katz‘s memoirs of his journey from studying Hinduism to becoming an Orthodox Jew, I was surprised by some of his comments. He suggests a few times that perhaps Hinduism is not avodah zarah. He is not an authority on Judaism but most Jewish scholars do not know about Hinduism with the same depth that he, a professor of the subject, does. He writes in his book, Spiritual Journey Home: Eastern Mysticism to the Western Wall:
The question of one God versus many gods confounds every westerner who approaches Hinduism. On the apparent level, Hinduism has many gods who are depicted by murtis, statues or idols. Idolatry, of course, is not only condemned in the Biblical second commandment, it even contradicts the much less doctrinaire seven Noahide commandments that are said to be obligatory for all descendants of Noah, which is to say everyone.
Yet when the swami speaks of God as the Light, beyond all form and distinctions, this apparent level of understanding is put into question. And the more one delves into the philosophies underlying Hindu practice, the more the apparent level is exposed as a mere comic book version of a profound and serious theology. At the same time, some of the practices of Hinduism cannot be affirmed from a Jewish standpoint. (p. 42)
Most of us think of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the three western monotheisms, as though monotheism never existed in India. Some politely refer to them as the three Abrahamic faiths, as Abraham is taken to be their father, either in a literal or a spiritualized sense. These western religions are assumed to be distinct from "eastern religions," which are characterized by a cyclic view of history and multiple deities. Indeed, that is one way to make a general distinction. But it is not the only way, as I tell my students… (p. 46)
For an observant Jew, participation in this sort of dialogue raises issues of avodah zarah, a derogatory term meaning "other people’s worship," something to be avoided at all costs by observant Jews. Is Tibetan Buddhism avodah zarah, or is it another name of God?… Yet, the question is not simple. Ample halakhic authorities, from Sa’adia Gaon to Maimonides, sometimes held accommodating views regarding other religions. Somehow this liberal thread has receded into the background, and more rigid views have come to the fore. The texts do not hold a monolithic view… (pp. 114-115)
ATMAN POSTS:
The chief rabbinate already declared it not avodah zarah.
Their respective Traditions teach that there is One Supreme Being who is the Ultimate Reality, who has created this world in its blessed diversity and who has communicated Divine ways of action for humanity, for different peoples in different times and places.
The representatives of the two faith communities recognize the need for understanding one another in terms of lifestyles, philosophy, religious symbols, culture, etc.
2. It is recognized that the One Supreme Being, both in its formless and manifest aspects, has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. This does not mean that Hindus worship ‘gods’ and idols’. The Hindu relates to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation.
JOE POSTS: I’ve traveled in Asia, and I believe that if Hinduism is not Avodah Zarah then there is no AZ and there never has been. You’ve got lots of statues of gods, and people offering food to them and dressing them and doing I don’t know what else. I don’t claim to know much about Hindu theology but you clearly see people praying to god X for one thing and god Y for another thing. I don’t see why the opinions of some Hindu intellectuals should obviate the clear practice of the general public. There were Greek philosophers who also believed in one transcendent deity: did this make their religion kosher?
NACHUM LAMM POSTS: Gil, a very important distinction here is between what the Hindu priests (or, as a friend of ours who knows far more of this subject than we do puts it, "the modern orthodox Hindu intellectual") knows to be true about their religion and what the hamon am believe. But then again, I imagine many Christians have an imperfect view of their religion as well. Jews too, come to think. I wonder what halakha says about that.
Another distinction that must be made is between monotheism and pantheism (or panentheism), which is what Hinduism really is. I.e., one god, but he’s everything.
A final point that must be made is that there’s no single authority in Hinduism; in fact, there is no "religion" called "Hinduism." Hinduism is, essentially, the wide range of beliefs of the peoples of India. In fact, the Indian government doesn’t even distinguish between Hinduism and related but distinct religions such as Sikhism (clearly monotheist, by the way), Jainism, and Buddhism (which need not even have a god, and often "borrows" one or more).
JOSEPH POSTS: The Rambam (Machalos Asuros 11) writes that the Christians are plain idol worshippers.
The Noda B’Yehuda writes (YD 148) that it is a common mistake to think that Goyim are not commanded against schituf. The reality is they are. The error, he says, comes from a Rama that says you are allowed to cause a non-Jew to swear to his god, since he is not swearing to an idol but just adding his idol to Hashem, meaning schituf.
But the NB"Y points out that all this means is that the Goy does NOT declare the idol to be a deity in the oath, but the belief itself that a deity shares power with G-d is really idolatry. Only the oath is permitted, since it does not express his real belief.
Other poskim concur with the Noda Beyehuda.
And although there are some poskim who do hold that Goyim are not commanded against schituf, but it doesn’t make a difference anyway, because that only means that the Goyim are not sinning for being idol worshipers, which is between them and Hashem, but as far as we are concerned, we are commanded against schituf, and that makes them idol worshippers to us (Responsa Binyan Tzion I:63).
ILANA POSTS: I agree with the distinction several posters have made already – deep Hindu philosophy, which emphasizes an absolute unity (as Nachum Lamm says – panentheism)- is not necessarily accessible to a majority of Hindus. I suspect that in rural villages, slums, etc., worship of the various deities and images is p’shuto k’mashma’o idolatry. Rambam explains that avodah zarah was originally a corruption of avodat Hashem, and that its practitioners eventually lost awareness of the One G-d and worshipped only the lesser pantheon. I would not be surprised if many practicing Hindus are on that level.
I don’t think that ANY actual avodah zarah is quite as simplistic and stupid as what is portrayed in the Tanach (eynaim lahem v’lo yiru etc.) The intention of the nevi’im was to ridicule AZ, not to present a balanced picture. But the fact that actual AZ is more philosophically sophisticated than this caricature does not mean it isn’t avodah zarah.
Connecting to the divine through an idol (I think this is called darshan?) is a central element of Hindu practice. Whatever the theology behind it, it seems to me that this should be at least as forbidden as the golden calf.
ETAN POSTS: Nowadays avoda zara does not really exist. This is because in order for a person to be an idol worshipper he/she has to really believe in the power of that god. Nowadays, it is very rare to find a Jew that is 100% certain of G-D’s power. I mean, how many people have you ever met that sincerely believe that Moshiach is coming tomorrow and have made preparations?
The Idol must be given its status by a person that truly believes it has power. Like the Egyptians believed that the Sun could actually cause things. Nowadays, it is much more common for someone to believe in No god than any god or G-D.
Since it is so rare for anyone this day and age to believe in an idols power to cause anything, like rain, there can’t be any real avoda zara. Also, the Gemorah in Yuma even talks about how the desire for man to worship idols was taken away.
NACHUM LAMM POSTS: I’m remembering a story R’ Norman Lamm once told: He was sent to India in the 1950’s or ’60’s as part of an OU delegation to bolster the Jewish community there. He discovered something troubling: It was common practice for Indian Jewish women, at the same time as they lit candles Friday night, to make an offering to a small idol they had alongside it. (Syncreticism is very common in South and Southeast Asia, by the way.)
He shared his dilemma with us: On the one hand, this is as avoda zara as it gets. On the other- and yes, there is another- they had been doing this for hundreds, even thousands, of years. A bunch of modern rabbis from the US weren’t going to come in and just tell them to stop. So they had to think of a more nuanced approach which, of course, would stop the practice.
(The larger point, of course, was that nuanced approaches may be neccessary even in the most extreme cases.)
However, this leads me to another issue: If we say that the beliefs of the hamon am of Hindus- as opposed to the clergy- matters- and I think it does- where does it end? Do we say the same of Christians or Muslims? Do we say the same about Jews who, essentially, daven to angels or to a rebbe? (And I’m not even thinking about some of the more extreme streams of thought in Chabad today.)
In addition, if we take Joseph’s point- that the (father) god of Christians cannot be the Jewish one- how far does that go? Can’t we say, with even more justification, that Allah is not Hashem? Do we require, perhaps based on the Rambam’s idea of Chasidei Umot HaOlam, that it’s either pure Noahidism or nothing?
Isaac Balbin: Which "simple Hindus" have told you this? I think where they live, for example (say, in a monotheist country like the US) would be important.
Ilana Elzufon: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but there’s certainly avoda zara in this world that matches a more simplistic view (even if no one actually believes that a block of wood has power). Primitive religions today, and certainly back then, for example. And it seems that ancient Greeks, at least until a certain point, literally believed in anthropomorphic beings who lived on Mount Olympus and came down to make trouble every now and then. Some historians think it was a form of mass (or reinforcing) psychosis that was somewhat common back then and doesn’t really exist now.
In any event, I strongly agree with Gil. One thing that troubled me in the whole wig fiasco (well, a lot troubled me, but still) was that there wasn’t much attempt to understand theology, just practice- if that.
SIMCHA POSTS: An earlier comment by Norman Lamm is on the mark – Hinduism is truly a family of religions. There are Vaishnavas and Shaivas. Within Vaishnavism there are Sri Vaishnavas and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Within Sri Vaishnavism there are tankalai and vadakalai. This is just scratching the surface. All have differing practices and differing beliefs. The true sadhu meditating on the Ganga will practice his Hinduism differently than the brahmin priest in Sri Rangam. It is just too simplistic to say "Hinduism is ….". After much study and time in India – I can only say that the spirituality and the consciousness of the reality and presence of G-d in the life of even the most simple Hindu believer is amazing – and there is much which Jews and orthodox Hindus share in common and which we can learn from each other.
MICHA POSTS: I work in technology on Wall Street. To give you an idea of the culture, in some firms it is quipped that the way you can tell who is a Russian Jew in our department is to see who doesn’t look Indian. (Obviously an exaggeration, I’m neither.) So over the past 2 decades in the industry, I’ve talked religion with a number of Hindus.
First, there is no one Hindu party line. Personal belief is valued, and therefore the most one can speak about is a range of typical beliefs. That said…
What the book teaches is that there is one Deity. However, they consider that Deity so incomprehensible, it’s impossible to relate to it. Instead, it appears to man that there are 3.1 million gods. Each god, though, is really just one human perception of the same underlying single deity.
I mention this, despite Gil asking we not get into Hindu theology, to show the contrast to Catholocism as understood by Tosafos. It’s not "three [million] persons in one godhead", it’s one godhead that only looks like millions of persons. I think there are numerous Protestant churches that understand trinity this way, but that’s not what Tosafos was talking about.
In trying to apply halakhah to that, there are bits I don’t know:
1- The monotheism is submerged by the
notion that it’s impossible to relate to the One Deity. It therefore remains an intellectual concept and plays no role in worship.
What does that mean halachically?
Is it like the Rambam’s description of dor Enosh, who worshipped the entourage of the King and only later generations forgot the King? Or is it close enough to the notion of pirtzufim to be within Noachide law?
2- It’s quite likely that the man on the Indian street doesn’t know what the book says. He’s following the religion culturally.
Which version of the religion do we assess?
This came up with the Indian hair wig issue. The theory taught at the temple is that the petitioner is forsaking hair because it’s about beauty and physicality. However, they found that many of the people coming to the temple thought they were sacrificing their hair to the god — taqroves avodah zarah, which vould render the goods prohibited.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
