The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation by Jacob Neusner

Saul Lieberman writes in 1984, shortly before his death:

I HAVE BEFORE MY EYES A Preliminary Translation and Explanation of three tractates of the Palestinian Talmud (hereafter TP), vid. Horayot, Niddah and Abodah Zarah (hereafter AZ). In his Forward to Horayot and Niddah,’ the translator claims that he used the editio princeps of TP,2 Codex Leiden, the Geniza fragments recently discovered, the parallels of TP,3 etc. Since all this material is now easily accessible these claims would seem credible.

However, it would seem that the translator did not know that a different text of TP Horayot is appended to the Babylonian Talmud of that tractate, a fact with which any rabbinic student is familiar.4 Hence one begins to doubt the credibility of the translator. And indeed after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by the translator’s ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject matter with which he deals, as we shall presently demonstrate…

The right place for our English translation is the waste basket. A preliminary translation is not a mockery translation, not a farce of an important ancient document. In fairness to the translator I must add that his various essays on Jewish topics are meritorious. They abound in brilliant insights and intelligent questions. In the beginning, when he was well aware of his ignorance of the original languages, he relied on responsible English translations of rabbinic texts (like those of Soncino Press). Later, however, he began to make his own translations of rabbinic sources. Whenever the translator deviates from the accepted English translations already available, his renderings are all, more or less, of the same character. Our present translation is the crown of them all.

Posted in Talmud | Comments Off on The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation by Jacob Neusner

Pets on Shabbat, Rabbi Morenu, and Epidemics

Orthodox Jews traditionally have not kept pets.

Marc B. Shapiro blogs:

* R. Moshe did not regard pets as muktzeh. It would thus be permissible to handle your own cat that lives in your home, but not to do so with a stray cat or with an animal on a farm, as they are not pets.

* “A widow is forbidden to raise a dog, because of suspicion [people will suspect her of bestiality].”

As far as I can tell, there is agreement among the aharonim that this law also applies to a divorced woman, but there is no consensus about a single woman. There also seems to be agreement that there is no problem with a female dog.

Despite the fact that this halakhah is found in the Shulhan Arukh, there is no question that it is ignored in the Modern Orthodox world, either because people don’t know about it or because they find it far-fetched or even offensive.

* In general, dogs don’t come out looking too well in rabbinic literature…

* In Louis Jacob’s autobiography, Helping With Inquiries, pp. 54-55, he writes:

“Before leaving my account of the Gateshead Kolel, I feel it would be incomplete unless I said something more about Rabbi Dessler, one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. Until he became the spiritual guide of the Ponievezh Yeshivah in B’nai B’rak, near Tel Aviv, Rabbi Dessler was the moving spirit behind the Kolel and his wise counsel was sought by its members even when he had moved to Israel. He was physically small and had a full but neatly trimmed beard until he went to Ponievezh, when he allowed it to grow long. He had studied in his youth at the famed Musar School in Kelm, presided over by the foremost disciple of Reb Israel Salanter, R. Simhah Züssel. He married the daughter of Reb Nahum Zeev, son of Reb Simhah Züssel. Reb Nahum Zeev was also an outstanding Musar teacher. He earned his living as a merchant in Koenigsberg, where he dressed and conducted his life in Western style. His wife and daughters dressed in the latest fashion. He even had a dog. Rabbi Dessler told us of the occasion when a Polish rabbi, in Koenigsberg to consult a physician, was invited by Reb Nahum Zeev to be a guest in his home. Witnessing the Western style in which the home was conducted, the rabbi was careful to eat very little, suspecting that the food was not completely kosher. Late at night, the Polish rabbi was awakened from his sleep by the sound of bitter weeping from a nearby room. Thinking someone needed help, the rabbi went on tiptoe to the room from which the sobs were coming only to hear the “Westernised gentleman” sobbing his heart out as he chanted the verse from Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanity; all is vanity.” Needless to say, after this experience, the rabbi had no further qualms about eating at Reb Nahum Zeev’s table.”[8]

I cite this passage because it reports that that R. Ziv had a dog, and this information must have come from R. Dessler.

R. Ziv was a very great man and there is a lot more that can be said about him. R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg reports that when he lived in Germany, not only did he dress in a modern fashion, but he also trimmed his beard and shook the hands of women. R. Yosef Yozel Horowitz of Novardok was very upset about these things and asked the young R. Weinberg, at this time serving as a rabbi in Pilwishki, to rebuke R. Ziv. R. Ziv told R. Weinberg, “What does he want from a Jew in Germany? I am just a simple Jew and I do not wish to cause ahillul ha-Shem. I behave like the other German Orthodox Jews.”

* In years past there were two understandings of how diseases were spread. One is known as the Miasma Theory, and I can do no better than to quote the opening lines of the Wikipedia entry on the topic: “The miasma theory (also called the miasmatic theory) is an obsolete medical theory that held diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a miasma (μίασμα, ancient Greek: ‘pollution’), a noxious form of ‘bad air’, also known as night air. The theory held that the origin of epidemics was due to a miasma, emanating from rotting organic matter.”

The other theory is Germ Theory, which in non-scientific language must be regarded as a fact. Germ theory explains the spread of disease as coming about through the spread of living organisms. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, both the Miasma Theory and Germ Theory (in earlier versions) found supporters in the scientific community.

In an article published in 1851,[16] Joseph Loewy claims that the amora Samuel accepted the Miasma Theory. He calls attention to Bava Metzia 107b: “And the Lord shall take away from thee all sickness (Deut. 7:15). . . . Samuel said: This refers to the wind. Samuel follows his views, for he said: All [illness] is caused by the wind.”

* For R. Zvi Yehudah Kook, the “original sin,” as it were, of Agudat Israel is precisely that it was founded by a layperson (Rosenheim), and R. Zvi Yehudah contrasts this to Mizrachi which was founded by a great Torah scholar, R. Isaac Jacob Reines. See Be-Ma’arakhah ha-Tziburit (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 76. In his eulogy for Rosenheim, R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, Li-Frakim (2016 edition), p. 607, also refers to him as the founder of Agudat Israel. Yet it is more correct to say that Rosenheim was the major force in the founding of Agudat Israel, as he cannot be identified as the organization’s sole founder.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy, Pets | Comments Off on Pets on Shabbat, Rabbi Morenu, and Epidemics

POST-MOSAIC ADDITIONS TO THE TORAH?

Marc B. Shapiro blog:

* One of the biggest theological changes in Orthodoxy in the last decades—perhaps the sources collected in Limits were significant in this regard—is the acknowledgment that asserting limited post-Mosaic additions to the Torah is not to be regarded as heretical.[6] In Limits and subsequent blog posts I have recorded around thirty-five rishonim and aharonim who claim that Ibn Ezra believed in post-Mosaic additions. When you throw in R. Judah he-Hasid, R. Avigdor Katz, R. Menahem Tziyoni, and other sources I referred to in Limits, it is hard to convince people this is a heretical position, despite what Maimonides’ Eighth Principle states. It is also hard to convince them that this matter has been “decided” in accordance with Maimonides’ view. R. Mordechai Breuer states flatly that the legitimacy of Ibn Ezra’s opinion cannot be denied.

* Yet fifty years ago, speaking about these opinions would have been regarded as incredibly controversial, if not heretical in many eyes. Today, it seems like it is no big deal, and I have in mind not just Modern Orthodox circles but in the intellectual haredi world as well. It is significant that it its affirmation of Torah mi-Sinai, the Rabbinical Council of America did not deny the existence of views that speak of small additions to the Torah, but instead noted the great difference between these views and modern critical approaches. Here is the relevant paragraph (the entire statement can be seen here).

“When critical approaches to the Torah’s authorship first arose, every Orthodox rabbinic figure recognized that they strike at the heart of the classical Jewish faith. Whatever weight one assigns to a small number of remarks by medieval figures regarding the later addition of a few scattered phrases, there is a chasm between them and the position that large swaths of the Torah were written later – all the more so when that position asserts that virtually the entire Torah was written by several authors who, in their ignorance, regularly provided erroneous information and generated genuine, irreconcilable contradictions. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, none of the above mentioned figures would have regarded such a position as falling within the framework of authentic Judaism.”

Without getting into the content of this statement which I believe is generally correct,[8] what is important for our purposes is that I do not believe such a statement would have been issued even fifty years ago, as it acknowledges the existence of “remarks by medieval figures” that are at odds with Maimonides’ Eighth Principle.[9]

What are we to make of the approach to Torah mi-Sinai in R. Judah he-Hasid’s “school”? Weitman suggests a few possibilities, one of which is that they believed in the existence of a “continuing revelation,” namely, that the Torah continued to be revealed even after the initial revelation to Moses. This would be an extension of the talmudic view that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua. While some might find this approach quite provocative, I think it is actually the meaning not just of R. Judah’s “school” but of Ibn Ezra and pretty much everyone who believed in intentional post-Mosaic additions. That is, they believed that these were added by prophets, as they would have regarded as completely unacceptable, indeed heretical, the notion that the Torah contains non-prophetic verses.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on POST-MOSAIC ADDITIONS TO THE TORAH?

Meir Kahane At Brandeis University

Posted in Meir Kahane | Comments Off on Meir Kahane At Brandeis University

Living As an Orthodox Jew at the Highest Levels of Government || Dr Dov Zakheim

According to Wikipedia:

Dov S. Zakheim (born December 18, 1948) is an American businessman, writer, politician, and former official of the United States government. In the Reagan administration, he held various Department of Defense positions.

Dov S. Zakheim was born on December 18, 1948 in Brooklyn, New York. He earned his bachelor’s degree in government from Columbia University in 1970, and his doctorate in economics and politics at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University. He is Jewish.

Zakheim was an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, where he was presidential scholar.

Zakheim served in various Department of Defense posts during the Reagan administration, including Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and Resources from 1985 to 1987. There was some controversy in both the US and Israel over Zakheim’s involvement in ending the Israeli fighter program, the IAI Lavi. He argued that Israeli and U.S. interests would be best served by having Israel purchase F-16 fighters, rather than investing in an entirely new aircraft.

Zakheim was signed a letter to Clinton about Iraq.[4][5][6] During the 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Zakheim served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Living As an Orthodox Jew at the Highest Levels of Government || Dr Dov Zakheim