The Kanievskys Blow the Whistle on Daas Torah

My, this is interesting.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky ztz"l was proclaimed for many years to be the authoritative voice of Daas Torah. Countless people would stream to him for advice, on matters of tremendous significance. All the charedi press enthusiastically supported this, and it was unthinkable for anyone to publicly oppose him. For example, during the Covid pandemic, the US edition of Yated Ne'eman reported as follows:

In Praise of Rav Chaim
Opening summer zman for Yerushalayim's Mir yeshiva via conference call, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel spoke to thousands of talmidim about Rav Chaim Kanievsky's greatness and his inimitable guidance of the Torah world during the current crisis.
"Boruch Hashem, the hashgocha has left us nevi'ei emes including the great luminary, the wonder of the generation, the master of the entire Talmud who would be a member of the Sanhedrin if it existed, the prince of Torah whose words are all divrei kabbolah and who has no knowledge of external affairs," he said. "All his words emanate from ruach Hashem and the Torah within him is divrei Elokim chaim vekayomim la'ad."

But on several occasions over the past decade, I argued that this "Daas Torah" was a sham. Rav Chaim was a sheltered and very elderly man, with his mind clearly in cognitive decline, and was being manipulated by his family for power and money.

I was far from the only one to argue this. And when an Israeli satirical TV show produced a skit to this effect, showing him to be in cognitive decline and manipulated by his grandson, there was a furious reaction from the charedi world.

Well, lo and behold, this has now been acknowledged by none other than some of Rav Kanievsky's own children.

One aspect of Rav Chaim's genuine greatness was the simplicity of his lifestyle. However, after his passing, his meager possessions were worth a fortune. A wealthy collector offered his son Rav Yitzchak Shaul (Shuki), who lived in Rav Chaim's home and handled his affairs along with his own son Yanky, seven million dollars for Rav Chaim's handwritten notes on the Talmud Yerushalmi. 

Rav Shuki's two brothers, Rav Avraham Yeshaya Kanievsky and Rav Shlomo Kanievsky, only discovered this after negotiations were underway. Naturally, they were expecting to evenly divide the estate (the five daughters were not expecting anything). But to their surprise and dismay, Rav Shuki revealed a secret handwritten letter from Rav Chaim declaring that Shuki should be his sole heir!

The brothers turned to Beis Din. They argued to the Beis Din that when Rav Chaim wrote this letter - all the way back in 2013 - he was already in cognitive decline and was manipulated by R. Shuki into writing it!

This was indeed a very reasonable claim. First of all, it is extraordinarily unreasonable to propose that he didn't want to divide his estate evenly. Second, he clearly was in cognitive decline and being manipulated - and the sons were in a prime position to be aware of that! 

But R. Shuki and his family countered this claim. They put forward the following argument: How can you say that he was manipulated into making decisions, when he had the role of giving guidance to the entire generation? This argument may not have been logically sound, but it was strategically brilliant. The other sons had always been quite happy to play along with the idea that Rav Chaim was Daas Torah - how could they only now claim that it was a sham?

Nevertheless, the Dayanim and Rabbanim of Bnei Brak forced R. Shuki to divide the estate. It's not entirely clear if this was done as a formal verdict that the letter was invalid. The reported claim was that they insisted this to be done "to avoid a Chillul Hashem," though it's not specified exactly what that chillul Hashem would have been. It hardly seems to avoid chillul Hashem to have a handwritten letter from Rav Chaim that is being overruled.

To my mind, the greatest chillul Hashem already took place, over many years. And there is all the devastation to all those who were given faulty direction in various matters by someone who was unqualified to give it. As I've said on several occasions, the blame and responsibility for this farce is not only with Rav Chaim's family, but with every public figure, rabbi and magazine that endorsed the idea of Rav Chaim being a voice of Daas Torah for people's life decisions. No doubt they all prefer that the truth of what happened with his sons does not receive publicity.

Funny, Not Funny, And Funny

1. You're never too old to learn something new. And when it comes to relationships, it's always valuable to learn new lessons about communication. I've been married for over twenty years and I'm still learning important new lessons about how better communication can enhance a marriage. For example, the other day I learned that when you put giant millipedes in a cookie box, it's a good idea to make sure that your spouse knows that you have done that.

2. The New York Times printed an appalling antisemitic article by a Jew who is adored by the haters of Israel, the idiotic Peter Beinart, who is perhaps best known for his advocating the dismantling of the State of Israel and his blithe disregard for the catastrophic loss of life that would ensue. Now, Beinart is writing about how Jewish organizations are threatening freedom worldwide out of a desire to promote "Jewish supremacy." The usual Jewish enemies of the Jewish People have, of course, enthusiastically welcomed Beinart's latest article. An important response to Beinart was published by Prof. Jarrod Tanney. Here is another excellent comment posted by Michael Leon on Facebook:

I would submit that if you can’t see the problem with writing in the New York Times that American Jewish organizations are a “threat to freedom” in the context of accusing them of articulating a philosophy of “Jewish supremacy,” (again, imagine this language being directed at any other minority group in American society) then, respectfully, I think you’ve really lost your way and you’re letting your personal political resentments get in the way of your better judgment. 

People can disagree about Israel, about the work of American Jewish organizations, and about politics. There has to be some line drawn in the language we use to describe one another, and the language directed at the constituent organizations of minority groups. To call American Jewish organizations a “threat to freedom” is just a bridge too far and should cause some self-reflection, and same self-reflection many of you would quickly call on others to exercise. It is not justifiable to hurl these kinds of accusations against American Jews over Israel unless you believe that Jews bear collective responsibility for one another. 

As far as whether Peter’s piece is antisemitic or not, I would direct people here to the JDA, which provides, in pertinent part: 

“It is ‘classic antisemitism’ to suggest that ‘Jews are linked to the forces of evil[.]” “Antisemitism can be . . . indirect . . . or coded.” 

“[G]rossing exaggerating [Israel]’s actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews.” 

Examples related to Israel and Palestine that are on the face of it, antisemitic: “Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.” 

To accuse American Jewish organizations of being a “threat to freedom,” and to accuse them of favoring “Jewish supremacy” in their fight against antisemitism, on the pages of the most widely read American newspaper in the world, offends each of these sections of the JDA, as does blaming American Jewish organizations and Israel itself for the failures of countries like Saudi Arabia to liberalize, an utterly twisted and sour view of the Abraham Accords.

3. Here's a funny but unfortunate result of the combination of teaching about the prohibition of tzaar baalei chaim, shorthand terminology, and automatic Google translations:

 

Zionist Detachment From Reality

In the past, I've written extensively about how "pro-peace" people who want Israel to give the Palestinians a state in Judea and Samaria are in denial of reality. A negotiated peace settlement will never happen, because the Palestinian leadership is just not interested in it. A unilateral withdrawal will just result in another failed terror-state that will attack Israel, and against which Israel will face international condemnation when it defends itself. And peace between the populations will never happen, since the Palestinians are collectively in denial of the Jewish historical attachment to the land and thus simply see us as European colonialists who stole their land, while some Jews believe that no Palestinians have a right to live here unless they swear allegiance to Israel.

But much of the right-wing Zionist camp is also in denial of reality.

An article in the Jerusalem Post relates that maps of Israel were created for schools by the Tel-Aviv Municipality which include a dotted line showing the distinction between Gaza, Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. But the Education Ministry, along with the Council of Settlements and religious Zionist schools, strongly opposed them. "Students from the schools in Efrat will visit Tel Aviv during the coming school year, even though the mayor of Tel Aviv doesn't like us that much, it turns out, or sees us as not legitimate residents of Israel," said council head Oded Ravivi.

What a bizarre and disturbing detachment from reality. The dotted line simply serves to teach the political and legal reality. Judea and Samaria are certainly part of Eretz Yisrael. And in many ways they are de facto part of the State of Israel. But they are not legally part of the State of Israel. That's just a plain fact. 

And it's not just a fact according to the UN or a similarly Judeopathic body; it's according to every government of Israel that has ever existed, including all the right-wing ones. Unlike the Golan, which was annexed by Israel, Judea and Samaria were never annexed. Doing so would result in the serious problem of not giving its Palestinian inhabitants the same legal rights as every other citizen of Israel.

In fact, it's precisely the fact that these areas are not legally part of the State of Israel that the Likud, Smotrich and the charedi parties took advantage of to blackmail the present government into collapsing. They threatened not to renew the temporary legislation that extends Israeli law to Israelis living in those areas. And Bibi certainly has no plans to annex Judea and Samaria.

I saw a number of people complaining about this map and pointing out that Palestinians frequently put out maps declaring all Israel to be Palestine. I much confess that I do not understand this argument. Even though the Palestinians are dishonest, surely we should avoid doing the same? Otherwise, how can we possibly claim to have the high ground in saying that they are dishonest in their claims?

The situation with Judea and Samaria is a mess. It's currently a problem without a solution. We can't just give it to the Palestinians, because that would result in catastrophe. But on the other hand, we haven't said that it's fully and permanently ours - and nor can we do so, because that would also result in catastrophe. In the absence of a better alternative, we are simply managing the current situation as best we can until a solution miraculously appears or somehow develops. (It's not unthinkable for such a messy situation to exist - there are all kinds of territorial disputes, military occupations and stateless nations around the world.)

But it doesn't help for either side to be in denial of reality.

Who is Safeguarding Traditional Judaism?

I'll admit that it's partly my own fault. I wrote a post about the halachic license for my daughter to sing, and then I followed it with a post about the problem of not changing with the times. It was only to be expected that some people would assume that I was saying that an ancient tradition against women singing should be overturned in order to change with the times. Which in turn led some people to claim that I was rejecting Orthodox Judaism and even becoming a kofer. As one person said, the Gedolim were right to warn about me!

(Incidentally, I always find it funny when people make that claim. First of all, they are ignoring the role that the ban on my books had on my development - Rav Chaim Shmulevitz writes that Amalek only became who he was because he was rejected. Second, if I've only now become a kofer, then it means that the Gedolim were completely wrong in saying that what I wrote back then was kefirah!)

Anyway, I do need to make some clarifications. So here goes.

First of all, as I wrote explicitly, I am not comfortable with my daughter singing. I merely pointed out that there is sufficient halachic basis for stating that there is no prohibition of a woman singing. 

Second, as I thought I made clear (but apparently did not), this is not argued to be an innovative overturning of tradition as a concession to the times. Rather, the argument that Rav Lichtenstein and others make is that it is something that was never originally forbidden. The Gemara did not address singing, but rather speaking (in inappropriate situations). The primary Rishonim likewise did not make a rule about singing. It was only with the Acharonim that this rule developed. And even then there were Acharonim who were willing to maintain the approach of the Rishonim. 

In general, my approach to halacha is very conservative (with a small "c"), much more so than many Poskim. (And probably this is precisely because I'm very aware of the scale of the dangers involved, as well as the fact that I am very British and thus very traditional.) As made clear in my book Sacred Monsters, I strongly endorse the approach of Rav Herzog and others that halachos based on mistaken science are not to be changed. And I don't wear techeles, even though I am convinced that the chilazon is the Murex trunculus. As we see from the Gemara about the oven of Achnai, stability in Judaism is even more important than objective truth, and such stability requires loyalty to tradition.

It's ironic that my charedi critics were accusing me of wanting to forsake tradition. What I've been arguing for in endless posts is to preserve ancient tradition against charedi innovations. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In charedi society, "tradition" means what is done today. But for the rest of us, tradition means the traditions of Torah and Jews over millennia.

Torah tradition was to acknowledge that Chazal were not omniscient about scientific matters. Torah tradition was that the more a rabbi knows about the world, the more qualified he is to give guidance, not the reverse. Torah tradition was that a man should work for a living. Torah tradition was that a man has an obligation to raise his children with the ability to be economically self-sufficient. Torah tradition was that when you have a country, you need to rise to the occasion and develop it and protect it. And so on, and so on.

Torah tradition was also that when there are changing circumstances and new challenges, Judaism rises to the occasion. Now, in the modern world, this is a very dangerous thing. It certainly can and has been abused, leading to people abandoning halachic observance. And we must be extremely wary of exercising this power, which can have all kinds of unforeseen consequences. But, at the same time, we must recognize that saying that "we don't have the power to make any changes - even undoing the changes made a generation ago" is a very problematic position which likewise goes against tradition. 

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

While Judaism has been around for thousands of years, it has changed in various ways over history. Concepts and beliefs changed. Certain things that were permitted became forbidden, certain things that were forbidden became permitted. Sometimes the changes happened gradually and organically. On other occasions, they were created consciously, within a decision-making framework such as that of Eis la'asos l'Hashem, as per the needs of the changing times.

In the comments to the previous post, someone expressed an idea that is commonly heard: Only the great figures of antiquity such as Chazal had the more to enact change in accordance with the changing circumstances of history. We do not have such power.

The problem with this is as follows. The world doesn't stop changing just because we don't have Chazal. It keeps on changing, in ever more radical ways. If you posit that we can no longer make the kind of adjustments that Chazal could and would have done, then what you are saying is that Torah and Judaism are crippled and incapable of meeting the requirements of living in the modern world. 

Sometimes this approach of helplessness is put forward not just vis-a-vis the Sages of antiquity but even regarding those of the previous generation. After the destruction of European Jewry, leaders such as the Chazon Ish and Rav Aharon Kotler enacted a revolutionary approach of pushing people to stay in long-term Torah study, to make up for all that was lost. Nowadays, we have more than made up for it, with more people learning Torah than any time before in history. And thus some approached the Torah leaders of our generation and suggested that it was time to revoke the temporary change. In at least one case, the response was that "we don't have the power to do so."

I can understand the fear that people have of enacting change, especially in light of the freedoms of the modern world and the way in which some movements went too far in changing Judaism. But by refusing to make any changes, they are not only making a break from tradition; they are saying that Judaism cannot rise to the challenges of the era.

That's a pretty terrible and devastating thing to say.

Can My Daughter Sing?

My eldest daughter is a very talented singer (which she certainly didn't get from me). When she asked me recently if there is any halachic room for her to sing in front of men, I regretfully but confidently replied in the negative. I had never really studied the topic, since it never been of relevance or interest to me, but I knew enough to know that kol b'isha ervah (the voice of a woman is nakedness) is an explicit Gemara that is undisputed. 

So she decided to look into it herself, with a tenacity that she might have gotten from me. When she came back and reported that there are rabbis who permit it under certain circumstances, I didn't believe her. And so I decided to look into it.

I. The Biblical Picture

While there are some famous accounts in Tanach of women singing, such as the songs of Miriam and of Devorah, it can be argued that those were only sung in the presence of other women. However, there are several references in Tanach to women singing in the presence of men:

"When the [troops] came home [and] David returned from killing the Philistine, the women of all the towns of Israel came out singing and dancing to greet King Saul with timbrels, shouting, and sistrums." (I Shmuel 18:6)

Kohelet, taken to be Shlomo HaMelech, says that he had female singers:

"I further amassed silver and gold and treasures of kings and provinces; and I got myself male and female singers, as well as the luxuries of commoners—coffers and coffers of them." (Kohelet 2:8)

And we also find the following account:

"Of the sons of the priests, the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai ... they also had 200 male and female singers" (Ezra 2:61.65). 

Rashi and Metzudat David explain that these singers accompanied the people back from Bavel, to add celebration to the journey. 

Now, of course Biblical Judaism was very different from rabbinic Judaism, and we don't pasken from Tenach. Still, at the same time, we do try to harmonize halacha with Tanach. And all these verses show that it can't be unthinkable for men to listen to women sing. And, if we take a closer look at the sources in the Talmud and Rishonim, we will be able to actually understand these verses, rather than studiously avoid thinking about them, as people normally do.

II. The Talmudic Prohibition

The primary source regarding women singing is usually taken to be Berachot 24a. It begins with the following discussion:

"Rabbi Yitzḥak stated: An exposed handbreadth in a woman constitutes nakedness. Regarding which halakha was this said? If you say that it serves to prohibit looking at an exposed handbreadth, didn’t Rav Sheshet say ...Anyone who gazes (with impure intentions) upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her genitals? Rather, it is referring even to his wife, while he is reciting the Shema." (Note - I do have a question on this Gemara: why didn't it just answer simply that whereas Rav Sheshet is referring to a case of looking with impure intentions, Rav Yitzchak is talking about seeing areas that are normally uncovered even without impure intentions? Why does it need to add that it is referring to reciting Shema and qualify that it is referring to his wife? I'd be grateful if anyone can suggest an answer to this.)

The Gemara then proceeds to list three further aspects of women that are rated as nakedness, but it does not clarify whether it is adding things to the category of Rav Sheshet (i.e. things that are generally prohibited) or the category of R. Yitzchak (i.e. things that are prohibited during Shema):

"Rav Chisda said: A woman’s leg is considered nakedness...

Shmuel said: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness, as it is stated: “Sweet is your voice and your countenance is alluring” (Song of Songs 2:14). 

Rav Sheshet said: A woman’s hair is considered nakedness... "

Rosh and others explain that these additions are referring to general prohibitions, while Raavya and Ritva explain that they are things that are prohibited during the recital of Shema. 

Whichever way one explains the Gemara, an important point to clarify is what is meant by a woman's "voice." I have seen various contemporary halachic works state that various authorities "clarify" that the Gemara is referring to a woman singing. However, these are not "clarifications" - they are interpretations. They are disputed by other, earlier authorities, who understand the Gemara as referring to a woman's speaking voice, and draw no distinction between speaking and singing. 

Furthermore, these authorities have far stronger grounds for their case. The reason is that Shmuel's statement that kol b'isha erva also appears in another Talmudic passage, where it is explicitly referring to speaking rather than singing:

"Later on, Rav Nachman suggested: Let the Master send greetings of peace to my wife Yalta. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness." (Kiddushin 70b)

It may sound surprising that a non-singing voice should be considered problematic, but we find the same sentiment elsewhere in the Gemara:

"Rachav aroused lust with her name, Yael with her voice" (Megillah 15a)

But can it really be that it is prohibited to listen to a woman talk? Rashba (Berachot 24a) explains that Shmuel is referring to speech which gives rise to feelings of intimacy, which is the context of the story with Rav Nachman and Rav Yehuda.

III. The Development of the Halacha

Rav Moshe Lichtenstein has a fascinating article in which he gives an unprejudiced analysis of the halachah. He notes that Rashba, as pointed out above, explains the Gemara in accordance with its straightforward meaning, in which there is no distinction between speaking and singing; the only relevant factor is the content and context. R. Lichtenstein adds that Rambam likewise only prohibits listening to a woman's voice in cases where it is done for lust. And the third of the major Rishonim to deal with the topic, Raaviah, also says that prohibition of listening to a woman's voice does not apply when one is accustomed to it.

The Shulchan Aruch mentions the prohibition regarding a woman's voice and does not distinguish between song and speech. It is with the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Beit Shmuel and Magen Avraham) that we find a distinction being drawn between song and speech. As summarized by Sdei Chemed, most Acharonim follow in this path and place a blanket prohibition on listening to song; but Divrei Chefetz, following similar reasoning to Rashba, permits listening to song as long as it does not cause lust. Sdei Chemed says that one should follow the majority opinion, but notes that the opinion of Divrei Chefetz is cogent. This view is also cited in the famous ruling of R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg in Seridei Esh, about whom Rav Lichtenstein points out that he was particularly qualified to balance the requirements of halacha with the challenges and needs of the era.

Rav Lichtenstein summarizes the matter with a very important point about halachic methodology. He notes that when there is a halachic position which is the dominant view among the Rishonim, and still finds support among the Acharonim, and has been applied in the modern era by a prominent posek who is particularly attuned to the circumstances of the era, then it is a perfectly legitimate position to take. To this we can add that it is a view which is the most straightforward explanation of the Gemara, and also allows us to accept all the Scriptural verses about great men listening to women singing.

IV. Putting It Into Practice

Thus, there is a legitimate halachic view that a woman's voice is only forbidden when it causes lust. But this immediately raises a question: How can we decide when it is a case that causes lust? Rav David Bigman, Rosh Yeshivah of Maaleh Gilboa, has an article on this topic in which he presents five criteria via which to distinguish permissible from forbidden speech/song:

1. Context and atmosphere
2. The words being said
3. The musical style
4. Dress
5. Body language

Of course, even with these five criteria, the "devil is in the details" - there is still a lot of ambiguity and grey areas. But then, that is true of tzniyut in general. (Incidentally, Rav Bigman additionally argues that these five criteria should also apply to men singing for women!)

So, does all this mean that I am comfortable with my daughter singing in front of men?

Well, it's complicated. At the same time as being very proud of my daughter's talents, I must admit that it's a difficult adjustment for me. 

But if there's one thing that my daughter respects me for, it's my giving her honest answers. And I have to admit that she is correct - there is halachic legitimacy for it.

 

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

One Hundred Thousand!

I have to say, I'm pretty darn proud of this accomplishment. The Biblical Museum of Natural History recently hosted its 100,000th visitor since its inception! (And this doesn't include all the thousands who toured via Zoom.) Thanks to everyone on my team and to all of our supporters for making this incredible accomplishment possible!

Fluffy Spirituality vs. Real Issues

There is disturbing news today from the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court. It's a perfect example of the crucial practical difference between (re)interpreting Tisha B'Av to be about fluffy inspiration regarding vague "connection with Hashem," versus actually listening to what the Nevi'im actually said about the Fall of Jerusalem.

As pointed out, when Yirmiyah and Yeshayah (and the authors of the Kinnos) bemoaned the Fall of Jerusalem, they spoke about the disgrace and death and persecution and exile. It wasn't the loss of a proper connection with Hashem - the prophets explicitly stated that that was already lost a long time ago. And when they spoke about the sins that brought this on, the major themes that constantly recur are corruption and not helping those who need help, even (and especially) among those that are revered as important and spiritual people:

"Alas, she has become a harlot, the faithful city that was filled with justice,
Where righteousness dwelt—but now murderers...

"Your rulers are rogues and cronies of thieves,
Every one avid for presents and greedy for gifts;
They do not judge the case of the orphan,
And the widow’s cause never reaches them." (Isaiah 1:21,23)

"They are all greedy for gain; priest and prophet alike, they all act falsely." (Jer. 8:10)

Well, public exhibit number one of these sins is MK Yaakov Litzman. When Malka Leifer was due to be extradited to Australia, to stand trial for seventy-four counts of sexual abuse of her students, Litzman took advantage of his power to pressure people in the Health Ministry to falsely declare Leifer unfit for extradition. Until he was eventually caught out, he was successful for years in committing this miscarriage of justice and causing tremendous pain to the victims. Inexplicably, instead of being punished for this terrible corruption, Litzman was given a plea deal by which he admitted guilt, paid a symbolic fine, resigned from the Knesset, and only received a suspended jail sentence. Naturally, he remains a respected figure in the charedi community and there is no condemnation or even acknowledgement of his actions.

If people want to really absorb the lessons of Tisha B'Av, then instead of running fluffy inspirational presentations, they should be rallying to protest actual travesties of justice such as this one. And what kind of lesson does it send about corruption, if all that actually happens as a result is that you have to resign from the Knesset?

Of course, people will just condemn me again as a "hater of God" for saying terrible things about the Torah world. Which is a pity, because as we just heard in the haftorah before Tisha B'Av, God Himself makes it clear that uprooting such evil is much more important to Him than knowledge of Torah:

"Thus said the LORD:
Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom;
Let not the strong man glory in his strength;
Let not the rich man glory in his riches. 

"But only in this should one glory:
In his earnest devotion to Me.
For I the LORD act with kindness,
Justice, and equity in the world;
For in these I delight
—declares the LORD."

The Reformation of Tisha B'Av

I'm gasping at the realization that Tisha B'Av, like so many other things in Torah-True Judaism™, is being completely perverted from its traditional significance.

In the previous post, I criticized a commentator who announced that "Yiddishkeit" declares that Tisha B'Av is all about the loss of our connection with the Creator. But it's not just some random commentator on this blog. The title of a Tisha B'Av video by a very popular Torah lecturer is "A Day Of Yearning, Not Sadness," with the subtitle explaining that "the point of Tisha B'Av is to focus on what life would be like with the presence of God in it."

No, no, no! 

The point of Tisha B'Av is to be sad. Sad for the destruction of Jerusalem - the city (of which the Beis Hamikdash was the most significant part) and the people. Sad for the loss of sovereignty, the loss of national pride, the persecution and suffering and exile and death. That's what Eicha speaks about. And likewise to be sad about the suffering, exile and death of countless Jews over history.

Simultaneously (as sharply expressed at the end of Kinnah 17, Im tochalna). we are supposed to contemplate the cause of all this suffering. Which, according to the prophets regarding the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdash, included such sins as idolatry, oppression of the unfortunate, and resenting rebuke. And in the case of the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash and the fall of Jerusalem, it was sinat chinam - not some vague mussar idea, but sectarianism, the sort of tribalism that was actually promoted as official policy by many people in Israel over the past year.

I'm coming across endless examples of people getting Tisha B'Av wrong. The Stone Chumash, in its commentary to the Haftora that we read before Tisha B'Av, describes it as teaching about how we must lament the underlying causes of the destruction. Okay, fine. But it proceeds to speak about how we must enhance our Divine Service and knowledge of Torah. Yet if you look at what Yeshayah actually says, he talks about Hashem hating the divine service because the people were thinking that it was sufficient to be doing that, while they were simultaneously corrupted by bribery and not fighting on behalf of the oppressed. (Which is all too relevant today - but where are the mass video screenings on that topic?!)

There's a much larger theme to discuss here, about the reformation from a religion centered on important national and societal issues to one centered on personal spiritual growth, but we'll leave that for another time.

The Ignoring and Ignorance of Tisha B'Av

It's surprising to see how Tisha B'Av is ignored by secular Jews, and the ignorance of it among certain fervently religious Jews.

Secular Jews have no interest in Tisha B'Av, which they see as a part of religious Judaism. But they are very passionate about remembering the Nazi Holocaust, and there is a motto of "Never Forget." Surely, by the same token, they should care about preserving the memory of the original Holocaust, the loss of the original State of Am Yisrael.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, there are some religious Jews who are convinced that they know all about what Tisha B'Av is all about. In the comments to last week's guest post about finding meaning on Tisha B'Av, someone called Dovid posted the following comment:

So sad. Some people are just missing what life is all about. And in this case, what tisha b'av is all about. What does this author think this day is in fact about? It's supposed to be about feeling like we're missing our basic personal connection with the בורא עולם. The fact that missing this connection doesn't make us sad is even more sad. This article is the writing of a person who has no connection to what Yiddishkeit is supposed to be about... Before the בית המקדש was destroyed there was נבואה. We were so close to הקב"ה that there were those that could talk to Him. Davening, which is supposed to be a conversation with השם, was done properly before the destruction, but with the destruction we have a טענת שיכור. We are missing in our connection, and very much yes, that is why we are sad.

This is a very nice frum sentiment, but it's not actually what Tisha B'Av is all about or even mostly about or even significantly about. The writer speaks about the loss of nevuah, but Yirmiyah was a navi, and he made it very clear in Megillas Eicha what Tisha B'Av is about. Eicha does not talk about the loss of nevuah. It's about the destruction of Jerusalem - including the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the loss of Jewish sovereignty, the consequent loss of national pride (which is mentioned several times), the starvation and exile, the rape and persecution, and the terrible loss of life. Likewise, Tisha B'Av commemorates similar national tragedies over the course of our history.

Now, there is also the cause of all this destruction, attributed to various sins, and there is the hope that nashuva. But even that is not about mourning the loss of spiritual connection - it's regretting sins that were committed, which is something very different. And you can also mourn the resultant loss of spiritual connection as a result of the events of Tisha B'Av. But Tisha B'Av itself is not primarily about that.

Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. Spirituality is very important, but we live in a time when many religious Jews rate personal spiritual growth too highly, at the expense of basic national priorities. And there is a sentiment that concern about national issues is somehow not very frum. It's important for people to read Eicha and think about about what it's actually saying.

Facts or Faces?

When there's a war, how do people decide whether to support one side or the other (or neither)? They can use their intellect or their emotions. Many media outlets try to appeal to people's emotions. This is very much taken advantage of by those in Gaza sworn to Israel's destruction. They know that nothing wins condemnations of Israel like pictures of dead children. It's their most powerful weapon. When people in the West see pictures of dead children, they automatically assume that the side with the dead children are the Good Guys. This is the case even if that side has launched rockets indiscriminately at civilians and is all too happy for their own children to die and earn them political points.

Accordingly, it's essential for Palestinians to get such a picture out, whether it's real or not. And since Palestinian society is not free, it's very easy for them to concoct a story. It takes a while for the truth to come out, and the political war is won before that happens.

In the second day of the Second Intafada, the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah brought enormous political support for the Palestinians, and Israel made the mistake of initially taking responsibility, even though subsequently it turned out that Israel probably was not responsible. And then there was the "massacre" of hundreds or even thousands of Palestinians at Jenin that never actually happened. It was simply a fabrication - but by the time the truth came out, the damage had already been done. There's a long history of blood libels against the Jewish People, and these are just the latest incarnation.

Therefore, when just a few hours ago pictures were released of the "first casualty" of the latest conflict, a five-year-old girl in Gaza called Alaa Qaddum, I think that the first response should be to point out that such claims have no credibility, in light of the fact that previous such reports were simply fabricated.

At the same time, I think that there's another response that can be made. A left-leaning friend of mine posted a picture of the alleged five-year-old victim, to stir the heart-strings about the terrible effects of military action. I responded by posting this picture:

 

I added that this is a picture of the first Israeli child whose life was saved via this military action. The rocket that would have killed him, and the terrorist that would have fired it, were destroyed by Israel.

You can argue with facts and logic or by tugging at emotions. If people want to argue by tugging at emotions, then two can play at that game.

A Different Meaning of Meaning

A Facebook friend of mine, Seth Chalmer, wrote a post a few years ago about Tisha B'Av which I found very insightful, and helpful for people who have a hard time with finding meaning in Tisha B'Av or other aspects of Judaism. With his permission, I'm sharing it here:

Tomorrow lots of observant Jews will ask one another, "Did you have a meaningful fast?" Or (if they laudably don't assume everyone fasts, since you never know who has a medical issue or just struggles with that observance) they may ask, "Did you have a meaningful Tisha B'Av?"

 

Asking any individual Jew this question, in either formulation, is based on an interesting assumption. The assumption: that having a meaningful personal experience is highly relevant to Tisha B'Av.

 

Now, on a surface level, the assumption is obviously true. Rabbinic sources extensively discuss how the day's restrictions and observances are intended to give us the experience of mourning. (Don't study Torah, it will make you happy, etc.) But look past that for a moment to reflect: if the personal experience were really the point, shouldn't the halakhic details be subverted to the individual's personality and the things that would prompt mourning in her?

 

I am one of countless Jews for whom the restrictions of Tisha B'Av are very poorly designed, if the point is to prompt mourning. Fasting doesn't make me feel sad at all; it makes me feel thirsty, headachy, very fatigued, and too distracted to think or feel much of anything. Certainly it doesn't increase my sensitivity about hunger, or make me feel empathetic. I feel *least* empathetic when hangry. And not wearing leather shoes has, I promise you, no effect on my mood.

 

Now, can I work myself up into sadness on Tisha B'Av? Sure. I can think hard about sad things. But the point is, my ability to do so is not enhanced or empowered, and probably actually lessened, by the observances of the day.

 

So am I against these observances? Do I chafe at them? Do I reinterpret them or customize them to maximize my own personal experience?

 

God forbid. 

 

Because that's not the main point. It's an auxiliary point, it has value, but it's not the true point. We may connect Tisha B'Av to our personal tragedies, but the essence of the day is in relation to *national* Jewish tragedies. That's why we all do this on the same day together; that's why we keep on obeying rules about leather shoes that don't make any sense to our generation given advances in modern footwear; that's why I fast even though I'm not one of the Jews for whom that feels sad or empathy-enhancing. That's why I take the rabbinic literature (and my rabbis at shul) with a hefty dash of salt when they talk about how the laws of Tisha B'Av are supposed to make us feel. They're talking, I think, about our feelings collectively, corporately, not about the individual in himself. And if you want proof, just ask your rabbi if you can observe Tisha B'Av on a different day, or with a different set of restrictions, to meet your individual needs.

 

And that's also why it feels so odd to me when people ask whether I had a meaningful Tisha B'Av. The answer is: *in the experiencing of it*, not at all! I had a really unpleasant day and not even in any form that was sad, reflective, emotionally intense, or particularly mindful in any way. But if I just say that, it sounds like I don't value the day, and I truly do. I value it before I do it; I value it after I have done it; I value it while I muddle through it; I value it not for its immediate experiential value but the same way I value the existence of Pesach even in November. I value Tisha B'Av being observed by Jews worldwide and I value being a part of that. Because I value the vast, beautiful, complex, intergenerational, national / tribal / extended family art project that is Judaism, altogether.

 

I have been completely in love with that art project for a dozen years now and my passion has not abated. And I hear this question about having a personal experience on any given holiday and I think: what, isn't just being part of this incredible production meaning enough? I should expect myself to personally "have a meaningful day" as if the existence of the meaning depended on my experiencing it? As if it were possible to do it without it being meaningful? The day was already phenomenally meaningful whether I paid any attention to that meaning or not. It would be fragile meaning indeed if it depended on my mental state. Its meaning transcends me and my experience. I am a cell in the body of the people Israel; observing Tisha B'Av I put national mourning into my body, I make it physically real. That's more impressive to me than making it emotionally real. Combined with other Jews everywhere we make the day remarkably physically different. That's a massively powerful project no matter what any one of us experiences inwardly. 

 

Personal emotional meaning I actually know how to do for myself, thank you very much. And if that's my goal, then frankly I can do it a lot better than any Jewish holiday can provide. I can listen to the right song, at the right time, walk in the right kind of place, whatever. All customized for me. If Judaism presents itself as a source of *personal, individual* meaning, then it will always lose. Every time. It loses for me, and I'm a self-selected observant Jew. (How much more so will it lose for secular people.) If personal experience were the heart of the offer, I for one would turn Tisha B'Av down. And most of the rest of the Jewish year too. (Okay, Shabbos and Sukkos I'd keep.)

 

But as part of the whole sweep of observant Jewish life, a theatrical production on a global set and a runtime of millennia, with all my ancestors, contemporary fellow Jews, and descendants all in the ensemble, and with the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe as an audience/director/designer/co-star/protagonist/antagonist/lover? That I can't find anywhere else. That, and only that, keeps me coming back, and gladly. That's enough, much more than enough, to keep me fasting every Tisha B'Av.

 

So, to answer your question: yes, of course I "had" an inherently meaningful Tisha B'Av. 

 

And so did everyone else, whether they knew it or not.

Logical Fallacies about Logical Fallacies

Over the last year or so, I've been involved in a ridiculous discussion with a former museum supporter, whom I shall call Tuck. I'm sharing it here partly out of pent-up frustration, but also because of its educational value - Tuck repeatedly claimed that I am engaging in logical fallacies, but in fact he was consistently engaged in logical fallacies about logical fallacies.

It's about Covid. Tuck took the vaccine, but hated laws about masks and vaccines (he is a very, very passionate libertarian). Gradually he decided that the vaccine was dangerous, with a risk/benefit reward that was only justifiable for certain adults, and regretted giving it to his children.

Now, there are two ways that one could decide that the vaccine is not suitable for children. One could be a medical professional who genuinely understands all the issues and reaches that conclusion. Or, one could be a layman relying on the opinion of others.

I am personally not a medical professional. So I rely on the global consensus of medical professionals that the vaccine is safe. It's theoretically possible that they are wrong, but that is unlikely. And there is no reason to suspect a global conspiracy, especially since I know some medical professionals personally (one of my brothers-in-law is a PhD immunologist and he isn't being paid off by anyone, or at least that's what he tells me). 

Tuck repeatedly argued that I was committing a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. I pointed out that appeals to authority are not a fallacy, provided the authority is actually an authority; furthermore, following authority is by far the most reasonable course of action for people who are not authorities. 

Tuck then challenged me as being a hypocrite, since with the ban, I went against the consensus of authorities (the Gedolim), whereas here I was arguing in favor of following the authorities. I had to repeatedly point out that there is no comparison, since my claim with the ban was that the charedi Gedolim were not authorities in such matters.

Tuck himself is not a medical professional. He has expertise with numbers, which he believes renders himself qualified to judge the medical statistics. But with something as complicated as a global pandemic and a vaccine, knowing numbers doesn't help - you have to know which facts are actually correct and which statistics are actually meaningful. Tuck would constantly send me articles and interviews with people challenging the efficacy or safety of the vaccine. But, without exception, these people were either non-professionals, or nutcases, or both! And the articles were full of nonsense - confusions of correlation with causation and so on.

One person was proclaimed as being a "very well respected scientist" but was actually a computer scientist that was not at all respected. Another "medical expert", about whom Tuck sarcastically commented that I would reject on the grounds that anyone who doesn’t worship the conventional thinking is by definition a conspiracy theorist, really is a conspiracy theorist who has claimed that drugs and AIDS in the US were planted by the Russians to weaken resistance to a Soviet invasion and Obama healthcare reforms were a conspiracy to euthanize the disabled and elderly. 

The final straw for me was when he sent me an article by a Dr. Naomi Wolf about how the vaccine will cause a genocide. He sarcastically asked if I would just write it off as further nonsense. Within two seconds of scanning the article it was obvious that Dr. Naomi Wolf - whose doctorate was in English Literature, not medicine! - was unhinged. And a simple Google search showed that the author was way crazier than I even expected. She claimed to have overheard a conversation from an Apple employee about secret tech to implant nanoparticles via vaccines that will enable people to travel through time. 

I pointed this out to Tuck. And he replied that, following Rambam, he evaluates ideas on their own merits, not based on the reputation of those who state them.

Of course, this is a completely invalid application of Rambam's principle. Rambam's principle is about actually evaluating an idea - weighing up whether it is true and logical and supported by evidence or false and opposed by evidence. But Tuck had not actually evaluated whether Wolf's article, or any of the others, were true. He had not researched whether the claims about medical science were accurate and nor was he even qualified to do so. He simply liked such articles because they supported his position.

Why would a person choose to respect the opinions of a few nutcases over that of the global consensus of actual experts? Well, in this case, the reason was perfectly obvious. As a staunch libertarian, Tuck was passionately opposed to the enforcement of Covid regulations. The government were the Bad Guys. And so he both put himself in circles with conspiracy theorists who deluged him with anti-vax propaganda, and was all too willing to accept claims which made the government look even more evil.

Tuck kept sending me quotes from crazies, which I kept dismissing. He insisted that I was being closed-minded. Having lost all patience, I responded that the fact that I considered him to be spouting endless nonsense does not necessarily mean that I am closed-minded - it could just be that he really was spouting endless nonsense.

But while Tuck committed a number of logical fallacies, I myself was clearly committing an enormous fallacy, too. It's well expressed in the following story:

I am totally that guy!

(Note: I will not let the comments section be taken over by anti-vaxxers. I believe in free speech, and they are free to open up their own blog and rant against vaccines to their heart's content.)

Rationalism Reviewed

The latest issue of Tradition has a review of my new book Rationalism vs. Mysticism: Schisms in Traditional Jewish Thought, by Rabbi Alex Ozar. Interestingly, he present a sustained critique that my approach is not rationalist enough! He also argues that my justifications of the charedi community banning the rationalit approach are inadequate. This reminds me of the time that I got into a heated argument with the prominent rabbi of a Young Israel where I was giving a lecture, in which he was yelling that the Gedolim had no right to ban my books and I was countering that they absolutely did!

While I will leave it to you to decide whether his critiques of my position are correct, there is one part of the review which I must comment upon:

"As written, Slifkin’s book admirably serves its purpose in securing a space for traditionalist Jews inclined toward rationalism—they, at least, will know that they stand on firm (and holy) ground. For most readers of Tradition, I would expect, this is unnecessary..."

I would agree that for most readers of Tradition this is unnecessary. However, I would like to point out that none other than one of the permanent writers in Tradition itself is a staunch anti-rationalist who has insisted, in the pages of Tradition, that it is forbidden to believe that Chazal based laws on scientific errors (and that spontaneous generation has not been disproved!) and who also argues that Rambam "does not explicitly deny the possibility" that some people can perform magic. 

In addition, I would like to say that even for those who already know that the rationalist approach stands on firm theological grounds, I believe that it is still important and enlightening for them to see the extent to which the rationalist and mystical approaches diverge - which is far, far greater than people believe.

The review is freely available online at this link, and you can buy Rationalism vs. Mysticism directly from the museum website at this link (please do NOT buy it on Amazon!), with free shipping in the US.