Torah and science

I was going to write up a treatment of Rav Kook's position on Torah and Science but Rav Chanan Morrison beat me to it. He did such a great job, all I need to do is cut, paste and enjoy:

Contradictions between Science and Torah appear particularly irreconcilable with respect to the Torah's descriptions of the creation of the world and the beginnings of mankind. Are these accounts meant to be taken literally? Should we believe that the universe came into existence 5,760 years ago? Must we reject the theory of evolution out of hand?

In a letter written in 1905, Rav Kook responded to questions concerning evolution and the geological age of the world. He put forth four basic arguments:

1. Even to the ancients, it was well known that there were many periods that preceded our counting of nearly six thousand years for the current era. According to the Midrash, "God built worlds and destroyed them", before creating the universe as we know it. Even more amazing, the Zohar states that there were other species of human beings, in addition to 'Adam' who is mentioned in the Torah.

2. We must be careful not to regard current theories as proven facts, even if they are widely accepted. Scientists constantly raise new ideas, and all of the scientific explanations of our time may very well come to be laughed at as imaginative drivel.

3. The fundamental belief of the Torah is that God created and maintains everything. The means and methods by which He acts, regardless of their complexity, are all tools of God, Whose wisdom is infinite. Sometimes we specifically mention these intermediate processes, and sometimes we simply say, 'God formed' or 'God created'.

For example, we find that the Torah writes, 'King Solomon built'. The Torah does not bother to mention that Solomon spoke with his advisors, who in turn gave instructions to the architects, who gave the plans to the craftsmen, who managed and organized the actual building by the workers. It is enough to say, 'Solomon built'. The rest is understood, and is not important. So too, if God created life via the laws of evolution, these are details irrelevant to the Torah's main message: the ethical teaching of a world formed and governed by an involved Creator.

4. The Torah concealed much with regard to the process of creation, speaking in parables and ciphers. Creation - referred to as "Ma'aseh Breishit" by the Kabbalists - clearly belongs to the esoteric part of Torah [see Chagiga 11b]. If it were all to be understood literally, what secrets would there be? If everything was openly revealed, what would be left to be explained in the future?

God limits revelations, even from the most brilliant and sublime prophets, according to the ability of that generation to absorb the information. For every idea and concept, there is significance to the hour of its disclosure. For example, if knowledge of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and around the sun had been revealed to primitive man, his courage and initiative may have been severely retarded - by fear of falling. Why attempt to build tall buildings on top of an immense ball whizzing through space at high speeds? Only after a certain intellectual maturity, and scientific understanding about gravity and other compensating forces, were human beings ready for this knowledge.

The same is true regarding spiritual and moral ideas. The Jewish people struggled greatly to explain the concept of Divine providence to the pagan world. Of what interest should the actions of an insignificant human be to the Creator of the universe? The idea of the transcendental importance of our actions is a central principle in Judaism, and was spread throughout the world by her daughter religions. But if mankind had already been aware of the true dimensions of the cosmos, and the relatively tiny world that we inhabit - could this fundamental concept of Torah have had any chance in spreading? Only now, with our greater confidence in our power and control over the forces of nature, is awareness of the grandiose scale of the universe not an impediment to our basic ethical values.

To summarize:

• Ancient Jewish sources also refer to worlds prior to the current era of six thousand years;
• One should not assume that the latest scientific theories are eternal truths;
• The purpose of the Torah is a practical one - to have a positive moral influence on humanity, and not as a primer for physicists and biologists. It could very well be that evolution, etc., are the tools by which God created the world.
• Some ideas are intentionally kept hidden, as the world may not be ready for them, both psychologically and morally.

[adapted from Igrot vol. I, pp. 105-7]

Democracy and Halacha

A post on DB quickly descended into a debate about the application of halacha to the state of Israel. What struck me was the consistent use of the following argument:

"The state of Israel is not a religious state. The majority of its citizens are not religious. Therefore the proposal of halachic solutions to its problems is not necessary and even harmful. Rather, there is no obligation to try and push the state closer to halachic standards."

On a side note, I also learned that DB is a secret Satmar chasid when it suits his PC western conscience.

[UPDATE: Due to comments. I would like to point out that I am NOT revealing Dovbear's identity. I have no idea who he is or what community he belongs to. I was just saying that he HOLDS like a Satmar chassid when it suits him.]

I have heard the above argument before and always found it to be a funny one. Why is distance from perfection seen as permission to stop striving for perfection? The Torah should inform all areas of our life and to give oneself a blanket exemption from looking at the world through the lens of Torah seems dangerous. I would mind so much if I was actually confronted with arguments that the Torah does not want us to transfer the Arabs out. But the basic premise was that the Torah should not be a source for how the state of Israel behaves.

There was only one poster that tried to use sources. Jewropean claimed that transfer would go against the concept of kavot habriot (human dignity). I tried to explain to him that human dignity can sometimes override a rabbinic statute but has no force against a Torah law. He retorted with a gemara in Shabbat 81b where it is stated that human dignity overrides a negative Torah commandment. If you look at Rashi, he explains the negative command is the mitzva not to deviate from the rulings of the sages and this is only a heter to override a rabbinic enactment under certain circumstances. At least he tried to make a Torah argument.

The question is: Does the torah want us to strive towards a halachic state? Maybe the bigger question is what is the relationship between Torah and democracy. The earliest source that I have found that touches on this topic is the Ritva who writes (חידושי הריטב"א, עבודה זרה ל"ו, ב):

בכל תקנה שרוב הציבור והוא החשוב במניין ובחכמה, הסכימו בה אף-על-פי שהמיעוט
עומדים וצווחים, הרי הם חייבין במה שהסכימו הרוב, ובלבד שיהא נראה לרוב ההוא דיש
בגזירה ההיא תקנה לציבור ומתקנים כן על הכל בשווה.

In every enactment that the majority (that is greater not just in quantity but also in wisdom) establishes. In spite of the fact that a loud minority protests the enactment. The minority is obligated to accept the position of the majority as long as the majority does so for the greater communal good and that the enactment applies to all of the population equally.

We see here that the majority does have legislative rights and that a minority is obligated by what the majority legislate. This is assuming that the legislation is non-discriminatory and is well-intended (I assume this would exclude enactments achieved through corrupt means).

Maran HaRav Kook Zt”l also writes (משפט כהן סימן קמ"ד):

נראים הדברים שבזמן שאין מלך, כיון שמשפטי המלוכה הם גם כן מה שנוגע למצב הכללי של האומה חוזרים אלה הזכויות של המשפטים לידי האומה בכללה ו... גם כל שופט שקם בישראל דין מלך לו לעניין כמה ממשפטי המלוכה ובייחוד למה שנוגע להנהגת הכלל

It seems that at times when there is no king, since the halachot of kingship relate to the general status of the nation, then the rights of [the king] return to the nation as a whole ... thus any judge that is appointed in Israel has the status of a king vis-à-vis several powers [of a king] and especially vis-à-vis the leadership of the nation as a whole.

When there is no Navi or other method to choose a king, then the people themselves are the source of authority. This has been interpreted by some to give a blanket heter for total democratic freedom. This is actually not the case. Rav kook saw a democratically elected government to be an agent of the Torah in the same way that a king should be. The authority of such a government can not supersede Torah law and still be considered legitimate. The Rambam is clear in hilchot melachim (ג , י):

ואין צריך לומר אם גזר המלך לבטל מצוה, שאין שומעין לו

It does not even need to be said that if the king decreed to abrogate a mitzva, we do not listen to him.

See also Rav Shapiro's psak regarding a similar issue. Also see Rambam hilchot sanhedrin 3:8.

In the end, democratic government is a place-holder for true kingship. It, like a king, is obligated to uphold the halacha and to create a Torah-true society. When is veers of this path, it looses its legitimacy. This does not mean that anarchy should prevail, C"V. It just means that it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to create a society that will choose leaders that will uphold the Torah and its values. We must not confuse the appreciation we have for democracy as a system of government with a false appreciation for democratic values (when these values conflict with the Torah). A halachic state is something we pray and hope for. Someday, hopefully soon, it will be closer to being a reality.

The nature of the blogosphere

I am pretty new to the whole blog thing. My impression so far is that the most popular blogs seems to be MO blogs where an actual Torah source is a rare find. To be fair there are many UO blogs that are equally barren of sources. These tend to be the more extreme ones. On the whole MO gamut, the only blog I found that is consistently intelligent is hirhurim (Although I wonder whether it should be classified as MO).

My question is: Why do the MO bring so few sources. Is it that they are generally ignorant in learning? Is it that they don't really care what the Torah says? I find that whenever someone takes a strong Torah position on these blogs, the MOs write something like: "you can use the Torah to uphold any position" or sometimes they descend into ad-homonym attacks.

Another aspect of these blogs is a tremendous hostility towards Chareidim. GH recently tried to analyze the causes of this hostility (in the MO world in general, not just in the blogosphere) but the post ends up almost justifying hatred towards chareidim. Is this just a result of the hatred of the Am HaAretz for the talmid chacham? I don't really think so. I don't sense a hatred towards Torah learning per say in any of these blogs but rather an aversion to any definitively non-PC positions taken from the Torah. What comes to mind is DB's tremendous hostility to Torah-based conservative political positions such as opposing abortions or right-wing Israeli politics. In other words, as long as Torah learning deals only in the abstract, it is accepted and even loved.

A third aspect that I have noticed is a tremendous hostility towards kiruv efforts of any kind. I am not talking about criticisms of one method or another but rather a total disdain for kiruv as a concept. I think that many of the MO blogs are FFB and I often find myself doubting whether they would even be religious if they were not born into it. So what is it? self-hate? embarrassment about some of the arguments the kiruv organizations make in the name of Torah? Are these people really more tolerant towards secular atheist democrats than they are towards other groups of religious Jews?

I sometimes even find myself wondering what kind of religious life these individuals lead. Do they learn regularly? What do they learn? Do they have spiritual goals? What are they? I am pretty fascinated by this virtual community of obviously intelligent people who remain mostly anonymous to each other.

If anyone has any answers, I would love to hear them.

Reality check

Godolhador writes:

So I spent part of Succot in the occupied Terror-tories, a.k.a Yehudah veShomron, in a typical middle of the road dati-leumi type Yishuv. The view was beautiful, and the people were friendly. They all seemed nice and normal, but on speaking to them, they were very brain washed about the overall situation. Of course they accused me of being brain washed by the liberal US media, so I didn't get very far in my arguments with them. But they believe passionately in our right to keep the territories, no matter what. When I asked them what are we going to do with 1 million hostile Palestinians, they responded that they don't have to live here and they can go someplace else. Where exactly? Dearborn? Lebanon? Ridiculous.

Lets take a look at these issues from 2 perspectives. 1st a pure ideal Torah perspective. 2nd a "realistic" perspective.

The Halacha is clear that unless gentiles meet certain criteria, they may not live in the land of Israel. There is a basic disagreement among the rishonim regarding what these criteria are. On the one end, the Rambam (Avoda Zara, 10:9) holds that unless a gentile accepts all 7 noahide laws in front of a Beit-Din he may not live in the land. On the other end, there is the Raavad and Rashi who hold that if the gentile does not practice idolatry then he may live in the land.

There is another condition though, and this is one that ALL rishonim agree on. If a gentile meets the above criteria, then he must still accept upon himself מס ועבדות (Special tax and servitude). The servitude that they must accept is described by the Rambam (Melachim, 6:2):

והעבדות שיקבלו--היא שיהיו נבזים ושפלים למטה, ולא ירימו ראש בישראל, אלא יהיו כבושים תחת ידם; ולא יתמנו על ישראל, לשום דבר בעולם.

The servitude means that they should be lowly and not lift up their head in Israel, rather be conquered by [Israel]. And they should not be appointed to any position of authority over a Jew, under any circumstances.

Based on these sources Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook Zt"l paskened that a Muslim Arab may live in the land as long as he accepts that the land belongs to the Jews and that he is living there only through our good graces.

If we are to apply these principles to the current situation, the Torah demands that the vast majority of Arabs be driven out of the land. Those who pledge loyalty to the Jewish state can be allowed to stay through the lenient opinions of Rashi and Raavad.

From a practical perspective, GH claims that the transfer of 1 million Arabs from the land is not realistic. This ignores the fact that transfer of populations has worked several times this century (Poland/Germany, Czech/Germany, Greece/Turkey, India/Pakistan). It also ignores a Haifa university study that showed (in June/04) that 64% of the Jews in Israel support the transfer of Arabs. The same study showed the 25% of Jews would vote for the Kach party (!) if such a party was allowed to run in the Israeli "democracy." This means that any claim that there is no support for transfer in the Israeli public is absolutely false. What is missing is a leader that can turn these potential votes into actual action. As far as the logistics of such a transfer are concerned. Well, we already saw in 48 and 67 how fast the Arabs know to run when they are convinced the Jews will actually use the strength that Hashem granted us.

Also, we can not ignore that this is really the only choice we have left. The Oslo path has already led to disaster after disaster. thousands murdered, even more injured, tens of thousands of lives ruined. The expulsion of Jews from Azza will just motivate the murderers to work a little harder. Basically, the path of Israel ever since the Yom Kippur war has been a dismal failure. So why not support that which the Torah demands? That is something only godolhador can answer himself.

The fruit and the tree

In the Parsha (1:11), Hashem commands the earth to give forth "fruit trees producing fruit" The earth, however is described (1:12) as giving forth "trees producing fruit"

The midrash explains that the original intention of creation was that the tree itself would be flavorful just like the fruit. The result in creation however was that flavor would only be found in the fruit, not the tree. (ב"ר ה, ט).

A different midrash (that I was unable to locate) informs us the in messianic times, the tree will return to taste the same as its fruit.

Maran Harav Kook Zt"l explains in the 6th chapter of Orot HaTeshuva that the tree itself represents the means while the fruit represents the ends. In an unredeemed world, we appreciate the results of our daily struggles. We set good goals for ourselves and feel the taste of their goodness as we draw near to meeting those goals. These lofty ideals give meaning and purpose to our mundane existence which unfortunately, takes up most of our day. In other words, the means is only as spiritual to the extant that we are focused on the end result.

In the future, however, we will see the connection between our efforts and their results so clearly that the full sublime beauty of the goal will be felt during every mundane moment. The walls between the physical and spiritual will fall and the whole world will be permeated with the active presence of Hashem. Then, "the bark of the tree will taste like the fruit."

Archaot

I just read an article on Arutz Sheva about a 16 year old girl who has sat in jail for over 60 days because she refuses to be tried in the secular Israeli court. She demands to only stand trial in a Torah-based Beit Din.

This is an area of Halacha that is often ignored. The Gemmara (גיטין פח ע"ב) says on the pasuk "ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם" (These are the laws you shall bring before them):

"לפניהם - ולא לפני גויים, לפניהם - ולא לפני הדיוטות"

"Before THEM and not before gentile courts. Before THEM and not before the unlearned."

The implication is that barring extraordinary circumstances, a Jew must make an effort to use Jewish courts. More than that, a Jew must make an effort to find Jewish courts that apply Jewish Law.

The Mechaber counts the appointment of a judge who uses non-Torah standards as a violation of a negative prohibition. In Choshen Mispat (סי' ח, א):

"Anyone who appoints a judge who is unjust or who is not wise in Torah or who does not meet the proper qualifications (that a Dayan must meet), Even if this person is entirely pleasant and has many other good qualities. Nonetheless, the one who appointed him transgresses a negative commandment."

The Rema qualifies this ruling a bit:

"In towns where there are no sages who qualify as Dayanim or where the entire population are ignoramuses. If not establishing a court will lead people to go to Gentile courts, then the people select the most qualified members of the community. Even if these judges do not meet the standards of Dayanim, since the town folk accepted their judgment, no one is allowed to disqualify them."

The Mechaber finished the halacha with a statement that is not qualified by the Rema:

"Any judge who is appointed for profit. It is forbidden to stand before him. Further, it is a mitzvah to speak disparagingly of him."

Thus we have 3 categories of judges:

1. A judge who judges according to Torah law.
2. A judge who is ignorant of Torah law but the people accept his judgment as fair.
3. A corrupt judge who has no real standing according to Torah law.

In the current situation in Israel, can we really say that the Rema's heter can apply? A judge of type 2 can only be legitimate, it seems, if there is no judge of type 1 to be found. Baruch Hashem, we have many great Torah scholars in Eretz Israel today. Further, even if we would make the argument that judge type 1 can not be found, then we still have to decide if the average secular judge in Israel falls into category 2 or 3. Since the Israeli courts systematically seem to favor Arab rights over Jewish rights, it is hard to argue that the Israeli court system is one that is accepted by most of the community it presides over.

This is in no way a complete treatment of the topic. Hopefully we will all have more kavanah when davening to Hashem to restore our Judges as they were before.

Mitzvat Yeshuv HaAretz I

It is written in Sifri (ראה נג):

מעשה ברבי יהודה בן בתירא ורבי מתיא בן חרש ורבי חנניה בן אחי רבי יהושע ורבי נתן, שהיו יוצאים לחוץ לארץ, והגיעו לפלטיא, וזכרו את ארץ ישראל, זקפו עיניהם וזלגו דמעותיהם וקרעו בגדיהם, וקראו את המקרא הזה (דברים יא, לא-לב): "וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֹתָהּ וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים". אמרו: "ישיבת ארץ ישראל שקולה כנגד כל המצוות שבתורה", וחזרו ובאו להם לארץ ישראל.

It is told regarding Rabbi Yehuda ben Bateira and Rabbi Mattya ben Harash and Rabbi Hannanya ben Ahi, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nattan. They were leaving the Land of Israel. When they arrived at Paltia (presumably outside of the Land), they remembered the Land of Israel, they lifted their eyes, started shedding tears, and recited the following verse (Deut. 11:31-32) "You shall inherit the Land and dwell in it. You shall be careful to fulfill all the laws and statutes." They said: "The settlement of the Land of Israel is equivalent to all the commandments of the Torah." They turned back and came into the Land of Israel.

I believe that this is the earliest source in the Oral Torah for the commandment of settling the land of Israel. I will try to post other sources from the Tannaim and Amoraim and then start with the Rishonim on the topic.

The lowly arava

The Gemara in Sukkot 43b presents the following story (rough translation):

One time the 7th day of Sukkot fell out on the Shabbat and bundles of Aravot were brought out before the Shabbat and placed in the Temple courtyard. The Baytusim (A sect that disagreed with the Rabbis regarding the ruling that the custom of the aravot is done even on Shabbat) noticed this and placed the aravot under rocks (The rocks are muktze and can not be moved on the Shabbat so the aravot could not be used the next day). The next day Amei HaAretz (ignoramuses who were presumably not knowledgeable in the laws of muktze) noticed the aravot and removed them from under the rocks. The Kohanim took the aravot and placed them at the sides of the Temple alter.

In Moadei Reiya, pg 111-113, Maran Harav Kook Zt"l explains this story as an example of how the natural instinct of the common folk, ignorant in Torah but for whom the honor of the Torah is of great importance, saved the Rabbis from a tremendous dilemma. If the Rabbis would have instructed to remove the aravot from under the rocks, this would have been seen as an abolishment of the laws of muktze. If on the other hand the aravot would have not been used, it would have seemed as an agreement to the position of the Baitusim.

The natural instinct of the ignoramuses was to simply undo the insult that the Baitusim inflicted upon the sages. These simple Jews, not knowledgeable enough to understand all of the Halachic issues involved, can be a positive force in the world. A natural Jewish instinct is an important (though not sufficient) quality in a healthy spiritual life.

When we beat the arava on the ground, we are not punishing it. Rather we are demonstrating that this natural instinct (represented by the arava that in turn represents the ignoramus who respects the Torah) is a real force in the world and can be the cause of good. This force must be respected and channeled towards constructive ends.

False choices

There is a false perception in the religious world that a individual has 2 paths to choose.

1. A modern orthodox life that largely disregards the opinions of Gedolei Torah regarding one's personal and communal life. This community identifies with the national mission of the Jewish people in an abstract fashion but is often swayed by the opinions of the gentile world and can not be counted upon to stand up for Torah ideas and ideals when they are contridicted by modern ethical thinking.


2. A Chareidi life that largely disregards the modern world, at least in the realm of moral thought and cultural participation. This community upholds the honor of their own Gedolei Torah but has a tendency to de-legitimize the Torah opinions of Gedolim who view things differently. This community sometimes descends into historical revisionism and may sometimes "paint the target around the arrow." This community generally stresses the importance of personal mitzvot and Torah study but often ignores its responsibility towards the national mission of the Jewish people. In some segments of this community, the mitzvah of yeshuv Eretz Israel has been completely ignored.
   

These choices should be seen for what they are: false choices.

While on a societal level, it is true that most communities fall into one of these categories, a third option is gaining strength in Eretz Israel. Torah communities that uphold the ideology of Maran HaRav Kook Zt"l have been established in Israel during the past few decades. Communities that uphold the standards of Torah learning and observance while still feeling a responsibility towards those mitzvahs that apply on a national level.

This blog hopes to explore current issues from a Torah perspective that is holistic. All legitimate Torah sources and arguments are welcome. Outright statements of Kefira will not be tolerated and will get your comment deleted. Also this blog will not tolerate any Bizui Talmidei chachamim (disparaging statements regarding Torah sages) whether the comment is about Rav Soloveitchik or the Satmar Rav, all comments must be respectful.

I hope you will find the posts enlightening and thought provoking. I will certainly try to keep them so.