The latest poster in Me'ah She'arim. You saw it here first.

גילוי דעת

הובאו לפנינו כמה חיבורים מאת חכם אחד ונזדעזענו עד עומק נפשנו שהנה ספרים אלה מלאי כפירה ומינות סילופים וזיופים וכו' ר"ל. אוי לנו שכך עלתה בימינו! ונביא דוגמאות אחדות רק למען הסר מכשול משער בת רבים וכל הקורא דברים אלה ח"ו יקרע קריעה

הרי גמרא מפורשת היא שכל שיש בהיקפו שלשה טפחים יש בו רחב טפח וכבר כתבו במס' עירובין יד. בתוס' ד"ה והאיכא משהו שהחשבון מצומצם. והנה בא חכם זה וכותב ב"פירושו" למשנה במס' עירובין שיחס קוטר העיגול להיקפו אינו ידוע ר"ל והנה ידוע גם ידוע שהוא שלש בצמצום! ואם נעלם מעיניו גמרא מפורשת ר"ל מה יש לו לצרף כל העולם לבורותו [ומה שהקשו שלכאורה ע"פ מדידה נראה שהמספר שלש אינו מדויק אינה קושיא כלל שהא בעיגולים דידהו והא בעיגולים דידן ותו שאפשר שנשתנו טבעי העיגולים ומ"מ אין לנו אלא דברי חכמינו שהם הם המורים לנו על שמאל ימין וכו] י

ואם לא די בכך חכם זה רומז בכמה מקומות שהעולם הוא "עגול ככדור" נגד כמה וכמה סוגיות הש"ס וכדברי השבות יעקב (בחלק ג סימן כ): כי היא חכמתכם מכלל דאינהו לא ידעו הדבר על בוריו ואיך נלמד מספריהם וכן עיקר דבריהם בנוים שהעולם הוא ככדור נגד משמעות סוגיא דש"ס דידן רפ"ב דחגיגה דקאמר אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא וכמבואר בדברי הרא"ם פרשת ואתחנן וביפ"ת בראשית פ"ח דף נ"ב ובדרשות הראנ"ח ריש פ' בראשית ובספר ברית שלום שם עכ"ד והרי הדברים פשוטים הם שאם נאמר כדברי הסכלים שהעולם ככדור איך לא יפלו אלה שכביכול יושבים בצד השני ואיך ילמדו תורה ללא שמש והדברים ברורים ואין טעם להאריך בזה

והנה פשוט שחכם זה לא אמר מה שאמר אלא כדי לפגוע בעולם התורה כפי שהוא העיד על עצמו ר"ל כשיצא בשצף קצף נגד הכוללים שהם חיינו ואורך ימינו והנה הוא כותב ר"ל במה שהוא מכנה "הלכות תלמוד תורה" כביכול (ג:י): כל המשים על לבו שיעסוק בתורה ולא יעשה מלאכה ויתפרנס מן הצדקה הרי זה חלל את השם ובזה את התורה וכבה מאור הדת ע"כ. אוי לאזנים שכך שומעות! אוי לעינים שכך רואות! י

והשי"ת יחוס עלינו ויערה רוח טהרה שתימלא ארץ דעה וכו

החותם מתוך כאב לב ובתקוה שהמפיץ דברי הכפירה והמינות ישרוף כל כתביו ויפרסם ברבים שהוא חוזר מכל זה

מיכל יהודא טורקאמאדע

So what is a young person to do when faced with the following situation. He is told that a Jew must believe X but he knows that X looks awfully dubious. One solution, offered up by HaRav HaGaon (HRHG) Uren Reich shlit"a (henceforth: HRHG), an up-and-coming star of the yeshiva velt who sounds like my kind of guy, deserves to be quoted verbatim:

If the gemara tells us a metziyus, it's emes veyatziv. There's nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the gemara. That's the emunah that a yid has to have.

This solution must seem awfully compelling to someone as obviously over-invested in the system as HRHG. Possibly less so to a young person seeking his path with nothing to guide him but whatever is left of his common sense after enduring years of mechankhim like HRHG.

So let's consider some of our protagonist's other options. He could try to persuade himself that the evidence against X is unpersuasive: science and/or history is a speculative business, scientists/historians are divided on the issue, new evidence is emerging, etc. This might work for a while. What happens when this fails? (Health Warning: If this doesn't ever fail for you, you may have unwittingly wandered into HRHG territory.)

This leaves two options: 1. leave yiddishkeit or 2. stay frum without believing X

Apparently HRHG is less frum than I am because he clearly would reject option 2 while I accept it wholeheartedly.

Option 2 comes in at least two flavors. One could argue based on the full range of traditional sources that belief in X is not necessary (or even desirable) or one could not bother with that argument. The question that arises is: what is the absolute minimal core of belief necessary to sustain any meaningful adherence to Yiddishkeit?

I believe the answer is this: one must believe -- feel in one's bones through commitment and participation -- that the Torah and the community of its practitioners are collectively endowed with a unique spark which has miraculously sustained them from some founding revelatory event in the past and will continue to sustain them indefinitely through some redemptive phase in the future.

This covers in some abstract way pretty much all the main principles that have been articulated at one time or another as ikarei emunah. But it does so in a way that really doesn't tax one's credulity too much. Certainly this kind of faith is not likely to be threatened by most scientific or historical hypotheses. It is, unfortunately, sometimes put to the test by the fact that some of those with the most influence over the path of our mesorah are total jackas [Note from Ben: the above was written by a dibbuk. I have just regained control of my typing fingers. Disregard the above.]

דברי ברכה מאת כ"ק האדמו"ר לא נודע למי

בעזה"י שנת תשס"ה לבריאת העולם כפי שאנו מונים כאן

הנה בא לפני ספרו החשוב של ידידי חו"פ צמ"ס עמוד הימיני שר התורה מאור הגדול פטיש החזק וכו' אלא שמרוב טרדות לא הספקתי לעיין בו כראוי מה גם שאיני קורא בלשון האנגלי"ש אמנם חתני נ"י דפדף בו ואמר לי שאם כי עוד לא מצא בו דברים מועילים וטובים פנינים יקרים מפז וכו' בכ"ז מסתמא חזקה על המחבר נ"י שלא הוציא מידו דבר שאינו מתוקן וגם אם אינו בגדר חבר ממש מגדר רע לא יצא ומשיבין לו אבידתו ויש לדון אם מפקחין עליו את הגל בשבת וגם אם נחמיר בענין זה לכאורה לא חל עליו דין מורידין ולא מעלין אלא שבאמת שמועה שמעתי שבספר הנ"ל נמצאים דברים שאולי מוטב הי' שלא לפרסמם והנה לאחר בדיקה נתאמתו הדברים ונ"ל שיש אפילו מקום לקבל דעת הסוברים שהחיבור רובו ככולו דברי כפירה ובלע וטעון שריפה ואפרו אסור איסור עולם ולא עוד אלא שהמחבר הוסיף חטא על פשע והביא כתנאים דמסייעים כל מיני אפיקורסים מהאקדמיא ר"ל שלא מצאו ידם ורגלם בבהמ"ד ולכן הנני קורא לכל אנ"ש החרדים לדבר ה' לקנות כל עותקי הספר למען הסר מכשול משער בת רבים וכל המוסיף מן שמיא יוסיפו לו וד"ל

הק' שבאלפי ישראל

(מקום חתימת כי"ק)

In honor of N Slifkin. Zoo torah... ve-zoo secharah.

They didn't announce any sholem zochor in shul on Friday night, so I invited some people over for an impromptu tish to mark the Sfas Emes's 100th yahrzeit. A few Gerrer nigunim and some Glenfiddich never did anyone any harm (well, at least the nigunim never did). I said over the Sfas Emes's last drasha, which he gave on Parshas Vayechi 5645. It's a typical Sfas Emes drasha in many ways but what makes it stunning is the suggestion that the Sfas Emes knew that it was his last drasha.

He darshened on Yakov on his deathbed telling his sons He'asfu ve'agidah lachem. The midrash says shezachu mikan lekrias shema. The Sfas Emes explains that this gathering was an archetypal gathering le-shem shamayim and as such its imprint was to be eternal. Likewise, krias shema is a call for collective testimony to God's presence in the world so that its very essence is of a gathering le-shem shamayim and it too is thus eternal. The Sfas Emes's last drasha echoed Yakov's last drasha: the truth to which we collectively bear witness will last long after we are gone.

His last words were sfas emes tikon la'ad.

Look to your right. Do you see people
-- who are prepared to protect liars and swindlers just because they are anshei shlomeinu?
-- who stubbornly retain belief in nonsense out of intellectual laziness and narrow-mindedness?
-- who are willing to sacrifice the well-being of individuals who are a bit different in order to protect the system?

Look to your left. Do you see people
-- who prefer to cozy up to the goyim than to show loyalty to their own?
-- who are suspicious of any Jewish doctrine but are full of wide-eyed wonder at the wisdom of every liberal fad?
-- who are so tolerant of every deviant meshugas that they fail miserably at maintaining any continuity of mesorah?

I confess. That's pretty much how the world looks to me. But here's a sobering thought. The guy on my left who looks to his right sees exactly what I see, except it's me. And (there's nothing I love more than symmetry, so no ellipsis here) the guy on my right who looks to his left sees exactly what I see, except it's me.

Everybody on the continuum from Reform to Satmar is convinced that the precise point they occupy is somehow privileged; it's that critical point on either side of which lies a precipice down whose gradient the life spirit wends its way inexorably to one cesspool or another.

Yisrael Harel is one of the founders of Moetzet Yesha and has been one of the leaders of the settlement movement for decades. What he writes here is so painfully obvious that I regret that it even needs to be said. We can live, albeit wounded and vulnerable, without Netzarim; we can't live for long without an army.

The only line I disagree with is his claim that the problem with Kachniks is their failure to agree that the State represents the beginning of the redemption. It might or might not be, but the insistence of certain people -- like Harel -- that they know that it is, is part of the problem not part of the solution.

The mere opening of negotiations, suggesting as it does a prospect of peace, automatically reduces the will of the defence to continue fighting. To a certain extent the guerilla’s morale is affected too, but his leaders are in a position to exhort him to continue fighting ‘unremittingly’ in a ‘heightened struggle,’ whereas the opposing leaders cannot issue such an appeal without being accused of prejudicing the negotiations.

--Sir Robert Thompson

Arguing for or against breaking the law by appealing to the law itself is a classic example of a category error. The argument in favor is incoherent and the argument against is circular. I mention this because this sort of category error seems to be in circulation.

Many opponents of the Azza withdrawal argue that it is legal to break the law to protest that withdrawal. That argument is incoherent. The only argument that can work is that the legal system has led to so great an injustice that the system itself is not worth upholding. That argument may very well be true but the burden of proof is a heavy one.

Similarly, when someone argues that acting heimish in shul is more important than following the strict letter of the law, it is circular to shoot him down by appealing to the strict letter of the law. I say this with emesdik love and esteem for MOChassid's Rebbe and (lehavdil bein chaim l'chaim) with fond memories of Rav Y. Piekarski zt"l, one of the great Poilish illuyim of the previous generation, who used to shmooze clear through laining.

I enjoy the (real or virtual) company of both baalei teshuvah and renegades from frumkeit (for lack of a better term). Two dimensions are more interesting than one. In fact, every thinking person who was raised frum must be a bit of a rebel and a bit of a baal teshuvah.

The yiddishkeit taught in cheder, or the more modern equivalent, is filled with simple-minded myths designed to give meaning to our traditions. In this mythical world, the righteous are perfectly righteous, the wicked are perfectly wicked, and the very cosmos is centered on the comings and goings of a few thousand of anshei shlomeinu. Everybody and everything else is window dressing.

Sometimes life is presented this way because it is all our teachers imagine we can or need to comprehend at a young age. Sometimes it is because our teachers themselves have arrested at this stage. Either way, most people eventually outgrow that narrow view of the world and realize that they've been bopping around a very small and very arbitrary little corner of human possibility. Many prefer not to have to deal with the consequences of this realization and, after a cursory look around, head back under the blankets. Others rebel against the childish version of yiddishkeit which they've received and demand a more mature version. If they expect to get it from their teachers, they will be disappointed.

Only by rebelling does one have any hope of making progress. Rebelling allows us to leave the myths intact for future generations, while at the same time reinterpreting them for ourselves in ways that are both concrete enough to give meaning to our traditions and abstract enough to be plausible. In short, rebellion is necessary so that frum people can be chozer bi-teshuvah.

This process of rebellion and return can repeat itself many times in a person's lifetime. Unfortunately, many people arrest somewhere along the way. For some, the yiddishkeit that they'd end up with after rebelling and returning is so remote from that which would be tolerated in their little shtetl, there's no point. The social price is too high. Others are so resentful at having been played for fools, that they live the rest of their lives wallowing in self-righteous anger. Others bury themselves in unthinking frumkeit.

I follow the struggles of Shaigetz, Shtreimel, Mis-nagid, and SL Aronovitz with fascination, with empathy, and -- occasionally -- with envy. You can't buy them with pareve. I hope they get the milchig and the fleishig sorted out one day.