Rabbi Chaim Brovender on Limmud: Whats the Problem? So, Anglo Jewry finally has something to get excited about. No, not Iran, Syria, Rav Metzger, Lieberman or even the new curtains and grass area in the Katamon Shteiblech. But something far more significant than all that – Limmud. Yes, thanks to social media, Limmud has gone viral and everyone is talking about it. The ’MOO’ – Modern/Open Orthodox Facebook page has suddenly become the place where anyone who has anything to say about Limmud is hanging out. My old friend from Yeshivat Har Etzion, Elie Jesner framed it, a ‘Limmud War’, which has connected people from all over the globe, who are very busy ‘liking’, ‘sharing’ and blogging. Even Rav Benny Lau expressed his views on Facebook yesterday, which is ironic, as last week he said he didn’t understand Diaspora Jewry. I have been asked by several followers of the ‘My Shteiblech’ facebook page and website (myshteiblech) I run, to explain in more detail the whole fuss in Anglo Jewry at the moment around the Limmud Conference. Here is my response to those people: Last night, after his Parsha shiur I chatted with Rabbi Chaim Brovender whilst he was waiting for his taxi which was fortunately late about the Limmud debate. His response was three words, ‘What’s the problem?’ He said it was fine for me to share his views with you all on my blog. I will be paraphrasing what he said in my own words. I will also be including my own thoughts and reflections. Orthodox Rabbanim taking part. Firstly, Rabbi Brovender thought as I argued in my previous blog, that Orthodox Rabbanim should be there teaching, inspiring and influencing. He said that the Orthodox Rabbinate could have taken over Limmud. Two teachers of mine from Yerushalayim, Gila Rosen and Gideon Sylvester will be there, as I’m sure Rafi Zarum will be, and I’m envious of anyone who will be listening to them. Rabbi Brovender also said that, ‘people want to hear real ideas and truths’ – charismatic Orthodox Rabbanim and teachers are the best candidates to provide it. Observant people going. Secondly, he said that he saw no problem if ’frum’ participants go there to learn – ‘If they want to be there who is to stop them? – If they want to learn in Gateshead, let them go there too, although Limmud is for people who otherwise would have no access to Jewish learning’. I have to be honest and say I’m more guarded and cautious that Rabbi Brovender. I’m not convinced that Limmud is the place for people from more observant backgrounds. By participants hearing and choosing between Orthodox and non-Orthodox presenters, like you were walking around a supermarket with a trolley, the impression made is that they are presenting philosophies and ideas that are equally authentic, warranted, well founded, justifiable and true. Another problem that I know Dayan Ehrenthreu speaks about is social. A friend of mine, Adam Ross, raised the following scenario to me last night. What if a frum guy meets a girl from a reform background and then six months later, she is honest with him and tells him that only her father is Halachically Jewish and her mother isn’t. These types of situations happen and it’s a real issue that the Orthodox community cares about. As I mentioned in my previous blog about Limmud, the harm and damage that the Reform and other non-Orthodox communities are doing to the continuity of the Jewish People as reported in the Pew Report and discussed last week at the GA Summit in Jerusalem, due to intermarriage is tragic and cannot be overlooked or underestimated. Equally injurious is the heartache and pain that intermarriage causes to the nuclear and extended Jewish family. The difficulty of defining: ‘Apikorsim’, ‘Kofrim’ and ‘Minim’. The third issue I asked Rabbi Brovender about is whether the Rabbis and teachers from non-Orthodox movements are ‘Apikorsim’, ‘Kofrim’, or ‘Minim’ – this is a very complex and broad topic. Having spent the last view days looking into it myself, yes, it’s a real Pandora’s Box. A friend of mine, Johnny Solomon has written on these topics and I would suggest contacting him. I am certainly not learned enough to understand what these three different categories actually mean or whether they apply nowadays. Rabbi Brovender made the following points: 1) When the Gemarah, the Rambam and others use the terms Apikores, Kofer or Min, they are referring to someone who consciously rejects the doctrines and precepts of Judaism, not someone who is a ‘Tinok She’Nishbaa’ – someone who was taken captive, meaning basically someone who was not brought up and educated in an observant environment. Rabbi Brovender said, that for instance a Reform Rabbi who was brought up in a reform community and home, cannot be categorized as a Kofer, Apikores or Min. 2) Rabbi Brovender said that the terms Kofer, Apikores and Min are very hard to define and even harder to apply and only specific people can fit into them. Rabbi Brovender said it’s very dangerous for people who don’t really understand what the Rambam and others mean by these terms to use them in common speech. 3) On the other hand, Rabbi Brovender said, obviously, when the Rambam and others do try to define and discuss these terms as they do, they are trying to transmit fundamental and pivotal values and beliefs central of Judaism. You need to learn the Rambam and Kuzari etc. to be aware of what views and ideas are the authentic Jewish perspective and approach and at least be sensitive to what maybe ‘Kfira’ or ‘Apikorses’. Therefore, obviously you can’t learn and discuss Torah with people whose beliefs are contrary to the tenents the Rambam, Kuzari etc. are trying to inculcate and impress us with. Here is some of my own research I have done over the past few days on this issue (just so you can look them up and learn the topic properly if you wish): 1) The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva chapter 3: 6, 7 and 8, categorises 3 types of non-believers or deniers of the truth: 1) Kofrim, 2) Apikorsim, and 3) Minim. Again, as we know central to the Rambam’s methodology was using categories and concepts, although the distinction between these 3 types in the Gemarah is not so clear. As far as I understand, a ‘Kofer’ is someone who denies the truth of ’Torah Min Hashamayim’; an ‘Apikores’ is the result of this ‘Kfira’ – although the Rambam distinguishes between a ‘Kofer’ and an ‘Apikores’ in Hilchot Teshuva 3: 6 and 8. 2) The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva 3:7, discusses the 3rd, worst category of a ‘Min’ The Gemarah says that ‘Stam Mashshevet Min Avodah Zarah’ - that an average ‘Min’ is an idolater. I asked a Rav, who explained to me that a ‘Min’ believes the opposite of what the internal meaning and significance of the Torah She’Bichtav and Torah Baal Peh should be and what Hashem intended. 3) The Kesef Mishna there, in Hilchot Teshuva 3:8 makes the point that there is no difference between the Torah She ‘Baal Bichtav or Torah She’Baal Peh-either way a ‘Kofer’ – denier is defined as someone who believes that the Torah is not ‘Min Hashamayim’. Again, you need to study the 3rd chapter of Hilchot Teshuva properly to understand the distinctions between the categories he writes about. 4) The Gemarah in Sanhedrin in the 10th chapter, ‘Perek Chelek’ and Rambam in his explanation on the Mishnayot says that those who claim that the Torah is not ‘Min Hashamayim’ or those who claim that Moshe Rabbenu wrote the Torah himself, under his own initiative and ‘Apikorsim’ all have no share in Olam Habah. In Hilchot Teshuva 3:6, the Rambam lists Minim, Apikorsim and Kofrim as having no share in Olam Habah. 5) Who is an ‘Apikores’? The Rishonim at the beginning of the 10th chapter of Sanhedrin – ‘Perek Chelek’ lists the following: One who ridicules Torah scholars or the Torah itself, a denier of the existence or oneness of G-d, one who denies prophecy or the divinity of the Torah She’Baal Peh, one who doesn’t keep the moadot, one who does not respect the Bet Mikdash and Avodah, one who publically and intentionally sins and one who doesn’t believe in the coming of the Moshiach. The Meiri writes, all these categories cause the destruction of the Torah and are included in the category of ‘Apikores’. The Rambam writes that ‘Apikores’ comes from the Aramaic word,’ Hefker’, referring to one who disrespects and disgraces the Torah and thereby makes it ‘ownerless’. Others explain the word, ‘Afikor’ who was a Greek philosopher who spread views which were against the Torah and accepted Mesorah (tradition). 6) If you read through the Rambam’s Hilchot Yesodey Hatorah, Deot and Talmud Torah you will get an understanding of how Talmidei Chachamim should be respected and their views listened to and not just ignored or ridiculed. The Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:1 says that the role of a Rav or teacher of Torah is to bring their students to ‘Olam Habah’, implying that he must belief in that value system in the first place, before being able to teach them Torah. If an Apikores as the Mishna in Perek Chelek and the Rambam writes has no share in Olam Habah, how can he teach it and his views be respected, discussed, listened to or read? 6) The Rambam in 6, 7, 8 and 9 of his 13 Ikarim lists the basic tenants of faith that we should believe with regard to the Mesorah. The Abarbanel in his perush, ‘Rosh Abana’ on the Rambam’s Ikarim, Rav Yosef Albo in his Ikarim as well as the Kuzari and Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, all discuss issues such as ‘Torah Min Hashamayim’, the words of the Neviim are true and Divine, the Torah is unchangeable, enduring and unfading and the eternal truth and that Moshe Rabbenu received Nevuah that was over and above that of the other Neviim. 7) The Shulchan Aruch, in Yoreh Deah 141:8 and the Shach there discuss how it is forbidden for a Rav to teach Torah if he is not on the Derech Tovah, based on the Gemarah in Chagigah discussing Elisha Ben Avuya and R.Meir. (The next few points I have discussed with other Rabbanim and friends but didn’t have time to with Rabbi Brovender as unfortunately his taxi came.) Mixed panel discussions with representatives of non-Orthodox movements on issues relating to Torah, Halacha and Faith. This is one of the main points of Rabbi Kimche’s letter. He feels that Limmud has a progressive, liberal agenda. If the Orthodox presenters are going to represent and defend Orthodoxy then it’s fine. If they are going to listen, exchange ideas and learn from non-Orthodox Rabbis and leaders then as far as I understand there is a serious Halachic problem with this. As is known, Rav Soloveichik was against any inter-denominational debate on issues related to Torah, religion or faith. The Rav was primarily an ‘Ish Halacha’ and therefore it makes sense that he did not believe there was any value is discussing issues relating to Torah, Halacha, or faith with non-Orthodox Rabbis as they were speaking a different language. On social issues, I believe he said that there was room for cooperation and working together. The Rav was concerned with blurring the lines and giving any type of legitimacy or credence to non-Orthodox movements and their Rabbis and leaders. We need to be realistic and honest. Does the Judaism of Mordechi Kaplan, Louis Jacobs, Abraham Geiger, Leopold Zunz, Claude Montefiore, Isaac Wise, Samuel Holdheim have anything in common and to discuss, with the Judaism of the Vilna Gaon, the Chofetz Chaim, R’Chaim Volozhin, R’Chaim Soloveichik, the Netziv, the Brisker Rav or Rav Moshe Feinstein. I sadly don’t think that people whose beliefs are rooted in the Pittsburgh Conference of 1885, have much to discuss on issues relating to Torah, faith and religion with people whose beliefs are rooted in the Yeshiva of Volozhin. A core question: Does Orthodoxy really care? A friend of mine said that he thought the basic issue in the Limmud Controversy is whether Orthodoxy really and genuinely cares about what is going on outside their own community. Do they feel compelled to educate, share and influence Jews wherever and however. As I argued in my previous blog post, I feel that Orthodox Rabbanim and teachers should be at Limmud, as I am convinced we should, which was the main point I was trying to make. The purpose is not just to do ‘Kiruv’ but because we should feel a sense of responsibility towards every Jew. I do believe we are, ‘One People’, however varying, disparate and discrepant our attitudes, standpoints and ways of thinking. My concluding thoughts. My shmooze with Rabbi Brovender last night on Rechov Cheyl Nashim was enlightening as they always are. As some of you know, speaking informally with Rabbi Brovender, is as much a learning experience as sitting in his shiurim. I am of the view that Rabbi Kimche did raise some valid points in his letter that many of us do sympathize with. The more Halachic issues about whether Orthodox people can learn Torah from Rabbis and teachers from non-Orthodox movements is a real Halachic question and not just based on a Hashkafa (personal outlook) or politics. As Rabbi Brovender pointed out, if views on Torah are ‘Kfira’ or ‘Apikorsos’ (simply meaning heresy or denial of the truth) then it is highly problematic to hear and discuss them, even if the people espousing them may not be categorised as ‘Apikorsim’, ‘Kofrim’, or ‘Minim’. In his book, ‘Tradition in an Untraditional Age’, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks writes about the responses within Judaism to the Enlightenment and Emancipation. As he describes they went in diametrically opposing directions. It is the duty of those of us who are somewhere in the middle to try to bridge the gaps, without compromising and adjusting the basic tenents and doctrines we were educated with at school and Yeshiva. Making concessions on fundamental precepts and beliefs of Judaism and Faith and not publically supporting what you really believe is the truth, is not being inclusive, pluralist or tolerant, but rather dishonest, unprincipled and untruthful. Judaism is not just based on intellectual study, debate and inquiry. It’s also about being part of a received, Divine Mesorah based upon principles and beliefs laid down and discussed by the Rambam, Kuzari and others. Giving shiurim and lectures, learning and writing books, articles and blogs about Torah and Jewish ideas is nice, but that’s just the means, the funnel – the ends and purpose of all that learning and study, is feeling, behaving and seeing yourself as part of a Mesorah that is defined, based and rooted in Har Sinai and the Divine Revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu. You express your commitment to that Mesorah by living a lifestyle according with and defined by Chazal and Halacha. Yes, of course there is room for pluralism, diversity, heterogeneity and debate - that’s what the Torah She’Baal Peh is all based on. But first you need to accept, respect and consent to the basic beliefs, principles and ideologies of Authentic Judaism. If you don’t, then all your study and knowledge is meaningless, futile and worthless. Benjy Singer.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:17:55 +0000