Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology by Louis Jacobs

In Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology, Louis Jacobs sheds light on many different facets of the way Chazal wrote the Talmud. First, Jacobs goes through a couple different logical arguments common in the Gemara. While many scholars believe that the kal vechomer is borrowed from the Aristotelian syllogism, Jacobs shows that this is clearly not the case. At the same time, Jacobs shows how the Binyan Av argument is very similar to Mill's method of agreement. Recently, I have heard more and more about people seeing where chazal got their information. Whether it is the question of the missing years in the second temple period, or science that contradicts Halacha, seeing what the outside culture was saying at the time has become more and more a prevalent way of explaining some of Chazal's positions. What I think Jacobs does really well in this book, is his ability to use the culture Chazal were in as a way to explain what they said, while not oversimplifying their arguments. It could be easy to say that Chazal borrowed their statements from Aristotle. This could certainly be a possibility, but should not necessarily always be used as an explanation. A lot of times we can get into arguments of Chazal's fallibility and the fullness of their mesorah. However, by really delving into the topic we can see to what extent it is true in each case. Also, Jacobs motives seem not to be governed by politics and or practice consequences. He looks at the logical arguments through a secular lens to try and lean more about them. For instance Mill's method of agreement came much later, yet it can shed light in on what Chazal argued centuries before.

After going into a couple of Chazal's logical arguments he focuses on methodology. The big argument that Jacobs creates is that the sugyot as we know them today were created by the redactors from the vast amount of Rabbinic information they had in front of them. They took on great liberties to attach arguments to positions to create a system where sugyot would be moving towards a point and climax so that it will be more interesting to the reader. I think that knowing this about the Gemara as we know it can have a lot more positive attributes than being more interesting. It can allow us to dissect a sugya in a real manner, allowing us to further our understanding of the opinions involved. By doing this we will be more able to apply the Gemara to the constantly changing landscape.

If Jacobs is correct that the redactors created the sugyot in order to make them more interesting, the Gemara itself sheds light on Chazal's way of teaching. Teaching is not just giving over information and opinions. It is creating an engaging environment where the students can have a dialogue with what is in front of them. This is evermore true for education in all subjects today. We should not be trying to educate so that we can stuff in as much knowledge as possible, although the quantity of information is certainly a goal in its own right. Even though the way the Gemara is written now is much lengthier than had it just stated the opinions and final Halacha, it leaves the learners with an engaging experience, one that they will hopefully remember for much longer. If you're interested in an analytic discussion of the topics mentioned above and others, I would recommend this book as a good way to gain an understanding of Talmudic logic and methodology.
                                 Next Week: How to Think Straight about Psychology

Start Up Nation by Dan Senor and Saul Singer

The premise of the book itself is interesting in its own right. The question the authors ask is how is it possible that a tiny little state in hostile territory has created an inordinate amount of new technologies and start up companies in such a short history? While one could certainly have a theological approach to a Jewish State, the authors decide to try to explain the factors that have practically created this burgeoning of innovation in the State of Israel. They theorize that it is a combination of factors, but most prominently the Israeli chutzpah and forthrightness that we all love is the reason for the success. While in America, people are willing to fall in line and wait their turn, an Israeli will stand up for what he thinks and will not care about rank or turn. This allows for more innovation because people are always willing to think for themselves rather than listening to their superior. Recently, I was speaking to an elderly jewish woman who had just gone to Israel for the first time. She was discussing how she really did not enjoy her time there because of the “lack of manners” Israelis had. Ironically, she didn’t know that the other two people I was sitting with were from Israel. While I always thought that the great positive of the Israeli chutzpah was that it in fact helped the creation of a state despite all the hostilities from many sides. The innovation it creates is an ongoing positive aspect of this nature. Perhaps this is something that we must all take into account. There is a fine line between respect for others and making sure what needs to happen happens. Maybe sometimes Israelis are too forward, but it has created a culture that is able to continue furthering itself positively. It is in those places that are known to be nice and respectful that many times innovation is absent. The authors posit many other factors to the generation of so many start up companies. The army culture, the rosh gadol mentality (yes, they actually use those words), and the continuos influx of entrepreneuring immigrants have all created the perfect place to produce all these great start ups. In order to show all these things the authors tie in many anecdotes to their research to make their points.

        The major problem of the book was the seeming scientific viability oft their arguments. While their answers seem to be true, the authors rarely prove causation. While correlation certainly exists, the question as to which of these qualities has led to the situation we have today (so that it can be reproduced elsewhere) is left unknown. Perhaps, if any one of the circumstances the book talks about is missing Israel would still have the economy it has today. The authors many time try to prove their points by use of anecdote. While they are both insightful and interesting, they can in no way prove the facts they are trying to. Surely, one could easily find similar stories in any country in the world. To that extent the book seems to lean into the realm of publicity. So, while it was a really interesting read and perhaps all of the arguments made are true, as they all make sense, it is hard to say that the question that was offered at the beginning of the book was truly answered.

       In any event, I still find the question to be the most important part of the book. The ability to create the economy that exists in Israel despite such great odds before and since the creation of the state is remarkable. It makes me prouder to be a Jew, and especially a Jew that stands by Israel.

Next week: Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology by Louis Jacobs

Meta-Halakha: Logic, Intuition, and the Unfolding of Jewish Law by Moshe Koppel

In Meta-Halakha: Logic, Intuition, and the Unfolding of Jewish Law, Moshe Koppel tackles many important theological questions that can come up when talking about Halakha. Unlike other books such as the Oral Law, Koppel uses unconventional methods to decipher the relevant Talmudic texts. He uses ideas from mathematics, logic and computer science to systematically create an explanation for the Halakhik system we know today. While I specifically loved this as a math major, this book was not only meant for me. Koppel always explains the ideas he is going to use before he uses them in terms of Halakha, making sure to never leave the reader in the dark. 
            The biggest issue Koppel deals with is the question of to what extent is the Torah, as we know it, from Mount Sinai. We are supposed to believe that the entire Torah was given to Moses, but at the same time we want to also allow some leeway to be applied in changing times.  This creates an inherent contradiction. Another question Koppel deals with is of the existence of disputes in Halakha. While he certainly relates this to the overall argument between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua on the validity of multiple opinions in law, Koppel asks if there is one platonic version of Halakha, or is dispute an integral part of the Halakhik system. Specifically because the book is a formulation of an entire theory, I would not really be able to capture Koppel’s Meta-Halakhik theory in a couple sentences, so please do not replace reading the book for this short review.

The main idea Koppel brings out is that Halakha and the Jewish people create an autonomous system, in which intuition about what the Halakha is in continuously being formalized. When Moses got the Torah at Sinai he did indeed get the entire Torah. However, Moses knew the Torah in a very different way than we do, he knew it intuitively. Because intuition is a very hard thing to pass on, eventually we started to formalize the Halakha and it was here when debates began. Only when you put an actual amount on the amount of Matzo one must eat on Passover, does your opinion rule out other amounts. This can be unhealthy if one opinion rules over without the ability for intuitive thought. It is for this reason the Beit Hillel was chosen over Beit Shammai (they always said the other opinion) and Rabbi Meir was rejected (his opinions were so creative that others could not argue with him).  

There were a couple reasons why I thought Meta-Halakha was a profoundly good read. Koppel tackles head on important issues I feel that Jews think about a lot. He does this in a creative fashion and creates a real model that fits the entirety of the Halakhik system. It was a clearly better answer than those that I heard before, and after talking to a couple people since reading this book, it seems that it is a topic that is primarily forgotten about in Yeshivas. Meta-Halakha gives deep answers to deep questions, changing the way I thinking about Halakha and has given me a greater appreciation for the system that it is.

                                    Next Week: Start-Up Nation

Emotional Intellegence 2.0 by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves

The idea of "emotional intelligence" is something that has intrigued me for a while. Some people clearly seem to have it. They can tell when something is slightly wrong with someone and can always ask the right question. The importance of emotional intelligence could be far greater than that of IQ because of its ability to be fostered. At least in theory one could learn how to be aware of emotions, and practice what to do when you see them. So i looked online and found the highest rated book on the subject to read. I wasn't impressed. After an introduction about the topic, the book breaks down EQ into four parts (self awareness, self management, social awareness and relationship management) and then gives strategies for each of the parts. Also at the end of the book you get access to the supposed best EQ test, the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal. A lot of the strategies that are given are definitely good ideas, but seem either obvious or can be put into other rules. Basically, most of the entire idea can be boiled down to paying attention and thinking about how you and others are feeling. The test questions seemed vague and weren't entirely clear. At the same time, by reading this book it has gotten me thinking about its basic concepts of actively thinking about my own and others feelings. I hope that the field will soon come out with real quantifiable ways determining EQ so that we can all become more thoughtful people

Book #52 Horeb by Samson Rephael Hirsch

When I first started this project, the idea of actually reaching this point was by no means a goal. Firstly, I was not expecting to get here. I figured that eventually something would get in the way, whether it be school or something else entirely. Also, fifty-two books was more of a shorthand to say one book a week every week for a year, but that's merely semantics. So only after I realized that I was approaching the number fifty-two did it have significance for me. After asking a couple people I decided that it was worthwhile to spend one week (actually two) on one expansive work. One book that in its own way encapsulated an entire subject, it was in this way that I would try gain the general knowledge I was trying to get all year in one week. After briefly considering reading through Tanach, I decided to read through Horeb by Samson Rephael Hirsch. R Hirsch goes through tenets that he believes goes through all the mitzvot as they are applicable today, ending with 111, and gives both their practical application and the philosophy he believes is behind them. Horeb is usually read based on the time period it was in. Hirsch, in responding to the new Reform movement made it his mission to show the relevancy of the mitzvot. In this way, Horeb had a profound impact in the history of Judaism in Germany and beyond. Because of this, Horeb was not only an exhaustive work, but it was also a  deeply important one. There are a couple things I should note. This was not a good read at all. It is very dense, spending only a couple pages on each mitzvah and hard to get through. Even though I did read it straight though, I would not tell anyone to do the same. Horeb is useful for reference on specific topics. Each chapter is not too long and gives lots of information on various issues in law and morality (if there's a difference). Since it was such a hard read, trying to read this book straight through gave me a glimpse to how I have been able to do this for over a year, and how I believe I can continue in the future.
I think it's very much like my father's weekly poker game. My father, and many of his closest friends from around Teaneck get together every Monday night for some light gambling and a BBQ where proceeds from every pot go towards charity. When I say every Monday night, I mean EVERY Monday night. There is rarely something that is important enough to override the sacred time he has around that table. Recently, one of the kids of one of the players got married on a Monday night. My father's initial response was: Really? On a Monday night? What about the card game? He, and others, thought about this enough, even joking about bringing a deck to the wedding. While certainly there are things more important than cards, what my father was always saying is that there will always be an excuse to miss the game, once I start allowing some of them to get in the way, who knows when it will end. This is a lesson I have taken to heart. Except for during my time in Camp Stone (where there really was no time for casual reading, although I did get through three in the summer), nothing got in the way of this project. In College, but especially at YU/Stern, there is always going to be an excuse for not doing what you want to do. Whether it be night seder, extra curricular activities, speakers, or just hanging out, there will always be something that needs to get done. What I have come to realize is that the only way to make sure that those things happen is to give up on some other things to make sure you achieve the things that you desire. (This is only to an extent obviously,as there were times where I didn't read one but read two the next week) I hope that we can all continue growing in this way, no matter what comes through our path.

The Gift Of Rest by Senator Joseph Lieberman

How The Gift of Rest was written was much more interesting to me that what was written in it. In a short and simple style, Senator Lieberman goes through the entire process of Shabbos, starting from preparing during the week through Havdalah. As someone who has been practicing Shabbos for basically my entire life, much of the book was reading through what I do every week. Even though I knew all the  practical things that were said throughout the book, I found it valuable in a very different light. Lieberman passionately goes through each part of Shabbos, focusing on what he deems as the most important benefits and values. While he does go into many specifics in the rituals, they are clearly not his focus. What can everyone learn from a day of rest?, is his main question. "For me, Sabbath observance is a gift because it is one of the deepest, purest pleasures in my life. It is a day of peace, rest and sensual pleasure." This statement truly pervades the entire book. He writes as a simple Jew, finding great meaning in all that he does on this day, be it established ritual, or reading a novel. There are some things he focuses on that are not surprising considering this. He spends a significant amount of time discussing socializing times, including meals, and the kiddush club. While he does talk about how he feels bad going to it because it requires leaving in the middle of the service, he discusses at length the ability of Shabbos to bring people together. Because of this feature, The Gift of Rest is a valuable read for Jews of all types, albeit for different reasons. For the religiously uneducated Jew it is a valuable resource in its own right to know how to observe the Shabbos. For all, it is very nice reading of the value of the day. Specifically with the laws of Shabbos, it is very easy to get caught up in the specifics of the melachot. Of course, the study and application of the laws are vitally important to the day. This, however, does not exclude the spirit that Senator Lieberman speaks of in length.

    There are a couple other fascinating features of the book. One might have expected, as I did, the book would be replete with great stories from all the years in office. Although he does express a couple, it is certainly not a focus of the book. He uses his stories as a way of showing how Shabbos has positively effected his life and in the same way can effect his reader, be they Jewish or not. What this book showed to me is how truly far we, as a people, have progressed in America. Not only is a Jew in high office, not only is he religious, but he is willing and able to be forthright about his religiosity, even publishing it to the general public. Lastly, it surprised me how straightforward he was willing to be about his own faults. He admits to the hubris he had always had as someone with so much power in the government. It is the fact he had to be cut off from work one day a week that made him realize that the world goes on without him, a humbling sentiment. Also, Lieberman is not shy to say that he went through a faze in college where he was not religious. He easily could have kept his image as a perfectly religious Jew. Instead, he uses his mistakes of the past to show the reader what he has learned from Shabbos.

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

The Screwtape Letters was one of the best books I have ever read. The basic plot of the letters is of a senior devil, Screwtape, helping a junior devil, Wormwood, through his temptations of the person he is assigned to. In each letter, Screwtape discusses a way in which to, or not to, tempt a person to do evil in the eyes of the Enemy (G-d). To me, this was a very important book in a very different way than most other books of it's kind. While, very little proof is given for how the evil inclination tempts us is given, throughout the book, I felt many, if not most, of the tactics to be very true. Without getting too personal, it truly felt that C.S. Lewis had insight into the workings of the human mind. It is not something that he quantified, but it feels that it is profoundly true. Even since reading this book I have seen the tactics that Screwtape tells Wormwood to use creep up in my mind, and now knowing what is going on, it has been easier to overcome. There perhaps is no better time to read this than right now, before the Yamim Noraim. Many people will see this book as a religious book by a Christian writer that has no bearing on Jewish lives. However, this is far from the truth. True, there are many things that are not specific to Judaism, such as the idea that one goes to either Heaven or Hell forever, most of the concepts that flow throughout the letters are close to all religious and even non-religious people. It is not a long book, and each of the letters are very short (many are just a couple pages), making it a very easy read. It is a book I definitely recommend to everyone, perhaps even to be read more than once.

The Prime Ministers by Yehuda Avner

        The Prime Ministers by Yehuda Avner is an in depth perspective of the early stages of the State of Israel's history from the point of view of, what Avner calls, a “fly on the wall”. Working closely with four Prime Ministers from Levi Eshkol to Menachem Begin, Avner gives the reader a very close perception of the situations that occurred in Israel during its beginnings that one cannot get elsewhere.

    Avner opens his discussion with the intricacies of the fight between Irgun and the Hagana. What I found most interesting was what could have come about from this bout, especially at the aftermath of the Hagana's bombing of the Irgun arms ship Altalena and the rounding up of the Irgun members. Considering the dire situation that the entire Jewish population was in at the time it seems the worst time to create a civil war between the two factions. At the same time the ideologies on how to deal with the British were so drastically different that it was up to the greatness of Menachem Begin to stop fighting. In both cases, Avner describes how Begin was so opposed to the idea of Jews fighting Jews that he completely gave in to the Haganah. This will lead the way to later in the book, where Avner clearly has a love for Begin, considering him the greatest Israeli Prime Minister. Another thing he focuses on is life in the Kibbutzim. The hardships that many people needed to face to start up the country from rocks and swamps is simply remarkable. It is completely a testament to the passion for the land of Israel that they had that the economically rising nation that exists today even had a chance.

           The first Prime Minister that Avner really has a close relationship with is Levi Eshkol. Although he was the Prime Ministers during the 1967 war, he is not one spoken about frequently. What is clear from the narrative is that the people had an almost negative perception of Eshkol throughout most of his premiership. He did not seem to be a powerful and strong leader, exemplified by a horrible radio address, after which, many wanted him out of power. Based on the way he is portrayed in this book, this is unfortunate. His ambivalence, however, sometimes had great power. Unlike many leaders, he was one that definitely was willing to hear the other side. Even when Begin wanted him to step down, Eshkol was willing to hear him through, and even though he eventually stayed in as Prime Ministers, his ability to hear the opposition is a tremendous quality. It is possible that this great quality comes from the fact of not being so stubborn on all of your positions. When to have this quality and when not to is the problem that we all face. Another time where this was indispensable was during the 1967 war. He followed Begin's (who was the opposition leader) idea to take over Yerushalayim despite both his and Moshe Dayan's hesitation. This quick change of stance lead to the control of Yerushalayim that we enjoy today, and is a testament to the tremendous leadership that Eshkol ended up exhibiting.

          Golda Meir is shown as another fantastic character. She is consumed by her political views as part of the Labor Party, and Labor Zionism in general, making all her decisions based upon this ideology. Like Rabin and Begin to follow, she stands by her morals and ideals to help the world by helping the Jewish people. She is therefore always worried about tikkun olam and helping the world. For years she worked on helping budding African countries to become successful economically without asking for much in return. Even in hard times, as she was Prime Minister through the Yom Kippur war, she is focused on not just the State's survival, but of how it can help the greater world landscape. After Israel is not helped by the European community Golda Meir is not scared to confront the leaders and ask them why they don't include Israel in the same rules that they ascribe to themselves. Based on her worldview it is clear why she is so upset. Israel should be a light onto the nations, but how can it do that if the other nations don't accept it. Golda Meir is also completely focused on the socialist ideals her party subscribed to. This is seen in a beautiful encounter between her and a group of soldiers on Sukkot while looking over a battlefield that included many Jewish casualties. A soldier asks her “What's the use of our sacrifice if we can't win the peace?” She answered in her idealistic way: “...I must tell you in all honesty, were our sacrifices for ourselves alone, then perhaps you would be right; I'm not sure they would be worthwhile. But if our sacrifices are for the sake of the whole Jewish people then I believe with all my heart that any price is worthwhile”. An ideal that this shows, one which was very prevelant then and should be now, is the willingness to sacrifice for the group because through the group we can accomplish things far greater than as individuals.

       Certainly, Rabin deserves discussion. His immense leadership as an ambassador and as a Prime Minister, specifically in Entebbe were spectacular. However, i'm going to skip to Begin. (Loved the irony of Begin being the last Patriarch, as Avner calls him.)

       Simply, Begin is the Man. He continuously sticks to his ideals on many fronts. His understanding of Jewish history and Jewish tradition. As a Holocaust Survivor, he has an acute sense of what the stakes are at when dealing with Israel's survival. He continuously defends the Jewish States interest no matter who he is talking to, be it the President of the US or anyone else, for Israel's ability to defend itself is a necessary condition to make sure another Holocaust cannot happen. With his understanding of Jewish tradition that tries to create an ideal community, it makes sense that he wanted to stop EL AL flights on Shabbat. “It is not the Jew that has kept the Sabbath, it is the Sabbath that has kept the Jew”, is the type of ideal that Shabbat and our tradition is part of him to such an extent that it cannot be separated no matter for what or whom. He is tough to those that do not have his understanding and does not back down. Interestingly, it is with him that a peace treaty is finally forged with Egypt. Although this treaty was already to an extent formed under Rabin, it was the stubborn Begin that gets it done. Perhaps Began can be a paradigm with which to deal with foreign affairs today. One could go on and on, as Avner does, about the prowess of Begin as a Prime Minister. He's quickly become one of my role models, someone I wish that we as a people had more people like.

        Avner himself is an interesting character. It is completely to his credit that he is kept on by all four of these Prime Ministers. Usually, when a new Prime Minister comes into power, people from the previous leadership usually do not stay in their positions, especially when a new party is in charge. Avner must be an exceptional person to have been kept on, at such a close proximity, by all these different leaders.

        This book gives me much hope to the future. Things seem hard in these days, but it has been this hard since the State began. We pulled through for sixty years under these and harder conditions. With leaders like these Prime Ministers, we can certainly continue on this path.

       The Prime Minister, albeit very long at 700 pages, was a fantastic read.It can give insight into Israel in trying times, and give you an appreciation for the State that exists today. Read it, you won't regret it.

Wrestling Jacob by Rabbi Shmuel Klitsner

Especially when they are stories that we learned from a very young age, it is very hard to take a new look at a text without regressing to the way we have always been taught. In Wrestling Jacob, Rabbi Klitsner tries to do just that with the Jacob narratives in Genesis. Klitsner does this by using a plethora of literary parallels, pointing out peculiar word choices and psychoanalyzing Jacob.Not only does Klitsner do a great job of reading each part of the Jacob stories in a new way, he shows how the stories can be read together, each part dealing with the psychology of Jacob. When Jacob follows Rivka's advice and fools his father, he gives up his own moral autonomy. He spends the rest of his life trying to repair his torn soul, something that only finally happens when he fights with the angel and wins. While his ideas are certainly enlightening sometimes it feels that he is stretching the text to fit in the psychological ideas. Many times word choice and parallels help this type of reading, but when they aren't there it seems forced. One interesting chapter that I think is entirely relevant today was the comparison of Jacob's "stealing" of his father's blessing to Jacob's "stealing" of Lavan's sheep. Through much critical reading, Klitsner argues that Isaac was always going to give the real blessing to Jacob. What he got from Isaac with his guile was added material blessing. Since it is perceived by Esau that Jacob stole the entire birthright, everything he does is seen as trickery, leading to hatred. Similarly, Lavan feels that Jacob stole his sheep when he continuously is able to choose which type of sheep will be born. After that Lavan is skeptical of everything Jacob does and never feels that he got everything he has fairly. He never even admits that his wives, Lavan's daughters, are his. Even though everything Jacob has he got fairly, since some of it is perceived to be  taken unfairly, everything is put into doubt. Perhaps we can see underpinnings of the situation in Israel in the Lavan and Jacob story.  In the Lavan story, somethings, while not actually taken unfairly, are thought to be stolen, and then everything Jacob has is deligitimized. Similarly, much of the world believes that we have taken Israel in an unfair manner. Therefore, everything else that has been acquired fairly in wars, like in 1967, are delegitimized. I really do think Israel is in a similar situation to Jacob with Lavan, in this respect. However, I am not sure what to make of that information. What do you think?

"Why are Jews Liberals?" by Norman Podhoretz

In his book, Why are Jews Liberals?, Norman Podhoretz tries to answer the aforementioned age old question. His initial question is from an economic standpoint. In general, Jews in the US are middle to upper class, a demographic that is frequently conservative, yet Jews are primarily liberal. Right away it is clear that Podhoretz is not asking about individual Jews being liberal; rather, he is curious and concerned about the overall trend. Before I opened the book, i had the same question, but asked it from a different angle. Judaism, specifically Orthodoxy, i a religion based on reverence for tradition. Although Orthodoxy is willing to change when necessary, it seems weird that most Orthodox Jews would want to have the opposite mindset in politics that they have for practicing religion.
Podhoretz actually acknowledges my question, but uses the point to explain why they are liberal. Throughout history, going as far back as the Middle Ages, the Right, more specifically the Christian Right, was consistently antagonistic towards the Jewish people. Jews were persecuted, and their only way to be protected was to go through the embarrassing ritual of conversion. When the Enlightenment and then Marxism came along the Left finally gave Jews a way to be shielded without converting. All that Jews would have to do would be to get rid of the rituals that made them different. Eventually Reform Judaism came about to try and fulfill this need to be part of the "reason"able society. Podhoretz gives an interesting point here that although Jews thought they had found away not to convert  they really hadn't. They found a way not to convert to Christianity, but they had to convert to the religion of reason instead.
Always seeing the Right as religious, and therefore anti-Jewish, in nature, Jews continued to be liberal after immigrating to America. This continued both from a conceived anti-semitism from the Right and the perceived acceptance from the Left, epitomized in FDR's tenures in office. In this way there had been a tradition for a very long time to hold onto liberalism.
Podhoretz then goes through recent Presidential elections showing the overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate, to a large extent irrelevant of the candidate's attitudes towards issues that relate to Jews, primarily Israel. Podhoretz laments that even though things have changed and there are significantly more proponents of Israel and other Jewish causes on the Right than there are on the Left, Jews continue to vote as liberals. In order to explain this Podhoretz rejects the traditional view of history, that Jews have historically been liberals so they continue to be so because liberalism has changed dramatically in recent years as has the entire political climate. All other demographics have changed why haven't Jews. Another answer he rejects is that liberalism has the Jewish value of tzedakah. While this may be true, the Torah and Rabbinic texts do not take any stance on political matters as they pertain to America today.
The answer Podhoretz comes to is striking. Many Jews have "converted" to liberalism, so much so that  “where the Torah of contemporary liberalism conflicts with the Torah of Judaism, it is the Torah of liberalism that prevails and the Torah of Judaism that must give way.” While he bemoans this, I certainly hope that it is not true, and scared if it is. Just to be clear, I am not making no statement about any specific Jewish voters. However, I sincerely hope that whenever we, as thinking educated people, can determine the candidate that is best for Jewish issues, specifically Israel. I am scared to think that many Jews have predetermined their votes towards either candidate, based on party, without knowing how they will treat our own people. Certainly, other issues are very important, but it is due to the fact that we have always treated each generation like it could be the Jewish people's last that we have survived for so many centuries. To ignore the needs of our own people in the name of liberalism,or any other political philosophy for that matter, is not only foolish but destructive. 

The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty by Buster Olney

    The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty is much more than about that seminal night in 2001 when Louis Gonzalez stunned the Yankees and the baseball world by blooping a ball into center field to win the World Series. Throughout the book, Buster Olney uses the pivotal game to frame the entire story of the Yankee dynasty leading up to 2001 and what happened after it.
    While it may be painful for Yankee fans (but fun for Yankee haters) Olney gives great insight into the dynasty, and the people that made it. His many years as a Yankee beat writer enables him to gives deep insight into Steinbrenner's money usage, Paul O'neil's passion, Jeter's consistency, Clemens' brashness, and Torre's professionalism. Olney's basic thesis is that when Steinbrenner stopped just throwing money at the team, but did so thoughtfully, getting the right players with the right drive, he was able to build the dynasty. After losing to the Dimondbacks, Steinbrenner went back to his old ways and spent money with abandon leading to a decade long drought of championships that only recently ended despite invariably having the highest payroll in baseball.
    There were three traits that seem to regularly be part of the players in the dynasty which Olney describes: passion, work ethic, and goal driven. While these three traits manifested themselves in different ways with different players, everyone had passion for the game, a drive to always get better, and was in it for the team and not for their wallet. It was these traits and others that enabled the Yankees, as a team, to win a string of championships. When these virtues were gone, specifically the third one, that excellence was gone. While this is true for baseball, it is certainly true of just about everything else. Think about the best teachers, Rabbis, and doctors you've encountered. These certainly apply to them as much if not more than those Yankees. In his beautifully crafted tale of that fateful night Olney, not only gives us great insight to what makes a good team, but also what makes someone elite at anything.

The Case For Israel By Alan Dershowitz

Rather than reviewing this one, I just have a couple points to make.

• This one should be on EVERYONE'S reading list. Dershowitz goes through 32 different claims that opponents of Israel make. He definitely is willing to criticize Israel but shows how Israel has consistently been one of the most moral countries in the ; even while being put in harder circumstances.  Other than citing great facts to know and us, Dershowitz writes a profound argument for Israel that anyone who says they are a supporter of Israel should know. 
• Other than being wildly valuable, it was also a great read. I read it in a day and a half because I just couldn't put it down. 
• After I finished the book,  I felt like I had a great argument for Israel, but it was almost too great. If the situation in the Middle East is such and open and shut case, then why are people so defiant otherwise? So I looked up reviews of the book. As with the issue at hand, it seemed like all the reviews were extremely positive or negative, and nothing in between. It seems that whichever side of the issue you are that viewpoint makes you look at the facts with completely different eyes that read every event differently. I can think of no other argument where each side completely reads every part of it in a different way. What is it about Israel that does this? 
• Whatever it is, it makes peace look distant. In order to achieve it, a paradigm shift must be made by one or possibly both parties. I hope to a time where that can come to fruition.

Have a chag kasher sameach and if you have some free time during Chol Hamoed, I would definitely pick this one up. Someone you know has it, it was a NY times bestseller.

"Exclusion and Hierarchy" by Adam S. Ferziger

       For centuries, Judaism was considered one group that kept faithful to the traditions of the Pharisees, the holders of Rabbinic Judaism (other than the Karaites).  With the advent of Reform and the Sabbateans, deemed deviant sects by traditional Jews, more and more Jews were willing to leave the traditional fold. When one person left normative Judaism, the response was easy. Cherem, the separation of the individual from the group, was an effective method to make sure people did not leave normative ways. When flocks of Jews were leaving this path, the traditional Rabbis could no longer reject the individual, and at the same time wanted to differentiate themselves from the people that were leaving them. Adam Ferziger goes through the progression of how “Orthodoxy” came into being by showing how they defined what deviance was too far. In this way Orthodoxy defined what they were not, in order to define what they are.

            Ferziger sees Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, the Nodeh BeYehudah, as the first step to what we call Orthodoxy today. Landau, for the most part made one huge distinction. Those that were ideologically different like reform and the Sabbateans were to be completely excluded from the community. He and then Rabbi Yaakov Emden believed that they should not even be buried with “Orthodox” Jews. However, those that were newly nonobservant, not because of ideological differences were fully part of Judaism. The next step towards “Orthodoxy” was Rabbi Akiva Eiger.  He was more willing to work with the Reform because they are still Jews. After this Orthodoxy became defined differently in many communities. Rabbi Samson Rephael Hirsch deemed separation as the most effective way to keep those that were still religious Jews.  At the same time he believed that he should be nice and work with them, but only on his terms. For example, he thought they could join his synagogue, but would not officiate at a wedding between an orthodox and a reform Jew, deeming it “intermarriage”.  Rabbi Bamburger and the communities in Berlin and Frankfurt, chose a different method in dealing with other Jews (they were not practically the same, but their method was similar). Rather than completely separating them, they decided to create a hierarchy, where the other Jews were welcome but they were deemed “class B” Jews without certain right, like having leadership positions or performing circumcision.

            As I see it, (as part of the Orthodoxy community) we practice a combination of exclusion and hierarchy, but we do more exclusion than hierarchy closer to the Hirsch model stated above. The conflict is clear, we want to be connected to all Jews, even if they have different views, but at the same time we believe that we are holders to the legitimate form of Judaism, not wanting to give legitimacy to other forms. However, I really think we lose a great deal of positive things by not accepting Reform as part of Judaism. With all the hate towards Jews of all forms that goes on in the world, if we were able to pool resources to be able to try and make the world a better place, be it through social action or Zionism, we would be able to create a semi-united front that would be so much stronger than it’s parts. Also, with the dwindling population of these sects due to assimilation, perhaps some would feel comfortable to go to an Orthodox synagogue.

            No matter what, it is vitally important that we respect all Jews not only as people that were made in the image of G-d, but also as people that have shared in our heritage for thousands of years. May it come soon that we will all be able work together for common goals and not let other problems divide us as a people.

           

Moneyball by Michael Lewis

Although in recent years sabermetrics has become a common way to evaluate baseball players, it has only become so because of the efforts of Billy Beane's, the protagonist of Moneyball, success as the general manager (salute) of the Oakland Athletics (the A's) around the turn of the century. To summerize, Beane saw flaws in traditional scouting of players, which only valued the tools a player had like power and speed, rather than testing his acumen as a hitter and ability of getting on base. As in all things, but specifically sports, people are wowed by flashy things, seeing the potential that could be, rather than seeing what is actually there. By empirically valuing players, the A's were able to get players that were undervalued by the market, enabling them to compete on a budget. Even within his own organization, Beane had to fight with his scouts over which players they should draft, sometimes not getting his way. It took a long time for others to question traditional thought in baseball, as it does in all other walks of life. It is the people that are able to think about the way things are and decide for themselves if it could be made better that are at the forefront of furthering society in a positive way. However, in baseball the risk is much less. Although Beane desperately wanted to field a competitive team, baseball is still a game. When dealing with issues of society and religion, there can be a greater fear of change. However, even in Orthodox Judaism there is always space for change within the Halakhik system. A general principle in Halakha is Hilkhata Kebasrai, when an earlier authority argues with a later authority, we follow the later authority. Other than where the entire Jewish community has accepted a system, such as the Talmud, since society changes, the Halakha must be malleable to fit the new situation. At the same time, Rabbis do not constantly change the rules. I think this can be seen straight from what happened in Moneyball. After putting in his new system, Beane was able to draft his perfect player, the player that everyone undervalued, but he believed could become a star, Jeremy Brown. As it turns out Brown did not become a star, playing in just one MLB season. Although the sabermetrics worked out overall and allowed the A's to compete with the teams that spent a lot more money than they did, on many cases the players flamed out, never accomplishing much. Challenging the previous system is shown to be a good practice, but doing so in every case for the sake of challenging does not work out. In important matters, change is good, but it needs to be done with the proper manner and foresight.
           Moneyball was also an interesting read because it gave great insight into what truly goes into winning a baseball game. According to sabermetrics, getting on base, along with other factors like slugging percentage, is the most important factor of sucsess. It is not the flashy plays of steals and home runs that are really important, it is the grind, day in and day out that makes a valuable baseball player. This is most certainly true of baseball, which has a long grueling season, but is true of most things. Consistently and relentlessly working at something almost always creates greater things that the one time event. 
         Moneyball was not only a really fun baseball book, but it also gave great insight into both baseball and life.

Through an Opaque lens by Rabbi Hayyim Angel

            This collection of essays is his first of now three collections that he has published. The collection is separated into two different parts, methodology and articles on various topics. Rabbi Angel seamlessly uses the methodology stated in the first section in his articles in the second. What is fascinating is Rabbi Angel’s ability to learn through many different means and texts. The articles on methodology go through very different speakers including Nehama Leibowitz, Rabbi Samet and the Rambam. Simultaneously, Rabbi Angel is able to use seemingly conflicting methodologies depending on the situation. He uses the extreme text based study of texts of Nehama Leibowitz, the literary study of Tanach of Rabbi Samet, and will sometimes read things allegorically based on the rational teachings of the Rambam. Rabbi Angel also allows himself of many other ways and methods of learning. He also uses Haftarot and any other biblical texts that can lend themselves in giving light onto the text he is studying. Rabbi Angel is even able to look at the archeological and other finds in his studies. He specifically uses this to find out how Sodom was destroyed. Assuming that G-d would have done the destruction naturally causes problems for the plain meaning of the text. The brimstone has no basis in the findings so far. Rabbi Angel displays a fascinating view; perhaps an earthquake destroyed Sodom. However, Rabbi Angel still takes into account the plain reading of the text that the destruction came from heaven. From both Biblical and other sources, Rabbi Angel shows that the ancient people believed that earthquakes came from heaven. In general, it is truly rare to see a person that is truly trying to find the essence of the text. Rabbi Angel is not focused on using his specific methodology; rather, he is focused on using whatever necessary to get the best explanation of the text that he can. This truly intellectually honest approach is something to behold.

            What was (and continues to be in his classes in Yeshiva College) most fascinating was the way he views learning Tanach. To Rabbi Angel, Tanach is not a text that we are just supposed to study and learn. It is a way of life that we are supposed to gain lessons from and live our lives based on them. This is seen in his article on Avraham. He goes through the different stories of Avraham’s relationship with G-d. Rabbi Angel, by going through all of the examples, shows how while Avraham truly is the exemplar of faith, he did not fully accept everything G-d said. Rather, we are allowed and supposed to question G-d, as long as we follow His commandments as Avraham always did. While is clear from this article in particular, in all of the articles it becomes evident that Rabbi Angel does not just learn Bible in the classroom or library. The Tanach is a way of life, something he looks at for everything.  

Printing the Talmud by the Yeshiva University Museum

* This post was taken from a review I did for the YU Commentator's January edition

On November 27, I flocked towards Rubin lobby along with many fellow undergraduates for a free book that was being given out by the YU Museum. Each person must have been thinking, "Free book! What do I have to lose?" I had thought the same thing, but it turned out that there was indeed one thing I would lose: my naiveté about the interaction between the Jewish people and the age old Talmud.  

Since the Talmud was standardized well before my lifetime, it appears to have become not altogether different than the Bible. Although it is still Torah She'beal Peh, and is empirically different than its Torah She'Bichtav counterpart, it seems to carry the same sense of invariability and lack of interactivity that the Written Law does. Printing the Talmud does much to dispel such notions. True, the Talmud has been standardized in recent times, but Printing the Talmud goes through the long and continuing history of the Jewish people's interaction with the pages of text we call the Talmud.

Printing the Talmudis separated into two complimentary parts: historical essays and the catalog for the YU museum's new exhibition, the latter displaying the progression of the Talmud's layout that the former suggests. The essays go period by period through the history of the Talmud, from its oral beginnings to its most modern advances.  The essays are by world-renowned scholars from all over the globe, including professors of Jewish History from YU, Columbia, NYU, Bar Ilan, Hebrew University and many others. This eclectic method of creating a fluid history of the Talmud is not unlike how the Talmud itself was compiled. Amoraic analysis "continued over generations, even centuries, developing sugyot (Talmudic discussions or essays), on specific topics" (13). This occurred in many different academies, most notably Pumbedita and Nehardea. The pages of the book even appear like those of the Talmud, with the footnotes on the side of the page mimicking the position of Rashi's commentary. Much like sugyot in the Talmud, each essay is self contained and is interesting in its own right, while still discussing topics that are involved in other essays.

Most importantly, the essays give the reader an authentic sense of how and why each step of the process occurred, giving a real feel for what was going on at the time for both the Jewish and gentile communities. By doing so, the reader is left with a genuine picture of how Jews have interacted with the text of the Talmud throughout the centuries. The Oral Law, with its constantly-evolving format, is shown to be empirically different than the Written Law. Indeed, the Oral Law is changing form to this very day, with new advances in traditional learning and technology. This picture would not be complete without the catalogue in the second half of the book. After reading much about the development of the page of the Talmud, the reader can then peruse through the pictures and see for himself the development of the Talmud by way of manuscripts.

Printing the Talmudoffers a few heated views of the Artscroll Schottenstein edition of the Talmud. An essay is devoted to translations of the Talmud, which portray the history of translations to German, Hebrew, and then English. In the essay, Rabbi Adam Mintz presents criticism of translations, including concerns that "translation cannot capture the full essence of the original" and that "translated volumes [give] non-Jews access to the Talmud, leaving out the possibility, if not probability, of misunderstanding and even misuse of the Talmudic texts" (132). Another difficulty that came up with the Shteinzaltz edition was that many "felt that it would be ‘cheating' to make Talmud study so easy" (138). For some reason, these fears were instantly thrown away for the Schottenstein Edition. While many would still view the volume as a great achievement and an increasingly valuable and necessary resource in the modern world, the concerns stated previously may apply even more so to the Schottenstein Edition.

This book is worth reading even just for the clear presentation of the progression of the Talmud's printing, with examples found in the manuscripts in the back of the book. Printing the Talmud is a must-read for anyone interested in learning about the creation of the texts that make up the very backbone of Orthodox Judaism.

 ***The entire catalog and set of articles can be found at http://www.printingthetalmud.org/home.html

As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg

As a Driven Leaf is the tragic story of Elisha Ben Avuya, or Acheir , as he is called in the Talmud. What is made clear by Chaim Potok in the Prologue and by Steinberg in the Author’s note at the end is that this novel is supposed to be taken as historical fiction. The fear that I initially had was that I would read the story of Elisha and even though I would know it to be fiction, would transmit the characters of Steinberg’s book into my later learning of the Talmud. Although I cannot be certain, I think that if one goes into this book with the mindset that it is a fictitious account of the story, this fear is ungrounded.  Steinberg creates a fantastic tale, one which addresses many issues in our community today, by using characters of the Talmud.  One such issue is the freedom of students to ask question in Jewish thought. A major problem of any orthodox institution, be it Jewish or not, is the feeling of dogmatic principles. When one feels that there are things that he cannot question, or get adequate answers to, it leaves the person feeling that their thoughts are not welcome. Sometimes this can lead to resentment and or leaving of the faith, as happened with Elisha ben Avuyah. His lessons in the secular philosophy of the time left him with questions that the other Rabbis did not feel were appropriate so he tried other methods of finding the answers to his questions. This also brings up the fear of learning secular subjects. Elisha had learned Euclid’s analytical geometry, where Euclid goes step by step to prove his theorems. Elisha felt that if this could be done for mathematics it should be able to be done for G-d and philosophy. While I believe that this is a faulty premise because if we could completely prove G-d’s existence there would be little test in belief, the idea that we should use ideas from the secular world to enhance our Jewish knowledge is staple of YU and Torah Umadda. The question; however, is how do we do this in a correct fashion so we can enhance our Judaism and not abrogate it? In a shiur I heard once from Rabbi Weider, it was said that we have a freedom of inquiry, but we do not have a freedom of resolution. We must question, for that furthers our understanding, but we must have a strong belief to back it up that even if we cannot find the answers we are looking for, they do exist. As I see it, it is to this conclusion that Elisha comes to. He finally understands his folly, that all proof must come from some axiom, and just because one doesn't understand everything, does not mean one should leave everything. In this fashion the Rav, specifically in Lonely Man of Faith and elsewhere, talks about the existential crisis that man is put into, one that he is not meant to ever be free from. By putting these topics in the words of our sages Steinberg hits on many important topics through the tale.

            Another fascinating portion of the narrative was the way Steinberg uses already famous quotes throughout the story. One that particularly came to mind was when Elisha tells Rabbi Akiva of his intentions to leave the faith and begin his project to try and prove faith, Rabbi Akiva says to him that "everything is foreseen; yet free will is given", as a token of his understanding that Elisha can do as he feels necessary. Although I don't believe that this is the true meaning of Pirkei Avot 3:15, by putting in quotations such as these into the novel, Steinberg adds a dimension to the story. One now feels that the Rabbis did not just say these statements in the learning halls. They lived by them and hoped that others would as well. Statements such as these also lend to Rabbi Akiva’s known kindness.

Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau

In this book, Rabbi Blau puts together Aggadot (non Halakhik texts) from all over the Talmud into many different essays on Jewish thought. He does this by carefully weaving together different sources to gather an eclectic view of how the Talmud views topics like interpersonal relations and leadership. The fear many people may have when picking up a book like this one, is that any book on the wisdom of Aggadah has to be full of fluffy homiletics. While Rabbi Blau does indeed draw messages from the sources, they are by no means unsubstantial. He brings a variety of sources to prove his points both from the Talmud and from philosophers such as Kierkegaard. He delves deeply into the sources, not only taking them at their surface value. He looks into different versions of the aggadah that sometimes appear either also in the Talmud or in the Ein Yaakov, a commentator that collected aggadot; many of which are not in the Talmud itself.  What I found fascinating is the collection of aggadot that are presented. Apart from being a fantastic tool to look up sources that are separated into a variety of topics, Rabbi Blau gives great insight into many sources that many Jewish children are brought up upon. In his essay on optimism, Rabbi Blau opens up with the familiar aggadah of R Akiva laughing when he sees the Temple in its defilement for he now knows that the prophesy of the redemption must come. Rather than learning lessons that may seem self-evident from the aggadah right away, Rabbi Blau uses more esoteric aggadot to prove his point and explain the story we have heard from youth. In this way, Rabbi Blau shows how the learning of Aggadah can be both a deep and profound experience. In general, Midrash and Aggadah are viewed as lighter topics than Halakha, and while that still may be true, Rabbi Blau shows how learning Aggadah can be an extremely valuble and worthwhile endeavor.

The Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassuto

*I will now start to try and go back to books I have read in the past.

This book is Umberto Cassuto’s argument AGAINST the Documentary Hypothesis. What is interesting, however, is that Cassuto does not come in with religious biases. He is able to come at the text objectively and try to see if the hypothesis makes sense. In a nutshell, the Hypothesis states that the Five books of the Torah as we know them are not one coherent book. They are the product of four authors, labeled J, E, D and P that were redacted into the Pentateuch over time. Cassuto goes methodically through the Hypothesis, testing its major points. He deems the five major “pillars” of the Hypothesis to be 1. Use of different names for G-d. 2. Changes in style of language. 3. Contradictions between different texts 4. Copies of different stories 5. And seemingly composite structure in certain texts. Cassuto tackles these problems in two distinct ways: Showing how that the Torah can be read as one complete unit, and why there are inconsistencies in the hypothesis. What I found most interesting was the beautiful reading of the text that came through from the former method of disproving the Hypothesis. I will go through one of the pillars to show Cassuto ‘s approach. One of these is found in the different names for G-d in the Torah. What I have learned for a long time that the two main names of G-d, Hashem and Elokim, are used for the G-d of mercy and G-d of justice respectively. While Cassuto does subscribe to this approach, he details a much more thorough reading of the names. The name Elokim is the name of G-d when he is dealing with the entire world and humankind. It is then clear why the name Elokim is exclusively used at the beginning of the Torah, when G-d is dealing with the entire world. The name Hashem is a much more intimate name, the name G-d uses with the Jewish people. This approach then leads itself to the idea, that G-d is the G-d of justice while dealing with humankind, but is merciful while dealing with his chosen nation, Israel. Cassuto goes through all of Breishit (Genesis) and explains how each use of the Names is proper in its context. By doing so, Cassuto shows that not only does the text not need to be read as different writers because of the Divine Names, but that the test must be one coherent book, using the Names consistently throughout. Also, he shows that there are many times where the Name that is supposed to be used in one document, is used in context of what the Hypothesis deems a different document. Cassuto uses this to show that the Hypothesis is not consistent. He believes this to show that the proponents of the Hypothesis are desperately trying to fit the text into conceived notions that they had before they read the text, something which he tries to never do.

            Although I had little knowledge of the intricacies of the Documentary Hypothesis before reading this book, it seems that Cassuto does a very good job of displaying the problems in the Hypothesis. For those that are interested in or concerned by this part of critical scholarship, this is a must read.

"Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer

Whether it is in work, school or social activities, everyone has a summit they want to climb, their own Everest. For Jon Krakauer, an avid climber from youth, Everest was his Everest. Into Thin Air, is his account of the dreadful expedition on May, 10, 1996 where a storm hit an expedition trying to summit Everest, killing twelve of the climbers. For this post I am going to generally stay away from summarizing the story, and try to see what lessons can be learned from this daring tale. What I found so profound about the story was the emotion Krakauer put into it, emotion that could only have been from one that personally went through the ordeal. While retelling the story, Krakauer's remorse at certain points for not helping when he was absolutely exhausted is palpable. While he does blame other factors for the disaster, he never rules out his own culpability. Doing this, especially when at 29,000 feet,  is truly impressive when it is  nearly impossible to focus due to lack of oxygen in the thin air.
The first lesson I saw from this story, was the crazy want of people to climb Everest in the first place.  As Krakauer puts it: "No matter how much you pay, even with all the assistance the Sherpas and the guides provide, it's still an incredible amount of work. No one can haul you up Everest. You can't just buy the summit. You've got pay with sweat and puke and maybe with your life. That is worth some grudging respect." An axiom I have heard frequently is "the best things in life don't come easy". It seems that this is most true when dealing with Everest. To reach the "roof of the world" was the goal of many climbers, to defeat the world's biggest obstacle.  Krakauer explains this may have well been one of the reasons that accidents can happen, the undying push to get to the top, when there is nothing left to go down. Therefore, what was most intesresting about Krakauer's way of telling the story, was the lack of information about him getting tot he summit. He mentions it, but it lasts only a page or two in the lengthy novel. Rather, he focuses on what happened to each and every other person during the storm that took twelve lives. To be able to separate his own accomplishments from the story that needed to be told is a great virtue. Many times, specifically in education, the "agenda" of the teacher turns paramount while the students are not necessarily given everything they need. To be able to put oneself aside, and look at the bigger picture, is a important value that I took out.
Another is keeping to safety rules, especially with other factors telling you to ignore them. Basically, the deadline set by the lead guide Rob Hall to get to the top, or turn around was 2 PM. For some reason 2 PM came and past and Hall was still leading people to the top. Krakauer relates that had he turned everyone around like he initially said, the expedition would have avoided the storm, but only two climbers would have made the summit. Krakauer explains that he believes the reason for this was commercialization of the mountain. Hall hadn't got anyone to the summit in his last tour and a new expedition, led by Scott Fisher, was threatening his livelihood. Also, because of the rising cost of permits to climb, each client had to pay $65,000 to be part of the trip. All these reasons, Krakauer describes, acted as the push that led Hall to continue upwards into a precarious situation. Specifically in this case, it must be noted that with the limited oxygen in the air it is very hard to make the right choices in such grueling conditions. However, when we are on the ground we have to learn from Hall that competition or other ancillary parts should never get in front of our true goals.


All in all, Into Thin Air is a fantastically written account of event that took twelve lives. We should all try to live our lifelong goals, as Jon Krakauer did, but should be blessed to have them happen without the tragedy that befell this group.

The Challenge of Creation by Rabbi Natan Slifkin

In his controversial work, Rabbi Slifkin tries to go through many places where Judaism encounters science, most notably, age of the universe and evolution. He brings down an interesting point to show the necessity for such a study. In a survey of people who left Judaism, half the people left because they felt they couldn't ask questions and almost two-thirds of them said they left because they didn't get good answers to their questions when they posed them. Based on this and other issues, Slifkin argues that it is of utmost importance both to allow and to show how Judaism can live with science. Before he does that, he talks about how religion is actually the basis for scientific inquiry. Before this,  I had always thought that the reason to study science was to see G-d's world for what it really is and marvel at how well it functions. Slifkin shows that there is much more to it than that. As science has progressed, it has become clearer and clearer that the forces in the universe are working together. For this reason, scientists have begun looking for the one "Theory of Anything". Many Jewish sources state that the entire universe was created out of the unity of G-d. It seems that science is starting to believe in this unity, weather or not they agree to its being.
Since hearing one of his lectures while in yeshiva (2008), I have been a very big Dr. Gerald Schroeder supporter. In his books, Schroeder works to concord the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of creation. Personally, I find great faith when an ancient text could very well be accounting for scientific discoveries unearthed in the last couple of years (See Science of G-d, and Genesis and the Big Bang). As, Schroeder himself said in a lecture at Bnei Yeshurin in Teaneck, "discovery of the Big Bang was the best thing to happen for G-d in this world, since Moses came down from the mountain".  Slifkin, decidedly disagrees with Schroeder's approach. He posits that the Torah was not meaning to give us a scientific story of creation, but rather, it is telling us a conceptual approach to the order of creation. He bases this idea on two important points. He quotes the Ralbag, Rambam and R Saadya Gaon as essentially saying that when the text disagrees with scientific observation, we must, and should read the text allegorically. For example, the Rambam reads the anthropomorphism in the Torah as allegories, because G-d has no physical form. Secondly, The Torah was written for the peopl of ancient times and the people of the modern times alike. While the science of the world has been changing dramatically, the Torah has not. Therefore,  the Torah must have written in allegorical terms to accommodate readers throughout the centuries. Slifkin uses this theory to then show that there cannot be inherent disagreement between the Torah and science, because the Torah is simply not talking in those terms. However, I find issue with both of the proofs Slifkin raises. True, the authorities state that one can read the Torah allegorically when necessary, they only do so when it is impossible otherwise. Furthermore, an infinite G-d could very well write a text that would cater to the sensibilities of many different readers. In this fashion, Schroeder shows how when the ancient people could read seven days of creation and accept it, we can see that seven days from the viewpoint of an early universe, in which it is accepted that time moved much quicker, the first 5.5 days of creation can actually be 14 billion years (See Genesis and the Big Bang). Slifkin, however, does address a number of  problems for Schroeder. Most importantly, on page 185, Slifkin shows many incongruities between science's perception of the order of Genesis and the Torah's. I don't know how Schroeder deals with these issues, but seemingly it makes his full position hard to hold by. The problem I find is, Slifkin disregards the entirety of Schroeder's approach of concordance, and fully acknowledges the allegorical approach of reading Genesis.

Perhaps a third mediatory view can be posed. The days of creation were in fact days yet also eons as Schroeder argues, and in this way the Torah was able to write Genesis in such a way that both ancient and modern readers can read the account and find it to be true. At the same time, the Torah is a theological work. The exact order of Genesis need not be the exact order in which it happened. In other places the Torah does this as well (at least according to many), and the famous stance of Rashi and others of ain mukdam umeuchar batorah, the Torah can leave the chronological order of things to teach lessons to those reading it. What lessons can we learn from the Torah's order in Genesis?

The order that the Torah gives seems to be methodical, building up and up, where each day seems to be the next step towards something. That something, the Torah says, is man and his relationship with his Maker. The creation itself leads up to man, but it does not stop there. The story of the creation of the world ends in the Sabbath, where G-d rested. We can believe in scientific inquiry, the big bang and evolution, but we cannot subscribe to the "blind watchmaker" idea of a world absent of G-d. The story of Genesis is there to teach us that man, the pinnacle of creation, is supposed to look upon the creation and see its majesty, but not forget G-d while doing so. It is for this reason that the Torah in Exodus 31:16-17, says the Sabbath is a sign between G-d and the Jewish people. We must see G-d in the nature around us. It does not contradict Him, it shows Him.

The Oral Law by H. Chaim Shimmel

In this study of the oral tradition of Judaism, Rabbi Shimmel discusses many issues regarding the long standing Jewish oral tradition. To what extent is Torah She'beal Peh (Oral Law) from Sinai? How and why did the Rabbis create the tradition that we now find in the Mishna and the Talmud? To what extent did the  Rabbis have the ability to move within the Halachic framework that already existed? Shimmel, in a concise and accessible way, tries to tackle these and other issues.
Right away it is clear that Shimmel is a deeply religious man. He only gives time to sources in the Jewish tradition and never quotes anything else. He does quote the gambit of rishonim and talmudic sources, but he never strays away from his own tradition. This effects every topic that he discusses. He never entertains the possibility of  opinions that may be construed as heretical, and is very orthodox in his approach. This can be seen most decisively when he discusses the extent to which the Oral law is a direct tradition from Moses. He quotes many opinions, but for brevity sake, I will only talk about the extremes. On the one hand, he quotes the Ra'avad who says that other than Takkanot, which were laws purely created to make a "fence around the Torah", everything that is recorded in the Mishnah and the Talmud are directly from Sinai. He then quotes many sources that seem to indicate that at different times the law was forgotten in all its detail, which then leads to arguments. On the opposite end, Shimmel quotes the Rambam. The Rambam breaks up Sinaitic law into interpretations received at Sinai of the Scripture and Halacha Lemoshe meSinai. Everything else, including laws derived by logic and sevara, takkanot and gezerot, are from the Rabbis. This by no means covers all opinions. When Louis Jacobs discusses this same issue in Rabbinic thought in the Talmud, the Rambam seems to be the most extreme to the right. Perhaps this is a fault with Jacobs work as well, but by not lending an ear to historical data whatsoever, Shimmel seems to be missing out on a lot of valuable information.
Another topic Shimmel discusses is whether or not the Oral law, which was not given at Sinai is the Divine WIll. This is a topic that can be of great significance. Either way, the Halacha as we have it today is indispensable for keeping together a society of people that live in many different lands. The Rabbis, although not infallible, had great wisdom and I believe in the system that they have set into place. But, when I am washing my hands before eating bread, am I fulfilling G-d's will? Rav ELchanan Wasserman and Rav DZ Hoffman, take this view, against Rav Shimon Shkup. Personally, I would like to believe that G-d is helping the Halachic process and when we do these things we are doing them because G-d wants us to. Obviously, these issues are not verifiable on either side, but how you look at them can drastically change your mind view.

The Oral Law was an interesting read by all accounts. Although it was not as broad as I would have liked, Rabbi Shimmel covers a tremendous amount of sources in the Jewish tradition to make his points. 
                       Next week The Challenge of Creation by Nathan Slifkin.