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.

Welcome to my blog!

Hi everyone!
During my time in Camp Stone last summer, I had the privilege of spending some time with the eccentric Yehuda Rothner. During our talks, I found out that, even though he does a million things, he manages to read a book every week. Starting right after the summer, I decided to try and do the same. I generally have time that I use up for things less important, why not take upon the challenge? So, I have been doing it for twenty-nine weeks now, and it has surprisingly not been impossibly hard to keep up. I decided to make this blog to both crystallize my thoughts on each book, and to possibly hear what others have to say on the topics of Jewish thought the books discuss. As can be seen from the list below, most of the books i have chosen have been Jewish thought related, although it has not been exclusively so. I hope to go back and discuss some of the ones I have done in the past. Feel free to comment, I would love to hear what you have to say.
Hope you enjoy!
Sam

1.   Science of G-D

2.   Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine

3.   Lonely Man of Faith

4.   Halakhik man

5.   Hillel (Telushkin)

6.   Future Tense

7.   Torah Umadda

8.   As a Driven Leaf

9.   Kol Dodi Dofek

10. Genesis and the Big Bang

11. Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (Emunot Vedeot)

12. The Things They Carried

13. Learning to Read Midrash

14. Printing the Talmud

15. 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

16. What Happy People Know

17. Abraham's Children

18. Not in Heaven

19. Intro to the Philosophy of Religion

20. The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty

21. Worship of the Heart

22. The Hidden Face of G-d

23. 19 Letters of Ben Uziel

24. Documentary Hypothesis – Umberto Cassuto

25. Equality lost

26. MoneyBall

27. Handbook of Jewish Thought I 

28. Rabbinic Thought in the Talmud

29. The Oral Law