Sago Boulevard

I’ll leave it to more informed political writers to provide a full analysis of Israel’s recent incursion into Gaza to free kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit (גלעד בן אביבה). What I’ll do instead is offer some scattered comments on what others have written.
(more…)

Yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep.

(via zuzu)

Please pray for the safe release of Gilad Shalit (גלעד בן אביבה), the Israeli soldier kidnapped in yesterday’s Palestinian attack. The Rabbanut has suggested this prayer to be said following tehillim (via My Obiter Dicta).

Dr. Tzvee Zahavy posts about his approach to teaching rabbinic texts in a university setting and links to an article he wrote on the same topic. In describing his course methods, he writes:

I also do not emphasize the notion of the texts as part of “the Halakhah.” This concept is a relatively modern construct, composed of many strata of texts, commentaries and codes. Some would argue it is a tool of those who foster rabbinic authority rather than a purely intellectual asset of our rabbinic heritage.

I think there are a number of problems with this approach. I’m going to assume for now that by “the Halakhah”, he means something to the effect of “a coherent religious-legal tradition, beginning with the written Torah and continuing to this day”. Approaching these texts without recognizing the halakhic role they play is to study them out of context. Firstly, Hazal (the rabbis of the Talmud) saw themselves as part of an ongoing tradition (see the first Mishnah in Avot), beginning with Revelation and continuing past them. Why shouldn’t our study of their work incorporate the hundreds of commentaries and halakhic compilations identified with that tradition?

Secondly, Hazal understood their divrei Torah as having normative implications. Consider a disagreement between two Amora’im (the later rabbis of the Talmud) about how to read a particular mishnah. At stake was not merely the intent of the mishnaic author. The resolution of the disagreement would determine the appropriate behavior for the halakhically-observant Jew.

It doesn’t make sense to divorce Talmud study from its normative-halakhic context and to ignore the fruit of Torah scholarship that continues that tradition to this day. While historical context should not be ignored and academic impartiality is warranted in a university setting, it seems clear that the rabbinic texts are primary halakhic ones. To approach them any differently is to misrepresent them.

Maverick philosopher, Bill Vallicella, has been has dishing out more aphorisms than usual during the past week. I suggest going over there and taking a look. While I’m certainly not one to shy away from long, convoluted, philosophical treatises, the aphorism has a unique way of expressing complex ideas in deceptively simple language, which I greatly admire.

My “about me” page has been updated. Expect a more-thorough expansion in the near future. I find that it’s easier to relate to somebody’s writing, especially bloggers’, if you have at least a general idea of the person’s background and interests.

R. Marvin Fox in “The Moral Philosophy of MaHaRal”:

…[W]hatever is divinely commanded through the Torah is intrinsically good. The social utility or wide-spread general acceptance of particular commandments may add to their attractiveness from our limited human perspective. Their ultimate ground, however, is their intrinsic value. Since we are incapable of grasping this fully through our own resources, we submit in modest awareness of our creaturely finitude to the divine wisdom… We have here two poles of a dialectical exposition. On the one hand, virtues are conceived as divine decrees to which man can only submit in faithful self-suppression. On the other hand, virtues are conceived as intrinsically valuable and thus commanding the freely given assent of any intelligent person. Thesis and antithesis are synthesized in the actual situation of man. The very process of submission grants him the illumination which in turn leaves no doubt about the intrinsic worth of the commandments. Thus, the man of true piety will observe the commandments with a combination of loyalty to God’s word and intelligent apprehension of the supreme wisdom implicit in that word.

Israel’s Magen David Adom was finally admitted to the International Red Cross “ending decades of exclusion linked to the Jewish state’s refusal to accept the traditional cross symbol”. Let’s pause for a moment to fully appreciate the absurdity of excluding Israel’s medical and humanitarian organization because it refuses to adopt the overtly Christian symbol. Are Muslim countries required to use the red cross as their symbol? Of course not.

The simple red cross on a white background — the reversal of colors of the Swiss flag — was adopted as the emblem of the movement when it was founded in 1863 by Swiss humanitarians trying to care for battlefield casualties who otherwise were left to suffer.

But the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian Crusaders, and they insisted on their own red crescent in the 19th century.

When Israel’s society bid for membership was turned down in 1949, it objected to using either the cross or the crescent, and the Red Cross movement refused to admit yet another emblem.

Because admitting another emblem is so costly and difficult, right? So has the Red Cross finally permitted Magen David Adom to use the Jewish star? Sort of.

The decision early Thursday completed a complicated process that included the creation of the optional, third emblem — a blank, red-bordered square standing on one corner — that could stand alone or frame the Israeli society’s red star.

The emblem — dubbed the “red crystal” — was approved over Muslim objections in a hard-fought diplomatic conference last December. But that was only the first step, and the conference was called to complete the job.

Is anybody surprised that the Muslim representatives objected? Anybody at all? I wonder if the objections had any content at all, besides “we hate Jews”.

I finally finished reading the most recent issue of Tradition (subscription required). Maybe it’s just the new spruced-up cover, but the last few issues seem to be improving. R. Shalom Carmy writes about the supposed challenge of science to religion and offers what I think are some good suggestions. He strangely omits Rabbi Slifkin’s name despite clearly refering to him; I’m not sure why. R. Aharon Lichtenstein writes an excellent, nuanced, and refreshingly intellectually honest article about marriage and sexuality in Halakhah. R. Lichtenstein doesn’t need my praise but, suffice it to say, everything he writes is worth reading (if there are exceptions to this, I haven’t found them). A couple articles by Dr. Joel B. Wolowelsky and R. Gidon Rothstein address the growing controversy over women’s participation in Synagogue life. Dr. David Berger reviews R. Yitz Greenberg’s newest book For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity. I haven’t read the book so I’m not really in a position to evaluate the review. Read it and decide for yourself.

My wonderfully-reliable computer crashed yesterday. Dell will supposedly send me a new hard drive by Friday, so until then expect erratic blogging.

Reining AL MVP Alex Rodriguez is finally showing signs that his hitting slump is over. Yesterday, he went 2-for-5 and his 2-run homer began a 7-run inning. Today he was 2-for-2 with two walks and an RBI. Most importantly, though, was how he did with runners in scoring position and with two outs. In the 6th, with Jeter on 2nd, he drew a walk (Jeter scored on a sac-fly by Posada). In the 8th, his 2-out RBI-double gave the Yankees a 2-1 lead.

Of course all of this would be much sweeter had the Yankees won (Zimmerman homered in the 9th to win). But it’s still nice to see A-Rod hitting like his old self again.

In this week’s Jewish Week (via Hirhurim), Marc Shapiro addresses the so-called “Jewish approach” to the immigration debate:

[T]he liberal Jewish establishment has weighed in with strong opposition to any real cracking down on illegal immigration. This pro-immigration stance is not, in and of itself, a “liberal” position. For example, The Wall Street Journal has long advocated abolishing all immigration restrictions. What is significant with regard to many in the Jewish community, however, is that as with a number of other issues its leaders lobby for, they have sought to portray their stand as the “Jewish approach,” the one in line with Jewish tradition and values.

Shapiro is skeptical and he notes a number of sources supporting restrictions on immigration to Jewish communities; in particular, the herem ha-yishuv (“ban on settlement”) that he describes as follows:

In medieval times, an era of real Jewish communal authority, Jewish communities were forced to deal with the issue of wanderers who wished to settle among them. It is understandable that many of the Jewish townspeople endeavored to ban entry to those of their co-religionists who could have provided economic competition. What is relevant today is not the economic wisdom of this step, but rather the response of the leading Jewish scholars who also served as the communal legal authorities.

Throughout virtually all of Europe, these scholars granted communities the right to control settlement. By doing so they established an important principle, namely, that local residents alone should determine who should live with them. This system became known as herem ha-yishuv (“ban on settlement”), and the standard practice in most Jewish communities was a closed-door policy. Strangers could usually stay for a short while, but were not permitted to settle permanently. Generally, the only people given settlement rights were rabbis, students, wealthy people and refugees, the latter two on the proviso that they not engage in business.

Thus, supporting immigration restrictions today would hardly qualify as an un-Jewish position.

Extrapolating to contemporary times, one would certainly be within the realm of Jewish tradition if one instituted a herem ha-yishuv in order to ensure that a nation’s language or culture not be diluted through indiscriminate immigration. (Whether this is smart economic or social policy is another matter irrelevant to this discussion.) What is relevant is that a modern herem ha-yishuv would fall squarely within the Jewish tradition that residents of a place have the right to determine their own self-interest, including who should be allowed in and who should be kept out.

I think Shapiro’s parenthetical statement is the key to unlocking this debate. That residents of a given place have a right to determine who is settles there is a basic principle of self-government. That Jewish communities regulated immigration, presumably with rabbinic permission, merely confirms this. The question facing Americans right now isn’t whether or not we have a right to restrict immigration, but rather whether it’s really in our self-interest to exercise that right.

Philosophers’ Carnival #31 is up at blog.kennypearce.net, featuring my post on selective prosecution.

One of the common cases made against capital punishment is that it is too-often enforced unequally along racial and socio-economic lines. In response to this, Ernest van den Haag (”In Defense of the Death Penalty”) offers an argument that I think has implications for a more general issue in philosophy of law, namely the problem of selective prosecution. (more…)

Michael H. Steinhardt - Chairman of Jewish Life Network, philanthropist, and self-identified atheist - spoke at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah in February about the growing disparity between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. (via Drew). The Edah Journal has published his remarks, entitled “A Challenge to Orthodoxy: Remarks at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, February 9, 2006“.

I’ll begin by saying that most of what Steinhardt says is sensible. (more…)

Over the last month or so, I reread many of R. Soloveitchik’s essays. It’s particularly rewarding for me to return to these works now, having spent the last year studying Torah full-time. I still have to finish reading the Rav’s latest collection of essays, Festival of Freedom, which I started during Pesach but didn’t really get into.

Here’s my tentative reading list for the next couple of months:

Godel Meets Einstein by Palle Yourgrau (a philosophy professor I was close with at Brandeis); Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton; After Virtue by Alasdair C. MacIntyre; Expanding the Palace of Torah by Tamar Ross. This last one’s a reread. I read it last year and didn’t like it at all but I’ve been talked into giving it another chance.

Recommendations are welcome.

Chag Shavuot Sameach. Check out the Shavuot Journal 5766 at VBM. Blogging will resume on Sunday.