Updated Editor’s Note: Stan Kreis, a regular BJN contributor, took video of this Limmud Colorado panel with Rabbi Gavriel Goldfeder, Rabbi Marc Soloway, and Rabbi Josh Rose, which we link to below.  BJN appreciates Rabbi Soloway’s introductory remarks as well!

Thanks, Stan!

Editor’s Note: One of the participants at Limmud Colorado “live-blogged” the morning discussion among Rabbi Gavriel Goldfeder, Rabbi Marc Soloway, and Rabbi Josh Rose.

We are certain this is not the last we’ve heard in this engaging discussion. However, we are most appreciative to Chaviva Galatz for her diligence in capturing the discussion.  Check it out on her blog, The Kvetching Editor.

If you haven’t met her yet, learn a little about her in this video from Ignite Chanukah. Thanks, Chaviva!

It will perhaps then come as a modest surprise to the student of Judaism that the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis held a more complex and nuanced view of sin that paints a less than black and white image and understanding of this religious category. To be clear, the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis as one would imagine did not promote sin; this notoriety would be left to the 17^th century manic- depressive false messiah Shabtai Zvi who developed a pseudo-kabbalistic doctrine of “Redemption through Sin”. In this doctrine, certain sparks of holiness enveloped within evil, due to the primordial mythic shattering of the Divine Vessels, the antecedents of physical creation, could only be redeemed through sin. (see Redemption Through Sin in The Messianic Idea in Judaism by Professor Gershom Scholem) Nevertheless, the classical Rabbis did have some teachings that are sufficiently provocative that they deserve our attention and are required input if we are to understand what a broad Judaic view on the subject encompasses.

The first rabbinic concept we need to acquaint ourselves with is that of a, “Sin for the Sake of Heaven”. The meaning of this rabbinic terminology is — doing something that is clearly wrong (A Sin) but with good intention (For the Sake of Heaven).  The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Nazir 23b explores this concept and quotes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak as stating that, ”Greater is a Sin done for the Sake of Heaven than a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven.” This teaching however brings to the surface a different rabbinic teaching, that of Rav who stated that, ”A person should always engage in the study of Torah and the performance of Mitzvot even when they are done not for the Sake of Heaven, for out of their being done not for the Sake of Heaven one will come to do them for the Sake of Heaven.” This counter teaching, which sees insincere Mitzvah observance and Torah study as having greater potential than a Sin for the Sake of Heaven, leads the rabbis of the Talmud to conclude that, ”A Sin for the Sake of Heaven is equal to a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven.”

In explanation, Sin for the Sake of Heaven has the virtue of pure intent and the liability of a sinful deed. Whereas a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven has the merit of a virtuous deed but the liability of a deficient intent, albeit one that can ultimately lead to a more sincere intent. It is worth noting that the upward spiritual mobility that the rabbis saw in a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven did not inspire them to value such an insincere Mitzvah as being of greater spiritual worth than a Sin committed for the Sake of Heaven.

One example that the classical Rabbis see as emblematic of Sinning for the Sake of Heaven is that of the Biblical heroine Yael. When Sisera, commander of the Canaanite army, was defeated in Battle he fled and hid in Yael’s tent. (Judges 4:17) Yael seduced Sisera and engaged in a quite heated evening of adultery. This for the purpose of weakening Sisera in what turned out to be in the Talmudic mind an exceptionally busy evening. (Nazir 23b) Then while Sisera naively slept in utter exhaustion, Yael killed him in her incarnation as a religious fem fatale. (Judges 4:22)

This rabbinic teaching on a Sin for the Sake of Heaven recognizes that sinning may at times be necessary and that if done with sincere intent it has legitimacy. True, it is not what Judaism is pointing to as an ideal, which would be sincere intent coupled with a clear cut virtuous deed, but Sin for the Sake of Heaven is as well not a priori rejected as an option. It is also worth noting that the methodology of studying Torah and doing Mitzvot insincerely with the assumption that they will lead to sincere religious life was not universally accepted and was specifically rejected by 19^th century Polish Hassidic Masters such as Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Przysucha and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk when it did not truly motivate the person to raise their level of intention. (see The Quest for Authenticity: The Thought of Reb Simcha Bunim by Rabbi Dr. Michael Rosen z’l pg. 155)

When we further explore classical Rabbinic teachings on sin we also find a vein of both limited accommodation to sin and as well a policy of damage control. The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Kiddushin 40a begins with a teaching of Rabbi Chanina that, ”It is preferable for a person to commit a sin in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public.” The Talmud then quotes a teaching of Rabbi Elai the Elder, ”If a person sees that their inclination is overcoming them they should go to a place where they are not known and wear and cover themselves with black clothes and do what their heart desires and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public.“ The Talmud soon clarifies that this teaching is speaking about an individual that is truly unable to contain themselves and thus it is better that the reverberations of the sin be minimal. Here we have a rabbinic teaching that while not condoning sin seeks to work with human frailty in a way that we do not see reflected in Biblical literature. Many classic rabbinic authorities (Rabbeinu Channanel, Ritva, Meiri) presumably astonished by this tolerance for overwhelming impulsivity seek to read this teaching in a way that takes a step back from the accommodation to human eros it represents, but others (Tosafot Toch and Tosafot HaRosh) acknowledge that this indeed is what these rabbis espoused. (see Steinsaltz Iyunim on Kiddushin 40a ad. loc)

We also find a classical rabbinic teaching that sanctions the performing of a minor sin by a more educated and committed Jew (Chaver) so as to avoid a major sin by a less educated and devout fellow (Am Ha’aretz). Some rabbinic authorities define a “Minor Sin” as a violation of Rabbinic Law (Mishne La’Melekh on Hilkhot Terumot 3:17) whereas others see it as permitting even a Biblical violation of lesser stature and weight (Gittin 30b and Tosafot Yevamot 93b s.v. Ela). The source for this teaching is in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Eruvin 32b which records the halakhic view of Rabbi Judah the Prince, ”It is in the interest of a Chaver to commit a minor sin so that an Am Ha’aretz does not commit a major sin.” This view despite the prominence of its author as the compiler of the Mishna does not go unchallenged by no less than his father Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. He opines that, “It would be in the interest of a Chaver for an Am Ha’aretz to do a major sin and he not commit even a minor sin.” We have here a profound debate as to what extent if any can a person compromise their own spiritual integrity to serve another’s spiritual integrity.

Lest our imagination run wild, the case in which this principle of Rabbi Judah the Prince emerges is dealing with Biblically mandated tithes where he holds that a Chaver could tithe in a less than appropriate fashion i.e. not in the location of the crop (Minor Sin) in order to prevent the Am Ha’aretz from eating produce (that he provided the Am Ha’aretz) that would go without being tithed at all (Major Sin).  This view of Rabbi Judah the Prince does find itself being utilized in the halakhic responsa literature as a viable halakhic principle well beyond the issue of tithes. (see Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef’s Yabia Omer Part 4 Even Ha’Ezer Siman 4 for one contemporary example within the Ultra-Orthodox Sefardic community)

In this classical rabbinic teaching of Rabbi Judah the Prince we see that our responsibility for our fellow Jew and Jewess may under certain circumstances potentially call those of greater education and devotion to be willing to diminish their own potential conformity to the Halakha in its purist expression in order to mitigate against a greater damage to the religious life of a fellow Jew and Jewess. This could be called by analogy the path of a Halakhic Bhodisattva.

The classical rabbis also recognize what we would define as a lesser of two evils approach in relation to sin where the rabbis would prefer people to sin in ignorance rather than inform them of the wrongdoing and have them transgress willfully — assuming of course this is the probable result. The latter, willful transgression, is seen as the greater wrong and is to be avoided. In rabbinic terminology, ”It is better that they be unintentional sinners and not intentional ones.” (Talmud Bavli Shabbat 148b)

There is as well a willingness on the part of the classical rabbis at times to permit something that ordinarily would be forbidden, or look the other way in order to prevent an individual from transgressing in that matter in its forbidden state! In rabbinic terminology, ”It is better that Israel eat meat from an animal that is on its way to death that is slaughtered [in the halakhic procedure] and they not eat meat from an animal that has already died.”(Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 21b) In explanation, Halakha forbids the consumption of an animal that would die from mortal wounds or specific illnesses even if the animal had been properly slaughtered by a ritual slaughterer. Halakha also forbids eating a Kosher species of animal that died naturally absent ritual slaughter. (Mishne Torah Hilkhot Ma’acholot Assurot 4:1, 4:7-9) What this teaching is informing us is that the classical rabbis felt that eating the meat of an animal that died on its own is a more severe sin than eating the meat of an animal that would die but nevertheless was slaughtered.

The rabbis derive this principle of preferential sin from the Torah’s granting of an Israelite soldier permission in time of war to take even a married Gentile woman captive and essentially convert her and marry her — I will spare you the debate regarding when he is permitted to have sexual relations with her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Steinsaltz Iyunim of Kiddushin 21A) We will need to bracket the issue at present of the rather belated Geneva Conventions and their relation to Biblical morality and laws pertaining to war. Thus we see that the classical rabbis did not at all times and under all circumstances see the Torah as a zero sum game where either one lives in an ideal manner or not at all and they were even willing in limited circumstances to allow Halakha to be turned into somewhat of a pretzel to help Israel avoid sin. This Talmudic principle and analogous ones like it, for instance, ”It is better that they eat the gravy [of the forbidden fat] and not the forbidden fat itself” were adopted by later rabbinic authorities in concert with other halakhic considerations for leniency to as well permit the otherwise forbidden. (see Responsa of the Rambam Pear Ha’Dor Siman 132 for a case regarding Conversion)

The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Menachot 44a tells a rather wild story that while overtly seems to stress the reward in this world for the Mitzvah of Tzitzit (and Mitzvot in general), on a more subtle level tells us as well something about how the classical rabbis viewed sin in some circumstances. The story goes that there was a wealthy man who was very fastidious about observing the commandment of Tzitzit. Nonetheless, he was highly vulnerable to his libidinal urges and developed an active interest in illicit relations with prostitutes. The man hears of a highly expensive Gentile prostitute in a rather far away locale within the Roman empire and sends her fee of 400 Gold Dinars in advance, perhaps hoping that you get what you pay for. He arrives and is led to an erotic set up of seven beds one on top of the other –the first six of silver and the last of gold, all with fine linens with the prostitute laying naked on the top bed. He disrobes and begins his ascent and the Tzitzit begin to pelt him in the face. It is not clear whether this is meant literally as a magical episode or metaphorically as meaning that they aroused his conscience. He comes down from the ladders connecting the beds and sits down and the woman as well comes down and sits besides him. She is astonished and expresses a desire to know what he found wrong with her. He poignantly shares with her that she is the most beautiful woman he has even seen (apparently this was not his first such visit), it’s just that in this instance his Tzitzit reminded him of his accountability in this world and the next and simply deflated his ardor. The woman demands his name, the name of his city, rabbi and house of study and she bids him goodbye. She then proceeds to divide her possessions and treks to her failed paramour’s hometown and seeks an appointment with his rabbi. She asks to convert and explains the story of what inspired her and her request is granted. The rabbi in his parting words encouraged her to marry the lustful but conscience ridden student and the rabbis observe, ”Those fine linens that she prepared for him illicitly she may now prepare for him with halakhic sanction.”

This is quite a strange story even on a surface level as it is employed to demonstrate the “reward” for the Mitzvot, in this case Tzitzit. The lustful man is rewarded with the ability to now marry and have a permanent, sanctified and more cost-effective relationship with the most beautiful woman he has ever beheld.   For our purposes the relevance of the story points to a rabbinic view that sees the outcome of the intention to sin, and for that matter a lifestyle of sin itself, as having at times a rebound effect where a greater good can result from the trajectory of sin embarked on. In the words of Dr. Claudio Naranjo, a Fourth Way Psychologist quoting a popular wisdom teaching, ”The Devil knows not for whom he works.” (Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View-Introduction) Many people on the spiritual path can relate to the notion that if they had not gone through certain blind alleys, dead ends and misguided life choices they may never have arrived at a place of greater spiritual maturation.  It is sometimes out of our greatest personal darkness that we eventually reveal and experience our greatest light.

Let us now turn our attention to select Hassidic masters within the 19^th century Polish school of Hasidism.

The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Gittin 43a debates the issue of whether a half-freed slave-woman can be betrothed. The sage Rabah is initially inclined to say no and after hearing the reasoning of his colleague Rav Chisdah reverses his opinion and considers himself in error in his original position. He then after quoting a verse in scripture where the Torah is referred to as a stumbling block (Isaiah 3:6) states, ”A man does not establish himself in Torah unless he stumbles in it first.” (Ain Adam Omed Al Divrie Torah Ela Im Ken Nichshal Bahen Techilah). The plain meaning of this rabbinic statement is referring to issuing halakhic rulings in Torah and the inevitable errors of logic and interpretation that are part of the process of learning for a rabbi. When the sage errs and is corrected by his colleagues this advances his learning process. (see Rashi s.v. Ve’Hamchshalah)

In the Hassidic teachings of Rav Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin this teaching takes on a much broader application and he sees this pathway of error and stumbling as being relevant to a person’s struggle for spiritual attainment in Divine Service and understanding of the Torah. He writes, ”That in truth so established the blessed God for by means of a person’s efforts and actions they will attain all the spiritual levels and therefore even though in the beginning this draws one to stumbling, nevertheless by means of this stumbling they reach and establish themselves on the words of the Torah.”(Likutie Ma’amarim Amud 13)

Professor Moshe Idel in his work Kabbalah: New Perspectives describes Hassidism as, ”The Psychologization of Kabbalah” here we have Hassidism as the, ”Psychologization of the Talmud.” What in the Talmud is an observation about the process of issuing Halakhic rulings, in Rav Tzadok’s spiritual hand becomes a guide for the personal journey of the spiritual aspirant. We learn by mistakes, by at times committing sins but if we are sincere these sins teach us and we come to an eventual place of spiritual integrity. Here we see that sin can have a constructive contribution to spiritual development. We need not seek sin out as we are reliable to find it without effort — it is part of the human condition.

We will conclude with what is by far the most radical teaching within the 19th century Polish Hassidic tradition in relation to sin — the notion that sinning can at times be God’s will. Paradoxical as this sounds, as conventionally we would consider sin to be the opposite of God’s will, in the antinomian mind of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica, not so.

In his work Mei Hashiloah redacted by his grandson it states, ”With regards to certain things in the Holy Torah, when it is clear to a person that now is the time for the Lord to work, as Elijah did on Mt. Carmel, then it is necessary to overturn the general principles of the Holy Torah and act only in accord with the understanding [binah] that God infuses to man. Rabbi Nathan says that when the understanding is not present, the person is required to conduct himself in accord with the manifested general rules of the Torah without transgressing the bounds of the Halakha.  Rabbi Nathan further says, when a person’s heart strives after the will of God and he removes from himself all personal attachments, God summons him to do an act which seems to him to transgress the principles of the Torah, heaven forbid. It is concerning this case that Rabbi Nathan said that a person whose heart strives after the Lord and has removed from himself all personal gain can be certain that it will not be counted as a sin, heaven forbid. He can be certain that it was a time for the Lord to work. (All is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teachings of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica by Dr. Morris Fairstein pg. 38)

The Mai Hashiloah does teach elsewhere that this teaching is not intended for casual application and is intended for a ”Holy man”. (Mei Hashiloah, Volume I Parashat Kedoshim s.v. Ish Imo Ve’aviv.) I would also point out that when one considers what we know of the life of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef it would seem that the most radical actions he ever took perhaps in fulfillment of this teaching were to break from the Kotzker rebbe who was his teacher and perhaps to pray one of the three formal prayers at a later time than prescribed by Halakha! So we need to be circumspect in applying this teaching if at all.

By way of explanation of this teaching there is a verse in Psalms 119:126 that reads, ”It is a time to act for God they have made void your Torah.” (Et La’asot La’Hashem Heyfiru Toratecha) in the piece quoted above the author translates the verse, ”It’s a time for the Lord to work…” Regardless, this verse in Psalms was utilized by the classical rabbis to underpin the Torah’s granting emergency powers on a temporal basis to set aside Torah law with the rarest of commandments excluded from this permission. (see the author’s essay Emergency Halakha in the Rabbinic Tradition in Millin Chavivin Rabbinic Journal of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) Rabbi Moderchai Yosef Leiner is taking a teaching that generally was seen as only to be utilized by Prophets and establishment rabbinic authorities and in general for the collective benefit of Israel, the Torah or a specific Jewish community and is applying it to the spiritual life of a holy man i.e. a true Hasid. The notion that in however limited circumstances in the life of the individual what would by convention be considered a sin is in fact God’s will is a teaching that while certainly invigorating in its radical nature is also deeply concerning in regards to an individual’s ability to make responsible use of it absent the natural human proclivity towards rationalization. I believe this teaching is the appropriate climax of our studies and I will close with some brief remarks that hopefully serve in the capacity of spiritual brakes for those however few who may be in need of them.

The intention of this essay is to share with the student of Judaism a broader understanding of the religious category of sin as related to by the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis. The life process, spiritual journey and human beings are often not simple and it would be a shame for people to have a sense that the rabbis of our tradition saw sin, which as it is has such heavy and today Christian intonations, in black and white terms. These teachings as a whole clearly portray a more nuanced and sophisticated view of sin than what some might have expected.  The depth of thought that these teachings point to hopefully will garner additional respect for the Rabbinic and Hassidic tradition. I feel it only responsible to add that the Rabbinic tradition is more complex that what this brief essay can reflect and in order to gain a fuller understanding of how sin was viewed we would need to attend to other more conservative teachings that seem to go in a different direction. Teachings that require our understanding and potential reconciliation are ones that express concern and rejection of, ”A Mitzvah that comes about through Sin.” (Talmud Bavli Berachot 47b and Succah 30a) and the rhetorical rabbinic question to be answered in the negative ,”Do we say to a person sin so your friend can merit?” (Talmud Bavli Shabbat 4a) It should also be mentioned that the Izbica Hassidic work Mei Hashiloah failed to garner an approbation from a single Hassidic Rebbe of its time. It is the author’s hope that this essay stimulates the reader’s interest in the depths of Rabbinic and Hassidic thought and as King Solomon says, ”If you quest for it as silver and seek it as hidden treasure then you will understand the awe of God and attain knowledge of the Divine.”(Proverbs 2:4-5)

The Friday night Shabbaton begins at 6:30 pm and will include a delicious three course Shabbat dinner. A children’s program will run simultaneously to the meal and presentation.

On Shabbat morning – February 4^th - Rabbi Miller will lead an instructional Shabbat morning services with kabalistic insights and meditations. Services will be followed by a luncheon.

Dinner begins at 6:30 pm lecturer at 7:45 pm. To make a reservation please follow this link or call 303.429.5177. Click here for more info.  Chabad of NW Metro Denver is located in Westminster on 4505 W 112 Ave.

Question: Why is it important for me to know the mystical insights to prayer? I enjoy the social synagogue atmosphere, the rabbi gives a good sermon and the cholent and kiddush is worth the wait. What more could there be to services?
Rabbi Miller: Because we don’t know how to pray, we try to make the Synagogue experience enjoyable with other activities: food, music or a speech. But most of the services are actually about praying so it’s important that we get some direction how to do that. Good, mystically inspired prayer will help you to be more centered, less fragmented and will put you more in touch with your inner self. To pray with devotion may be difficult, but to pray without it is ludicrous.

Question:  The Shabbat program at Chabad will reflect your latest book that you published, a Friday night synagogue prayer book.  What motivated you to begin focusing on prayer after having publishing two very successful works on the Five Books of Moses (the Lifestyle and Gutnick edition among many other books?
Rabbi Miller: People have the false impression that Rabbis and religious people know how to pray, and others do not. In my experience, that’s not true. Almost everybody nowadays is confused when it comes to prayer. The synagogues overemphasize tradition and external behavior and lose touch of the introspective and the metaphysical. Most prayer commentaries do not help much because they read like a history book: When was this prayer introduced? By whom? etc. So I wanted to redress this problem by writing a prayer commentary which is entirely focused on emotional and spiritual insight.

Question: How does your non-religious up-bringing reflect your understanding and appreciation for prayer?
Rabbi Miller: In my childhood I was deeply alienated by the Synagogue experience. I was definitely interested–look, I became a Rabbi in the end—but there was nothing there for me. I relate deeply to why Jews find the Synagogue experience difficult and now I have the knowledge and experience to help alleviate the problem.

Question: Many people don’t care for the synagogue but like to pray privately at home, will your Friday evening presentation offer tools for solo prayer?
Rabbi Miller: Yes, absolutely. Prayer is an art that can only be mastered through repeated practice. Not many people are able to come to the synagogue on a daily basis and it’s important that praying privately is seen as something desirable.

Bonus Question: When I hear suggestions about meditation during prayer I think of some type of voodoo experience. Can you describe briefly what type of prayer meditation you will be suggesting and why you think they are useful?
Rabbi Miller: The Bible describes prayer as a “ladder,” because it’s an experience that you ascend one rung at a time. The Jewish prayer book (siddur) was written to guide you up this ladder, step by step. At each junction, I will offer some guidance as to the type of emotional work you should be doing at this point. I’m also going to convey some the way Kabbalists imagined what is happening spiritually at that point. These ideas are refreshing and mind-expanding. Indirectly, they help to lift us out of the daily rut that we often find ourselves in and help us to foster a broader, more integrated and holistic approach to life.

Rabbi Chaim Miller

Rabbi Chaim Miller is a leading international authority for interpretation of Jewish Bible and mysticism, specifically the Torah-related works of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (1902-1994). His scholarly achievement, at the tender age of 37, is substantiated by the vast dissemination of his works, as well as the acclaim they have won him among his colleagues and in the educational and religious communities in which the works circulate.

Born and raised in London, England, Miller studied at the prestigious Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Boys. He began to explore the depth of his religion while at England’s Leeds University through extensive reading and personal introspection. Fascinated by Jewish mystical teachings in particular, he took a year off to learn at a Lubavitcher yeshiva. Five years later he was an ordained rabbi practicing in Leeds, running both a synagogue and a yeshiva, and writing in his spare time what would soon become the “Gutnick Chumash.”

In 2004 Rabbi Miller relocated to the United States with the intention of devoting himself almost entirely to the writing and editing of great Jewish liturgy for Kol Menachem. Since this time he has completed the groundbreaking “Kol Menachem Chumash (Gutnick Edition),” the “Slager Edition Haggadah” — the bestselling work in its genre — and two volumes of a landmark series exploring Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith.

Rabbi Miller’s texts are currently used at some of the nation’s top institutions, including New York University and Yeshiva University. In addition, over 1,000 rabbis in the United States use Rabbi Miller’s texts to teach their students and prepare their sermons.

Rabbi Miller’s publications have received the attention of community leaders and various persons of note. In 2008, President George W. Bush sent the “Slager Edition Haggadah” to the troops in Iraq as a representation of the Jewish faith for the United States military. The Haggadah was a recent recipient of the prestigious Benjamin Franklin Award just this past year, and Miller’s “Gutnick Chumash” is on display at the Jewish Children’s Museum in Brooklyn, New York. The popular “Dummies” series published “The Torah for Dummies” in 2008, with author Arthur Kurzweil singling out Rabbi Miller’s “Gutnick Chumash” and proclaiming, “If I could have only one translation on a desert island, it would be this one.”

See also
Torah in Ten 

Kol Menachem 

The Huffington Post  

Tikkun Olam in Rabbinic Judaism refers to a broad array of rabbinic enactments (Takanot) both social and economic, embodying concern with the welfare of Jewish society. We cannot do justice in a brief article such as this to the full gamut of these enactments or all their details but we can get a sense of what their intent and scope was.

One of the issues that the classical rabbis had to address was that of ransoming captives taken by Gentiles. Should the Jewish community pay any demand that the captors set or should they only pay what would be considered a reasonable sum based on the labor market value of the individual? If they agreed to pay any sum that the captors demanded they could indirectly be encouraging more kidnapping, the consequent endangerment of individual lives and as well the impoverishment of Jewish society. If they bucked the demands of the captors they could be endangering the life of the kidnapped individual. Against the backdrop of this moral challenge the Mishna records the ruling, ”One may not ransom captives for more than their [Labor Market] value for the benefit of society -Mipnei Tikkun Ha’olam. ” (Talmud Bavli Gittin 45a). In concert with this Mishna the Shulchan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) rules, ”We do not redeem captives for more than their [labor market] worth for the benefit of society -Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam- in order that enemies not exert themselves to conduct kidnappings…”(Yoreh Deah Laws of Charity 252:4)

Another challenge the classical rabbis needed to address was encouraging the wealthy to assist their impoverished fellow Jews through the granting of interest free loans. The Torah obligates a Jew or Jewess to grant an interest free loan to a fellow Jew or Jewess in need. (Deuteronomy 15:7-12) The Torah also obligates the cancellation of all such debts when the Sabbatical year arrives. (Deuteronomy 15:1-6) In reality, there came a time where the net effect on a collective level of these dual commandments was to discourage wealthy Jews from loaning to poor Jews as the Sabbatical year approached lest they could not recoup their loans because of the arrival of the Sabbatical year. In this context the Mishna records,” Hillel enacted the Pruzbul for the benefit of society-Mi’pnei Tikkun Ha’olam.” (Mishna Gittin 4:3) Pruzbul, a Greek abbreviation for the word prosboliboti which means: a court appointed to prevent harm and impoverishment (He’Arukh as quoted in Kehati commentary on Mishna Gittin 4:3) was a mechanism where the person who extended the loan was able to collect the loan even once the Sabbatical year had arrived. This because they technically handed this loan over to the Rabbinic Court who would collect it as the prohibition of collecting outstanding loans from the onset of the Sabbatical year technically fell upon the individual not the rabbinic court. (Melechet Shlomo Commentary on Mishna Gittin 4:3) Regardless of one’s opinion of rabbinic hermeneutics and casuistry and how that intersects with Biblical values the mechanism was a part of the economic safety net of rabbinic era Jewish society and is a primary of example of classical Tikkun Olam.

There are other several other examples of Tikkun Olam in the Mishna tractate Gittin which concern themselves with issues of: recapturing captives (4:6), purchasing stolen Torah Scrolls, Teffilin and Mezuzot (4:6), Family Law (4:2, 4:3, 4:7) and Purchases of land from Gentiles (4:9) among other issues (5:3).

The last example from the Mishna we shall explore concerns slavery. The Torah, as many are aware, had a system of slavery applying to both Jews and Gentiles — the details of which are beyond the scope of this article. (see Maimonides, Mishne Torah Laws of Slavery) There was, if you will excuse the term, a hybrid type of slave: one that was half free and half slave. The initial concern of the School of Hillel is resolving the issue of how this hybrid slave apportions his labor time with their view being that he works one day for his master and one day for himself. The School of Shammai was not satisfied with the mere concern with the Hybrid Slave’s labor and instead concerns itself with the hybrid slave’s marital predicament. By way of background a free person could not marry a slave nor could a slave marry a free person. The implications of this for our hybrid slave were: as he was half free he could not marry a fellow slave woman and as he was half slave he could not marry a free woman. The only option it would seem would be to let him remain without the ability to marry. The School of Shammai resolves that for the benefit of society –Mipnie Tikkun Ha’olam the master is obligated to free him entirely (with the former slave still owing half his value to his former master) for as scripture states, ”Not for void did [God] create [the world] rather to inhabit it.” (Isaiah 45:18) The School of Hillel, originally intent on keeping the slave in its no-marriage-land’s status reversed its opinion and ruled in accordance with the School of Shammai. (Mishna Gittin 4:5)

Let us take a considered look at these examples of classical Tikkun Olam and see what we can extract from them relevant to our own interests in this work of world repair. In the first example of fiscal limitations on the ransoming of captives, it is teaching us that the value of the community and preventing future harm to other individuals within it takes precedence over the value of any one individual. In the example of extending loans to the poor we see that the rabbis were willing to accept the dysfunctional reality of the Torah’s intended system in their present state and innovate a mechanism that would ultimately serve one of its core aims- helping the poor. In our last example of slavery we see that the rabbis were willing and able to see the humanity of a slave and to see through to a deeper Divine intention beyond that of the mere formality and technical concerns of labor law. I believe when you abstract the principle from each of these specific cases we have energizing ideas that link classical Tikkun Olam with contemporary Tikkun Olam.

These cases, and the principles latent within them, point us in the direction of concern with the collective good, not the enshrinement of individual convenience; the favoring of the innovation of the individual versus the stagnation of the establishment and the supremacy of the Divine intent over the Gordian technicalities of the Divine Law.

One important distinction between classical Tikkun Olam and our present direction of it is that classical Tikkun Olam was essentially concerned with the insular Jewish society. There are no rabbinic enactments of Tikkun Olam for Gentiles as it should come as no surprise that they were not under the religious jurisdiction of the classical rabbis. Another distinction worth noting is that classical Tikkun Olam was top down; that is to say, an educated, all-male rabbinic elite made rules for the masses of the Jewish people to follow. In our Tikkun Olam, it is more grassroots and egalitarian, individual men and women perceive inequities and suffering and seek to right wrongs; often their efforts blossoming into organizations and entire movements.

Let us address these distinctions straightforwardly: contemporary Tikkun Olam is not classical Tikkun Olam. The Jewish world today is for the most part integrated into the modern world and as such is more aware and concerned than ever with the plight and sufferings of other people (Yes Bubie and Zieda, other people suffer too!). The world that the rabbis sought to repair i.e. Jewish society while still existent is not what constitutes the sole world for most Jews. When a Jewish woman or man can turn on a television or watch a documentary movie and see what is happening in Africa this is part of their world, especially when they can get on an airplane and be there within two days. As well, while an educated rabbinic elite still exists, we live in a world where their power is largely persuasive not coercive. Today there is a certain truth to the notion specifically as it applies to aspects of Tikkun Olam that the people lead and the rabbis follow and this can at times be quite healthy and productive as rabbis are not the sum of all knowledge, wisdom and virtue even in understanding how to apply and evolve the Torah.

It is important to note that while there will always be reactionary and narrow views that seek to limit the definitions, directions and applications of a category such as Tikkun Olam to its classical expression or seeks to focus Jewish attention in and on itself, this by no means should be associated with Orthodoxy as a whole while it is certainly fair to associate it with Orthodoxy in part, admittedly, the larger part. Nevertheless, I think its important for Boulder’s Jewry to understand some of the Orthodox expressions of contemporary Tikkun Olam lest they are abrasively led to believe that Orthodoxy as a whole somehow wants to turn back the clock or neglect our obligations as privileged world citizens.

First, I point the reader to Uri l’Tzedek an Orthodox Social Justice Organization (www.utzedek.org) which was founded and is directed by graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, a liberal and progressive Orthodox rabbinical seminary in New York. Its mission reads, ”Uri L’Tzedek is an Orthodox Social Justice organization guided by Torah values and dedicated to combating suffering and oppression. Through community-based education, leadership development and action, Uri L’Tzedek creates discourse, inspires leaders, and empowers the Jewish community towards creating a more just world.”

Second, I point the reader to the Green Restaurant Association (www.dinegreen.com) founded and led by an Orthodox Jew, Michael Oshman. The GRA’s mission reads, ”To create an Environmentally Sustainable Restaurant Industry.”

Third, I point to Rabbi Aaron Levy, another graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah who is a board member of Rabbis for Human Rights whose mission statement reads, ”Founded in 2002, Rabbis for Human Rights- North America is an organization of rabbis from all streams of Judaism that acts on the Jewish imperative to respect and protect the human rights of all people. Grounded in Torah and our Jewish historical experience and guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we advocate for Human Rights in Israel and North America…”

These are but a small reflection of Orthodox Jewry’s interest in contemporary Tikkun Olam which has been a developing trend since the 1960’s, when Orthodox Jews and rabbis were involved in the Civil Rights Movement as today they have been involved in Darfur and many other just causes. Finally, I encourage people to read the book “Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought & Law” published as part of The Orthodox Forum Series, part of Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of Modern Orthodoxy in America. Opinions and the knowledge base of individual rabbis will always vary; this work reflects what some of Orthodoxy’s most brilliant and learned minds have to say on the subject.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the great Torah visionaries of the 20th century, once said, ”The old will become new and the new will become holy.” Tikkun Olam Boulder style is certainly new in comparison to classical Tikkun Olam. It’s worth exploring in what ways it already is holy and in what ways can more holiness suffuse and be fused to its already brilliant light.

Rabbi Zachary Goldman is the founder and rabbinic administrator of the EarthKosher Kosher Certification Agency and is the educational director of the Institute for Halakhic Conversion. The author of numerous books, essays and articles on a diverse range of Torah he lives with his wife and children in Boulder, Colorado.

Rabbi Joshua Rose

I would like to respond to the discussion started by Rabbi Gavriel Goldfeder’s article about the important concept of maintaining havdallah, distinction between holy and profane. Rabbi Marc Soloway did an admirable job of responding to some of the issues raised in Rabbi Goldfeder’s piece.

In looking at the conflagration that their debate has started, I would like to touch on one of these points and would like to address the larger issue of how we speak to and about one another in a diverse Jewish world.

As usual, Rabbi Goldfeder has something to teach us. I am quite blessed to name him among my good friends and as so many of us do, I so often take away from my encounters with him something profound and beautiful. His emphasis on the importance of maintaining a havdallah, a distinction between holy and not-holy, is essential to Jewish life. As he knows, this notion is so critical to a Jewish vision of the world that it is fundamental to every Jewish Movement.

While distinctions are important to maintain, false distinctions are important to avoid, and I’m afraid that our discussion has come to focus on these. To take one important example that so many have commented on already: there is no reason for us to choose between maintaining holiness and sanctity in our lives and bringing good to people in the broader world, be they Jews or non-Jews, whether they are in our country or somewhere else. God forbid we should ever have to make such a choice.

Yitzchak Meir Alter, the founder of Ger Hasidism, had a beautiful explanation for why the stork, known in Hebrew by the noble name of hasida (the loving one) was a non-Kosher animal. The stork, he taught, is known as hasida because it’s magnificent capacity to care for and love those of its own kind. It’s holiness does not extend to make it kosher, however, because it’s concern and love did not extend beyond its own kind. The Rebbe concludes that a Jew’s love and compassion must radiate out to all people.

Acts of courage, goodness, vision and beauty that ease suffering and elevate creation should be celebrated and honored. Rabbi Bronstein and Rabbi Soloway are to be commended for the good their work has done and for bringing honor to the Jewish people with this avodah. Many other rabbis in our community have done equally powerful work. There is much more to be said about this but that is not my purpose here.

I want instead to talk about derech eretz, a complicated concept that is not fully described when it first appears, in the Mishnah (Avot chapter 2). Two primary meanings as understood by centuries of interpretation are relevant to the discussion that has unfolded in our community.

The first of these is derech eretz as common, decent behavior. Our Sages have understood it as a kind of meta-mitzvah that is prior to Torah both chronologically and in order of our practice. “[Common, decent behavior] preceded the Torah by 26 generations,” Rabbi Shmuel ben Nachman claims in a midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 9:3). This can be understood to mean not only that God instructed us with derech eretz long before the Torah was given, but also that in each moment of our lives derech eretz must undergird our behavior in everything we do.

When we disagree as Jews as to the proper expression of Jewish life, our relationship to the mitzvot, how we express the vision of Holiness that the Holy One demands of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon us to act with derech eretz. This means not demeaning the religious lives and efforts of other Jews, and not cheapening their vision of the Holy and the work they have done in the world.

It is important for us to have a discussions about havdallah and the importance of distinctions in Jewish life and yasher koach to Rabbi Goldfeder for having the vision to see the need for this.

The comments online from several people reflect a deep level of hurt and in some cases a lack of respect. We have to speak about, write about and engage with one another in a way that is beautified by the mitzvah of derech eretz.

The second meaning of derech eretz is also important to our discussion. In the early modern world it came to be seen by a luminary of early Orthodoxy, Samson Raphael Hirsch, as signifying an engagement with the broader world. Of course we cannot know how Rabbi Hirsch would have felt about the way that the phrase tikkun olam is used today. But based upon his work and writing we can be quite sure I think that he would have supported engagement of Rabbis and Jewish communities in critical moral issues facing our world.

Perhaps it was in accordance with this second meaning of derech eretz that Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, a brilliant religious thinker and the father of modern Orthodoxy, acknowledged in an essay he wrote that Jews should work with the broader religious community on issues of civil rights, the peace movement, technology and other areas of common ground (see Rabbi Soloveitchik’s “On Interfaith Relationships”).

Precisely how these broader moral concerns of people like the Ger Rebbe, Rabbi Hirsch and Rabbi Soloveitchik play out will of course vary between communities. And different Rabbis are free to articulate, prioritize and act on these according to how they understand their obligation to do so.

But in the process of confronting the inevitable disagreements we have about these and other issues, we have to be guided by the first meaning of derech eretz, and treat one another with the kavod (honor) and love, as is fitting for all people, and in particular for Jews, to grant one another.

Blessings,

Rabbi Joshua Rose

Congregation Har HaShem

I join a long list of rabbis from almost every stream of Judaism in condemning this behavior. It has no place in Judaism and should not be tolerated. Those responsible should be prosecuted according to the full extent of the law.

It should be noted that Tzniut, or modesty, covers the entire gamut of human behavior, and is intended to cultivate dignified conduct in the privacy of a person’s life, and especially in their interaction with others.

What propelled this story into the pages of almost every media outlet, is not that chareidim (ultra orthodox Jews) can be abusive: unfortunately like every element of society chareidim are not immune to this type of behavior. What ignited the spark was more the fact that the abuse was directed against orthodox women and even children as young as eight. While no abuse is excusable this seems to have reached a new low for this segment of fanatical chareidi society.

But in addition to the pain that the abuse itself has caused to the individual women and children, one can’t ignore the widespread condemnation that these actions have aroused against the chareidi society. With the deplorable actions of a few, the entire ultra orthodox world has been broadly painted as radically intolerant.

The damage has not been limited to Israel. Colleagues outside Israel have received emails from congregants who have rescinded pledges, canceled synagogue membership and in one particular case a rabbi was even informed by a community member that he felt so let down by the Beit Shemesh story that he has opted out of choosing a traditional burial for himself and decided to be cremated .

If Senator Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs and Shabbat observance – as highlighted during his run for vice president – has been viewed as one of the greatest positive examples for religious Judaism, then the Beit Shemesh story takes the prize for the most negative one.

The ultra orthodox community both here and in Israel must now make a concerted effort not only to sideline these thugs but to actively reach out to their non chareidi and secular neighbors in friendship and love showing them the beautiful family and community life that is the true hallmark of their way of life. By so doing, one may hope that the sadly wrong perception that has been created by a tiny minority will not take root.

A Shabbat dinner invite is a great way to accomplish this. It is an exercise in bonding, showing that people have more in common with each other than just the variations in  skirt lengths  or blouse sleeves that may appear to separate them.

There is beautiful parody song composed by Jewish songwriter Abi Rotenberg that describes two neighbours, a hasidik and sefardi Jew who both lament how due to their differences (like wearing a hasidik fur hat in the middle of the summer) they will both ignore each other.

This changes when their kids each hear the Shabbat melodies sung in their neighbor’s homes and realize that both families are singing the same melodies – just with different accents. Soon they are enjoying each other’s delicacies like shmaltz herring and couscous during their shared Shabbat dinners.

While this is a cute song and many may argue that the issues are more complex, nonetheless we should unite among our common melody of Judaism and increase our love we have for each other. Surely the power of goodness and kindness is way more powerful than the negative actions of a few misfits.

Let’s hope the opportunity won’t be lost and a greater unity among Jews can be forged as a result.

Rabbi Goldfeder

Rabbi Seidenberg

Friends – I had a call today from Rabbi David Seidenberg, author of the new book, “Crossing the Threshold: God’s Image in the More-than-Human World.” He saw my previous post about losing our distinctions, and he corrected me about my grave misunderstanding of his book. I stand gravely corrected – I actually have no idea what he means by “G-d’s image in the more-than-human world.” And I didn’t read his book, because it is not available yet. So, in essence, I judged a book by its cover; or at least its title. Misjudged, that is.

So Rabbi Seidenberg called me and graciously offered to dialogue with me, in public, on the subject of Torah and Evolution. And so it shall be, b’ezrat Hashem, 7:15 pm Monday January 9th at Aish Kodesh 1805 Balsam Ave. Light refreshments and some heavy conversation.

I’m excited. Dialogue is the purest form of Torah, in my view, and I look forward to discussing and learning. Hope to see you there.

Written as a clear promotion of Orthodox Judaism and a subtle attack on the other denominations, Rabbi Goldfeder, who really is my friend by the way, falls into some very dangerous and murky waters in defending a Judaism whose name means “the right way to think,” and therefore implies that anyone who thinks and acts differently is wrong. This “right-way-to-think Judaism” has, in my view, allowed and even promoted, unspeakably wrong and immoral acts in the world, including abuse of animals and workers, profound gender warfare, culminating in spitting on and verbally abusing a 12-year-old girl in Israel, extreme homophobia and the incitement of hateful racism in an endless series of statements and actions by Orthodox rabbis in Israel.

I am not, for even one moment, suggesting that Rabbi Goldfeder and the Aish Kodesh community does any of these things and I know that he (and hopefully they) are equally appalled by them. I am, however, challenging the assumption that Orthodox Judaism = right and non-Orthodox = wrong. This is borne out neither historically, morally nor educationally. The notion that there has always somehow been only one correct way of being Jewish and that any other expression of Judaism is an aberration shows a lack of knowledge of our history and our sociology. True, contemporary Jews are all descendants of rabbinic Judaism, which was an ingenious paradigm shift that allowed continuity and survival after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70CE, but in its inception, this Judaism included a multiplicity of voices.

I do not claim for a second that Conservative Judaism is the only right way, in thought or in practice, but I do believe that it is an authentic, if imperfect, expression and interpretation of that rabbinic Judaism, integrating halacha (Jewish law) and modernity with a considerable amount of intellectual honesty, even if it is sometimes clumsy and a little too dry. Conservative Judaism has never defined itself outside Jewish Law, but has rather followed the tradition of the rabbis of the Talmud in recognizing that there are times when that law changes, when its original context has changed.

In my view, Orthodoxy has again and again taken the category of pattur (meaning exempt) and changed it into assur (meaning forbidden.) For instance, there are sources that clearly allow women certain ritual roles, including being called up to the Torah, but does not obligate them, which eventually led to strict prohibitions and gender separation that some scholars assert was not always the case. This is one example in which Conservative Judaism allowed halacha to evolve, just as it had in other areas of law in the past.

Rabbi Goldfeder implied in his article that we, whoever we are, are somehow only putting our energy as activists into issues of global poverty in the developing world and environmentalism while ignoring the plight of Jews. Well, where is he and his community every Passover, Rosh HaShanah and Hanukkah when I, along with dozens of my congregants and members of other shuls run programs for Jewish seniors in conjunction with Jewish Family Services? Our Hesed Initiative provides hundreds of meals and visits to members of our community in pastoral need.

The Torah, in my reading of it, so clearly and strongly demands of us that we also must have concern for the stranger, for the vulnerable in our world, for the hungry, outside our own. An Orthodoxy that promotes Jewish welfare only to serve other Jews, especially in a world where there is considerable affluence in some Jewish communities, and that we ignore the plight of millions of starving children, also God’s creatures, is a damaging misreading of the Torah that I hold sacred; a Torah that demands of me that I have compassion for God’s creatures in their suffering.

I have been to too many events within the Orthodox community, ok excepting Aish Kodesh, where 100s and 100s of Styrofoam cups, plastic plates and cutlery are thrown out, destined for landfills to leach their toxins into our rivers. Is this “right Judaism” when our Torah and rabbinic tradition so clearly demand of us that we are guardians of this earth? The statement that we liberal Jews are somehow only concerned with ‘trivial’ matters, like our planet’s survival and humanity dying of starvation and curable diseases from unclean water, while we ignore the plight of our Jewish brothers and sisters, is so absurd.

Yes, I was twice co-chair of Hazon’s Jewish Food Conference, looking at issues of health and sustainability around our food system, while some so-called Kosher food continues to poison us and is too often corrupt in its production; yes, I went to Ghana last summer with AJWS and worked with an NGO rescuing children as young as six from slavery. It is precisely my love and my connection to Judaism and my reading of Torah that obligates me to do this, not some wishy-washy liberal version of it that betrays our tradition.

I passionately believe in a pluralism that places real value on the different expressions of Jewish life and I actually love Aish Kodesh and its rabbi and really want that community to succeed and grow, as I am so grateful for the depth of Torah and the fervent connection to mitzvot and authenticity that emanates from those walls. I also am so grateful for and indebted to the Reform movement, in which both Rabbi Goldfeder and I were raised, and which has contributed so much to the world in its prophetic vision of social justice and we are blessed with powerful and wonderful Reform Rabbis in Boulder to continue that vision. I also feel connected to the accessible spirituality and depth that has emerged from Jewish Renewal. I am comfortable in my discomfort as a rabbi and teacher of Conservative Judaism, but I will never, ever claim that it is the right and only authentic expression of Judaism.

Leave the monkey outside and let’s get a beer.