Return to the land of the Blog

It has been a long time since I have written here, but as I have published this link in a shul dinner ad, I wanted to at least put a few words here, in case anyone from the dinner actually goes here.

First, I would like to extend a public Yasher Koach to my good friend R' Yagod, der Bais Lecheme Rov on revitalizing Torah in the city of Bais Lechem, America - aka Bethlehem, PA.

Second, to any and all of the dinner members who visit here - Welcome! and please drop a line / response to say hello.

I'll sign here with my title as assigned to me by der Beis Lecheme Rov, and I hope that you enjoyed the Yaiyen last evening.

Yayner Rov

Chakira, Emunah, Emunah Peshuta and TS Eliot

Reb Yitzchok, posted some interesting thoughts, at

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/02/27/emunah-peshutah-response-to-a-reader/

along with a quote from TS Eliot, to which I add an additional line mentioned by one of the other people commenting on his post:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

I think this poem does help in understanding the approach of the Rambam to the issue of Chakirah vs Emunah. This approach is based on my father z"l explanation.

It is important to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "Emunah" and "Emunah Peshuta". It is the opinion of the Rambam that there is a requirement on every Jew to "know" that there is HaShem. What does it mean to "know"? That is the aspect of Chakira - to explore using the intellectual capabilities that HaShem has given us. How do we know that we have reached the correct answer? In a purely scientific environment, the question is close to meaningless, and basically is that if we have done the best we can, that is all one can do. That is not the approach of Yahadus. Because, in addition to the requirement of "knowing" that there is HaShem, there is also the requirement to "believe" / to have Emunah that there is HaShem. How do these two co-exist?

The answer is that once we have completed our intellectual exercise, we have done our best to determine what the truth is, we then compare that to what our Ikrei Emunah are. If our intellectual analysis has come up with an structure that is consistent with the Ikrei Emunah, then we can feel confident that MAYBE we have reached some portion of the ultimate TRUTH. However, if after all our work, we find that the structure in some way cannot co-exist with the Ikrei Emunah, then we need to go back to the beginning and start again.

This aspect of Emunah, then is both a difficult state and requires an Emunah that is exceptionally strong. It must be strong enough to stand against what was our best attempts to create a rational structure of what is reality and truth and be able to demolish it, if needed.

Emunah Peshuta, on the other hand, is the almost dialecticly opposite approach. It says, basically, that since you are going to end up here anyhow, why bother to leave. Just stay within the daled amos of your Emunah and do not try to understand and rationalize. For some people, actually I think for the overwhelming majority, that is what they want and are able to handle. It is only for the few, who are willing to take the challenge of going out and trying to "know" HaShem, but willing to bound that exercise in knowledge by their Emunah.

If we look at the lines of the poem:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

The first line clearly lays upon us the requirement - We shall not cease from exploration.
The second two lines bound the exploration - And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started.
The last line explains why take this path rather than the path of Emunah Peshuta that kept us at the place that we started the whole time - And know the place for the first time.

The level of knowledge and understanding of the place after we have completed the exploration, is much deeper and more complex. It is to truly know it “for the first time”. This is why to expend the effort in the first place, and not be satisfied with Emunah Peshuta.

Sambor Un-Rebbi

A statement of Ideology or Dogma

In another location I am involved in, we have started a dialogue, probably focused on the Orthodox / Conservative divide, but one that may also explore the Chareidi / Modern continuum as well. A point that was brought up is that one can explore a group’s identity via understanding it’s ideology or Dogma along one axis and the actualization or practice of the group along the other.

I’m using this as an opportunity to try and organize what I think is "my" Dogma axis. It will likely be incomplete and will hopefully evolve base on comments and discussion..

1) God Exists
2) God communicated with Am Yisrael via various people
3) God gave Am Yisrael a set of rules to live by through his communication with Moshe
4) This set of rules is mandatory and the source of it's authority is God
5) This set of rules contains two parts, one written and one oral
6) The written part is what we commonly describe as Chumash or Five Books of Moshe
7) The oral part is unclear from a "dogma" perspective what it contains. The high end of acceptable belief is that it contains everything that we refer to as "oral law" today (a position I do not understand or am able to accept) to a lower end (which is more in line with my understanding and belief) that it contains a relatively small number of "halachot l'moshe m'sinai" and a set of rules by which to interpret the written law and develop a full legal system.
8) During the early period, the final authority on the Oral Law was the Sanhedrin of 71 sages located in Yerushalaim. They had the ability and authority to both interpret and legislate laws in accordance with the rule set referred to above.
9) Following the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the Sanhedrin to Yavneh, the Sanhedrin there decided to end the legislative component of halachic development, since there no longer could be a single source of legislation. From this point on, halachic development would be largely interpretive.
10) The halachic system today is a responsa based system, with strong preference / authority given to the compilation of Halacha laid down in the shulchan aruch and the glosses of the RMA on it.
11) Halacha still develops, but at a pace typically slow compared to general society, and driven by observing the consensus of response on a given topic over a few generations.

OK, this is a first cut for me at the Dogma axis. I think this is something that many people who view themselves as Orthodox would feel comfortable with, especially those who view themselves as "Modern Orthodox". There are probably specific points in 7-11 that others would express differently, and I'd love to see those. I think that some of the differences within the Orthodoxy camp come in the expansion of points 10 and 11, especially in the area of Minhag and how much room there is for a contemporary posek to base an opinion on earlier poskim rather than the most recent generations. But I will leave those details till I see how others, if they so choose, express their Dogma axis.

What are my influences?

What are my influences?

Now that I have posted about whom the Samber Rabbe’s were, the next is to better define what were the defining influences on my life. This may be useful as I try and comment on current issues that interest me.

From my maternal grandfather’s side, clearly there is a strong influence of Chassidism. I was close to my grandfather, and spent many yomim tovim (both pesach and succot) with him, starting when I was pretty young. I would guess that I was about 7 or 8 when I spent yom tov with him and without the rest of my family.

My mother z”l had a twin sister who is still living in Monsey. My aunt married a Chossid from Belgium, and all my first cousins are firmly in the Chassidishe velt. My mother, however, married a Litvak from YU, and that is the dominant influence on my life.

My father was born in Lithuania, in a small city. As a young boy, he left town to go to a yeshiva in a nearby city. He was about 13 years old when the war broke out and the Nazi’s rolled into the town he was studying in. He knew that the Nazi’s had already swept through the town his family lived in, so he escaped to cousins in Poland, and with them spent the war years hiding out in the European forests.

At the end of the war, he met up with other Yeshiva students in an area outside of Paris called Bayee (sp? I only know what he called it, so I’m sure it is spelled incorrectly). Among the people there were the Telz Rosh Yeshivos. My father went to America with them, while the rest of his cousins and family went to Israel. He stayed in Cleveland for only a short while before coming to New York to Yeshiva University.

My father received Semicha from YU and started teaching a shuir there, first in the high school, and then in the college. During that period, he obtained a Ph.D. and then began teaching Talmud in the Bernard Revel Graduate School. (OK, at this point, if you do not know who I am and really do want to know, there is more than enough to figure out with a quick google). My mother also moved in an academic direction, and obtained a Ph.D. in Jewish History from Columbia University. Unfortunately, she was killed a few years after that in a car accident.

I attended Yeshiva elementary school growing up, spending a number of years in a right wing boys only Yeshiva, as well as a few in a co-ed yeshiva. I spent my first year of High School in the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia. I was quite advanced in Talmud, and entered into the junior year shiur (R’ Yitzchuk) as a freshman. My understanding is that this was the first time that had happened, the second was a few years later for R’ Shmuel’s oldest son. However, I only stayed there one year, after which my parents brought me back to Yeshiva University High School. For Talmud classes, I attended Yeshiva College shiurim. I went to Yeshiva U for college, and spent three years learning with the Rov (R. Soloveichik).

In summary, I would venture to say that the main influences on me where my fathers Litvish approach to learning coupled with the academic background of both my parents. There are strong components of both the Rov’s Brisker derech, as well as the Chassidishe love of Torah and yahadus from my grandfather. So while I am strongly in the Modern Orthodox circle, I feel I have a strong empathy for both the Yeshivish and Chassidishe velts as well.

OK, this is probably far more than enough.

Who was the Sambor Rebbe?

Who was the Sambor Rebbe?

As I referred to my grandfather zt”l as the Sambor Rebbe in a posting in another Blog, and one of the posters there questioned as to whether he was properly an Admor, I figured I would put together some information here based on what I know of Sambor. I admit it is not detailed, and if other people who happen across this blog have additional information. I would be happy to see your comments and info.

The first Sambor Rebbe was R’ Urie. He studied chasidus under the Sar Shalom of Belz (R. Shalom Rokeach), and started to develop a group of chassidim after the death of the Sar Shalom. He then studied under R. Avraham ben R. Yehuda Tzvi of Stretin, and was appointed as Rebbe by R. Avraham. He began nesius (in Kamerna) following R.Avraham’s death, and then moved to Sambor (in 5635) on the advice of Reb Avrohom Yaakov of Sadiger (the son of the Rebbe Reb Yisroel of Ruzhin).

One of R’ Urie’s sons was R’ Sholom. He studied with his father, as well as with Reb Avrohom Yaakov of Sadiger. In yechidus with Reb Avrohom Yaakov just prior to Reb Avrohom’s petirah, he has told to accept the Ol HaTzibur and he left Sadiger, and after a few years (on the advice of the Horei Besamim, when he left to accept the position in Stanislav, leaving open the position in Stryj), established as Rebbe in Stryj. In 5684, R’ Sholom traveled to Eretz Yisrael, fell sick and died there.

R’ Sholom had two sons and two daughters (as far as I know). I believe that R’ Sholom’s son, R’ Yeshia Asher, took over his father position in Stryj. Unfortunately, R’ Yeshia Asher and his entire family was killed in the holocaust. The second son, R. Ephraim Eliezer came to America, first to the Sambor shtebal in New York, and then later to Philadelphia where he was a Rov for over 60 years ( I think close to 70). The two daughters were Miriam and Sosha (maybe Shoshana?). Miriam married R’ Yisrael Elimelech Moskowitz and Sosha married R’ Gedaliah Gottleib.

R’ Ephraim Eliezer, while maintaining the Toras HaNigleh v’haNistar of his parents and teachers, did not establish a Chassidic court in America. For much of his life, he maintained a small shtebel in Philadelphia (there was a larger shul initially in Strawberry Mansion prior to my birth, I remember the shtebels in Wynnfield and the Northeast). As with his father and grandfather, he maintained a close relationship with a leading Chassidish figure that he accepted as his Rebbe Muvhak. For R’ Ephraim, it was Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the sixth Lubavith Rebbe. After R’ Yosef was niftar, R’ Ephraim was instrumental in R’ Menachem Mendal accepting the nesius of Chabad, and remained very close to R’ Menachem Mendal for the rest of his life. Every Pesach on chol hamoad, my zaida, R’ Ephraim Eliezer, would tell me that the Ramam paskened that one is chiyav to visit one’s rebbe at least once a year, and that was when he would go. As a young child, I went with my zaida to Chabad a number of times.

Upon my zaida zt”l petirah, to the extent that any of the family took over as Sambor Rebbe, it would be my cousin, R’ Urie, named for the first Sambor rebbe, and married to a grand-daughter of Reb Are’le – the Toldos Aharon. He maintained a small shtebel in Eretz Yisrael for a number of years, and now lives in Monsey Eir haKodesh. I think that there was also another great-grandson of R’ Urie, R Hershel ben R. Eliezer ben R’ Yehuda Tzvi ben R’ Urie, who lives in Canada that may also be using the title of Sambor Rebbe. Both have at most a few Chassidim.

The Slifkin Ban and Daas Torah

The Slifkin ban is a topic that has already generated a very significant amount of traffic on the Jewish Internet world, and in specific, in the Jewish blogging world. I don't think that one needs to neccesarily add something new to the discussion, part of blogging is just to express one's thoughts. However, I would like to tie the Slifkin ban discussion to what I think is a wider discussion of Daas Torah.

Daas Torah, as presently understood by a significant portion of the chareidi world, is that when the "Gedolim" make a pronouncement / issue a psak, it is true and correct. There are many, mostly outside the chareidi world, who do not at all accept this idea. To some extent, the understanding and acceptance/non-acceptance of this concept is a critical element in the charedi / non-charedi divide.

For many people who accept the "gadlus" and halachic authority of many of the Rabbis who signed the ban, but who may be among the undecided in the Daas Torah divide, the Slifkin ban represents a very serious challenge / problem. If they are convinced that the signers of the ban have done so without understanding what Slifkin's position and arguements really are, then how can that represent a "true and correct" Daas Torah position? If their position on Slifken and what he writes is not correct, then why should other items within the rubric of Daas Torah be correct.

I think that this is part of the reason that this is striking such a deep chord of discontent among many of the seriously committed members of our community. For the most part, those of us here are reasonably knowledgeable about modern science. To simple say that any person who does not accept that the physical universe is less than 6000 years old is a Kofer and Min, just goes against what we believe to be "true and correct". If that is what Daas Torah requires, then maybe we cannot accept that Daas Torah is a valid concept.

OK, enough for now, maybe to come back to this later.

Sambor Un_Rebbi

Hello to the Blogging World

Hello to anyone who stumbles across this blog!

I've been an active member of the Jewish Internet world for a long time. Of course in the internet world, there are different definitions of long. Let's just say I was posting to Usenet when the jewish group there was net.religion.jewish. If you can remember the Great Usenet ReNaming, then you've been around for a while.

From my limited perusal of some Jewish Blogs, it seems that it is fasionable to not identify oneself directly on the blog. However, there are a number where the concealment is fairly thin. I was particularly amused by Gil, where he talks about how he is not identifying himself, but then signs all the posts with his real name.

So I will follow that new tradition. I don't think my cousin, the current Sambor Rebbi is online, so I figured I'll take that title here, sort of. I'll be the Internet Sambor Rebbi. At the same time, I'm not from the Chassidish side of the family, so I don't quite feel comfortable calling myself the Rebbe. So I'll try the un_Rebbi.

By the way, if there actually are any Sambor chassidim who read this, please feel free to contact me. I'm not aware if there really are any left.

So what are my interests?

As I say in my profile, while I dislike labels, I do identify as an Orthodox Jew. However, I strongly believe that one should question and explore all aspects of ones religion and practices. Too often people do things because others do it, they have been told that is the way to do things, etc. They do not take the effort to really understand what is the source and what level of authority something has. One of the things I enjoy doing is challanging the accepted. As I go along, I'll probably publish here some of my favorites.

OK, enough for now.

The Sambor Un-Rebbi