Riskin discusses controversial topics at Limmud NY
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, founding rabbi of Ohr Torah Stone, made a number of presentations at Limmud NY on matters of grave concern. The first was on the subject of the conversion crisis in Israel. Rabbi Riskin surprised me, and probably other attendees, by stating that Judaism is, in fact, a proselytizing religion--or was, at least, until the Hadrianic persecutions made conversion a crime punishable by death. He asserted that converting non-Jews is actually a mitzvah (commandment), and that, therefore, one should be welcoming to conversion candidates once one has established their sincere desire to convert despite our history of being persecuted. He's none too happy about tales he's heard of conversion candidates being turned down simply because they hadn't yet learned a particular b'rachah (blessing). He also stated that rabbinic tradition holds that a convert remains a Jew even if he/she ceases to be observant--to revoke a conversion retroactively just because a Jew by Choice is no longer Orthodox is against rabbinic tradition. He's none too happy about the extremely strict conversion requirements on which the more right-wing Chareidi rabbis seem to insist.
The short version of his presentation on whether peace with the Palestinians is possible was that many of the "regular" Palestinians want peace, but their leaders don't. Nevertheless, as a settler who's made a point of developing good relationships with the Palestinians of the villages near Efrat, he's hopeful that there will be peace, albeit in the long run.
The short version of his presentation on what went wrong with Israel and how it could be fixed was, surprisingly for an Orthodox rabbi, that religion should be separated from the government, so that Judaism can serve as a counterbalance, as it did in the case of the prophet Nathan confronting King David.
Rabbi Riskin is a good speaker, but you should probably be forewarned that all of his presentations seem to begin from the beginning--Tanach/the Bible--and work their way up to the present. So it takes him roughly 45 minutes to present the background, leaving him about 15 minutes to get to the actual topic. :) But the lead-up is well worth the wait.
The short version of his presentation on whether peace with the Palestinians is possible was that many of the "regular" Palestinians want peace, but their leaders don't. Nevertheless, as a settler who's made a point of developing good relationships with the Palestinians of the villages near Efrat, he's hopeful that there will be peace, albeit in the long run.
The short version of his presentation on what went wrong with Israel and how it could be fixed was, surprisingly for an Orthodox rabbi, that religion should be separated from the government, so that Judaism can serve as a counterbalance, as it did in the case of the prophet Nathan confronting King David.
Rabbi Riskin is a good speaker, but you should probably be forewarned that all of his presentations seem to begin from the beginning--Tanach/the Bible--and work their way up to the present. So it takes him roughly 45 minutes to present the background, leaving him about 15 minutes to get to the actual topic. :) But the lead-up is well worth the wait.
Labels: Limmud
posted by Shira Salamone at 10:39 AM
16 Comments:
If Riskin said that, then he's removed himself from Torah Judaism altogether. A government separated from Torah and halacha is exactly what they have now, and is the result of the criminals named Herzl and BenGurion.
Nu, if it was good enough for Nathan . . .
If you think King David didn't run his government by Torah law, you're totally misunderstanding it.
At best, David haMelech's (King David's) behavior was inconsistent. After all, he did send a man off to the front lines to die in battle so that he could take the man's wife, which is why he was rebuked by Nathan. I don't know what evidence we have for him having run a halachic government, but his behavior in his private life was halachically iffy.
Wiz, I should not have been so flip in my first comment. I wish to make it clear, as I should have done in my first comment, that, since my only rule for this blog is that all comments must be respectful, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would refrain from (1) stating that anyone has "removed himself [or herself] from Torah Judaism," and (2) calling Zionist heroes "criminals." Kindly find more respectful ways of expressing your opinions.
Heros? Read "Perfidy" by Ben Hecht, then tell me who the heros are. BenGurion sold, I mean literally sold Jews for money. Herzl wanted a Jewish state, anywhere. Madagascar would have sufficed. He had no love for Israel specifically.
OK, if you don't want to call them heroes, fine. But to call anyone a criminal--I think the term in Hebrew is "motzi shem ra," roughly, to give someone a bad name. Kindly express your opinions without resorting to name-calling and/or insults.
Wiz, I asked you to be respectful, and you ignored me. I am deleting your previous comment, and will delete any future of yours, as well. I don't tolerate insults on my blog.
In fairness, King David's government was 100% Halachic... with one quasi-exception that a big deal of, kind of a tragic flaw, but that would be admitting Greek cultural influences.
The main reason for this is that Halacha was codified long after his reign, and whatever he did was defined as correct, but that is neither here nor there.
"In fairness, King David's government was 100% Halachic . . . The main reason for this is that Halacha was codified long after his reign, and whatever he did was defined as correct . . ."
Miami Al, that's my point! If halacha/Jewish religious law wasn't codified until long after David's reign, then how can he be said to have had a halachic government?! To me, this is like worrying about Avraham Avinu (Abraham Our Father) having served his visits dairy and meat products in the same meal--given the fact that Avraham couldn't have violated the the laws of kashrut ("dietary laws") because they hadn't been given yet, what's the problem?
So you dispute the idea that the Avos and King David knew halacha and Torah? What do you think that because there was no "codified" Shulchan Aruch that David didnt know? Or that anyone else didnt know until it was all put together in an easy to read version. That has to be a joke.
The part about the milk & meat is easy. Torah was known completely, it just wasn't mandatory to keep until all of Israel had accepted it. Even the simple Jew in the Sinai desert knew halacha backwards and forwards.
"So you dispute the idea that the Avos and King David knew halacha and Torah?"
Yes.
Okay, maybe David knew some Torah and some early halachah. But regarding the Avot (Fathers), there's not a chance, since the Torah had not been given yet, and the only halachot (laws) that had been given were p'ru u-r'vu (be fruitful and multiply), brit milah (the rite of circumcision), and maybe one or two others that I've forgotten about.
"Torah was known completely, it just wasn't mandatory to keep until all of Israel had accepted it. Even the simple Jew in the Sinai desert knew halacha backwards and forwards."
Prove it. Consider that the price of being obnoxious on my blog.
Pick up an Artscroll on Bereishis, it's repeated many times over in there that the Avos knew all of Torah, Avraham wore tefillin, etc etc.
You havent answered my question: David reigned hundreds of years after the Giving of the Torah, so how is it even possible he didnt know it, study it, etc? All the commentaries, and I do mean all, say that he was so involved in Torah study that he barely had time to run his kingdom. What do you mean by "early halacha"? There is no early or klater halacha, it was all given at the same time on Sinai, and transmitted father to son afterwards.
I find it very interesting that you go overboard touting Rabbi Riskin, yet disagree with something he himself readily and unquestionably agrees with. He is Orthodox, and no Ortho rabbi worth his salt disputes what I have said. If he did, he wouldnt be Ortho any longer, as disputing this is a mark of conservative & reform Judaism.
Dont get me involved in a Slifkin-esque battle of proofs, 'cuz I dont do it. Chapter & verse dont play a part in it. The Rabanim said so is all the proof I need.
"Pick up an Artscroll on Bereishis, it's repeated many times over in there that the Avos knew all of Torah, Avraham wore tefillin, etc etc."
ArtScroll is the same publisher that refuses to use an authentic translation of Shir HaShirim/Song of Songs, substituting midrashic interpretations of the text instead, lest we readers prove too stupid to understand it "properly." So, while their prayer books may be a useful resource, especially for beginners--I used one for several years--I tend to view some of their publications with a skeptic's eye. And as a skeptic, I don't for one minute believe that Avraham wore tefillin.
David went from shepherd to warrior to king. I don't know what evidence we have that he knew or didn't know Torah, but he certainly wrote some beautiful psalms.
I don't agree with everything Riskin says, and told him so between classes at Limmud NY. I don't follow any rabbi blindly--either I agree or I disagree (or I agree to study and/or think about it some more :)). "The Rabanim said so" may be all the proof that *you* need, but it certainly doesn't work for *me.*
So do I gather that if indeed I found a "source", which in my case would be "son and so said", that itself would not be proof enough, because I assume your next question would be "and how does he know that?"
If thats the case, then you are correct, this is pointless, because I believe that if someone worthy enough to be included in those whose commentaries are acceptable to Artscroll says he put on tefillin, that is the proof. Where he got it from is of no consequence. Emunas chachamim is paramount. Of course that begs the question, who is "chachamim"?
Also I dont think the decision about Shir HaShirim was because of any thoughts of stupidity. Artscroll has much to lose if they went that way. I read their version and found no issues with it, but if you say there are, maybe its because of the way that Shir HaShirim has often been called some kind of love song with sexual overtones, as if God forbid that could be so. So maybe they went an extra step to avoid any confusion on the issue. I learn it every year and have yet to see any overtones at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home