Rav Hertzog and Rav Uziel (Full Size )

Rav Shimon Shkop (Full Size , Full Size 2) 

Hat tip to Circus Tent

There is a fascinating article "How not to make halachic rulings "  by Dr Daniel Sperber that is worth while reading. However, there is one particular segment that really came as a surprise to me. In the context of the sheitls made from India he goes into a whole debate whether in fact Hinduism (at least in some versions) is really monotheistic and compatabile/acceptable(?) to Judaism. Read the entire article for some important cavets, but the following extracts should serve as food for though - very interesting indeed:

On the fifth and sixth of February this year, I participated in the first "Hindu-Jewish Leadership Summit" at Delhi, India. This summit was attended by a delegation of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and some prominent European rabbis, and religious leaders of the Hindu Dharma. I was asked to participate, perhaps because I had served briefly as a rabbi in India many years ago, and was therefore thought to have some understanding of Indian culture and religion.

Many leading Achariahs and Swamis from all over India were present, and a very lively and probing dialogue took place. In our discussions we asked them whether Hinduism is a polytheistic and idolatrous religion, and they all unanimously and most vigorously denied such an assertion, explaining the apparent outward manifestations of idolatry in a completely different fashion.

At the end of the conference, a "Declaration of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation" was co-signed by all participants. Perhaps the most significant clause in the whole document in this context is the opening one:

The participants affirmed that:

1) Their respective traditions teach Faith in One Supreme Being
who is the Ultimate Reality, who has created this world in its
blessed divinity and who has communicated Divine ways of action
for humanity for different peoples in different times and places.

[1]  They base this assertion on passages from the most ancient and canonical of their sacred writings, whose formulations surely attest to such belief. The following are some examples that they offer:

Rgveda Sambita

There is one reality; the wise speak of it in various ways. Rg. Veda.I.164.46c

Chandogya Upanisad (Sama Veda)

Only one non-dual limitless reality. ChU 6.2.1

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (Shuklayajur Veda)

There is no second thing here at all. BrU 4.4.19

Taittiriya Upanisad (Krsnayajur Veda)

The one that is in this person is the one that is in the universe; he is one. TaiU 2.8.5

Katha Upanisad: (Krsnayajur Veda)

He has no sound, no texture, no form, is changeless, free from taste, time and smell, has no beginning or end, is beyond the intellect and absolutely constant. KaU 1.3.15

A series of verses (2.2.9-12) in this Upanisad uses illustrations to show that the one being is both immanent and transcendent.

Just as fire, which is one, having entered the world, assumed a form corresponding to each of its manifestations, so too the being self within all beings, who is one, assumed a form corresponding to each, yet is apart (transcendent). KaU 2.2.9

Just as air, which is one, having entered the world, assumed a form corresponding to each of its manifestations, so too the being within all beings, who is one, assumed a form corresponding to each, yet is apart (transcendent). KaU 2.2.10

Just as the sun, which is the eye of the world, is not touched by the defects of external things that are seen, so too the being within all beings, who is one and transcendent, is not touched by the grief of the world. KaU 2.2.11

One being within all beings, who is the master, who makes a single form manifold – those wise ones who recognize clearly that one who abides in themselves, have lasting happiness, not anyone else. KaU 2.2.12

Svetasvatara Upanisad (Krsnayajur Veda)

The one effulgent being, hidden in all beings, all-pervasive, the being/self within all beings, who presides over actions and their results, who dwells in all beings, the witness, consciousness, who is absolute and free from attributes, SvU 6.11

Kena Upanisad (Sama Veda)

That which is not revealed by speech, and by which speech is revealed; know only that as Brahaman, not what people worship as an object. KaU 1.5

That which is cannot be thought of by the mind, and because of which, they say, the mind thinks: know only that as Brahman, not what people worship as an object. KaU 1.6

That which one does not see with the eyes, and because of which the eyes see; know only that as Brahman, not what people worship as an object. KaU 1.7

Mundaka Upanisad (Atharva Veda)

The one who cannot be seen or grasped, who has no lineage or class, no ear or eye (no limitation in knowledge) or hand or foot (no limitation in power), is free from time, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, changeless and the source of all beings, the wise ones recognize clearly. MuU 1.6

• Lubavitch Messianism and theological positions regarding manifestations of Divinity
• The Slifkin Saga: creation and contemporary science, the existence/non existence of mysterious creatures, the fallibility/infallibility of scientific statements in rabbinic literature
• Making of a Gadol: censorship, the white washing of history and the fallibility of rabbinic authorities
• Kashrut Scandals: Sheitals from Indian Hair, Brooklyn Water, Treif meat in Monsey
• The Limits of Orthodox Jewish dogma: Marc Shapiro book on the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith
• The removal of the settlements in Gush Katif
• Cases of sexual abuse and their cover ups
• Cases of rabbinic misconduct
• Cases of prominent Jewish individuals breaking the law )
• Chumrah society: the shifting to the right, once permissible practices and opinions that are now no longer acceptable
• “Daas Torah”

Full Sized Picture: ger_rebbe_boxer.jpg

Source: Pg 82, Hasidism (Popular Judaica library), Aryeh Rubinstein, Keter Books 1975

See here for the entire photo gallery

To attain victory over unconstraint and destructive atheism, we must educate Torah scholars who are healthy physically and healthy in all their non-physical aspects.

They must be educated intelligently with the ability to recognize the sweet feelings that come from dealing with the most elevated aspect of beauty-whether in song and poetry, the glory of nature, or whether it is the beauty that stands out in the works of mankind.

"A beautiful dwelling place, a beautiful wife and beautiful clothes broaden a person's mind" (Talmud).

Orot Ha'Emunah, p. 17 (http://ravkook.net/poetry.html)

Gheorghe Zamfir - The Lonely Shepherd -  In my opinion one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever created. B"H, Enjoy!

  Also a great new single, from Matisyahu - One Day, literally brings tears to your eyes

Here are some great pictures of him meeting a delegation of Sikhs.

See here for some more great pictures and the full article:

Karl Marx once famously wrote :

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Rabbi Aron Moss has this response (See here for the article ) 

Question
I think religion is a crutch. G-d is for the weak and the needy. Don't you have the independence to get through life on your own?

Answer
You're right. Religion is a crutch, a sign of human weakness. And to be honest, religion is not my only crutch. I am so weak, I need a whole array of support mechanisms to prop me up and keep me going.

I need food. As embarrassing as it is to admit, I am totally dependant on eating. Without food, I would probably not have the strength to do much at all. My body
We need to be fed, we need to be loved and we need shoes.
does not nourish itself. It needs outside help. So I eat.

I have an emotional crutch too. I need other people. If it weren't for the support of my family and friends I certainly wouldn't be where I am today. And while we are on the subject, I am also quite dependent on my shoes. My feet would be really sore without them.

The human is a fragile being. We are not self-sufficient. We depend on external sources for our survival. We need to be fed, we need to be loved and we need shoes. I thank G-d every day, for it is He who provides me with food, family and footwear.

But above all, I thank Him for giving my life purpose. Just as I can't nourish myself without resorting to the outside, I can't give my life real meaning without seeking beyond myself.

Maybe that makes me weak. But I think it gives me strength. Even if I'm hungry, lonely or barefoot, as long as I have Divine purpose, I can face any challenge.

From the The Brisker Rav (By Shimon Yosef Meller)

The following is from the book "Kabbalah and Meditations for the Nations" by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh . 

The nature of the soul

In order to understand why God gave these seven specific commandments – the Laws of Bnei Noach – to all humanity, we must first briefly explain how the human soul functions.

The human soul has both a Divine and a physical, or animal aspect. In Hebrew these are referred to as the Divine soul (nefesh Elokit) and the animal soul (nefesh behamit) as defined in the Tanya, by the Chassidic Master, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. All human beings posses a Divine spark. The difference between one human and another lies in the extent to which the spark has entered and plays an active role in his or her psyche. (We use the term “physche” to refer to both the conscious and unconscious planes of the soul).

When the spark fully enters the psyche it is known as a Divine soul. And so we speak of Jews as possessing a Divine soul. With regard to a non-Jew, the Divine spark hovers above the psyche (not entering it even on the unconscious plane). A righteous gentile (that is, a non-Jew who fulfils the seven laws of Bnei Noach) is one who senses the presence of the Divine spark and is inspired by it to walk along the path of God fitting for all people as outlined in the Torah. On the other hand, a non-Jew who has not yet become a righteous gentile is unaware of the Divine spark hovering above.

To use the language of Chassidut, the Divine spark (or soul) of a Jew is considered an inner light (or pnimi), meaning that it is directly experienced and makes for part of his or her psychological makeup. The righteous gentile’s non Jew’s spark of Divinity is described as a “closely surrounding light” (or makif karov), meaning that it is psychologically experienced only indirectly. The Divine spark of a non-Jews who are not considered righteous gentiles is akin to a “distantly surrounding light” (or makif rachok), meaning that it plays no conscious role in that person’s experience as a human being.

Even in this third case, due to the refinement of character that results from life’s trials and tribulations, and due to the Divinely ordained meetings between non-Jews and Jews which introduce the beauty of the Torah to the non-Jew, the “distant” spark may grow “closer” and the “close” spark may even desire to convert to Judaism. It is because of this latent potential innate in every non-Jew that we speak of all non-Jews as possessing a Divine spark. Indeed all of God’s creations are continuously brought into being by means of a Divine spark, but, only a human being, even if born a non-Jew, is able to convert in his present lifetime and become a Jew.

(Kabbalah and Meditations of the Nations, Chapter 3 “The Mystical Symbolism of the Seven Laws of Bnei Noach, pg 55-56)

Hat tip to Ishim Vshitot

There was a recent post on the Hirhurim blog entitled “Swearing in Court ” that got me contemplating some contemporary usage of "oaths" in our religion. Off the cuff here are a couple of interesting items that I have come up with:

•    The famous “Three Oaths” are a major corner stone of the theological debate between those who support and those who oppose the establishment of the medina. (See the discussion in Rav Shlomo Aviner's "Do not ascend like a wall ")

•    Using oaths as a mechanism of creating “mitzvahs” to solve issues of egalitarianism. [See the post “Voluntary Obligations ” where Prof Joel Roth proposes that oaths can be used by woman to give them the same halachic obligations and rights as men]

However it got me thinking, can Oaths be used to create obligations to sin? As a case in point, what of the episode of Jepthah and his daughter?

29 Then the spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, 31 then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.' 32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hand. 33 And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto Abel-cheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34 And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said: 'Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art become my troubler; for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.' 36 And she said unto him: 'My father, thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD; do unto me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.' 37 And she said unto her father: 'Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.' 38 And he said: 'Go.' And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed; and she had not known man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

(Judges Chapter 11, verses 29 - 40)

Another example, is this din in the Mishna Torah (Hilchot Shavuot 5:17). "If a man swore to harm himself, eg he swore to wound himself, even though it is not permissible to wound oneself, if he did not harm himself, he is guilty because of Shavuat Bituy". 

The above scenarios seem to create a "Catch 22". On the one hand you made an oath to do x, but on the other hand that x is a sin. Quite clearly killing your daughter or harming yourself is sin. So how can it take effect? Also how would a person get out of it? Imagine going to the beis din and saying "Rabbis I made an oath to kill my daughter, but had I known its a sin I wouldn't have done it" - Muttar lach, muttar lach, muttar lach, they all respond. It just seems quite ridiculous. Any thoughts from some of the more learned readers?

To be continued....