Parasites

16 05 2013

In what might be the most hilarious editing fail of the year, it turns out that the algorithm employed by Inagist (a website that “curates tweets based on popularity in real-time”) is unable to differentiate between the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism and the London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases. That seems like a pretty easy mistake to make. If you’re a computer.

The upshot of this is that they feature a nice big photo of Australian Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, with the proud declaration that he has just signed the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, and almost directly underneath it a tweet from @LSHTMPress, to the effect that “we need to understand parasites a lot better to treat them properly”.

At least, I’m assuming that this was an error…

Screenshot:
Editing Fail





Sons of Aharon

13 04 2013

Wrapped

The above image – that of a religious Jewish man, wrapped in plastic aboard an El-Al plane – has gone “viral”. In the absence of any explanations, people simply made up their own. The Huffington Post’s religion correspondent originally declared that he was protecting himself from the presence of women – an idea that they’d not invented themselves, but which they had copied from the original Reddit post. Having been corrected, their updated article (with the exception of some nonsense about kohanim being “holy men”) at least gets the story straight.

In short, the issue pertains to an area of Jewish legislation that deals with purity and impurity, and to a ruling that was issued by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rav Elyashiv, who died last year at the age of 102, was the leader of Degel haTorah: the Lithuanian haredi political party that frequently runs with the hasidic Agudat Yisrael under the name of United Torah Judaism. He was accounted by Lithuanian haredim the “gadol hador” – a phrase that literally means “the great one of the generation”, and that refers to his having been considered the halakhic arbiter par excellence. (The phrase has an interesting history, and one that reflects on the gradual concentration of authority within Lithuanian Orthodox Judaism. This is something that I discussed in an earlier post, shortly after his passing).

Purity law is an extremely complex area of halakha, and most people are insufficiently qualified to be able to issue the sorts of rulings on this that were issued by Rav Elyashiv. To provide a very brief explanation of what is going on in the above picture, it is first important to bear in mind a couple of things. For a start, the biblical prohibition of a kohen defiling himself for the dead (eg: Leviticus 21:1-4) is understood by the rabbis, amongst other things, to extend to his inability to enter a cemetery. Secondly, it is also held that corpse impurity, if it rests on top of an object, extends upwards to the sky (Rambam, Hilkhot Tumat Met 19:5).

There is some debate as regards whether or not corpses in Israel transmit impurity through to the surface of the ground anyway, since the law is that they need to be surrounded by slabs between them and the earth, and since the distance between them and the soil constitutes a break in the earth through which the impurity will not travel. This is also the case in Australia, where the law requires corpses to be placed in a box, rather than directly into the ground itself. The general understanding, however, is that since the slabs sink down with time until they are touching the body (and since the box deteriorates) the corpse impurity is still transmitted to the surface of the earth and, from there, upwards to the sky. All of this only applies to the corpses of Jews.

There is a mishna in Eruvin 3:1 (26b-27a), which speaks of the food that one uses in order to symbolically extend the “Shabbat boundary”: the maximum distance that one can walk on Shabbat. This is also not a simple area of legislation, but the only important aspect of it, so far as this particular issue is concerned, is that the food be placed in a location that can be accessed by the person who is utilising it for this purpose. That would seem to mean, then, that if it were going to be used by a priest, it cannot be placed in a cemetery. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says that it can be placed there, since the priest can theoretically make a barrier for himself and enter.

What is a barrier? Technically, it needs to be a completely sealed object, which retains its own shape, and which is comprised of something that does not contract impurity – such as thick plastic, in the case of this ruling. There are problems with doing this on an airplane (some of which are so obvious that they don’t bear mentioning), and the easiest solution is to simply not take flights that are going to go over Jewish cemeteries. That, by the way, is what most people do. But Rav Elyashiv understood the relevant passages to technically permit something of this nature and, notwithstanding the fact that it might be forbidden by the crew onboard the plane, it can assist a kohen who is forced to fly on a plane that, due to unforeseen circumstances, is now going to be flying over a cemetery. How the bag is sealed, whether or not (and when) it can be punctured to allow air holes, as well as the necessary thickness of the bag, etc, are all things that are explained in his ruling.

In the Talmud’s elucidation of the mishna that I mentioned (Eruvin 30b), a debate is recorded between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi as regards whether or not a priest who has been placed inside a box can be carried through the cemetery by others. Rebbi rules that he would become impure as a result, while Rabbi Yosi rules that he is pure. The way that the Talmud understands this debate is that a moving box is considered by Rabbi Yosi to be an obstacle to impurity (ie: “like a tent”), while Rebbi considers it no such obstacle.

The Rambam codifies the opinion of Rebbi: a moving box is not to be considered “like a tent”, and won’t block the impurity. For our purposes, that means that while a thick plastic bag (which cannot receive impurity at all) will protect the kohen, the airplane in which he is sitting (being that it is a “moving box” made chiefly out of metal) will not.

That said, however, there is another factor at play here as well, and one that explains why the vastly overwhelming majority of Torah observant kohanim would not behave in the fashion depicted above.

There are two components to the prohibition of a priest entering the cemetery: that he not physically enter the cemetery (or pass above it), and that he maintain his purity. Only the first of those two components remains in effect today, since with the absence of any contemporary means of divesting oneself of corpse impurity, and given the ease with which it is transferred, we are all of us impure.

As such, most people would not adopt the practice that is depicted in the image. By avoiding flights that fly over major Jewish cemeteries (and El-Al discloses which of their flights do and which do not), a concerned kohen is able to travel by plane and also fulfil his interpretation of this legislation. In the unforeseen event that he needs to change flights at the last minute, or his plane is rerouted, the issue is out of his control. He is not transgressing, therefore, by being onboard the plane. For him to construct a barrier around himself would be to try and fulfil the second component of the mitzvah, which is to maintain his purity: a moot point, given that he lost it already long ago.

While most people would therefore view the above practice as an unnecessary stringency, it is probably worth mentioning that haredim who adopt it are unlikely to see it as anything other than a practical solution to a contemporary halakhic problem. The stringent position would be to stay at home.





Moya

10 04 2013

This haunting piece is “Moya”, the opening track on Godspeed You! Black Emperor’s 1999 EP, “Slow Riot for New Zerø Kanada”. The image displayed is that of the album’s cover: two words in Hebrew, which are translated by the familiar King James Version as “without form, and void”. As a phrase, it appears both in Genesis 1:2 and in Jeremiah 4:23. Both are descriptions of the earth at the beginning of creation, but the second text also alludes to what the world will be like for a time after God brings destruction upon it.

To which of these texts was the post-rock band alluding? Cleverly (if perhaps unintentionally), to both of them.

The inside of the record jacket includes the text from Jeremiah 4:23-27 in both Hebrew and English, putting the passage into its apocalyptic and eschatological context. A context, I should add, that is most fitting for this and for all of their other albums as well. But the te’amim (the trope signs) on the album cover are those of Genesis 1:2. Had they intended the cover to allude to Jeremiah 4:23, they would have utilised a tifcha under the first word and an atnachta under the second. Since they utilised instead two pashtin above the first word and a zaqef qatan above the second, the passage from which they were copying out their text was from Genesis instead.

If they meant to allude to Jeremiah, why did they copy the words from Genesis? Is it possible that they knew what they were doing, and that they were deliberately alluding to both? If so, I like to assume that they were also aware of the fact that they had included a small circle above the /heh/, which is not part of the te’amim at all. It’s a masoretic notation, found within the Leningrad Codex and other representatives of the MT (such as, as is more likely, the BHS) and it serves to direct the reader to a corresponding gloss in the margin.

The marginal gloss for this phrase features a single letter, ב, which represents the number 2. This means that the phrase in question occurs twice within the biblical literature – the second instance, of course, being Jeremiah 4:23. Copying the te’amim from Genesis and including the circle is both the smartest and the subtlest way that they could have alluded to both passages simultaneously. I really hope that they intended to do so.





Yom haShoah 5773

7 04 2013

In amongst my sprawling and growing assortment of books is another collection, and one that takes up very little space. Arranged in two folders, red and green, are a number of banknotes. The red folder contains a currency that was never a currency, and the green contains one that should never have been. They are a tenuous, yet tangible, connection to the recent past. And their value to me is priceless.

A Currency of Need

As early as 1914, when faced with the depreciation of the German Papiermark and the fact that the metal used to mint coins was worth more than the coins themselves, institutions that were unaffiliated with the German banks began printing a makeshift currency that could be used in certain specific locations within the towns of their origin. This currency has come to be known as Notgeld (“Necessity Money”), and it takes a variety of forms. Largely worthless at the time (although in some cases their usage did help to stimulate the economy), they quickly became an object for collectors. Some of them are exceptionally rare.

Given that they were of limited usage, and given the interest that people had in them as works of art, many institutions that produced this currency (be they hotels, or post-offices, or town councils) took the time to decorate them with motifs of religious or cultural value. After the defeat of Germany in the Great War and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, several of the Notgeld issued were of an antisemitic character. The following are the items (all uncirculated) that I have thus far collected.

Brakel, Germany (2 mark, 1921):

Image
The inscription on the front tells of a [Jewish] man who suspended his youngest child out of the window to defecate, but to his surprise a councilman was walking by at the time. It concludes by noting that this was a “true story” (Wahrhaftige), which occurred in 1655.

On the back, you can see the guilty Jew chained to a post, with a vulture looking down upon him:

Image

Sternberg, Germany (1 mark, 1921):

These ones comprise a series (a Serienscheine), which concerns itself with the purported desecration of the host in 1492, when a priest named Peter Däne alleged that the local Jews had been torturing Jesus after death. The first item in the series shows him selling the hosts to the Jews:

Sternberg 1 (1 mark 1921) - front

The second item in the series depicts the Jews torturing the hosts:

Sternberg 2 (1 mark 1922) - front

The third and final item in the series shows the Jews being punished for their desecration:

Image

The backs of the three notes are all decorated with a picture of Sternberg in 1492, the year that 26 Jews were burned at the stake for this fictitious crime:

Image

Tostedt, Germany (50 pfennig 1921):

The front of the note depicts two Jews, hanged from a tree and surrounded by ravens. The German declares that “this should happen to all of the profiteers and Germany would be better off”.

Image

Image

Frankfurt, Germany (25 pfennig, 1921):

Presented in the style of the surrealists, this note depicts crooked and, in one case, possibly hornéd Jews. The symbol on the chest of the man in the foreground is possibly reminiscent of the communist hammer and sickle. Unlike the other items, there is nothing overtly antisemitic about this one, and it is only the historical context that makes of it something foreboding.

Frankfurt am Main 25 pfennig 1921 - front

Frankfurt am Main 25 pfennig 1921 - back

-

The Currency of Death

As they had done in Oranienberg as early as 1933, the Nazis introduced money to Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1943, and for much the same reason. A “model camp”, and one to which the Red Cross had access, it was important to carefully decorate the thin veneer of normalcy. In the infamous and unreleased propaganda film that the Nazis made of Theresienstadt, Jews can be seen lining up outside a bank, waiting to deposit their money. Depositing it in the bank was one of very few things that could actually be done with it, as a result of which they are almost all of them in uncirculated condition.

The designer of the notes was a Jew named Peter Kien, who was under instructions from Reinhard Heydrich to make the Moses on the banknotes look semitic, and to ensure that the sixth commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”) be excluded from the picture. This second stipulation has led to the erroneous claim that Moses’ hand is obscuring the sixth commandment. This claim can be found in Joel Forman, “Holocaust Numismatics” (1997), John Sandrock, “The Use of Banknotes as an Instrument of Propaganda” (2004) and Stephen Feinstein, “Art and Imagery of the Ghetto – During and After the Holocaust” (2005). Embarrassingly, this misinformation is even perpetuated by the Tauber Holocaust Library and Zachor, 2005: two sources whose authors I would expect to be more familiar with Hebrew. In actual fact, Moses’ hand is partially obscuring the fourth commandment (the letters כו of the word זכור can be glimpsed through his fingers, meaning that this version of the decalogue is the one found in Exodus 20), and completely obscuring the fifth (“Remember the Shabbat” and “Honour thy parents”, respectively).

The Nazis wanted the money to serve as part of an elaborate illusion. Simply introducing the notes was not sufficient for this fantasy to appear real. Therefore, they made a significant effort toward having the money seem like it was actually being used. Around eighty people were given jobs keeping track of payroll, coupons, and salaries. Meticulous records were kept, all as part of the illusion that the money had some sort of value. Everyone who worked in the ghetto, or was a prominent figure, was paid a monthly salary that varied by job, sex, and status…

The Nazis wanted to get the money to circulate, but without a real value, the inmates did not see a lot of incentive in earning the money or spending it. Everyone was required to save some of their wages, but ultimately there was nothing to spend them on. Shops were set up in which it was ostensibly possible to buy the items that had been confiscated from prisoners upon entering the ghetto. These items were priced so high, however, that the money was never really taken seriously.

- Ray Feller and Steve Feller, Silent Witnesses: Civilian Camp Money of World War II (ed. J.E. Boling; 2007), 81.

The design on all of these notes is the same, although the notes increase in size as the denomination increases. Each note is dated January 1st 1943 (although they only became available mid-April of that year) and features on the back the signature of Jakob Edelstein, who was the first Elder of the Jews in Theresienstadt and who was murdered in Auschwitz in 1944:

Terezin 1 front

Terezin 1 back

Terezin 2 front

Terezin 2 back

Terezin 5 front

Terezin 5 back

Terezin 10 front

Terezin 10 back

Terezin 20 front

Terezin 20 back

Terezin 50 front

Terezin 50 back

Terezin 100 front

Terezin 100 back

(The above images are not photos that I have taken of my own banknotes, but are images that I downloaded.)

Unlike the notes from Theresienstadt, the notes from the Lodz ghetto are all thoroughly well-used. There, having a little money might mean the difference between life and death. As is discussed in Ray and Steve Feller’s Silent Witnesses: Civilian Camp Money of World War II, providing the ghetto inmates with a currency of their own was but one of many ways in which the Nazis were able to reappropriate all of their property. Instead of simply stealing what they wanted, they purchased it from them and converted the money (minus a 30% tax) into the ghetto’s currency. Were somebody to escape, the currency would be useless to them outside the ghetto. Inside the ghetto, it was needed in order to survive.

This item is a postage stamp, valued at 10 pfennig. All such notes are dated either “17 April 1942″ or “15 Mai 1944″, the latter date being within three months of the liquidation of the ghetto and the extermination of its remaining members.

Image

Image

The following images are of the actual items that I purchased. They each feature the use of the menorah as an image, as well as that of the magen david – both by itself and in the form of barbed wire. Although it may be hard to see on the images below, each note also features an identifying mark that, together with its serial code, the nature of the printing and the fabric of the note, helps to identify counterfeits. The identifying mark is always on the face of each note; where I also have a photograph for the back of the note, the face of the note is shown first. Each note also features the signature of the Elder of the Jews of Lodz Ghetto, the controversial Chaim Rumkowski, also printed on the face.

Image
The identifying feature of the 50 pfennig note is a dot within the magen david that is found within the 0 of the number 50.

Image

Image
The identifying feature of the 1 mark note is a small dot between the /M/ of “Mark” and the following /a/, level with the top of the /a/.

Image

Image
The identifying feature of the 2 mark note is a similarly placed dot, level with the middle of the /a/.

Image
The identifying feature of the 5 mark note is a dot within the /k/ of the word “Mark”.

Image

Image
The identifying feature of the 10 mark note is a dot within the /h/ of the word “Zehn”.

Image
The identifying feature of the 20 mark note is a dot within the loop that is formed by the top of the initial /Z/ in “Zwanzig”. There is also a 50 mark note, but it is somewhat rarer and therefore more difficult to acquire.

My final item is an example of a promissory note (Konversionskasse), to the value of 5 mark. These notes were given to people (primarily Jews) who wished to move abroad and keep their money. After paying an exorbitant tax, the remainder of their wealth was transferred into notes of this nature, which they would soon discover were completely worthless. They are almost always stamped with WERTLOS (“worthless”) or with ENTWERTET (“cancelled”).

Konversionskasse 5

-

I receive very mixed reactions from people when showing them my collection. While some are impressed with the connection to history that holding such items in one’s hands can create, others still are repulsed with the horror of it all, and uncertain as to why one might wish to acquire them. Myself, I have very mixed feelings. At times, I find myself drawn to them: they are something solid, tangible, real. They are silent witnesses in the true sense of the term, but even voiceless they speak louder than words. They testify to a period of utter hatred, and one that I remain uncertain of how to understand. While the antisemitism of the Notgeld is connected, for me, with a long history of political antisemitism (itself predicated upon broader social and religious forms of Jew-hatred), the horrors of the Holocaust are exploitative of such attitudes, though not necessarily a natural development from the same.

It is telling that the images on the antisemitic Notgeld are all either set in the distant past, centred on usurers and profiteers (rather than explicitly “Juden”) or, in the case of the Golem from Frankfurt, offensive by association only. There is a yawning gulf that lies between the contents of the red folder and the green, and while the items in the two folders interest me, challenge me, repulse me and inspire me, it is that gulf that I find most worthy of deliberation.





A Solid Drink

6 03 2013

Here’s a nice little article on the halakhot that surround making kiddush on whisky instead of wine. The author, R’ Ari Enkin, observes in his second footnote that some permit whisky on Friday night as well, while others forbid it. His source for that is the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 272:9), which gives no evidence either way. It’s not alluded to in this article, but there’s actually a cute story that surrounds the impermissibility of using whisky for this purpose.

In Jeremiah 11:16, the prophet likens Israel to an olive tree. There are a couple of midrashim (Shemot Rabbah 36:1 and Shir haShirim Rabbah 1:21) that explain this in relation to olive oil: just as olive oil when mixed with other liquids always remains distinct, so too does Israel – despite being mixed with other nations – always maintain its integrity; just as olive oil always floats towards the surface, so too does Israel always come out on top.

There was a 17th century scholar named R’ Yaakov Moshe ben Avraham Helin who authored a commentary on Midrash Rabbah called Yedei Moshe. In it, he credits an observation to his brother-in-law, Rav Yitzhak – the Av Beit Din of Krakow. The observation is this: if you pour olive oil into whisky, the oil sinks to the bottom. Surprisingly, this is actually true: the gravity of pure alcohol is about 0.8 and oil about 0.9 (a measure of density with respect to water, water being measured as 1). If we consider the non-alcoholic parts of whisky to be water, a heavier oil could easily weigh more than 40% alcohol.

What to do? The midrash says clearly that oil always floats to the surface when mixed with other liquids, and here we have a case where that is patently incorrect. Rav Yitzhak’s suggestion? Whisky is not a liquid (!!). And not only that, but whisky therefore cannot be used for kiddush on Friday night, since the halakhot of kiddush demand of us that we use a liquid for that purpose.

In his commentary on Orach Chayim, R’ Avraham Gombiner notes some of the reasons held by people who allow the use of whisky (Magen Avraham, OC 272:6), although he doesn’t mention any of the reasons held by those who reject it. In his commentary on Magen Avraham, R’ Shmuel haLevi Klein fills in the gaps (Machatzit haSheqel, OC 272, s.v. ונ”ל דא”מ על יי”ש). Believe it or not but he actually quotes the Yedei Moshe, who rules that whisky isn’t to be considered a liquid, although he does conclude that we don’t learn halakha from such stories. To those of you who are interested, the following is the relevant part of his text:

ובס’ ידי משה על מדרש רבה כתב ראיה בשם גדול א’ דע”כ יי”ש לא מקרי משקה מדאמרינן במדרש למה נמשלו ישראל לשמן מה שמן עולה על כל המשקין ר”ל אם תתן שמן על כל המשקים השמן צף למעלה כן ישראל יעלו על כל או”ה. וביי”ש אם נותן לתוכו שמן, השמן שוקע למטה. וא”כ על כרחך אינו בכלל משקין לפ”ד המדרש הובא גם כן בספר ת”ש אלא דסיים שאין למידין הלכה מפי אגדה

“And in Sefer Yedei Moshe on Midrash Rabbah, he writes a proof in the name of a certain sage that if so, whisky (יין שרף) is not to be considered a liquid, since it says in the midrash: Why is Israel likened to oil? Just as oil rises above all liquids (which is to say that if you place oil in any liquid, the oil will float to the surface), so too will Israel rise above all the nations of the world. But with whisky, if you place oil into it the oil sinks to the bottom. If so, you are forced to say, according to the manner of midrash, that it is not in the category of “liquid”. This is also brought in Sefer T.S. (?), which concludes however that we don’t learn halakha from such stories.”

[H/T R' Ozer Alport, who first drew my attention to this Yedei Moshe and the corresponding passage in Machatzit haSheqel. And thank you, Sean, for your insights on the relative density of whisky and water.]





Bnei Noach

12 11 2012

The Shulchan Arukh (OC 328:14) rules that if a person is sick on Shabbat and needs meat, it is better to slaughter an animal for them than to feed them an animal that wasn’t slaughtered according to the halakha. This, despite the fact that slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is a far graver violation than consuming non-kosher meat.

There are several reasons for this, the one in the Tur being that,by a sick person, Shabbat is like a weekday. The mechaber’s reason, which he mentions in his Bet Yosef (ibid.), is that it is better to commit a one-off violation than it is to commit frequent violations, even when those frequent violations are of a lesser order. Although there were scholars before the Tur who expressed the same halakha (notably the Rosh and the Mordekhai), this particular reason for it is attributed by the Bet Yosef to Rabbeinu Nissim (“the Ran”; Yoma 4b, s.v. וגרסינן), who holds that when eating non-kosher meat one is in violation of the halakha with every olive-sized mouthful.

Although the Ran doesn’t quote them, the actual origins of this principle appear to lie in the writings of the Baalei haTosafot (Daat Zkeinim, Genesis 12:11), in their resolution of a problem posed by an 11th century French scholar and friend of Rashi’s family, R’ Yosef Qera. According to R’ Yosef, the reason that Avraham feared for his life when going down to Egypt was that the Egyptians, as bnei Noach, were forbidden from committing adultery. Since his wife, Sarah, was so beautiful, perhaps they will kill him in order that one of them might marry her?

As the Tosafot point out, bnei Noach were also warned about murder. Why would Avraham think that they would violate a more serious prohibition in order that they might not violate the milder one? Their resolution, which is subsequently quoted by both the Rosh and the Chizkuni in their commentaries on the Torah, is that it is better to transgress a serious prohibition once than it is to transgress a mild prohibition several times.

If I am correct in supposing that the origins of this idea lie in the writings of the Tosafot, and that it was their resolution that influenced the halakha of the Ran, then we have in our Shulchan Arukh a ruling that (at least according to its author) is learnt out, not “from Sinai”, but through the postulated behaviour of Egyptians.





Amaleq

4 10 2012

An interesting little piece of trivia: the oft-heard explanation that Amaleq refers not to a tribe but to a particular attitude is not a classical idea (as I had thought), but originated in the mind of none other than Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, the father of Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (“the Rav”). It is recorded, not in anything that Rabbi Moshe himself authored, but in various writings and public addresses of his son, notably a Hebrew composition entitled “BeSod HaYachid VeHaYachad”, in which the author explicitly mentions the Nazis as an example.

An additional little piece of trivia (for which I thank Rabbi Gil Student): the famous Fraenkel edition of the Rambam’s Mishne Torah contains an exhaustive index of commentaries at the back of each volume, entitled Sefer HaMafteach. It is well known that the editors of this edition omitted the names of any Modern Orthodox, Zionist and Lubavitch commentaries. And yet, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik’s interpretation of Amaleq is just so good, they clearly couldn’t help themselves.

You can find it under Hilkhot Melakhim 5:5, in which they ask the following question:

לעיל סוף הל’ ד כ’ שאבדו ואבד זכרם, ואיך יתכן מחיית עמלק הרי גם הם אבד זכרם

“Above, at the end of halakha 4, it is written that [the seven Canaanite nations, whom we are commanded to destroy] are already destroyed [through the activities of Sennacherib] and their memory is destroyed, so how is it possible to wipe out Amaleq? Their memory is also destroyed!”

This is a famous enough question on the Rambam’s legal philosophy (why suggest that the obligation to destroy the seven Canaanite nations is no longer in effect, but not say the same about Amaleq?) that the Sefer HaMafteach lists no fewer than nine different commentaries, each of which poses a different solution. And at the very end of the list:

ר”מ סולובייצ’יק מוב’ בס’ בסוד היחיד והיחד עמ’ 392

“Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, brought down in BeSod HaYachid VeHaYachad, p392.”

No mention, of course, of the fact that the book that they are quoting is by a Modern Orthodox Zionist who was friendly with Lubavitch, but it’s really just a drop in the ocean of their peculiar brand of misnagdischkeit. I wonder if there are any other drops of this nature?








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.