On Moral Untenability

Once a man came to Hillel and asked him "Teach me the whole Torah while standing on one foot."

Hillel replied "That which is hateful to yourself, arrange to be done to others by an agent for a group of people that includes you. All the rest is commentary, now go and study."

A brief comment on the history of machloket

Rabbi Pruzansky of Teaneck posted an essay on his blog which included the following:

A “machloket,” I assume, was not always perceived the way it is today. Abaye and Rava (yeah, yeah, no one is Abaye and Rava here) did not engender the support of partisan factions in their several thousand areas of conflict. (Typical conversation on the Babylonian blogs in the 4th century CE: “Supporters of Rava: ‘Have you heard? Our master Rava says that when a married woman is accused of infidelity by only one witness, and does not deny it, the one witness is still not believed. But Abaya says that the solitary witness is believed! [Kiddushin 66a] He must be anti-woman, that troglodyte!’” Typical ? Somehow, I don’t think so.)

The hostile reaction here was so visceral that I could only conclude that, contrary to traditional halachic methodology, people are emotionally vested in a certain outcome. Like the rabid sports fan who supports his favorite team and wants them to win at all costs – even if they cheat, even if the umpire or referee blows a call [“a win is a win”] – one group of polemicists wants its side to win. They have little interest in halachic process, but rather a passionate desire for a particular result.

I submitted a comment, which apparently he chose not to publish, so I'm putting it out here:

The schools of Hillel and Shammai represent both extremes in partisanship. One the one hand, although they disagreed about kashrut and mazerut they ate in each others' homes and married one another(*).

On the other hand, the Yerushalmi lists the 18 halachot passed by Beit Shammai after they used force (including murder!) against Beit Hillel to create a majority. (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).

So I would say that passion in the pursuit of Torah is not a new thing. Indeed it goes back even to the days of the second Beit Hamkidash, as related in the story of why a lottery was instituted for determining who would change the ashes on the altar.

(*) Personally I assume this to mean that the 2 schools practiced full disclosure with one another - "Although I believe this woman is fit to marry, by your understanding of halacha she is a mamzeret" and so forth. I wonder if this approach can at least provide a breathing space with respect to the current conversion controversy.

RCA draws a line in the sand - but why here

Well, the RCA has decided it stands for something - it requires members not to be meschists. I wasn't aware of a flood of chabadnik rabbis overwhelming the RCA. The new RCA loyalty oath includes the following:

"In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach ben David will begin his Messianic mission only to experience death, burial and resurrection before completing it."

I'd rather see the RCA require the following:

In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not a place in Judaism for the belief that belief in a world older than 6000 years is kefira

In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that only glatt meat is kosher for Ashkenazim

In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that long standing conversions can be retroactively nullified

What vertebrae would you add to the RCA's backbone? Reply in the comments

RCA statement on invalidating Israeli Conversions

The Rabbinical Council of America, having taken note of the recent ruling of the Bet Din Elyon (Rabbinic Court of Appeals) of Israel, nullifying certain conversions performed by the State Conversion Authority led by Rabbi Chaim Druckman, has today issued the following statement:

Having reviewed the ruling of the Bet Din Elyon in detail, and being fully mindful of the respect due the rulings of duly constituted rabbinical courts in their respective jurisdictions, the RCA finds it necessary to state for the record that in our view the ruling itself, as well as the language and tone thereof, are entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice, violate numerous Torah laws regarding converts and their families, create a massive desecration of God's name, insult outstanding rabbinic leaders and halachic scholars in Israel, and are a reprehensible cause of widespread conflict and animosity within the Jewish people in Israel and beyond. The RCA is appalled that such a ruling has been issued by that court.