The publication of Torat Hamelech and the ensuing controversy were sources of significant discomfort for the Orthodox community (link). Every group has extremists in its midst but here we are dealing with crucial texts and theological concepts that were very publicly painted as extremist. While rebuttals came quickly, they were all brief and necessarily partial. One scholar, Ariel Finkelstein, has published a comprehensive and impressive response — Derech Hamelech — that thoroughly and convincingly refutes the contentions of Torat Hamelech (the entire book Derech Hamelech is available for free download here: link).*
The story is told that after the publication of R. David Rapaport’s Mikdash David, R. Elchanan Wasserman was so impressed that he hired the author to teach the highest class in his yeshiva without ever meeting him. He was quite surprised when R. Rapaport arrived at the school unmarried and with a speech impediment (in the mid-1990′s, I asked a former student of R. Rapaport about this story and he confirmed that the rabbi arrived unmarried but was unaware of a speech impediment, although he added that few students understood their teacher’s complex ideas). Based on the impressive style and scholarship of his book, Derech Hamelech, if I had a school I would hire Ariel Finkelstein sight unseen to teach a class.
The task of refuting a book is easily botched. By merely disagreeing with point after point, you risk the appearance of nitpicking and offering responses that appear implausible in comparison with the book’s broad approach. Instead, a comprehensive refutation must present an alternative approach, reframing the discussion within a new point of reference. In this way, you show the issue from an entirely different perspective that readers can judge in totality rather than on a point by point basis.
The book is divided into three sections that not only refute both the specific arguments and general approach of Torat Hamelech, but also presents an alternate halakhic framework within which to understand all the issues raised. The first section of the book addresses metahalakhic issues: what do the Noahide commandments represent in relation to the Sinaitic commandments and what role do moral assumptions play in halakhic arguments? Finkelstein argues that the seven Noahide commandments are basic moral concepts that underly the Sinaitic commandments. The terminology of the Noahide commandments is different from the Sinaitic but that does not detract from the overriding obligations they present to all people. Unlike the media which sought to separate ethical considerations from halakhic arguments, Finkelstein shows that they are inherently intertwined.
The second section sets a formidable goal, to present a comprehensive halakhic attitude toward Gentiles. Building mainly on the concept of reciprocity, Finkelstein plausibly explains law after controversial law within a rational framework. When addressing details of various laws, Finkelstein digs further and utilizes additional concepts. He explains that the Noahide commandments are pragmatic rules of basic morality intended to allow for societal stability. In contrast, the Sinaitic commandments are a religious covenant expressing spiritual obligations and relationships. The baseline of morality is universal but Jews constitute a nation and must treat their coreligionists with additional care (this is the general approach I take here: link).
The third and final section is a point by point refutation of arguments in Torat Hamelech. Addressing issues of when one may kill rather than be killed, whose lives are more important, the status of innocent civilians caught in a crossfire and much more, Finkelstein tears apart the arguments of Torat Hamelech and reveals their logical flaws and lack of basis in Torah sources.
In my review of Torat Hamelech, I mentioned the uneven nature of the books argumentation. Derech Hamelech does it right. The book is overflowing with references to ancient and recent texts. Every argument is supplemented with a plethora of supporting citations and even the overall worldview is demonstrated from both Religious Zionist (e.g. Rav Kook and R. Yehuda Amital) and Charedi (e.g. R. Shimon Shkop and the Rogatchover Gaon) authorities. Finkelstein’s breadth is impressive, demonstrating total control over the textual and conceptual (lomdus) issues. He is meticulous and honest, acknowledging dissenting views but not allowing them to prevent him from advocating a comprehensive and convincing approach that allows for a rationalist and universalist Torah approach. Not every interpretation is unquestionable but the edifice Finkelstein has built is sufficiently strong to withstand minor critiques.
My only two complaints are minor and overlapping. The book was written for an Israeli audience and therefore in modern, rather than rabbinic, Hebrew and replete with academic references. I don’t begrudge the author’s decision but only hope that he will write a follow-up to his marvelous work in traditional rabbinic style that will take a respected place in rabbinic literature. More about this tomorrow night.
* Note that I deviate from my standard transliteration scheme for the purpose of this post. Please accept my apologies.
Side point:
What makes the Rogatchover Haredi?
It sounds amazing. Hopefully I can download and read tomorrow.
>What makes the Rogatchover Haredi?
Why don’t you ask this about R. Shimon Shkop?
For what it is worth, in May, I wrote a short discussion of extra-judicial killing of non-Jews here: http://mevaseretzion.blogspot.com/2011/05/extra-judicial-killings.html
It is similar to this book’s points starting at pg 102.
“* Note that I deviate from my standard transliteration scheme for the purpose of this post. Please accept my apologies.”
apologies?!? we are grateful. your usual use of ahskenazis in English is usually grating and tiresome 9and a bit childish). this is so much more pleasing to read.
“Anonymous on August 25, 2011 at 12:48 am
>What makes the Rogatchover Haredi?
Why don’t you ask this about R. Shimon Shkop? ”
great question!!
1.The terminology of the Noahide commandments is different from the Sinaitic but that does not detract from the overriding obligations they present to all people. Unlike the media which sought to separate ethical considerations from halakhic arguments, Finkelstein shows that they are inherently intertwined.
2.The book was written for an Israeli audience and therefore in modern, rather than rabbinic, Hebrew and replete with academic references. I don’t begrudge the author’s decision but only hope that he will write a follow-up to his marvelous work in traditional rabbinic style that will take a respected place in rabbinic literature.
=======================================================
1 implies a holistic view of the world, 2 a very limited one (yes, I know it is reality but never truly understood why our search for emet lamito excludes some sources)
KT
R’JR: I disagree with your second point. He wrote in a language and style that is more accessible to the general public.
R’Gil,
OK, I guess I misunderstood your point.
KT
>The book was written for an Israeli audience and therefore in modern, rather than rabbinic, Hebrew and replete with academic references.
It’s funny, but IMO, this is one of its great strengths.
Further, modern Hebrew is capable of greater precision than classic rabbinic Hebrew – it allows for greater clarity and a broader range of expression.
“apologies?!? we are grateful. your usual use of ahskenazis in English is usually grating and tiresome 9and a bit childish). this is so much more pleasing to read.”
Racist.
“Further, modern Hebrew is capable of greater precision than classic rabbinic Hebrew – it allows for greater clarity and a broader range of expression.”
No way. Classic Rabbinical Hebrew is way more precise and says in few words what modern hebrew does.
Not taking sides, but the use of certain terms (e.g. chazakah) to represent a number of different concepts, does present challenges.
KT
>apologies?!? we are grateful. your usual use of ahskenazis in English is usually grating and tiresome 9and a bit childish). this is so much more pleasing to read.
I disagree. It is neither tiresome nor childish to preserve a venerable tradition of pronunciation, to refuse to bow before assimilationist cultural imperialism, nor is it tiresome or childish to transliterate in a manner that is pleasing and true to oneself. What may be tiresome and childish is the inability to concentrate on the content and message, but I have to think about that more.
“Not taking sides, but the use of certain terms (e.g. chazakah) to represent a number of different concepts, does present challenges.”
True. I just find modern hebrew seforim much more verbose. For example, if Rav Yitzchok Sorotzkin wrote in modern hebrew, his seforim would be much thicker. I find his writing style, the yeshivishe style, to be much easier to go through, since the language is consistent and there is not too much variation. I dunno, maybe I’m just too simple.
Rabbinic Hebrew is more concise – but that’s also because it has a more limited vocabulary. English is more verbose, but you can certainly express a broader range of things and with more precision in English than in Rabbinic Hebrew (to say nothing of the fact that not every writer is gifted, and it takes talent to do much with little).
That said, I personally enjoy rabbinic works in rabbinic Hebrew more than in MIH.
The word “Racism” in your headline (“A Worthy Response to Racism”) is incorrect.
“Racism” isn’t a synonym of “bigotry” or “discrimination”. It has a simple meaning — treating a person or group of people differently because of their race.
The contemporary tendency to use “racism” as just another word for bigotry is neither necessary nor justified.
Whatever else you can say about “Torat Hamelech”, it does not make statements about any race of people. Whatever else it may be, it’s not racist.
Are you really arguing that Jews aren’t a race? Then I guess the term anti-semitism is also inappropriate.
A race is a biologically homogeneous group. Of course we’re not a race! (Although Caucasian Jews sometimes think they are…)
As for “anti-semitism”, it has long come to mean anti-Jewish feelings and actions.
I’m surprised at both your comments.
>No way. Classic Rabbinical Hebrew is way more precise and says in few words what modern hebrew does.
Modern Hebrew does not close the door on expressions from Rabbinic Hebrew. It also has a much broader vocabulary that is far less ambiguous. There is a reason that Jews who wanted to write about specialty areas in Hebrew generally developed special vocabularies that were previously unavailable in rabbinic Hebrew, be they grammarians or philosophers (who usually wrote in Arabic but their translators created a new vocabulary) Modern Hebrew just rolls it all up into one package.
The subject matter you mention in your review makes this sound like a worthwhile read, even for someone who hasn’t read Torat HaMelech. s the book understandable, assuming you haven’t read Torat HaMelech, or is he so heavly dug in to refuting Torat HaMelech that you need to read Torat HaMelech first?
“Are you really arguing that Jews aren’t a race?”
Not according to Torat HaMelech. Shapiros discrimination is ruled strictly by religious chauvinism, not racism. Tell us, what status would he ascribe to arab twin brothers, where one converted to Judaism and the other didn’t?
I think it would be a huge mitzvah to have this work translated into English (and other languages).
On this topic, I recently wrote a post that I feel very strongly about:
http://www.olamhaemet.com/2011/08/dangerous-and-frightful-consequences-time-to-look-within-part-1/
I firmly believe we are not doing enough to encounter dangerous texts in our tradition. Orthodox dialogue needs to start focusing more on universal, moral ethical issues and there has to be a revolution in how we teach ethics in our communities.
I look forward to peoples comments on this very important issue as well as practical suggestions for how things can be improved.
LI Reader and Shimon S: I’m aware of conversion but 99 times out of 100 Judaism is an inherited trait.
I don’t begrudge the author’s decision but only hope that he will write a follow-up to his marvelous work in traditional rabbinic style that will take a respected place in rabbinic literature.
1) The small vocabulary and nonstandardized grammar of traditional rabbinic style is highly limiting. How, for example, would you express the following sentence in traditional rabbinic language? I submit that it’s impossible.
“[B]y 1944 R. Soloveitchik had already formulated an impressively complete philosophical system along three disciplinary axes: methodology, analysis, and synthesis.” (R’ Jonathan Sachs, Tradition 23:3)
2) What you are really asking for is for MO/DL rabbis to write so that charedim accept their ideas as legitimate. This will not work. Charedi hashkafah is allergic to the idea of universal morality; they would recognize a reworking of this book as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and reject it.
I dunno, maybe I’m just too simple.
No, you’re just not a native Hebrew speaker.
Of course we’re not a race! (Although Caucasian Jews sometimes think they are…)
Not as often as Syrian Jews do…
Hirhurim wrote on August 25, 2011 at 12:47 pm:
“LI Reader and Shimon S: I’m aware of conversion but 99 times out of 100 Judaism is an inherited trait.”
For Ashkenazi Jews? AND Sephardi Jews? AND Indian Jews? AND Ethiopian Jews? Etc. Biologically “inherited”???
Please re-think what you wrote.
“LI Reader and Shimon S: I’m aware of conversion but 99 times out of 100 Judaism is an inherited trait”
Well, not “Judaism” but Jewishness, and not “trait” but status. 99% of Muslims are born in a Muslim family. It is the system that defines the category.
Please consider the distinctions between racism, xenophobia and chauvinism.
>That said, I personally enjoy rabbinic works in rabbinic Hebrew more than in MIH.
I can agree with this for many classic halachic subjects but for a work that seeks to be even slightly interdisciplinary, this is nearly impossible. How is the author to present various concepts of international law or sociology or any number of topic that he is referencing from academia using classic rabbinic Hebrew. I would venture to say it would be impossible – so I really don’t see what choice he had in this case, where the subject has little precedence in classic halachic texts and many of the arguments have to take into account modern legal concepts.
On that I would agree with you. I assume you read it so that you know he cites modern legal concepts and doctrines.
“Further, modern Hebrew is capable of greater precision than classic rabbinic Hebrew – it allows for greater clarity and a broader range of expression.”
and doesn’t this mostly happen by smuggling in english words and transliterating them in hebrew characters? i think it’s only a bit of an exaggeration to say that your claim reduces to the fact that english has a wider vocabulary than hebrew (and any other language).
hebrew? on August 25, 2011 at 2:43 pm:
“and doesn’t this mostly happen by smuggling in english words and transliterating them in hebrew characters?”
“english has a wider vocabulary than hebrew (and any other language).”
Let me guess: You’re an American.
“Let me guess: You’re an American.”
Let me guess: you can’t respond to his substantive points so you insult him.
hebrew is correct. The Academy of Hebrew Language can come up with as many words as they want. The average Israeli doesn’t listen to the academy, and generally, the trend is to hebracize English words, or use Arabic, in modern hebrew.
Statistically speaking, Modern Hebrew has more foreign words of Latin, Greek, German (including hebrew germanisms) and even Arabic origin. I know many people who believe that words like “psychologia” or “televisia” are of English origin…
>and doesn’t this mostly happen by smuggling in english words and transliterating them in hebrew characters? i think it’s only a bit of an exaggeration to say that your claim reduces to the fact that english has a wider vocabulary than hebrew (and any other language).
Partially, this is correct, mostly in technical academic terms where the authors would lose out by coining a new Hebrew word, and of course, this is not a new technique in the developement of languages. Much of Chazal’s Hebrew idiom is made up of nouns borrowed from Greek and Aramaic.
Another technique that makes modern Hebrew more precise is the use of cognate words from other semitic languages. This was a favorite technique of Ben-Yehuda to find cognates to Hebrew words and coin them with a slightly different nuance.
And of course, some of the words are just brilliantly created coinings. Such as נסיבות for circumstances. פצצה for bomb. שרירותי for arbitrary, מיזוג for synthesis, etc.
What stands out for English speakers is of course the words borrowed from English. But there are plently of examples of words, coined from Hebrew roots, which catch on. After all, I am typing on a מחשב and will now close the דפדפן and get back to working on a קובץ.
As a commenter pointed out last time you wrote about this topic, we are not dealing with racism. At worst we are dealing with nationalistic chauvanism. Indeed, since Judaism permits converts to enter the Jewish nation, I don’t think any Orthodox Jew can ever be a true racist.
I realize I wrote before I read the comments. It is important to use words like racism properly. Otherwise, it becomes like the word fascism, which George Orwell said has now come to mean nothing other than something bad.
It’s a shame when words with precise meanings are used indiscrimantely to demean people or works one doesn’t like.
I find it hard to believe that commenters insist on being extremely technical in defining whether we are dealing with racism or something similar. I really couldn’t care less and don’t want to bother debating whether all Jews are genetically linked. I believe commenters debated this on the last post, as well. If it makes you feel better to call this xenophobic bigotry or chauvinistic nationalism, then be my guest.
R’ Gil,
does it make you feel better calling this a “blog” and not a spinach? C’mon, those words have well defined meanings. Try the OED.
Would you object if I called this a website and not a blog?
By definition, every blog is a website. Xenophobia, chauvinism and racism are 3 different things (although xenophobia and racism are sometimes incorrectly used interchangeably). Would you say that homophobia and racism are interchangeable too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
Concerning The Academy of Hebrew Language, I believe that — at least until a few years ago — they translated “telephone” as “sach rachok” (a distance conversation).
“Let me guess: You’re an American.”
i am. is it because i’m american that israelis incorporate more english into hebrew w/ each passing day? that as a factual matter, english has a wider vocabulary than other languages? while i’m at it, that the feminine plural is increasingly dropped, the third person singular slangily subsituted for the first person singular, that feminine and masculine forms are increasingly ignored on “the street” etc. etc. etc.
chardal -
i was commenting on the useage of english when a perfectly adequate hebrew alternate is available. you want to argue that if hebrew already became mixed with aramaic in biblical times, and chazal made free use of greek, modern israelis can make free use of english – ok. i think that if we wish to claim we are speaking hebrew, we have to adopt some loose form of “they could do it, we can not” YMMV.
creative useage of hebrew is IMO very different than borrowing words. the chazon ish did that too – do you think his writing can’t be described as “rabbinic hebrew,” and needs to be described as “modern hebrew”? a lot of the admixture from english is IMO unnecessary – maybe natural and inevitable, but not necessary. i think it happens as much as it does b/c english is readily available w/ its wide vocabulary, not because hebrew isn’t sufficiently flexible.
hebrew?:
“…israelis incorporate more english into hebrew w/ each passing day?”
True, most of adopted words TODAY come from English. But that does not yet make the majority of all foreign words in Modern Hebrew.
a. Many technical terms in English are of latin and greek origin. The Hebrew transliteration shows they are not using the English version.
b. The Academy of Hebrew Language had for many years strong German and French ties.
“that as a factual matter, english has a wider vocabulary than other languages”
And you really believe that a German or Tamil researcher would agree with that…
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/06/counting_words
But there is no need to be abstract: a quick look at the book (Derech HaMelech) will show us how many adapted words are international words of Latin origin and how many are English.
What you are really asking for is for MO/DL rabbis to write so that charedim accept their ideas as legitimate. This will not work. Charedi hashkafah is allergic to the idea of universal morality; they would recognize a reworking of this book
Try again,Shlomo.The Charedim (or at least their Rabbinic Leadership)criticized Torat Hamelech for those very reasons before it became viral.(They similary critcized R.Goren for some of the selfsame reasons yearss ago.)
I agree with R Gil. A sefer on these issues deserves the widest possible circulation-both in traditional rabbinnic style and English. Far too much of modern Hebrew is at best an adoption of foreign languages and disciplines.
>I agree with R Gil. A sefer on these issues deserves the widest possible circulation-both in traditional rabbinnic style and English. Far too much of modern Hebrew is at best an adoption of foreign languages and disciplines.
And English? Why is modern Hebrew worse than English?
>Far too much of modern Hebrew is at best an adoption of foreign languages and disciplines.
Before, we continue down this line. Can you please tell me how you would develop rabbinic Hebrew into a language that is capable of modern discourse and thought without adopting from foreign languages and disciplines? It seems to me that the critics of modern Hebrew don’t really have such a plan and are basically upset because modern Hebrew was partially developed by people who were not “anshei shlomeinu”
Simplified link to the PDF of the book
http://bit.ly/derechHamelech
As for Modern Hebrew, it’s grammatically more related to Yiddish than to Lashon haQodesh. For example, in Tanakh, subject vs object are distinguished by the article “es”. In Modern Hebrew, it’s determined by word order.
Add to that the number of words that needed coinage because we now have new realities to speak about and the words that just gotten assimilated in. (Matimatika, democratzia, sveter, chipsim, etc…) The language has some heritage that connects it to earlier forms of Hebrew. But there is really more to distance it from Lashon haQodesh than who was on the academy.
All of which is really off topic. If you want to hold a halachic conversation on a serious level, it’s easier to do so in the patios which has connotations and buzzwords shaped by the topic. Writing in Rabbinic Hebrew will yield a clearer and less ambiguous book.