â–Ş Letters to the Next Generation 2 (PDF)
â–Ş Pay to Pray?
â–Ş Rabbi Sacks: Long live books – bringers of life and enlightenment
â–Ş Rabbi Metzger: Let troops avoid women’s singing
â–Ş The Audacity of Faith
â–Ş King James: The Harold Bloom Version
â–Ş SALT Wednesday
â–Ş Modern Orthodoxy at a Crossroads
â–Ş The Book of Life
â–Ş The Book of Abraham: Personal Musings on the Principles of the Torah
â–Ş Judaism without God? Yes, say American atheists
▪ The Jewish Ethicist: Office Boredom
â–Ş Real Meaning – Resting Spot
â–Ş Can Kosher Be Cool?
â–Ş Manual for Orthodox Newlyweds Is Too Modest
▪ iShofar, a Smart Siddur, and RustyBrick’s Other Jewish Apps
â–Ş SALT Tuesday
â–Ş In a Manhattan Park, a Question of Law and a Jewish Symbol
â–Ş Rabbis: Jewish law prohibits walkouts at IDF ceremonies
â–Ş Gay-religious group now official non-profit
â–Ş Rabbis urge religious public to donate organs
â–Ş Israel on New Year: Population of 7,797,400
â–Ş The Ethicist – Disembarking Close To Shabbos
â–Ş Religious infighting continues to rise in Beit Shemesh
â–Ş Jewish Publication Society Sale Brings End to Era
â–Ş Orthodox women want co-ed ambulances
â–Ş SALT Monday
â–Ş Last week’s news & links
Rules: link
“Mycroft wrote:
“Orthodoxy should be put to the three talmidei chachamim within the American MO world that are most respected for their halachic ability: Rabbis Hershel Schachter, Gedalia Schwartz, and Mordechai Willig”
They are all talmeidei chachamim but are they all “within the American MO world”
Mycroft-the last that I heard RIETS,the OU , the BDA and the CRC were all definitely part of the “American MO world””
To avoid discussing the 3 talmeidei cahchamim involved but to discuss RIETS and the OU-clearly one need not have been MO to be part of either world-to gvie some past examples no one would have said that either Rav Lessin ZT’L or Rav Jeruchem Gorleick ZTL were MO and both were in RIETS-and Yibadel be nchayim lechayim would you maintain that Rav Belsky of the OU is MO.
lawrence kaplan – you are correct (or i stand corrected on my original post) – originally, i wrote: ” will accept the rwmo if you throw the other bums – of course yct and others- out? ”
upon rereading it last night my newer comment was that RAY was speaking of the rca as an organization that would be acceptable to him (and maybe others) if they do….But was characterization of throw the bums out unfair (that line is used by many commentators to whomever is in political office when the economy goes sour and elections are around the corner)? was i moving the goal post?
l.k. wrote: “by “many members of the RCA.” Do you deny that he is accurately representing these sentiments?”
no idea who this cabal is(it could be 3 people for all i know). i assume its people like him who want certain views to be beyond the pale and were tzizit checkers when they were younger and can’t help themselves as they get older in trying to define who is in and out and thereby control “their” organizations. i mean someone has issues with saying shelo asanai isha (btw, it doesn’t really bother me or any of the women in my family) and tries to find a way to deal with the issue – is like saying you believe in yeshu is the mosiach to some. the use of the slippery slope is over abused today to allow for different halachik perspectives.
“What we have here is an INTERNAL struggle within MO…” I respectfully question that assertion. RAY is not mo he happens to be part of the rca among others from his charedei world. this is an attempt to try to get rid of the “fifth column” of anyone disagreeing with him (and RHS, RMW, and RGS – they are of course kosher but are they mo?) – this is not limited to yct graduates but anyone infected by some outside values – far left wingers (maybe he wants to bring back slavery, polygamy, stoning homosexuals, women not leaving home execpt 2-3 times a month, not educating our daughters…. – all part of our tradition)[a little tongue in check for aseret yamei teshuva].
INTERNAL struggles do not get posted on cross currents. this is an appeal to the masses.
” Rav stated that unless the RCa took a strong stand against mixed seating …” are the two situations really comparable? the rav was the halachik authority for the rca and drew a line in the sand at that point and maybe due to the conservative movement growing influence. here a charedei rabbi who is part of the rca is telling them who can be a member and what views are acceptable(this is not limited to yct graduates but any dissent imho (or it will be eventually)?
btw, i am not intelligent – just your local am haaretz who never will be smart enough to be (if one has the inclination to go there) an apikorus (such is my lot in life… limited intelligence).
Lawrence Kaplan
“Both RYA’s comments in the on-line discussion as well as Gil’s comments here show that RYA is serving as a spokesman for a group of rabbis within the RCA who would like to bar graduates of YCT from membership in the RCA. ”
It would be nice if he offered some evidence of, apart from his quoted suggestion of Rabbi Hanan Balk to appeal to three RWMO rabbis for a ruling (which I assume is what he meant by saying that “the article emerged from a group effort of a number of rabbonim, all RCA members, none of whom are charedim”).
It would be nice also if he would addressed the Why-Ami? question.
However, it should of course be pointed out that even if it is in Ami, those who accept the truth no matter the source should be willing to consider the article on its own merits, if there are any, however distasteful the source.
“Steve Brizel on October 2, 2011 at 10:44 am
Mycroft and William Gewritz-neither of you responded to my query as to whether the average LOR is sufficiently well versed in all areas of Halacha that he feels confident to issue Psak on such difficult areas as building a Mikveh or constructing an Eruv without consulting an outside specialist,”
and is the average RY equipped to discuss many issues of interfaith cooperation-they may well be great talmeidei chachamim but many at least do not know the details of what the other faiths mean by certain language-people can have specialities-in hachi nami.
Of course, I can think of LWMO Rabbis who have been the experts for eruvin in other communities and certainly those LWMO Rabbis talmidim of the Rav who were the most machmir about eruvin of all Rabbonim on a areas vaad harabonim-includingthose running RW yeshivot!
“IMO, it is revisionism for anyone to claim that RYBS viewed Psak as totally a local affair without due deference to outside Talamidei Chachamim for their Halachic knowledge and status as Baalei Mesorah.”
It is certainly revisionism for anyone to state that the Rav believed that Psak should be in the hands of central anybody who does not know the facts on the ground. The Rav himself in response to sheiolot by talmidim would often state you are there, you must answer you know what is happening. To take that approach of the Rav and believe that he would have felt that all sheilos should go to RY is ludicrous. BTW look at the Ravs private smichas which were not only given to RY the language reshut horaah is not limiting except you must ask me.
Obviously, talmidim of the Rav tried to ask him difficult questions but he would often refuse to answer-of course he would offer to go over the sources but at the end it is the local Ravs responsibility. Obviously, Rabbonim discuss difficult sheilas with their colleagues all the time-but that is a different issue.
“What we have here is an INTERNAL struggle within MO,”
There have been internal struggles in the RCA before but I may be getting senile but I don’r recall previously ones reaching the papers by parties from one side or the other advocating openly such positions in print.
“and RHS, RMW, and RGS – they are of course kosher but are they mo”
Certainly they are not MO in the classical sense-they may have be on better terms with MO people and tolerate them better but not sure if one can claim that their personal beliefs are MO.
Mycroft: The IRF’s leadership is composed largely of RCA members and has given many interviews to the press.
Dr. Kaplan: It seems to me that R. Adlerstein’s essay got to the eyes of exactly whom he wanted without forcing mainstream Jewish media to get involved.
“Building a Mikveh and constructing an eruv implicate two of the most difficult, and important areas of Halacha. Without a mikveh, a community is stating that an Issur Kares is not of primary concern in its Avodas HaShem. A community that can build an eruv without any halachic impediments will IMO wither away on the vine.”
Agreed, but irrelevant to the comment I made.
“WADR, your concerns re ” issues concerning women and halacha, relationships with others, relationship to modern culture and learning and similar issues” essentially means that a rav must give “common sense” answers to the same that might meet your approval from a sociological and cultural perspective, but would , as we have ofen discussed and debated, raise questions of whether the same is indicative of adjusting halacha to modernity as opposed to viewing modernity through the prism of Lomdus and halacha.”
It doesn’t meant that at all — “essentially” or not. It means that the local rav will explore and examine halachic texts and other relevant material and make a decision for his community. Your calling it “adjusting halacha to modernity” is simply your nasty way of denigrating rabbanim whom you disagree with.
“Are you claiming that neither RSZA, RYBS and RMF were senstive to “issues concerning women and halacha, relationships with others, relationship to modern culture and learning and similar issues”?”
Of course not. I was suggesting that no one appointed them the final authority in the MO community and that rabbanim who lead kehiolot and, indeed, just regular ba’allei battim (like me), while respecting them for their erudition, are not required to follow their opinions and decisions.
Joseph Kaplan wrote in response:
“WADR, your concerns re ” issues concerning women and halacha, relationships with others, relationship to modern culture and learning and similar issues” essentially means that a rav must give “common sense” answers to the same that might meet your approval from a sociological and cultural perspective, but would , as we have ofen discussed and debated, raise questions of whether the same is indicative of adjusting halacha to modernity as opposed to viewing modernity through the prism of Lomdus and halacha.”
It doesn’t meant that at all — “essentially” or not”
WADr, RYBS clearly disagreed with your assessment .
Steve – you again miss the point. Reviewers opine; that is their job. Do you also hold by R. Berger’s opinion of Chabad, since you reference him as an authority on such matters?
Unless R. Berger or Landes provide you with actual quotes from R. Greenberg and R. Hartman, your statement that they “view as nonexistent both the concepts of Am HaNivchar and the covenants between HaShem ( Bris Avos and Bris Sinai)” is a libel.
Finally, you dismiss R. Greenberg’s membership on the RCA is not proof that he is MO; yet, with regard to Rabbis H Shachter, G Schwartz and M Willig, you seem to think affiliation is proof they are MO. Curious.
In any case, RYA is shadow boxing. The RW has bluster, but no longer has the power they imagine.
Interesting article on the yamim noraim experience (anyone want to translate?)
http://www.etzion.org.il/dk/page.php?year=5772&issue=1280&page=1280maamar3.html
at 3:32, should read: you dismiss R. Greenberg’s membership in the RCA as proof that he is MO…
Loose translation/summary of the first story:
A talmid came before his rebbe and said “It is written that someone who fasts for so-and-so number of days will receive a revelation from Eliyahu Hanavi, but I fasted that number of days and Eliyahu did not appear to me!”
The rebbe said: “The Baal Shem Tov, when he traveled, merited a miraculous ‘kefitzat haderech’ which made the trip very fast. This confused the horses pulling the BST’s carriage. Since they traveled so fast, there was no need for them to eat on the way. They were used to eating straw at rest stops, but this time they did not. This caused them to think that perhaps they had become human beings, who sit down for a meal only upon reaching a city along the way.
“Then the BST arrived at a city along the way. Surely, the horses thought, they now would eat along with the human beings. But even in the city they were given nothing to eat. Clearly, the horses were now neither horses nor human beings, but rather angels who did not need to eat at all.
“But eventually, at the end of the day, the BST finally arrived at his destination, settled in, and gave the horses straw, which they ate greedily like horses.
“This story is similar to a person who fasts and thinks that he has reached the level of angels and is ready to talk to Eliyahu Hanavi. After he ends his fasts and resumes eating, he should not gobble it down like a horse – because if so it is clear that he is still like a horse, no different than he was before fasting.”
Similarly, the person who reaches a spiritual high on the yamim noraim, yet afterwards descends from that high – can we say he has accomplished anything at all?
Read the rest of the article for an answer…
“Dr. Kaplan: It seems to me that R. Adlerstein’s essay got to the eyes of exactly whom he wanted without forcing mainstream Jewish media to get involved.”
Not forcing mainstream Jewish media to get involved-but I would guess that the mainstream Jewish media reads Hirhurim and probably Cross Currents more than its reads Moretheorthodoxy. Posting it on Crosscurrents guarrantees the issue to be discussed beyond the RCA.
Referring as R Adlerstein does to “One of its more effective tools is a blog called Morethodoxy” when he Rabbi Menken, Rabbi Shafran are the main writers for pro chareidi blog-which BTW has much more restrictive standards for comments than Hirhurim does-is strange IMHO.
“Mycroft: The IRF’s leadership is composed largely of RCA members and has given many interviews to the press.”
Fair enough-I just don’t follow their press releases that much. I don’t think andI may be wrong that the IRF Rabbis challenge the halachik actions of the RW, my belief is that the RW routinely challenges and has challenged the halachik actions of Rabbis that were done over decades including those obvious to most done following the guidance of the Rav.
My croft – “RW routinely challenges and has challenged the halachik actions of Rabbis that were done over decades including those obvious to most done following the guidance of the Rav.”
Can you expand on this with many examples?
I have copied Rabbi Adlerstein’s beginning and just changed a couple of words-does anyone believe such language would not be considered a provocation and zilzul talmeidei chachamim-BTW I don’t necessarily agree that my changes equal a true narrative but merely reflect the differences in acceptance of attack by different sides.
“What will the rabbinic leadership of the Modern Orthodox (MO) world do? A wave of provocations from the Far Right challenges the very definition of Orthodoxy. Should Yidden in other parts of the community who are far from the battle lines care? It would take a navi to answer the first question. Responsibility for Klal Yisrael and caring for other Jews demands a resounding “yes” to the second.
Lots of things are happening in the RW Orthodox world – some good, some not so good, and some astonishingly terrible. The far right of Orthodoxy seems to be intent on continuing an unrelenting drive to push the envelope and change the way people lead an Orthodox life.”
Would that be considered provocative.
“Ruvie on October 2, 2011 at 4:25 pm
My croft – “RW routinely challenges and has challenged the halachik actions of Rabbis that were done over decades including those obvious to most done following the guidance of the Rav.”
Can you expand on this with many examples?”
Most obviously Geirus.
mycrofy – “Most obviously Geirus.” i was looking for less obvious examples.
“WADr, RYBS clearly disagreed with your assessment .”
Of course, your trying to put words into the Rav’s mouth doesn’t make it so. Just where did he “CLEARLY” say that an Orthodox rav, other than one of the 3 or 4 or 5 you have appointed as the authorities for the MO community, who rule on matters “concerning women and halacha, relationships with others, relationship to modern culture and learning and similar issues essentially means that [the] rav['s psak] must … [be a] ‘common sense’ answers to the same that … would … raise questions of whether the same is indicative of adjusting halacha to modernity as opposed to viewing modernity through the prism of Lomdus and halacha”? Perhaps you could give us a quote from the Rav that “clearly” makes this point. I wouldn’t be so arrogant to say that the Rav “clearly” agrees with me unless I had a very specific citation to something he said or wrote, and even then I’d think long and hard before I said the Rav agreed with me. I don’t know whether the Rav would agree with my analysis or not, but I’m pretty confident that he didn’t “clearly” agree with yours.
Joseph, Ruvie, S., etc.: To be clear: I wanted to make two points. 1) that RYA in his article was speaking not just on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of a group of MO rabbis who are members of the RCA; Thus, to describe the article as simply a Haredi critique of MO is inexact and misleading; and 2) that I believe that RYA’s admiration for large swathes of MO is genuine and not conditional. I certainly have no wish to defend either the tone or substance of RYA’s article– not to mention his choice of venue– and, indeed, I agree with many of the thoughtful criticisms posted here.
Lawrence Kaplan – 1. He may be speaking for others in the mo camp but we do not know who and how many of them and RYA is not mo and therefore his criticism is from the charedei camp even though some in the mo group would agree with his sentiment but maybe not in the use of his adjectives and description of the issues (chareidei style).
2. I am sure RYA likes and respects many in the mo camp as well as many in the mo camp respect yeshivish/ charedeim folks. But we are talking about an institution and it being acceptable to RYA and his ilk. Because of that he is a chareidei dictating HOW the RCA can be acceptable to him – the fact that there may be some in the mo camp that agree with him is irrelevant.
Ruvie: I respectfully disagree.
Sorry Lawrence, I’m (respectfully) still with ruvie on this one.
It’s OK Joseph. We’re allowed to disagree.
Joseph Kapaln-all of the volumes of Noroas HaRav, which are verbatim transcriptions of shiurim and drashos by RYBS on the Yamim Noraim, Shalosh Regalim, Purim , Chanukah and TSBP,, including Volume 10, which discusses the rebellion of Korach,and especially for the purposes of this discussion, pp. 74-78, 81-83,86-88 are easily downloadable in PDF format at a website that R Gil provided on this blog. I would prefer to place any further discussion of this issue on hold until you have downloaded, read and are willing to discuss the aforementioned shiur, the pages that I mentioned, and its applicability, or why you think, to the best of your opinion, that the same is not applicable.
IH wrote:
“Steve – you again miss the point. Reviewers opine; that is their job. Do you also hold by R. Berger’s opinion of Chabad, since you reference him as an authority on such matters?
Unless R. Berger or Landes provide you with actual quotes from R. Greenberg and R. Hartman, your statement that they “view as nonexistent both the concepts of Am HaNivchar and the covenants between HaShem ( Bris Avos and Bris Sinai)” is a libel”
In response to your first question, R R D Berger is hardly a mere “reviewer.” I consider R D D Berger an Ish HaEmes on both his views of Chabad messianism and on his review of RYG’s book. The quoted excerpt from R Landes’ review speaks for itself.Again-I reject your obvious attempt to stifle criticism of both RDH and RYG , especially when you have consistently defended the actions and articles of many whose POV is well beyond the pale of Halacha.
You also missed my point re RHS, R M Willig and R G Schwartz. AFAIk, none were ever summoned to the Vaad HaKavod because of their actions and writings.
Mycrfot wroten in part:
“clearly one need not have been MO to be part of either world-to gvie some past examples no one would have said that either Rav Lessin ZT’L or Rav Jeruchem Gorleick ZTL were MO and both were in RIETS-”"
IMO, that analogy is inapplicable. R D S Belkin ZL arranged for visas and faculty appointments for Talmidei Chachamim who escaped from Europe who were hardly advocates of synthesis. AFAIK, neither RHS, RM Willig nor R G Schwartz have ever been identified either with Halachic or Hashkafic positions that remotely approach today’s Charedi world.
I’ve erad the pages you cited, Steve. Yes, the Rav speaks about “common sense” halacha. But it’s you, and not the Rav, that applies that appellation to local rabbanim who make decisions, based on halachic analysis and an empirical understanding of their community, about issues that affect that community. Take, for example the issue of yoatzot halacha that is an issue in Teaneck because only one rabbi of an orthodox shul has agreed to have his shul sponsor a yoetzet. Others oppose because some of the YU RY oppose. So does my rabbi not have the right to make his decision based on his analysis of halacha and what is appropriate for the Teaneck community. (Indeed, the yoetzet serves the entire community including many women who belong to the shuls of the rabbis who refuse to sponsor the ypetzet.) The theoretical anlysis of the Rav’s thought is not what’s at issue; it’s the application of that thought to specific issues. And your saying that the Rav would say, as you apparently do, that rabbis who reach conclusions that differ with those you and those who you have appointed as the sole authorities for the MO community have reached are basing those conclusions on common sense halacha and have adjusted halacha to modernity, has no support in the pages you have cited.
Ruvie, how are you defining “chareidi” in point #2 @ comment# October 2, 2011 at 8:22 pm.
IH-take a look at the linked video. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3019414/chosenness_is_gods_search_for_intimacy_david_hartman/Then, read Shmos 19:5-6, and ask yourself how RDH;s thesis that the same is universal can be read as consistent with any of the traditional commentaries such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Seforno, Netziv, for a start, or the Midrashim quoted by NechamaLeibowitz Zicronah Livracha at Pages 298-299 of Studies in Shemot. Such sources belie the claim that chosenness is a means for HaShem for intimacy, when the text and commentaries clearly state that such a status and the covenant are rooted in the acceptance and observance of Mitzvos, aka Bris Sinai.
Steve:
This video proves nothing. RDH expresses a view of choseness quite similar to most MO thinkers including Rav Hirsch. I challenge you to show me a single leading 19th or 20th century MO leader not living in Israel that describes Jewish choseness as Jewish superiority as opposed to Jewish responsibility to model connection to God to the world.
minyan lover – defining chareidi ? how would you like to define it? i am no expert in this area. i believe RYA has identified himself with the chareidi world. according to wikipedia – “He is a leading exponent of the moderation of Haredi Judaism in relation to the outside world.” he is a co founder of cross currents – a hareidi web site.
r’ ruvie,
r’ya seems to define himself as a 3rd way. i’ve mentioned to him before that if this is not to be a gadfly who tweaks everyone and changes no one, a lot of organizational effort would be needed to actually build that group.
GCT
“Most obviously Geirus.” i was looking for less obvious examples”
I’ll take the bait a less obvious example which certainly others such as Prof Kaplan can correct me if I am wrong.
The area of interfaith encounters-now it appears that a simple test of social vs theological discussions is being used as to test of what is permissibile or not. It certainly appears based on what the Rav permitted for over a quarter century of active leadership in this area that academic discussions of faith, that social issues can be discussed based on the underlying religious ethics that are implicit in our belief system. Way beyond my competence and certainty and I could stand corrected but it is my impression that people will not go anywhere near what the Rav approved in his life during the decades of his leadership.
http://klalperspectives.org/
KLAL PERSPECTIVES is a new, electronic journal dedicated to addressing the unique challenges facing today’s Orthodox communities. Each issue will consist of a symposium in which a diverse group of rabbinic and lay leaders will share their different perspectives on a given topic, characterizing the challenges and proposing solutions.
me-I suppose we’ll see how diverse diverse is.
Look forward to reading it
GCT
“You also missed my point re RHS, R M Willig and R G Schwartz. AFAIk, none were ever summoned to the Vaad HaKavod because of their actions and writings”
I specifically did not want to get into a pointless dispute of the extent to which those 3 talmeidei chachamim are or are not MO-I wrote:
“They are all talmeidei chachamim but are they all “within the American MO world”
Mycroft-the last that I heard RIETS,the OU , the BDA and the CRC were all definitely part of the “American MO world””
To avoid discussing the 3 talmeidei cahchamim involved but to discuss RIETS and the OU-clearly one need not have been MO to be part of either world-to gvie some past examples no one would have said that either Rav Lessin ZT’L or Rav Jeruchem Gorleick ZTL were MO and both were in RIETS-and Yibadel be nchayim lechayim would you maintain that Rav Belsky of the OU is MO.”
to simply show that one being employed by RIETS or the OU does not prove that one is MO.
A simple apparent change -I believe that both RHS and RMW have approved the admissionj of those to the RIETS smicha program wo a college degree-that was not prior policy decades ago-I am not saying that is either good or bad policy just that they have some ideas which are clearly less MO than than the policies of decades before. The extent that RHS could be considered MO would be an interesting question-but not one I desire to enter-certainly he is much more sympathetic to certain aspoects of MO than moist RY in the world but is he MO or is chardal is an open question-nothing gained by discussion-RHS is certainly a great figure on the American scene.
[...] the Fast After Yom Kippur Gets a Makeover â–Ş Hebrew School’s New Game Theory â–Ş SALT Mondayâ–Ş Last week’s news & linksRules: link Share and [...]
Mycroft wrote:
“to simply show that one being employed by RIETS or the OU does not prove that one is MO.
A simple apparent change -I believe that both RHS and RMW have approved the admissionj of those to the RIETS smicha program wo a college degree-that was not prior policy decades ago-I am not saying that is either good or bad policy just that they have some ideas which are clearly less MO than than the policies of decades before”
Mycroft-IIRC, RAL, in one of his books, also wrote that a college education should not be seen as sin qua non for RIETS smicha.
Joseph Kaplan-I would agree that a local rav’s POV on Yotzaot Halacha would not necessarily entail consultation with a Talmid Chacham of greater stature by a local rav-especially, when we know that R M Willig is consulted by and has approved the use of a Yoetzet in his community. I do think that on difficult halachic issues such as building an eruv and a mikveh where there are numerous shitos Lhachmir and lhakel that should be considered as well as on issues of Minhagim and Hashkafa, that due deference should be given to the views of greater Talmidei Chacahmim who are more versed in the issues than the LOR, who well aware of the facts on the ground, may not be so familiar with the ins and outs of sensitive Halachic and Hashkafic issues.
MO wrote in part:
” I challenge you to show me a single leading 19th or 20th century MO leader not living in Israel that describes Jewish choseness as Jewish superiority as opposed to Jewish responsibility to model connection to God to the world”
WADR, none of the Mfarshim that I quoted remotely interpret the passages that I referenced either as “Jewish superiority” or a “responsibility to model connection to God to the world”
but rather as the basis for the covenental relationship between God and Am Yisrael. The covenantal relationship is defined by our accepting and observing Torah and Mitzvos as well as living life rooted in being a Kiddush HaShem, as opposed to the equally mistaken notions that Kiddush HaShem is the sole component of the covenant or that the covenant implies moral superiority.