9-11 And The Freeing Of World Trade Center Agunot

Normally I agree with Allan Nadler. I find his insight into the history of what we now call haredism and the problems non-hasidic haredim from the Gaon of Vilna to Rav Schach had with the hasidic movement to be important and sometimes even profound. But I don't agree with him this time.

 
Allan Nadler

In this week’s Forward, Allan Nadler reviews Rabbi Michael Broyde’s, Contending With Catastrophe: Jewish Perspectives on September 11th.

Normally I agree with Nadler. I find his insight into the history of what we now call haredism and the problems non-hasidic haredim from the Gaon of Vilna to Rav Schach had with the hasidic movement to be important and sometimes even profound.

But in his review of Broyde’s book Nadler attacks Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for something that I think is really the fault of his translator.

Here’s that section of Nadler’s review:

Perhaps feeling constrained by the fact that the cases were, ultimately, no-brainers, thanks in large part to the massive evidence garnered through 21st-century technology, [Rabbi Mordechai] Willig, [Rabbi Zalman Nehemia] Goldberg and [Rabbi Ovadia] Yosef revert to an embarrassing and convoluted medievalism. Yosef’s responsum in particular reveals him to be shockingly out of touch with the realities of the 21st century. After citing a host of late 19th- and early 20th-century rabbinic decisions that take account of advances in communication that render certifying death less onerous than in earlier times, Yosef offers an enthusiastic proclamation.

How much more so in our days when there are steam boats, and railroad tracks, and telegraphs, and a post office in every town… there is almost nothing hidden from anybody — real information about anything that happens anywhere in the world in a matter of days… so that in our days where the probability that one would hear of such a thing, due to advanced communication can be added, the concern that perhaps he is living with Bedouins can be considered doubly improbable…. How much more in our days with the immense advancement of communication equipment: telephone, wireless telegraphs, newspapers, radios and television that reach every part of the globe. So too there are many airplanes which fly to every part of the world every day.

Yosef’s wonderment at the amazing invention of Alexander Graham Bell, and his apparent oblivion to the retirements or achievements of Bill Gates and now Steve Jobs, is deeply depressing. Far more discomfiting, given the means employed in the crimes that engendered the cases before him, is Yosef’s marvel at “airplanes that fly to every part of the world.” His deep rabbinical erudition notwithstanding, this responsum, to say nothing of dozens of truly bizarre political statements in recent years, reveals that Yosef has long ceased to be qualified to render contemporary halachic opinions.

Alas, Yosef remains the pre-eminent posek, or halachic decisor, for Sephardic Jews not only in Israel, but also worldwide. Which is to say that while he lives in the era of “steam boats,” he rules over the religious lives of millions of pious Jews who are more affected by the astonishing capacities of the Internet, their mundane thoughts spread in an instant (not “in a matter of several days”) and their every movement tracked by GPS-enabled smartphones, than by anything carried along “railroad tracks” or through the sending of telegraphs.

First of all, the book is distributed by ArtScroll, which has resisted publishing English language translations of rabbinic responsa for reasons I'll discuss below. That it would be involved in publishing cryptic translations of these responsum fits with their desire to keep these works hidden.

Without having seen the book, I think the first part of Rabbi Yosef's teshuva (responsum) is referring to and quoting rulings made in the 19th century (including one made by one of my great-grandfathers – although I'm not yet 100% certain about this).

That's why when he closes his teshuva he switches to referencing actual modern technology.

Elsewhere Nadler laments the poor quality of the translations of many responsa in book, faulting the translators for hewing to literal translations that are nearly indecipherable to those unfamiliar with arcane rabbinic parlance.

I believe Rabbi Yosef's teshuva suffers from this in more ways than Nadler realized.

What should be understood is that the "embarrassing and convoluted medievalism" Nadler opposes is, unfortunately, necessary. It is needed to deal with rabbis who populate Mea Shearim and Williamsburg, Borough Park and Spring Valley – rabbis who preserve as much of the medievalism as they can in their own lives and the lives of their folowers, and who rarely meet a strict ruling they dislike.

(The truth is, this really isn't medievalism – it's a bizarre attempt to freeze time and halakha in the mid-18th century,and then project that frozen moment back into Jewish history to a point where Moses wears a shtreimel [a wheel-like foxtail fur hat worn mostly by hasidim] in the Sinai desert.)

Rabbi Yosef – who I've often disagreed with and sometimes ridiculed – is a rabbi who did more to free agunot from the Yom Kippur War than any other, perhaps than all others combined. In fact, I believe he pioneer reliance on what was then modern medical technology – and which was controversial in haredi rabbinic circles at the time.

He knows what a fax machine is and a cell phone and other related technologies.

His failure to mention email, computers and smart phones may have much more to do with Ashkenazi haredi bans on these products than ignorance.

The same is likely true with Rabbi Zalman Nehemia Goldberg who is one of the most moderate and human of the major Ashkenazi haredi poskim (decisors of Jewish law).

(As for Rabbi Mordechai Willig, I find the man to be objectionable on so many levels, and compromised on so many levels, that I don't really care what he thought he was doing when he wrote what might very well be just what Nadler describes it as – convoluted junk.)

At any rate, citing precedent is normal in any legal system and often equally arcane. Reading US Circuit Court decisions and rulings will almost always make your head spin, unless you've been trained in the language and procedure of the law.

Jewish law suffers from a lack of a unified court system and the lack of a supreme court – a functioning Sanhedrin.

Because these are lacking, and because all serious attempts to organize decisions based on topic and time-line have been blocked by haredi and Orthodox rabbis, what we're left with is a chaotic system that can be easily manipulated and which is nearly indecipherable to those who have not been trained in it.

You can't open the equivalent of a Black's Legal Dictionary to decipher a teshuva, and there are no guides that put in the missing punctuation or to indicate where in a particular run-on sentence the author has switched to Aramaic or Old French or Yiddish or Middle German or Arabic or any of the many other languages that find there way, often in creole or pidgin form, into these legal decisions. Try reading and understanding a 12 or 15 line run-on sentence constructed that way – I dare you.

There is not a good excuse for this insanity continuing as it has into the 21st century.

The reason it has – which could very well be the reason for the poor translations of these responsa in Rabbi Broyde's book – is the rabbinic desire to make the inner workings of halakha secret, something only to be understood by initiates.

Rabbis want to be the gatekeepers to this knowledge because they're afraid the rest of us will misapply that knowledge if we have access to it.

It's a form of rabbinic elitism and it hurts all of us.

Thank God the 9-11 agunot were quickly freed.

More accurately, thank God rabbis like Ovadia Yosef made it very difficult for other rabbis, trying to rise through the political ranks of today's haredi rabbinate, to use these poor women as stepping stones.

Because that could very well have happened.

And if it had, today we'd be talking about their ten years of being agunaot, and we'd be wondering if rabbis would ever do the right thing and free them.

Comments

[S.]

Really, all you need to do to understand teshuvot is . . . learn them. Particularly if you already know Hebrew, they're not that hard to understand. You just have to have the will and desire to learn. They're not in Heaven, and they're not actually written in code. There are dictionaries, list of roshe tevot (acronyms) analytical articles, English compilations and summaries and much more. While it's likely true that many rabbis subscribe to the "a little knowledge is dangerous" theory, an understanding of rabbinic responsa is attainable for the willing, and you don't have to know a secret handshake or even a rabbi. You just have to be willing to spend the time at it, just like if you wanted to learn Mandarin.

[Shmarya]

Please.

Just like you could learn Mandarin – without ever hearing it spoken and without being sure of any references and most abbreviations or when sentences stop and start and when quotes stop and start.

You could learn it.

But odds are, what you learn wouldn't be understandable to a person that actually speaks Mandarin.

[Alex]

Just for one day, especially today, refrain from engaging in and fomenting machlokess.

[FM Fan]

This was a good and thoughtful post.

[S.]

"Just like you could learn Mandarin"

Correct. But the existence of Chinese Mandarin isn't a conspiracy against non-Mandarin speakers.

All I'm saying is that while teshuvot are somewhat esoteric, so is every branch of learning.

[Shmarya]

All I'm saying is that while teshuvot are somewhat esoteric, so is every branch of learning.

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2011 at 03:12 PM

No.

What you're saying is that learning Mandarin without ever hearing it spoken, without being sure of any references and most abbreviations or when sentences stop and start and when quotes stop and start is normal – but it isn't.

[BenZvi]

"But odds are, what you learn wouldn't be understandable to a person that actually speaks Mandarin."

an odd thing to say, coming from a real am haaretz.

[S.]

>What you're saying is that learning Mandarin without ever hearing it spoken, without being sure of any references and most abbreviations or when sentences stop and start and when quotes stop and start is normal – but it isn't.

Then the argument is lack of access to willing rabbis who will teach you rabbinics, not with the language and format of teshuvos. It is no more and no less technical than any other kind of learning.

[Isa]

From the main:
""""Rabbis want to be the gatekeepers to this knowledge because they're afraid the rest of us will misapply that knowledge if we have access to it.""""

Real story time frame before WWII. The community rabbi of Whisik, North Dakota is leaving, he was also the shochet and there was no refrigeration in those days except in the winter. So the whole community went treif.

Except shecking chicken [or fowl] is so easy and without the complexity of doing beef. {I have seen it done-i was holding the goose's legs]

Does he train the most pious person to shech chicken? Oh hell no let them eat treif!

This rabbi moved to Duluth hoping his daughters would marry some Jewish guy-they never did.

[Shmarya]

It is no more and no less technical than any other kind of learning.

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2011 at 03:31 PM

If you consider 12 line run-on sentences with absolutely no punctuation, including no quote marks, and with several languages, of ten in pidgin versions, included to be average learning, fine.

I doubt most people would agree with you.

[Elli]

It's impossible to describe all responsum-writing as being anything. Contrast the writing of R. Ovadiah with the writing of R. Moshe Feinstein, for example.
Regarding the steamboats that R. Ovadiah cites, Menachem Butler has done the research and exposed the Nadler review: http://michtavim.blogspot.com/2011/09/responsa-and-arcana-on-translations-and.html

[Yanky]

As I understand it, Hilchos Agunot is the longest Chapter in Shulchan Aruch and the most difficult to learn, that’s what a Rosh Beis Din told me. This was in response to 911 and being told that each case was investigated and ruled on by a quiet unassuming Talmid Chochom in Lakewood who was asked by R’ Elyashiv to carry this out.

[A E ANDERSON]

The very mention of ArtScroll repulses. Their poor, semi-literate translations into "Yeshivish" jargon coupled with vile typography makes me reel every time I enter a synagogue that has binned their useful, elegant Birenbaum, Hertz or other well-composed siddurim or Humashim in favour of the leather-and-gold bling that certain sectors of English-speaking haredim find so captivating.

Soncino was an work of elegant scholarship and printing, often set in nice letterpress, not cheap litho on cheap paper with pretentious bindings. Their English was precise, scholarly and elegant ... a model for the Anglo-Jewish public. By contrast, ArtScroll, despite their interminable approbations by semi-important and self-important clerics, has all the charm of a Brooklyn accent -- i.e., fine for the baseball field or pizza shop but out of place in the rarified, formal atmosphere of the synagogue.

All shuls should immediately consider replacing their ArtScroll prayer books with the wonderful and typographically magnificent Koren Sidder, edited by Rabbi Lord Sacks. It is a pleasure to read in either English or Hebrew, both from the standpoint of content and aesthetics.

[A E ANDERSON]

As to agunot, it's about time our clerics give real effect rather than mere lip service to the principle דינא דמלכותא דינא and give full and automatic halakhic effect to the personal status determinations of governments, including the validity of death certificates properly issued under official seal, especially that issued after coronial or similar inquest.

In my view, similar comity should be extended to marriage licenses and dissolutions made by the public authorities. Much public discord and private anguish would be eliminated if Jewish clerics realised that they are in no position to perpetuate the medieval kehillah system in contemporary society.

[Shmarya]

Regarding the steamboats that R. Ovadiah cites, Menachem Butler has done the research and exposed the Nadler review: http://michtavim.blogspot.com/2011/09/responsa-and-arcana-on-translations-and.html

Posted by: Elli | September 11, 2011 at 03:39 PM

First of all, Menachem is nogeiah b'davar because he worked on the book.

Secondly, if you cut through his spin what you're left with is – bad translations.

His claim that the introduction to the book and Rabbi Jachter's chapter fulfills the requirement of the Rambam to have a clear, readable translation is BS.

Rabbi Broyde, et all, tried to dance around the rabbinic opposition to usefully translating teshuvot and in the process produced nearly unintelligible garbage – which is exactly what I wrote.

[maven]

In general, R. Ovadiah Yosef's halachic writing is very clear and readable. I've read large chunks of Yehaveh Daat, etc, since I was a late high school, early college student. He also tends to be quite savvy about modernity, keeping in mind that he is the one whose rulings led to the establishment of skin banks which has made it much easier for Israeli soldiers since the 73 war.
I also speak fluent Mandarin, and don't think they are the same (personally, I find Japanese to be much harder than either).

[What kind of goyishe name is Harold z"l?]

Mr. Web Master:
I am sorry but I can not work under these severely restricted conditions. Now that I have more time on my hands and will be spending much more time here, I need to feel more comfortable. I humbly demand the ability to edit or delete comments. First only my own and then we can work from there. Also fix the tip jar. It goes to the same place as my Yated subscription. Thank you for your prompt affirmative decision.

[What kind of goyishe name is Harold z"l?]

I also speak fluent Mandarin...
Posted by: maven | September 11, 2011 at 05:13 PM

Azoy? Let me test you because I've heard this said many times while I was hiding in alley ways. How do you say "Kill the Jews" in Manchurian?

[maven]

1. 杀犹太人 Now the history of the word for Jew in Mandarin is of interest, but another time.

2. OT- On the American Airlines flight, the passengers made repeated trips to the bathroom and some thought they were using hand signals to communicate, the law enforcement official said...Two of the men were Israeli and one was Russian, the official said, adding that they were cleared and sent on their way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110911/us-flight-escorted/

[Adam Neira]

"Rabbis want to be the gatekeepers to this knowledge because they're afraid the rest of us will misapply that knowledge if we have access to it."

The meaning of the fact that people would not look at the face of Moses when he came down from the mountain was that they were not prepared to understand what he knew.
There are levels of knowledge and awareness. If you flood a child with too much information they will become tired and cranky. To become a top chef you have to serve an apprenticeship. So it is with study. Certain leaders have to make decisions and render judgment on various issues. The more complex the issue the more knowledge is required. However I believe knowledge should be open to everyone. We shouldn't have a system like the one in "The Name of the Rose". As at Sep. 2011 all the various "bits" of information are now accessible on the Planet. With the miracle of the internet, libraries and books in abundance all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are now present. We are in the sixteenth year of the following prophecy.

"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven."

- Psalms 85:11

The interesting thing now is that even with all the information present some people are just not interested in understanding the world or what is going on. They leave the heavy spiritual lifting up to others. Many of the people with the knowledge would like others to share it, but unfortunately most people, like the ones who Moses greeted after his descent, are just not interested. They sort of resent those with the knowledge, yet are acquiescing. They don’t naturally want to defer to greater wisdom, because it is a rare man or woman who admits that someone else is more knowleadgable than you , but the realise they have to for their own good.

Thus there needs to be command and control structure on Planet Earth based on wisdom, ethics and awareness that is respected, heeded and rewarded.

P.S. In the recently released movie “Meek’s Cutoff” set in 1845 Oregon the despised Indian is the only one who can lead them to water.

[Q]

This guy takes on new levels of being an ignoramus.
A: I've seen the original Tshuva. R' Ovadia didn't mean steamship, as in the midwestern form of transportation in the mid 1800's. He meant a marine vessel that works on other forms of energy than the natural one, and his point was that this dramatically changes the dynamic of Mayim She'ein Lohem Sof, and with the advent of the telegraph and telephone, the entire dynaimic of Mashmia Ozen is changed as well. Airplanes don't have the visibility to change Mayim She'ein Lohem Sof, and internet doesn't have the credibility and representation of Edus.
This book is NOT about the Shtetl-izataion of modern Halocho. Get your facts straight.

[Maskil]

You could learn it.

But odds are, what you learn wouldn't be understandable to a person that actually speaks Mandarin

Shmarya,

If your ancestors had no problem picking up these texts, reading, comprehending, memorizing and indexing them without reading a line twice then why should they be punctuacted? The bachurim should simply be more educated. It wasn't their first language but they had no problem with it then, had you gone to yeshiva in your prime you'd probably have no problem with it and you'd deride the idea of some "incompetent fool" from artscroll deciding how it should best be punctuated.

[Shmarya]

That really isn't true.

Historically, the very bright and the rich (who could afford private tutors for their kids) learned to understand the stuff.

But the vast majority of Jews did not and could not. It was a closed world to them.

[ultra haredi lite]

To the best of my knowledge this tragedy brought out the best in our rabbinate as they diligently and with great sensitivity sifted through the evidence, employed every leniency they could and ultimately freed every woman.

[Leibel Schenkel]

I was always under the impression that a responsa was written in answer to someones question. A responsa is much more complex than the standard Halachic decision - which should be three words or less (permitted, forbidden, Koshe, not Kosher). Once the decision is given, a Rabbi may - of his own choice & volition - give an explanation of his answer or a method to resolve the situation. On the other hand, a responsa is normally written to explain the method in getting to a decision, it is normally not publicized - rather it is there as a record of the Rabbis decisions.

Thus, your analogy to Mandarin doesn't make sense. One can come to the same conclusion as the Rabbi, by just following all of the steps the Rabbi followed in reaching his decision.

[facts]

Shmarya, maybe if you spent some time in Bais Midrash you would know how to learn. Your criticisms just highlight not only your profound ignorance but just how proud you are of being so ignorant.

Get help before its too late.

[yudel]

Facts..you are an amazing joke. Best you see what it is like to sit and learn.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, maybe if you spent some time in Bais Midrash you would know how to learn. Your criticisms just highlight not only your profound ignorance but just how proud you are of being so ignorant.

Get help before its too late.

Posted by: facts | September 12, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Coming from a person who continues to refuse to give his wife a get and who violates clear rulings from a beit din – and who is in cherem for it, I believe – that's pretty funny.

And when you add to that your mentally unstable comments on posts even loosely related to divorce, it becomes pathetic.

Give your wife her get, and get yourself the mental health counseling you need.

[facts]

actually 2 botei din chosen by her not me said that she was not entitled to a get but then again, why get sidetracked by the facts.

once again the offer for electric shock treatment remains, asshole.

[facts]

actually she is the one in heirem for being in arko'oys. you are a revisionist. i guess according to you there were no jews killed in the gas chambers even if the facts say otherwise.

the only thing lucid coming out of you recently is how corrupt Mordechai cardinal Willig of the bronx is.

he does not care about women being in arko'oys, but then again netiher do you, you apikores.

[Avi1]

"actually 2 botei din chosen by her not me said that she was not entitled to a get.."

Care to explain?

[facts]

yes. 2 separate botei din chosen by her once they told the truth that she was in arko'oys washed their hands off her and never sent 2nd hazmonos.

[Shmarya]

Facts is a pig who has refused to grant his wife a get for years.

He's a sick, vile person.

And his wife is suffering because of it.

500 years ago, the beit would have beaten him until he freed his wife.

But he runs around like the proverbial pig that he is, showing his cloven hoofs and screaming, "I'm kosher but my wife is triefe."

He's scum.

[facts]

Just look at the rants of a meshugeneh. You really need electric treatment badly meshugeneh.

her own 2 chosen botei din, including one modern orthodox condemn her for going to arko'oys and for being oyver mesirah but this does not bother shemarya.

you are a f-cking maniac, lunatic and self-hating anti-semite all mixed in shmarya.

you hate the old way of doing things but then misquote what happened 500 years ago. you can only order the forcible giving of a get when bais din rules that this is necessary NTOT WHEN THEY RULE THAT NO GET SHOULD BE GIVEN.

IF SHE WANTS A GET, LET HER GO TO BAIS DIN, PAY MY LEGAL COSTS AS A K'NAS FOR BEING IN ARKO'OYS, GIVE ME THE CHILDREN SINCE SHE IS AN OYVERES AL DAS WHO CANNOT AL PI HALOCHOH KEEP THE CHILDREN AND I WILL GLADLY GIVE HER A GET.

[Chicago Sam]

Many years ago, when I went through R Moshe Feinstein's responsa, I recall reading one where Rav Moshe ruled against those who would translate his works for a more contemporary English speaking audience. Evidently, he felt novices might fancy themselves as "poskim."

Interesting . . .

R. Ovadiah Yosef in moments of mental clarity, can "almost" sound rational.

[Leibel]

Poor Nadler: A post about his great review has deteriorated into such ugly name-calling. Back to the issue, M Butler "exposed" nothing: if you read what Nadler wrote carefully you will see he cites Ovadya Yosef word for word regarding his amazement at the advent of "telegraphs, telephones and airplanes that fly every day"....Nadler then when on to comment on this point: that no matter what a Godel R. Ovadya is, if he isn't aware of the advents of Bill Gates and is in wonderment of Alexander Graham Bell, and knows nothing from DNA he is not fit to pasken in such areas. Menachem Butler twisted and turned and distorted Nadler's words because he was the katan she-bektanim who translated the tshuvas so badly. Now, as it happens Nadler, while he was a rabbi in Boston was on the beys din of the Vaad Harabonim there -- some 30 years ago, and was matir many agunos, one of them was my own mother !!!! But Butler suggests he cannot read a tshuva; the guy is a rabblerouser for sure and a shtikl apikores, but he is a major lamdan, as anyone who ever sat is a shiur of his in Montreal knows.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Leibel | September 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I think ROY's teshuva in the original Hebrew is clearer than in translation – clear enough so the context suggests what is, in fact, a quote of a 19th century teshuva that is lost in Butler's translation.

I wouldn't pin the bad translations solely on Butler, though. He certainly can do (and has done in the past) a clearer and better job of translating.

Someone above Butler's pay grade made a conscious choice to translate the teshuvot in a very literal fashion without the supporting notes or clarifications necessary to make them fully intelligible to the average reader (or, in the case of Nadler, the above average reader).

I believe that choice was ideological in nature, for the reasons I explained above.

ROY can be an obnoxious man, and some of his public statements are truly horrible.

But even now the man knows what a fax machine is and what a computer is (although I doubt he has ever used either).

The translations and Nadler's resulting review is just another example of the unintended consequences of the over-pious behavior that dominates all branches and sects in Orthodoxy and ultra-Orthodoxy.

The translation was and remains profoundly unfair to ROY and to Nadler, who suffered public embarrassment because of it – and to the other readers of this book, who can easily be misled by those bad translations.

But you're right in pointing out that Butler is nogeiah d'davar in this, and that his unnecessarily vicious attack on Nadler should be viewed in that light.