Year: 2020

Rabbi Sacks: More Than a ‘Crown Rabbi’

Three Sides of Rabbi Sacks

Posted by: Gil Student in Magazine, Musings, Posts Nov 9, 20

by R. Gil Student

The passing of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l leaves thousands if not millions of people of faith — Orthodox and non-Orthodox, Jewish and gentile — mourning their teacher and source of inspiration. Everyone is unique but some of us, just a few, are irreplaceable. I doubt whether anyone can fill Rabbi Sacks’ oversized role in this world. In this age of disbelief, Rabbi Sacks improbably achieved great success in projecting an uncompromising pride and confidence in the wisdom of Jewish tradition, motivating non-affiliated Jews to come closer to tradition, inspiring faith in people across all nations and religions, and achieving respect for his global message of the societal importance of family, community, morality and religious faith. I know of at least three sides to Rabbi Sacks’ unique role, each of which is challenging but the combination of all three in one person seem quite remarkable.

I. The Inspirer

The first side of Rabbi Sacks is the most recognizable. He was a superbly successful advocate for religion in general and Judaism in particular. Many people fail to realize that Rabbi Sacks actually filled two slightly contradictory roles in doing this. On the one hand, he was the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations, speaking to the Jews of England and beyond. This was no simple matter, since many members of the United Hebrew Congregations had limited Jewish education and observance while many other Jews in England had intense traditional Jewish upbringing. Serving as Chief Rabbi meant balancing the messages that inevitably affected all Jews. Rabbi Sacks’ legendary weekly divrei Torah reflect this balance. The insights are, on the one hand, built on the text and classical commentaries. On the other hand, they incorporate stories and insights from philosophy, psychology and social science. His massive erudition and eloquence, his ability to speak to the heart and mind at the same time, gave his Torah lessons more gravity to the average reader. The combined impact of his messages are inherently traditional but dressed in contemporary garb. The net effect was spectacular, resonating with traditional Jews as well as those non-Orthodox with little education and even academic scholars of Judaism.

At his core, Rabbi Sacks was a story-teller. He had a rare sense for the right message for the time. His book, A Letter in the Scroll, is the most effective outreach book I have encountered. Carefully sidestepping all the difficult philosophical and scientific challenges that face many outreach arguments, Rabbi Sacks builds an emotionally and intellectually compelling case for the beauty and excitement of Jewish life. The Jewish story is the most exciting story in world history. Don’t you want to be a part of that story, a letter in the scroll? This book has changed countless lives by refocusing the Jewish story away from obscurity and persecution into a vibrant tale that enhances pride, instills faith in the Torah and Sages, and describes the excitement of living a committed Jewish life.

I remember once attending a shiur Rabbi Sacks gave on sippur yetzi’as Mitzrayim, a classic Pesach topic full of lomdus. Many of the attendees clearly had limited yeshiva background. Rabbi Sacks mesmerized the audience and asked a classical question based on a contradiction of Torah texts, reviewed answers of Rishonim and suggested a resolution worthy of any Acharon. He did this all without anyone noticing the technical weight he was carrying. To all onlookers, he seemed to be telling stories about Pesach, Jewish life and eternal spiritual aspirations. It was a master performance that engaged experienced yeshiva students and complete novices at the same time, commanding everyone’s full attention for a complete hour. Most of his Jewish writing functions in this way, conveying Divrei Torah along with inspiration, dressed in stories about philosophy and social science. He used new media — print, audio, video and animation — long before most rabbis began experimenting with them. Personally, even though I prefer reading, sometimes I listen to a recording of the written text just to hear his elegant accent and dramatic intonations make the message come alive even more. Rabbi Sacks was a master of enhancing his message through wise use of the medium.

Rabbi Sacks saw his role also as an advocate for religion in general society. Secularism is now the majority ideology throughout the Western World and religious belief of any kind is subject to ridicule. Most religious leaders are in retreat. Rabbi Sacks, through the force of his own celebrity and charm, defeated the cynicism of atheism and secularism with sincerity and introduced a generation of non-believers to the necessity of faith for both individual and societal flourishing. With society breaking down around us, Rabbi Sacks proposed a return to a covenantal community. He used his ample skills of Torah interpretation, combined them with a keen sociological analysis of the problems facing society, and produced a plan for societal reinvigoration. In a number of award-winning books, worldwide lectures and media appearances, Rabbi Sacks made a compelling case for traditional religious values.

II. The Rabbi’s Rabbi

A second side to Rabbi Sacks was his private interaction. He mentored young rabbis, offering sound advice and encouragement. The rabbinate is a difficult career. As the Chief Rabbi, and as someone with experience as a successful pulpit rabbi and educator, Rabbi Sacks had a store of experience and — of course — stories to help young rabbis navigate their vocations.

However, Rabbi Sacks was more than a rabbinic advisor. He was a charmer. Rabbi Sacks was one of those people with the natural ability to always have the right word for every circumstance. He knew how to make every individual feel like the most important person in the room. Some people work a crowd to network and establish business contacts. Rabbi Sacks worked a crowd to inspire and uplift.

I remember the first time I met Rabbi Sacks personally. It was the New York launch of the Koren Sacks Siddur, with his translation and commentary. Rabbi Shaul Robinson of Lincoln Square Synagogue, a British rabbi serving in New York, arranged for me to walk Rabbi Sacks to his seat as he entered the room. I had at most 20 seconds to speak with Rabbi Sacks during which he made me feel like his partner in inspiring the world and encouraged me to continue serving Klal Yisrael in my own way. He later signed my siddur with a genuine smile, solidifying the personal connection. Every time I saw him after that, he recognized my face and greeted me with great joy, offering encouragement that was specific enough to let me know that he was truly invested in my success. While I would like to feel special, I am told he treated every young rabbi this way, offering encouragement, advice and assistance. He gave blurbs to new books like Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson (author of the Sho’el U-Meishiv and jokingly called the “Sar Ha-Maskim”) gave haskamos, rabbinic approbations. He wanted people to succeed, books to sell, Torah teachers to solidify their achievements.

III. The Early Sacks

Rabbi Sacks’ third role became apparent during the early years when he served as a shul rabbi and educator. His abundance of natural talent led to success and a larger, more prestigious post until he rose to the position of Principal of Jews’ College and next in line for the position of Chief Rabbi. During those years, Rabbi Sacks was heavily involved in the publication of the magazine L’eyla, published by the Office of the Chief Rabbi and Jews’ College. As would be expected from a Cambridge-trained philosopher, he wrote about issues of the day in Jewish thought and reviewed important Jewish books, including the initial books published by Artscroll.

Perhaps surprising to many people, Rabbi Sacks also wrote the magazine’s contemporary halakhah column. In this column, he surveyed recently published responsa on a variety of interesting topics. For example, he discusses the permissibility of cosmetic surgery based on responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Eliezer Waldenburg and Rav Chaim David Halevi. When the first three volumes of Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s Yechaveh Da’as were published, Rabbi Sacks summarized a selection of responsa, offering readers a tour through the otherwise dizzying encyclopedic discussions about, for example, whether a kohen who killed while serving as a soldier can continue blessing the congregation, whether to recite a blessing on seeing a president, and more. In another issue, Rabbi Sacks contrasted the views of Rav Ovadiah Yosef and Rav Moshe Feinstein on the rabbi saying a devar Torah in between aliyos, summarized Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s responsum on whether the obligation to unload a donkey applies to a stranded motorist, analyzed Rav Eliyahu Bakshi Doron’s responsum on mourning a divorced parent who had severed relations with the child and forgiven all honor, and explored Rav Dr. Mordechai Halperin’s article on naming a baby before a delayed circumcision.

These articles demonstrate a rabbi fluent in the language of halakhah and capable of presenting to others the core ideas and sources of cutting edge responsa. In other writings of this era, we find Rabbi Sacks building arguments based on a deep reservoir of halakhic literature. His book, One People?: Tradition, Modernity and Jewish Unity, uses halakhah at length in order to articulate an authentic Jewish view on what pluralism is and is not. At the first Orthodox Forum conference convened by Yeshiva University in 1989, whose proceedings were published in a book titled Rabbinic Authority and Personal Authority, Rabbi Sacks presented a paper arguing against rampant creativity in halakhic decision-making in general, and against women’s ordination in particular, based on among other sources a teshuvah of the Chasam Sofer which Rabbi Sacks explains and expands with great perception. Perhaps most importantly, he rules out any kind of philosophical or functional approach to halakhah, arguing for a traditional fidelity to the sources and precedents.

Put differently, while not a halakhic decisor himself, Rabbi Sacks was intimately familiar with the ways of the leading decisors and a vocal defender of the traditional method of reaching halakhic decisions. He was a halakhic traditionalist. In addition to his opposition to women’s ordination mentioned above, in another of his contemporary halakhah columns, Rabbi Sacks covered the 1985 controversy over Women’s Prayer Groups. Rabbi Sacks discussed the prooftexts and critiques but gave the final word to Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav J. David Bleich, both of whom strongly opposed this innovation.

This was the early Rabbi Sacks, before he rose to the position of Chief Rabbi. He was a defender of Orthodoxy and tradition against liberal agitators. Once he ascended community-wide public position, he seems to have withdrawn from public discussion of practical halakhah, leaving that to the London Beth Din. He instead focused his attention on using his unique voice to inspire global religious revival. A wise man plays to his strengths and Rabbi Sacks was among the wisest of his generation, sharpening his already keen philosophical and homiletical skills for his later career. You have to look with great care at his later writings to see his earlier traditionalist halakhic views peek out from hiding.

With the passing of Rabbi Sacks we have lost a unique, multi-faceted voice of religious passion. Within this void, we each have to work harder to inspire ourselves and others. However, thanks to his prodigious creation of audio and video recordings, Rabbi Sacks characteristically leaves us with a new interpretation of the Talmudic phrase “sifsosav dovevos ba-kever, his lips move in the grave” (Yevamos 97a), and he can continue to inspire us and future generations. May his memory and teachings continue to generate passion toward greater religious devotion.

From Torah Musings, here.

3 Torah Thoughts While Reading Rothbard

Rothbard once wrote a short book titled What Has Government Done to Our Money?

Throughout Part II, Money in a Free Society section 9, “The Problem of “Hoarding“, we learn a defense for hoarding, or at least an attack on those who attack cash hoarders (not including foodstuffs, because this is deemed “חיותא”.)

The pejorative, Sanhedrin 29b, “עכברא דיתיב אדינרי”, does not count; this is just a common expression, quoted for context.

Yad Ramah ibidem:

ההוא דהוו קרו ליה עכברא דשכיב אדינרי, דרך עכבר שממון חביב עליו ביותר וכשמוצא ממון גונבו ומכניסו בחורו אע”ג שאין צריך לו, ולפיכך היו קורין לזה עכבר ששוכב על דינרי זהב כלומר שהיה לו ממון הרבה שלא היה צריך לו, ויש אומרים לפי שהיה עשיר ולא היה נהנה מממונו, כי קא שכיב אמר פלניא ופלניא קא מסקי בי זוזי, אתו תבעונהו ליורשין…

Second, it was the custom of certain righteous Jews (Noam Elimelech, Beis Halevi, maybe), not to hold unto money overnight, daily giving all cash to charity, instead. Bitachon, yes, but the following unwittingly helps clarify the logic:

… Why do people keep any cash balances at all? Suppose that all of us were able to foretell the future with absolute certainty. In that case, no one would have to keep cash balances on hand. Everyone would know exactly how much he will spend, and how much income he will receive, at all future dates. He need not keep any money at hand, but will lend out his gold so as to receive his payments in the needed amounts on the very days he makes his expenditures. But, of course, we necessarily live in a world of uncertainty. People do not precisely know what will happen to them, or what their future incomes or costs will be. The more uncertain and fearful they are, the more cash balances they will want to hold; the more secure, the less cash they will wish to keep on hand…

Third, we know that in the Coming World (but not the Days of Mashiach!), which is like our own, but also inexplicably different (…), some opinions say there will be no monetary exchanges. One could just ignore this, but if we are told something, then there must be some way to understand, at least partially (and a lesson) in This World. (See Ramban Devarim 15:11)

Again, Rothbard illustrates (with some exaggeration):

It should be remembered that all gold must be owned by someone, and therefore that all gold must be held in people’s cash balances. If there are 3000 tons of gold in the society, all 3000 tons must be owned and held, at any one time, in the cash balances of individual people. The total sum of cash balances is always identical with the total supply of money in the society. Thus, ironically, if it were not for the uncertainty of the real world, there could be no monetary system at all! In a certain world, no one would be willing to hold cash, so the demand for money in society would fall infinitely, prices would skyrocket without end, and any monetary system would break down. Instead of the existence of cash balances being an annoying and troublesome factor, interfering with monetary exchange, it is absolutely necessary to any monetary economy.

And here is the whole chapter, as is:

What Has Government Done to Our Money?>Money in a Free Society>The Problem of “Hoarding

The critic of monetary freedom is not so easily silenced, however. There is, in particular, the ancient bugbear of “hoarding.” The image is conjured up of the selfish old miser who, perhaps irrationally, perhaps from evil motives, hoards up gold unused in his cellar or treasure trove—thereby stopping the flow of circulation and trade, causing depressions and other problems. Is hoarding really a menace?

In the first place, what has simply happened is an increased demand for money on the part of the miser. As a result, prices of goods fall, and the purchasing power of the gold-ounce rises. There has been no loss to society, which simply carries on with a lower active supply of more “powerful” gold ounces.

Even in the worst possible view of the matter, then, nothing has gone wrong, and monetary freedom creates no difficulties. But there is more to the problem than that. For it is by no means irrational for people to desire more or less money in their cash balances.

Let us, at this point, study cash balances further. Why do people keep any cash balances at all? Suppose that all of us were able to foretell the future with absolute certainty. In that case, no one would have to keep cash balances on hand. Everyone would know exactly how much he will spend, and how much income he will receive, at all future dates. He need not keep any money at hand, but will lend out his gold so as to receive his payments in the needed amounts on the very days he makes his expenditures. But, of course, we necessarily live in a world of uncertainty. People do not precisely know what will happen to them, or what their future incomes or costs will be. The more uncertain and fearful they are, the more cash balances they will want to hold; the more secure, the less cash they will wish to keep on hand. Another reason for keeping cash is also a function of the real world of uncertainty. If people expect the price of money to fall in the near future, they will spend their money now while money is more valuable, thus “dishoarding” and reducing their demand for money. Conversely, if they expect the price of money to rise, they will wait to spend money later when it is more valuable, and their demand for cash will increase. People’s demands for cash balances, then, rise and fall for good and sound reasons.

Economists err if they believe something is wrong when money is not in constant, active “circulation.” Money is only useful for exchange value, true, but it is not only useful at the actual moment of exchange. This truth has been often overlooked. Money is just as useful when lying “idle” in somebody’s cash balance, even in a miser’s “hoard.”* For that money is being held now in wait for possible future exchange—it supplies to its owner, right now, the usefulness of permitting exchanges at any time—present or future—the owner might desire.

It should be remembered that all gold must be owned by someone, and therefore that all gold must be held in people’s cash balances. If there are 3000 tons of gold in the society, all 3000 tons must be owned and held, at any one time, in the cash balances of individual people. The total sum of cash balances is always identical with the total supply of money in the society. Thus, ironically, if it were not for the uncertainty of the real world, there could be no monetary system at all! In a certain world, no one would be willing to hold cash, so the demand for money in society would fall infinitely, prices would skyrocket without end, and any monetary system would break down. Instead of the existence of cash balances being an annoying and troublesome factor, interfering with monetary exchange, it is absolutely necessary to any monetary economy.

It is misleading, furthermore, to say that money “circulates.” Like all metaphors taken from the physical sciences, it connotes some sort of mechanical process, independent of human will, which moves at a certain speed of flow, or “velocity.” Actually, money does not “circulate”; it is, from time, to time, transferred from one person’s cash balance to another’s. The existence of money, one again, depends upon people’s willingness to hold cash balances.

At the beginning of this section, we saw that “hoarding” never brings any loss to society. Now, we will see that movement in the price of money caused by changes in the demand for money yields a positive social benefit–as positive as any conferred by increased supplies of goods and services. We have seen that the total sum of cash balances in society is equal and identical with the total supply of money. Let us assume the supply remains constant, say at 3,000 tons. Now, suppose, for whatever reason—perhaps growing apprehension—people’s demand for cash balances increases. Surely, it is a positive social benefit to satisfy this demand. But how can it be satisfied when the total sum of cash must remain the same? Simply as follows: with people valuing cash balances more highly, the demand for money increases, and prices fall. As a result, the same total sum of cash balances now confers a higher “real” balance, i.e., it is higher in proportion to the prices of goods—to the work that money has to perform. In short, the effective cash balances of the public have increased. Conversely, a fall in the demand for cash will cause increased spending and higher prices. The public’s desire for lower effective cash balances will be satisfied by the necessity for given total cash to perform more work.

Therefore, while a change in the price of money stemming from changes in supply merely alters the effectiveness of the money-unit and confers no social benefit, a fall or rise caused by a change in the demand for cash balances does yield a social benefit—for it satisfies a public desire for either a higher or lower proportion of cash balances to the work done by cash. On the other hand, an increased supply of money will frustrate public demand for a more effective sum total of cash (more effective in terms of purchasing power).

People will almost always say, if asked, that they want as much money as they can get! But what they really want is not more units of money–more gold ounces or “dollars”—but more effective units, i.e., greater command of goods and services bought by money. We have seen that society cannot satisfy its demand for more money by increasing its supply—for an increased supply will simply dilute the effectiveness of each ounce, and the money will be no more really plentiful than before. People’s standard of living (except in the non-monetary uses of gold) cannot increase by mining more gold. If people want more effective gold ounces in their cash balances, they can get them only through a fall in prices and a rise in the effectiveness of each ounce.

Footnote:

* At what point does a man’s cash balance become a faintly disreputable “hoard,” or the prudent man a miser? It is impossible to fix any definite criterion: generally, the charge of “hoarding” means that A is keeping more cash than B thinks is appropriate for A.

פנינה שלא הייתי מוצא בלי האינטרנט

תפילה להינצל מהמפגעים הטכנולוגים

ריבנו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך, שברוב הכלים הטכנולוגים הנפוצים בדורנו, טמונות סכנות נוראות, ורבים הפילו. וכמה רבבות אנשים נשים וטף, נערים ונערות, שהיו יראי שמים, ירדו הרבה מאוד, מחמת אלו הכלים רחמנא ליצלן. יהי רצון מלפנך, שתעזרם בתוך שאר בניך אהובך הקדושים, לחזור בתשובה שלימה מאהבה במהרה. רחם עלינו למען שמך הגדול והקדוש, ותסייע לנו ולכל בניך אהובך הקדושים (וביפרט לפלוני/ת בן/בת פלונית) להתרחק מכל הכלים שאינם כשרים באמת, בתכלית הריחוק. ותשפיע כל טוב [ביום חול יוסיף: ופרנסה טובה] לכל בניך אהובך הקדושים (ובפרט לפלוני/ת בן/בת פלונית) אך ורק ממקומות המותרים לכתחילה בלי נסיונות. ויהי רצון מלפנך, שתעביר את רוח הטומאה מן הארץ, ותמחה את זכר עמלק, מעתה ועד עולם. ועל ידי זה נזכה להשראת השכינה במחנינו, ולהתגלות משיח צדקנו, ולבניין בית המיקדש, ולגאולה השלימה, מתוך רחמים וחסדים מגולים, במהרה בימנו, וכן יהי רצון ונאמר אמן.

More Proof Non-Jews Are Expected to Convert

Medrash Rabba Breishis 11:5:

טורנוסרופוס הרשע שאל את רבי עקיבא אמר מה יום מיומים אמר ליה ומה גבר מן גוברין אמר מה אמרית לך ומה אמרת לי א”ל אמרת לי מה יום מיומים מאי שנא יומא דשבתא מכל יומא ואמרית לך ומן גבר מגוברין מאי שנא טורנוסרופוס מכל גוברין א”ל שרצה המלך לכבדני א”ל אף זו שרצה הקב”ה לכבדה א”ל מנאן את מודע לי א”ל הרי נהר סמבטיון יוכיח שמושך אבנים כל ימות השבת ובשבת הוא נח א”ל לנגדא את נגיד לי אתמהא א”ל והרי המעלה את המת בזכורו יוכיח שהוא עולה כל ימות השבת ובשבת אינו עולה וההוא גברא ליהוי בדק באבוהו חד זמן צריך ובדק באבוהו וסלק כל יומא דשבתא ובשבתא לא סלק בחד שבתא אסקיה א”ל אבא מן דמיתת איתעבדית יהודי אתמהא מפני מה עלית כל ימות השבת ושבת לא עלית א”ל כל מי שאינו משמר את השבת אצלכם ברצונו כאן הוא משמר אותו בעל כרחו א”ל וכי עמל יש לכם שאתם עמלים כל ימות השבת ובשבת אתם נוחין א”ל כל ימות השבת אנו נידונין ובשבת אנו נוחין חזר אצל ר”ע א”ל אם כדבריך שהקב”ה מכבד את השבת אל ישב בה רוחות אל יוריד בה גשמים אל יצמיח בה עשב א”ל תיפח רוחיה דההוא גברא אמשול לך משל לשנים שהיו דרין בחצר אחת אם אין זה נותן עירוב וזה נותן עירוב שמא מותרין לטלטל בחצר אבל אם היה אחד דר בחצר הרי הוא מותר בכל החצר כולה אף כאן הקב”ה לפי שאין רשות אחרת עמו וכל העולם כולו שלו מותר בכל עולם כולו ולא עוד אלא שהרי אוכלי המן מעידין עליו שכל ימות השבת היה יורד ובשבת לא היה יורד.

So, while they are happy to escape suffering (those who did keep Shabbos, escape purgatory on Shabbos, too), they hate the forcible Judaizing aspect. (Of course, one must convert before being allowed to observe this Mitzva.)

See more here.