I realize it is an hour before Shabbat, but I feel the need to link to the following prayer to be said for the victims of the terrible tragedy in Southeast Asia and parts of Western Africa.

The magnitude leaves many of us speechless.

As a disclaimer: what I am going to write is meant as a way of expressing some of my opinions. None of this should be seen as a personal attack. I speak with the utmost respect for all those mentioned.

It seems that anything I am going to say about the argument between R. Yitzchak Blau and R. Dr. Alan Brill in the most recent Edah journal will be seen simply as another student defending his teacher (the original article by Dr. Brill can be found here). Therefore, from the outset, let me say that I agree with Dr. Brill's assessment, though as R. Blau and others have found, some of his writing was a bit difficult to understand, which I take to be both an issue of space and the difficulty of the subject. Of course, I personally attribute the difficulty I had to the fact that I am not well read in certain subjects with which Dr. Brill dealt.

In terms of my personal views of the issue, I think that the idea of labelling something Torah U'Whatever is somewhat a semantic game. To try and create distinctions between things that are Torah and things not is too difficult. The reality is that at some level all subjects do fall under the "Torah" category. For example, poetry as a form of expression might be Torah under certain contexts, like piyyut. Even if one poetic style might be better than another, to reject the lesser, especially when part of our heritage is stifling.

In terms of the articles, you get the sense from reading Rabbi Blau's response that he was unable to completely follow Dr. Brill's thinking. The response ends up feeling like a defense of the current methodologies as espoused by R. Lichtenstein. While I am not one to get involved in something a bit over my head, I was deeply disturbed by one question that Rabbi Blau asked at the end of his response, namely, why is Dr. Brill using contemporary theories when they will most likely be a thing of the past in 50 years? The question sounds as though we should never challenge our thinking with the in thought because it might go away.

Dr. Brill, when answering the charge that he too will become irrelevant in 50 years, says that he acknowledges and to a certain extent assumes that. Nevertheless, the issue isn't about writing something eternally relevant. The issue is posing the current questions and working with them to formulate new ways of thinking. Relevance never seems to play a role in the writing of others before this debate. If those of us who dabble in the academy and in the Beit Midrash are afraid of the challenges they pose each other, then we can never grow as thinking human beings and then those who are the leaders of the Jewish community fail. Furthermore, if we assume irrelevance is to play a role, who is to say one won't turn around and argue that Rambam is irrelevant or Maharal is irrelevant.

The perks of working in the back rooms of a library is that I get to glance through books before they go on the shelves. Sometimes I come across something worth sharing. Here is one from this morning:

In a compilation of some of the writings of רב חיים שאול קרליץ ז"ל (R. Hayim Shaul Karelitz z"l), entitled Achat Sha'alti (this is a work containing his hiddushei torah and hashkafa), I saw something interesting which highlights certain educational differences between the haredi world and the Orthodox world I inhabit. As a disclaimer, I have not read everything in this work. This caught my eye so I glanced at them quickly. The rest of the work looks rather interesting to read from the perspective of understanding differences between Modern Orthodoxy and Ultra Orthodoxy.

This piece was written on the 25th of אב (Av) 5758, Summer of 1998.

He said that, in keeping with the teachings of the חזון איש (Hazon Ish), Jewish studies for girls is not permitted except for the basic texts with רש"י (Rashi). Furthermore, this teaching should be done on a basic level without deep investigations into what רש"י (Rashi) is saying. He claimed the only reason for permitting the learning of text and Rashi is to facilitate a connection with G-d and to help them be shining examples to their sons to fulfill the mitzvot and to become G-d fearing Jews. Therefore, the בית יעקב (Beit Yaaqov) schools should continue with this practice.

Haaretz, about a week ago, published an article about R. Yehudah Ashlag, author of the Sulam commentary on the Zohar, in anticipation of the upcoming conference this Sunday at Ben Gurion University. It is unfortunate that for the most part, people have heard of R. Ashlag because part of his legacy is the Kabbalah Center, founded by Philip Berg.

For an alternative to the Kabbalah Center, take a look at Bnei Baruch, run by R. Michael Laitman.

As an aside, what does it say when the former location of KFC in Jerusalem is now a home to a Kabbalah Center?

There is a very interesting conversation going on over at Avraham's Blog about whether one should translate Pachad Yitzchaq, the collected drashot of R. Hutner. I decided to move my comments over to my blog because I felt it was imperative to discuss reading translated works.

Translating texts is important because people should not be forced to remain ignorant simply because of a language barrier. Having said that, I do grant that translations often lose the flavor of the original or are often edited for content based on the biases of the translator. One recent translation which I perused decided to translate the word Israel to mean the world. The funny thing is the person was most likely trying to be anti anyone not Jewish but instead ended up sounding much more universal.

Ultimately, one must be wary of translations, but, at the same time, better to have access to something in a loose translation than not to have access to it at all.

Since people keep asking me about my blog, specifically why I haven't posted in so long, so I figure I might as well write something.

I am currently reading Passion for Truth, Abraham Joshua Heschel's last book, finished within weeks of his death. This work is fitting to be his last, because it would appear to be a last testimony to his hasidic upbringing, as he was tutored by a Kotzker Hasid in the art of searching for truth. In a certain way, his life exemplified this search. However. he begins the work comparing R. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk to his first love, the hasidism of the Baal Shem Tov. For the Baal Shem Tov, the goal was to create a Judaism that was inclusive. For Kotzk, the goal was the opposite, as it was designed for an elite few who were willing to undertake the task of spending life always scrutinizing the self. The second part of the work deals with comparing R. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk with Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th century existentialist Christian philosopher, who also preached a life of searching for the truth. The two thinkers both believed that life could never be static and that the goal was to always be thinking and scrutinizing, never to be sitting on our laurels.

As an aside, I find it interesting that both R. Menachem Mendel and Kierkegaard both attack those who try to prove G-d's existence. They both claim that religion begins with a semi-literal "leap of faith." The goal is to fight for continued faith.