National Scholar Updates

1. Does Such a Possibility Exist under Torah Law?

The Torah (see Deut. 24:1) describes a divorce occurring through a “writ of [marriage] termination” (sefer kritut) given by the husband. Indeed, the Mishnah (Yevamot 14:1) states: “A woman can be divorced when she agrees and when she does not agree; but a man divorces only at his will.” Thus, there seems to be no way in which a woman can receive a divorce if her husband is recalcitrant.

However, our most ancient rabbinic sources state that such a possibility exists. In vaYikra 1:3, the Torah notes that in certain circumstances, a person must bring a sacrifice, and he is required to do so willingly (yakriv oto lirtzono). This seems to be an oxymoron: Either an act is mandatory and one is obligated to perform it, or one is free to act at one’s own personal discretion; can these seemingly contradictory elements be reconciled? The ancient halakhic Midrash answers in the affirmative: “We apply pressure upon him, until he says ‘it is my will to do so.’”[1] In other words, an act that is mandated by the Torah will be considered as having been performed willingly even if such “will” was formed under pressure by legitimate agents of Torah. The Sifra does not extend this principle beyond the issue of sacrifices, but the Mishnah (‘Erkhin 5:6) does. After stating that a sacrifice is considered as brought willingly after the person was pressured until he says, “It is my will to do so,” the Mishnah adds: “and the same is true for women’s bills of divorce.” [2]

Several explanations may be offered for this principle. One explains this in light of the general halakhic principle, “What a person harbors in one’s heart is halakhically irrelevant.” [3] Thus, when the Mishnah refers to “will,” it is not relating to an internal psychological disposition, but rather to an externally verified condition. Thus, if a person declares: “I do not want to do X”—we hold that performing X is against his will, and are not concerned with his internal thoughts. Conversely, if he declares: “I want to do X”—we hold performing X to be in accordance with his will.[4] Others suggest that if a husband refuses to divorce a wife who hates him and will in no case remain with him, he is acting only out of spite in order to deny her to others.[5] Such behavior, denying to others something that in any case cannot bring the individual any benefit, is halakhically unacceptable; we can therefore apply the general principle kofin ‘al middat Sedom. A third explanation was given by Maimonides:

Since he was compelled, why is this divorce not invalid? … Because a person who was overcome by his evil inclination to desist from performing a positive mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and who was then coerced [by the authorities] until he did what he ought to do or desisted from what he was forbidden to do, is not considered to be acting under compulsion …since he does want to be a Jew, he ipso facto wants to fulfill the commandments and to refrain from sin, but his evil inclination overcame him. When he was beaten, his evil inclination weakened, and so when he says “I want [to divorce]”—the divorce is in accordance with his will. (Laws of Divorce, 2:20)

Maimonides has a theory of human personality that recognizes several “levels” of will that can be in simultaneous conflict. The “will” required for divorce is not a subjective feeling but an objective mental position, which is assessed according to the overall context of a person’s life choices. A person who wants to be a Jew, surely consents at heart to what is entailed by being a Jew. If according to Torah he should in the case at hand divorce his wife, his refusal to do so is in conflict with what he deeply assents to. By physical coercion, the court is merely enabling him to overcome a powerful urge that conflicts with his own deeper and more serious will.

2. Who May Coerce a Husband to Divorce?

Having seen that Torah law contains the option for coercing a husband to divorce, the question arises: Who may do so? It should be pointed out that today, with a get regarded as a document required only because of adherence to a religious tradition, physical coercion to give a get flies directly in the face of the principle of freedom of religion. When we discuss today physical coercion of a get, we are therefore arguably doing something analogous to discussing the death sentence as a punishment for adultery, i.e., marking certain actions as worthy of extreme censure. With this in mind, let us return to the question: When physical coercion was a real operative option, who might be involved in this? The upshot of the talmudic discussion in Gittin 88b seems to be that physical coercion of divorce is not a matter that should (or may!) be undertaken by individuals. No matter how much I personally may be convinced that Zalman (for example) should really divorce his wife Rivka, I am not allowed to take matters into my own hands and beat him up in order to get him to agree to do so. Indeed, if he does give a divorce after being manhandled by self-appointed guardians of Torah (or by thugs they employ), the get thereby produced may well be halakhically invalid. Rather, it is only legitimately appointed communal leaders who were authorized to decide to apply such physical coercion. Having reached such a decision, they could appoint agents—whether Jews or non-Jews—to actually do so (in much the same manner that civil courts today direct law-enforcement officials to act against those who refuse to follow court rulings).

3. What Circumstances Justify Coercion of a Husband to Divorce His Wife?

If in general a husband divorces his wife only at his will, but in certain cases legitimate community leaders may coerce him to do so, the question arises: What are those “certain cases”? The Mishnah (Ketubot 7:10, cited at Bavli Ketubot 77a) gives a very specific and very short list of men whose extreme objective physical repulsiveness justifies coercing them to divorce if their wife demands a get. The more interesting case, however—not discussed by that Mishnah—is when a wife declares that her husband is subjectively repulsive to her and demands a get. This matter comes up with regard to a “rebellious” wife, i.e., a wife who openly refuses to have intimate relations with her husband. The Mishnah (Ketubot 5:7 cited at Bavli Ketubot 63a) states, that the communal authorities are not allowed to physically force her to change her mind, but that economic sanctions may be employed to cause her to reconsider, i.e., they may sanction her by impairing her right to payment of ketubah, thus threatening her with a situation in which her husband can divorce her not only against her will, but at no cost to himself. However, in the talmudic discussion Ameimar (c. 400 CE) states, that the above does not apply to a wife who justifies her refusal to remain with her husband by explaining that she finds him repulsive (ma-ees ‘alai). Well then, what is to be done when a woman so declares? Here the picture becomes really interesting, because we have at least three variant wordings of the talmudic phrase defining what is to be done in such a case. The printed text of the Talmud (based of course on manuscripts the first printers had before them), states:

But if she says ma-ees ‘alai—we do not coerce her.

On this version, it is not the business of the court to in any way pressure such a woman to have sex with her husband. If he is fed up with such a situation, he can divorce her. Of course, in those times, polygamy was also an option: if he was sufficiently well to do, the husband could simply take a second wife. But the court will take no sides in this marital crisis. This version seems to have been the one known to most rishonim, including Rabbenu Hananel (d. 1055), Rabbi Yitzhak AlFasi (1103), and many others.
However, a second version exists, in a talmudic manuscript known as ms. Firkovich-Leningrad. In that manuscript, the Talmud states:

But if she says ma-ees ‘alai—we coerce him.

On this version, the court will actively intervene on behalf of the rebellious wife who declares her husband repulsive, and coerce her husband to divorce her! Thus, in addition to the short list in the Mishnah of physically repulsive men who are coerced to divorce, a husband who is subjectively repulsive to his wife is also so coerced. Rabbenu Gershom, “Light of the Exile” (c. 960–1028), the greatest scholar of Ashkenazic Jewry of his time, ruled that if a woman found her marriage so unbearable that she was willing to totally forfeit her ketubah if only her husband would divorce her—the court is required by Torah law to coerce her husband to do so. As he writes (Teshuvot Rabbenu Gershom Meor haGolah, #42):

If she wants to be divorced and forfeits her ketubah, and he does not want to divorce her, the authorities must coerce him to give her a get. As the rabbis taught […] “We apply pressure upon him, until he says ‘It is my will to do so.’” And such is the actual halakha.

Note that the Mishnah stating that a husband could be coerced to give a get when the Torah mandates this, did not state when the Torah so mandates a divorce; it is Rabbenu Gershom who determined that Torah so requires whenever a woman is so desperate for a divorce that she is willing to forfeit her ketubah!

Another great authority who held this to be Torah law was Maimonides, who ruled that coercion of a divorce when a woman declared ma-ees ‘alai was mandated by the Torah (Hilkhot Ishut/Laws of Relationships, 14:8; note that at 14:14 he rejects post-biblical legislation on this issue):

If a wife declares “I find him repulsive, and am unable willingly to have sex with him”—the authorities immediately coerce him to divorce her. For she is not a captive of war, who must have sex with a man she despises.

This brief ruling reflects Maimonides’ assumptions about the basics of marriage. He holds that the status of a married woman is not like that of a captive enemy, and that she is under no obligation to submit to the sexual advances of a man she finds repulsive—even if that man is her lawful husband. He also clearly assumes that sex is an essential component of marriage, that a woman cannot be expected to be bound in a sexless marriage, and that divorce is therefore an absolute necessity in such situations. Now, the Torah never expressly states either of these things about marriage. While some biblical passages might seem to support such views of marriage, others might be cited against them, as in Psalms 45:11 where the bride is enjoined, “He is thy lord, and do homage to him.” Clearly, Maimonides’ decision that the Torah here requires an immediate, forced divorce is dependent upon his value-laden understanding of what marriage is all about—an understanding that informs his reading of the Torah no less than it derives from such reading. And such an understanding may well have been what led Rabbenu Gershom to also mandate coercion in such cases—and what informed the talmudic author of ms. Firkovich-Leningrad, who wrote: “But if she says ma-ees ‘alai—we coerce him.”

A third variant of this talmudic phrase was proposed by Rabbenu Yaakov ben Meir (also known as Rabbenu Tam, France c. 1100–1171), but it can be understood only after tracing developments in the halakhic history of coerced divorce from the time of Ameimar to the twelfth century.

4. Waiting 12 Months—and What Then?

The talmudic discussion of the rebellious wife concludes with the following cryptic sentences: “And we delay her reception of the get for 12 months. And during those 12 months, she receives no financial support from her husband” (Bavli Ketubot 64a). This seems to be referring to a rebellious wife whose husband has not been coerced to divorce her, and a strange situation is thereby created. On the one hand, unlike other husbands who under talmudic halakha may divorce their wife whenever they want, the husband whose wife has rebelled against him may not do so until 12 months have passed. On the other hand, unlike other married women whose husbands must support them, the husband of a rebellious wife is free of that burden. Their marriage is thus in limbo for 12 months. To what end? Some say (e.g., Rashi): This time period is designed to give the wife further cause to reconsider if she indeed wants to find herself divorced with no ketubah. And some say: The 12-month wait would prevent a husband who wants to be quickly and cheaply rid of his wife from mistreating her (thus causing her to rebel) and then being able to immediately divorce her without a ketubah. Knowing that he will have to wait 12 long months will (in this view) deter him from choosing such an option.

Whatever the purpose of this 12-month delay, the question arises: Once that time has passed—what then? Specifically, may the husband (whether or not he has taken a second wife in the interim), who can now divorce without paying any ketubah—decide not to do so, holding the rebellious wife in eternal limbo as an agunah? The Talmud itself says nothing on this matter. However, it seems that the interpretive tradition of the Babylonian academies was that such an option is a moral non-starter, and therefore the Talmud must have held that any husband attempting to do so is coerced to change his mind. As Rev Sherira Gaon explained: “After these 12 months, the authorities physically coerce the husband and he gives her a get.”[6] However, for Rav Sherira Gaon, as well as for almost all other rabbis until Rabbenu Tam, the interpretation of the talmudic view on this matter was a purely intellectual exercise, as all knew that talmudic halakha on this matter had been superseded by a post-talmudic takanah (rabbinic legislation).

5. Dramatic Change: Whenever a Wife Requests a Divorce, Her Husband Is Coerced to Give a Get

Around the year 650 CE, a dramatic legal enactment (takanah) was instituted by the halakhic leaders of Babylonian Jewry, immediately following the Muslim conquest of that area in 637–650:

When our masters in the times of the Sevora’im saw that Jewish women were going to the Gentiles and with their assistance were obtaining forced divorces from their husbands, and the husbands were writing bills of divorce under compulsion and these were illegally forced divorces—and this resulted in disaster—they enacted, with regard to a woman who rebels against her husband and demands a divorce, that … we compel her husband to divorce her immediately. [7]

In contrast to the policy of the Sassanid Persian kingdom that previously ruled in Babylonia, Muslim legal authorities provided succor to Jewish women seeking divorce, and forced their husbands to acquiesce and issue a writ of divorce. However, as we saw above (section 2), if a husband is unlawfully forced to write a bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Muslim coercion resulted in divorces that were halakhically invalid but at the same time made it impossible for the rabbis to prevent the women from re-marrying, because doing so would enrage the Muslim authorities who had validated the procedure. The result was a disaster, because since the divorces were invalid, the women’s second marriages were adulterous, and children born from such unions were mamzerim who would never be able to marry legitimate Jews. Since the rabbis could not change the political-legal reality of Muslim rule, they decided to institute a change in halakha via the mechanism of takanah. From then on, any Jewish woman demanding a divorce (not only on the grounds of sexual repulsiveness) would get it immediately—no questions asked—from a Jewish court! And since a writ of divorce lawfully imposed upon the husband by a Jewish court was valid, any subsequent marriage of the divorcee would be lawful, and children born by her after receiving such a coerced get would be fully “kosher” according to halakha.

The Sevora’im knew full well that the persons directly benefitting by their dramatic takanah were specifically those women who knowingly acted against the Torah and against halakha by refusing to rely upon Jewish rabbinical authorities and instead relying upon Gentile courts—as well as those Jewish men who disregarded the (in)validity of those divorces and married women of such questionable status. But it was precisely for such halakhically deviant/marginal women and men that the rabbis needed to provide a viable alternative—for the good not only of these sinners themselves, but of the entire Jewish community.

The decision of these rabbis to enact such a takanah rested upon an underlying premise that it is important to explicate, that is to say, the premise that within the realm of values recognized by the Torah, it is possible for rational human beings to recognize a hierarchy and to prioritize accordingly, and that the responsibility to do so rests primarily upon rabbis. While the Torah generally granted a husband the prerogative of not issuing a divorce against his will, it also regarded the prevention of adultery and mamzerut as a major value. It was crystal-clear to the rabbis at that time that if historical conditions required prioritization of one of these values, then prevention of adultery and mamzerut should be given preference—even if this meant denying a privilege explicitly granted to husbands by the Divine Lawmaker, and granting to women a privilege He had denied to them. Obviously, the fact that they knew that in certain cases the Torah itself had extended to women the privilege of a coerced divorce enabled them to enact the extension of such privilege to a new range of cases.

For half a millennium after the institution of this takanah (from the mid-seventh to the mid-twelfth centuries), a de facto equality had been obtained between men and women with regard to unilateral divorce: A husband could divorce his wife unilaterally, and a woman could unilaterally achieve freedom from her marriage, since the court would immediately coerce her husband to divorce her.

It is important to note, that this legislation superseded talmudic halakha not only in Muslim-ruled Babylonia but throughout most of the Jewish world, including not only the Middle East, North Africa, [8] and Spain, but also countries where the Gentiles never considered intervening on the side of a women to compel her husband to divorce. Thus, in Catholic Germany, where divorce was anathema to the Christian authorities, Rabbenu Gershom knew of the Babylonian takanah and declared it to be binding in his time and place, i.e., although Torah law allowed coercion of the husband only when a wife was willing to forfeit her ketubah, praxis in Ashkenaz should (and did) follow the takanah, so that the Jewish authorities would coerce the husband of any wife demanding a get to give her a divorce (see his responsum cited above). A century later, in Catholic France, Rashi’s grandson Shmuel ben Meir and other members of the Paris Bet Din also followed suit, demonstrating that such coercion was standard operating procedure in all of Ashkenaz (see Sefer haYashar, responsa, beginning of responsum #24). But all this was to change, because of an almost single-handed effort embarked upon by none other than Shmuel ben Meir’s brother Jacob, known as Rabbenu Tam.

6. Reversal of the Tide: Rabbenu Tam’s Campaign against Coercing Divorce

Rabbenu Tam heard of an incident in which a woman demanded a divorce, and his brother Shmuel and other rabbis in Paris ruled (in line with generally accepted praxis) that the husband should be coerced to do so. In a lengthy halakhic epistle (Sefer haYashar, responsa, beginning of responsum #24), Rabbi Jacob ben Meir critiqued their action. Beginning in a minor tone, he first expressed concern lest “the enemies” claim the get was invalid, because the Bet Din in Paris had not waited for 12 months as required by the Talmud. At this point it seems to the reader that he is not contesting the validity of coercion after the 12 months are over (i.e., he seemingly accepts Sherira Gaon’s tradition, that already in talmudic times the husband was forced to divorce after that interim period). But he is definitely contesting immediate coercion—in other words, he is contesting the Sevora’ic takanah.

Indeed, Rabbenu Tam proceeds to state that there could never have been such a takanah. Why? Because the power to enact takanot contrary to Torah law in matters of marriage and divorce existed in talmudic times—but not after that. Thus, talmudic rabbis were authorized to decide that a get could be coerced in circumstances where the Torah had not allowed that.[9] But if post-talmudic rabbis were to enact such a takanah, they would be acting ultra vires. However, the post-talmudic rabbis were very great, and would never have so acted. Something that could not have happened, obviously never happened. Therefore, such a takanah had never been enacted. The conventional view in Ashkenaz (and wherever else it might be held), that such an enactment had indeed been made, was simply a counterfactual myth.

The only possible source that could authorize rabbis to coerce the husband of a rebellious wife to divorce her was, therefore, the Talmud itself. Rabbenu Tam writes to his brother: “I will now explicate for you; line by line, the talmudic sugya in Ketubot about the rebellious wife,” and proceeds to do so. In the course of that explication, he explains that the Talmud recognizes two types of rebellious wives. Both want to terminate the marriage and receive a divorce. The difference between them is this: Do they also demand payment of their ketubah? The rebellious wife who says ma-ees ‘alai is willing to receive a divorce without any payment of ketubah. It is with regard to her that Ameimar states (according to Rabbenu Tam’s citation of the Talmud):

But if she says ma-ees ‘alai—we do not coerce him.

Rabbenu Tam explains that this means that we do not coerce the husband to wait before divorcing her. Rather, he may immediately divorce her, as she in any case has waived payment of her ketubah. But what if despite her waiver of ketubah, the husband does not want to divorce her? Rabbenu Tam is very clear on this: “In the entire talmudic discussion, there is no mention at all of coercing the husband to divorce, and no other interpretation of the sugya has any validity.” Since, as Rabbenu Tam argues, there never was a post-talmudic takanah enabling coercion, and the Talmud itself does not authorize coercing the husband of a rebellious wife to divorce her, the upshot is clear: Any Jewish court that applies such coercion is acting illegally, and the resulting get is invalid. If the wife remarries, she and her new partner will be adulterers, and their children will be mamzerim. Therefore, “It is better that she remain an agunah, than that aspersion be cast upon the status of her children.” And if the rabbis of Paris were to respond, that for hundreds of years the custom had been to coerce husbands to divorce, and that a general maxim in Ashkenaz was “custom overrides halakha (minhag ‘oqer halakha)—Rabbenu Tam is not impressed: “Heaven forbid that we follow this maxim, when the result will be forbidden adultery and mamzerut.”

Rabbenu Tam is known for his bold reliance upon his own best understanding of the sources, even when this flies in the face of accepted halakhic praxis. Thus, he argued that the conventional arrangement of the four biblical passages inside the tefillin was mistaken, thereby ruling inter alia against his own grandfather Rashi. He also explained that the conventional view that Shabbat begins at sunset was completely mistaken, and that it began only when darkness had fallen. However, his overturning of the ancient tradition that when a woman demands a divorce her husband is coerced to do so—was certainly his most dramatic reversal of halakhic praxis. What could have been the reason for him to do so? Why would he want once again to place the wife at a disadvantage vis-à-vis her husband?

Having phrased the question thus, the answer is immediately obvious. In twelfth-century Ashkenaz, the enactments attributed to Rabbenu Gershom (herem de rabbenu Gershom) had become totally accepted. These enactments had deprived men of two of their major marital advantages vis-à-vis women: They could no longer be married to more than one wife, and they could no longer divorce their wife against her will. However, Rabbenu Gershom had not deprived the woman of her right to have the court force her husband to divorce her! The situation was therefore asymmetrical—to the advantage of the wife! It was this asymmetry that Rabbenu Tam effectively cancelled … by denying that women had ever legitimately possessed such a right.
Post-Rabbenu-Tam, neither the husband not the wife could opt out of a marriage by imposing a divorce upon the other. Divorce was only possible by mutual consent.

7. How to Justify Rabbenu Tam’s Ruling: Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel’s Portrayal of Women

Some 200 years later, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (also known as as Rosh) re-located from Ashkenaz to Spain. In Ashekenaz, Rabbenu Tam’s denial of a coerced get to women had by then become totally accepted. In Spain, however, coercion of the husband to divorce was still quite widely practiced. This was apparently especially so in cases where the woman stated that she found her husband repulsive and declared ma-ees ‘alai. How indeed could one go against Maimonides’ value-judgment that a woman may not be compelled to have sex with a man repulsive to her? Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel responded:

Is this a reason to force a husband to divorce, and thereby permit a married woman [to other men]? Let her not have sex with him, and remain a straw widow to the end of her days! In any case, a woman is not commanded to have children. Can it be, that because she wants to follow her headstrong desires, and has fastened her eyes on another man and desires him more than the champion of her youth, that we should fulfill her lust and force the man, who still loves the woman of his youth, to divorce her?! God forbid that any rabbi should rule thus! [...] In this generation, the daughters of Israel are cheeky, and if a wife will be able to extricate herself from under her husband by saying “he repulses me,” not a single daughter of Abraham will remain with her husband; [rather] they will fasten their eyes on another and rebel against their husbands! [10]

According to this view, women are not interested in marital stability but in following their lust and desire. Indeed, if given the choice, not a single woman would remain married to her present husband! One might argue that if that is truly what women want, perhaps they should be freed from their current unwanted state? But this is not the view of Rabbi Asher. His analysis reflects a deeply-held understanding of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a bulwark against socio-sexual chaos. Such chaos will occur if women will be able to follow their desires for men other than their husbands by forcing him to divorce against his will. Therefore, it is only by absolutely closing such options that social stability can be ensured.

This does not mean that Rabbi Asher is in favor of forced sex. If a wife claims that she finds her husband repulsive, she need not have sex with him. But that does not entitle her to a divorce. Better that she remain without sex for the rest of her life, he argues, than that her husband be forced to capitulate and give her up, against his will! Unlike Maimonides, who holds that a sexless marriage is a moral oxymoron and must be terminated by divorce, Rabbi Asher holds that if such a divorce will enable a woman to seek sexual satisfaction with another man, it is absolutely preferable morally that she remain married against her will—and if she will not have sex with her husband, let her not have sex at all.

However much a contemporary reader may be turned off by this view—and whether or not Rabbenu Tam himself held such a view of women—it is very important to note that this is not a formal-authoritative presentation of halakha. Rather, Rabbi Asher bases his position on what he holds to be central Torah values: the sanctity and stability of marriage, the suppression of social chaos, the preference for marriage without female sexuality over an alternative of lust and licentiousness. And while it is quite probably true that today very few Jews (of either gender) agree with the Rosh’s view of women, the halakhot of divorce remain as they were formulated in twelfth-century Ashkenaz: A husband or a wife who seeks divorce is effectively hostage to his or her marital partner, without whose consent he or she cannot become divorced.

8. Conclusion

When I was growing up, I was taught that the holiness of Jewish marriage is based on the serious commitment of man to woman and of woman to man, expressed (inter alia) in their entering a relationship in which neither party can cast off the other against his or her will. Later, when I leaned in the Yeshiva, I became aware that such had not always been the case: Originally, “in the time of the Torah” (and indeed, also the time of Hazal and the first millennium of the Common Era), a husband could arbitrarily be rid of his wife whenever he wanted. Only later, in the eleventh century CE, did Rabbenu Gershom decide to come to the aid of Jewish women and defend them against such a possibility by forbidding divorce without the woman’s consent. From time to time, a strange question would pop up in my head: Did Torah and Hazal not know that a true Jewish marriage means a serious commitment that cannot be unilaterally terminated by one of the parties?

Subsequently, I became more acquainted with the sources, and realized that over the course of time, holy Jewish marriage with huppah and kiddushin has undergone many metamorphoses. Originally, a husband could divorce a wife against her will, but a wife could not be divorced without her husband’s agreement (pace, e.g., Rabbenu Gershom and Rambam, who hold that under original Torah law any woman really fed up with her husband could forfeit her ketubah and receive a coerced divorce). Later, at the end of the talmudic period or at least from the seventh-century Rabbanan Sevora’ei, halakha moved to a symmetrical situation: Not only the husband but also the wife could unilaterally end the marriage. Then, after Rabbenu Gershom forbade the husband to unilaterally divorce his wife, the pendulum swung to the opposite pole: For about a century, only the wife could coerce the husband to divorce her, while he was forbidden to do so against her will. At this time, halakha (at least in Ashkenaz) was directly contrary to Torah law. After that, Rabbenu Tam restored symmetry between the spouses—but in a manner opposite to what had been the case until Rabbenu Gershom: Now, not only the man but also the woman could not exit the marriage unless the partner concurred. For the first time since Mount Sinai, both partners entering a Jewish marriage knew that they might become hostage to the other.

In recent years, the ideal of no-fault divorce has become prevalent in many societies around the globe: Marriage should not be a prison in which each side holds the only key to the other’s freedom. Hearing rabbis speak (nay, sermonize), one gets a clear message: Such is not the way of the Torah. Our marriage is holy, and that is why it is called kiddushin. And marriage cannot be holy unless it is a total, unconditional commitment that can be abrogated only after much travail and by mutual consent. No-fault divorce is thus a halakhic non-starter.

After reading this article, one thing should be clear: Whatever this or that rabbi may think of no-fault divorce, such was exactly the character of Jewish divorce for a very long time. According to Rabbenu Gershom and Maimonides (et al.), this was original Torah law from the time of Moshe Rabbenu (and according to many others, from the sixth or seventh century until Rabbenu Tam, i.e., for at least half a millennium). Was Jewish marriage not holy then? Similarly, if today, or in several years, halakhic authorities find the will and the courage to (re)institute halakhic no-fault divorce, this will not at all undermine the holiness of marriage under huppah and kiddushin. In fact, the opposite may well be true.

[1] “Kofin oto ‘ad she-yomar rotze ani.”Sifra, ad loc. (Dibbura di Nedava, 3).
[2] “veKhen b’gittei nashim.”
[3]“Devarin she-baLev einam devarim.”
[4]See e.g., Tosafot on Gittin 32a s.v. mahu de-teima.
[5]See Rashbam on Bava Batra 48a s.v. hatam nami neima.
[6]Responsum of Rav Sherira Gaon, Otsar HaGeonim to tractate Ketubot, no. 478. This responsum was known to the rishonim. See e.g. Rabbi Yesh’aya di Trani (thirteenth-century Italy), Tosfot RID on Ketubot 64a–b.
[7]Responsum of Rav Sherira Gaon, Otsar HaGeonim to tractate Ketubot, no. 478.
[8]Rabbi Yitzhak AlFasi (Morocco and Spain, 1013–1103) ruled that the takanah was in force throughout the Jewish world. Rabbenu Hannanel (d. 1055) does not mention the takanah, and thus some have held that he rejected its validity. But this is not self-evident.
[9]To prove the categoric difference between talmudic and post-talmudic authority, Rabbenu Tam cites the talmudic statement (Bava Metzi’ah 86a) “Ravina and Rav Ashi are the termination of instruction (sof horaah).” However, the notion that these words teach that after the Talmud no enactments authorizing coerced divorce are possible—may well be an original interpretation of Rabbenu Tam.
[10]Responsa of Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel section 43:8.

Over 20 years ago when I was the National President of the Australasian Union of Jewish Speakers we hosted Rabbi Avraham Infeld for a National Conference. Avraham was the first person to tell me that I should become a rabbi. “But Avraham” I said, “I don’t even know if I believe in God” and he responded to me, “But you love people”. That was before I started learning Torah and before Torah was the guiding light in my life. I was standing at the precipice of my spiritual journey that has opened out in different directions including through prayer, yoga, meditation, dream-work, inner child healing, relationship work, conflict transformation, spiritual direction, pastoral counseling & sexual healing.

I had the privilege of studying at and graduated from Yeshivat Maharat, Class of 2015. One of the things that I love about Yeshivat Maharat is the diversity of women students. I appreciate the clarity of the institutional goal of training orthodox women spiritual leaders- and also the plurality of women and of visions for the rabbinate that this shared goal brings together. A sense of the diversity of the contexts in which we operate is reflected in the different titles we hold. We have the titles of Maharat (acronym for Leader in Jewish Law, Spirituality and Torah) Rabba, Morateynu (Our Teacher) and even a Rabbi, each title being mandated by its context.

I have been teaching and leading in Jewish life for many years. I love learning and I love halakha. As a law graduate, I have an appreciation for law generally as well. The rabbinic attention to detail involved in the halakhic process is a symbol of love, an act of love. As we learn the halakhic details and distinctions, we are invited into that love relationship of paying attention, of noticing, of caring - and of discernment and differentiation.

For me joining Yeshivat Maharat, was an important opportunity to be part of a cohort of women leaders who could act as mirrors for each other, mutually supporting each other’s journey to be who we can possibly be as leaders, and as humans in this magnificent and broken world.

My intention for my ordination is to use the threshold and wearing of this formal mantle of leadership and responsibility, to more fully speak my voice and have it be heard. As I start living and embodying this intention I am confronted with so much resistance. It is so uncomfortable for me to continue to speak and put my voice into the public arena, even as I write this now. However, this discomfort is only matched and even overtaken by a huge discomfort of what I have been calling my passion, the feeling that I am on fire, a feeling that I have so much energy and desire to give that need to find channels. This passion is a consuming fire and it could consume me from the inside without adequate channels for expression.

I see my role as using the depth and sensitivity of my own experience as a resource that other people can use in service of their own process and self-understanding and acceptance. Each challenge has its dividends. Over the past 4 years my work in conflict transformation has taught me that conflict truly can be an opportunity for openness, healing and transformation. Instead of managing problems and trying to put out fires, appeasing people with big feelings and numbing ourselves to the pain of the real, we make the choice to jump into the fire, bring out the messiness and then in unraveling it we get to discover the magnificence of the world.

This is the intention with which I accepted my ordination at the Yeshivat Maharat Ordination Ceremony, Sunday June 14, Ramaz , NYC:

With this smicha I will..Love truth and pursue the Divine; Embrace and share the Living Torah; And empower myself and others to live full lives of passion and transformation- sustained and guided by the deep knowledge that all humanity is created in God’s image.

I am blessed and sustained by the connection to you my colleagues, my hevrutot, women, spiritual leaders, in Torah, and I treasure how we are mirrors for each other. Each one holding inside her the seeds, sprouts, and fruition of her own calling- and the manifestation of her own unique voice and refraction of holy Torah.

I am deeply grateful to all those who have gone before us and in whose merit we are here, to the Board, donors, faculty and staff at Yeshivat Maharat- and all those teachers, family, friends and communities who have held me and brought me to this place. At a moment like this, I see all that I carry- and that I inherited- the light and the dark- the individual and the collective- as transmuted into a blessing.

May I be of service as a vessel of connection and an invitation to plumb the depths- Both accompanying people into the joy and fullness of their own solitariness, as well as into the celebration of community and togetherness.

May I step forward with the courage of speaking truth to power, and have the trust to fully manifest in this dear world the gifts you, God, have bestowed upon me- in ways I dream of and ways I have yet to dream - at home, with family, with friends, in and across communities. At every breath.

Certainly the study of Kabbalah(esoteric literature) is authentic and part of the Torah. We know that the great Rabbis that we all revere—the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cordovero, the Ramchal, the Wilna Gaon, Rav Shneur Zalman (Chabad), the Malbim, Rav Chaim Wolozhin, Rav Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad--and many other luminaries spent many hours in its study and produced brilliant literature. Beyond that, didn't Chazzal (Chagiga 13a) themselves deal with these subjects?

However, in our day and age we are faced with the problem of Pseudo-Kabbalists, people who are really ignorant of the true Kabbalah but nevertheless make it into a profitable business. These imposters are photogenic, very impressive in beard and garb, and make a show of great piety. Many who have some problem or worry and who wish to find an anchor of security, feel relieved to have the blessings of these pseudo-kabbalists; although to achieve that "blessing" we must grant them a sizeable amount of money.

Some of these pseudo-kabbalists deal in giving "Divine" advice. When a prospective bride or groom ask for divination whether the match is "lucky", the imposters check the Gimatria of the names, which of course has no practical bearing on the suitability of the match. (So said the Steipler Rabbi, his words recorded in "Tamim Tiyeh" page 13). Who can count how many unfortunate people had their wedding hopes dashed due to the false advice given by such kabbalists? Some imposters claim that the cause of marriage unhappiness and bickering is due to some fault in the letters of the Ketuba document. These pseudo-kabbalists are willing to re-write a new Ketuba, of course for a sizeable sum. Others check the Mezuza, and finding some fault in its legality, claim that this was the cause for illness or financial loss. (And of course rewrite a new Mezuza, for a "nice" sum). Those people who took such advice didn't go to doctors, or to financial advisors, since they relied on the occult advice of these imposters.

Others were advised to change their place of domicile, or change their profession, due to some whim or inner hunch of the "Kabbalist". This implicit reliance on "soothsayers" is negated by Sefer Tanya (of Chabad, page 134).

The question which many readers might ask is "why claim that these "Rabbis" are imposters? I answer: For two reasons. First, all of the famous Kabbalists of yore, all the ancients, didn't deal with these "meddlings" aforementioned. Not the Arizal, not the Ba-al ShemTov, nor any great Gadol of note. And of course there is no mention of such matters in the Zohar literature. These shenanigans are innovations of our present century!

Secondly, this is a false understanding just what Kabbalah is about. The great Ramchal teaches in his book (Sha-arei Ramchal, pages 36, 62, 404) that all of the Kabbalah is built on parables and proverbs and if one doesn't know how to unravel the parable, he really knows nothing. This fundamental approach was said too by Rav Moshe Cordovero (in his Shiur Koma, article Mashal), so too by Rabbi Chayim Volozhin (Nefesh ha-Chayim, part three chapter seven) and others. The pseudo-kabbalists mumble words of the externals, the words of Zohar and Arizal like a fetish, without understanding the inner import. How do we know this? It is because they display publicly their knowledge, they flaunt their "connections" with the occult world. And the Wilna Gaon writes (at the beginning of his commentary to Sifra Di-tzniuta) that Proverbs (11, 2) writes "Et Znu-im , Chochma" those who are modest and don't reveal their expertise, they are those who attain Chochma. As written in Chagiga 13a "Dvash ve Chalav Tachat Leshoneich" wisdom which is sweeter than honey mixed with milk, keep under your tongue! See also the Gaon's teaching on Mishlei 12 verse 28, the real Tzaddikim conceal their inner knowledge. See too the words of Maharal, Avot beginning of chapter six, Ve-he-vai Tzanua (page 285).

In the recent period, several of these fakers have been caught doing sinful sexual actions with female applicants. This causes great Chillul Hashem. The mis-step was already foreseen by the great Rav Nachman of Breslav, who says (Chayei MoHaran 526) that the word "Kabbalah" is the numerical equivalent of "No-eif" (137). Certainly he doesn't intend to say that ALL kabbalists will fall under that category. He only says that those who are not fitting will "slip". This I found in the Zohar (book three, page 123a) that those faulty people unworthy of learning Kabbalah, will be misled by snakes and scorpions, which is a figure of speech for the evil inclination.

Who is fitting to undertake the real study of Kabbalah? Rabbi Chaim Vital, the major student of the Arizal, notifies us (on page 23 of his Introduction to the Etz Chayim) of twenty four conditions. To be sexually pure of sin. To beware of conceit. To be chary of idle chatter. Never to get angry. To love all Jews (in other words not to have a riff with anyone). To have proper intention for all of the 100 benedictions uttered each day, etc., and many other conditions which are very difficult for most people to practice properly. So how can we give the mantle of Kabbalistic authority to just anybody who has impressive dress or mode of speech?

The problem is that some of these imposters sometimes seem to have clairvoyant abilities. Some of them are good at telepathy, or at foreseeing future events, or even for grasping private personal details of the person asking for their blessing. Isn't that a sign of Kedusha? Not So! Researchers at Duke University are presently studying the matter of para-psychological abilities. There are people who are born with that knack, without being holy at all. The Rambam in his Introduction to Perush HaMishna, admits that some people have wonderful ability (despite the fact that they sometimes err). However, it is no sign at all of holiness or of connection with the Almighty. To the contrary, this prowess is a Nissayon (spiritual test) to the person born with that ability, that by misusing his talents he will have control over other people's minds, get their money and dedication, and even establish a cult.

A century ago, the giant ship called "Titanic" hit an iceberg and sank with over 1,500 voyagers. The tragedy was foreseen by Morgan Robertson and depicted in his book "Futility" four years before the tragedy! So too the terrible assassination of John Kennedy was foreseen several years in advance by Jean Dixon. She depicted the month, the place of ambush, the physical description of the murderer. It was uncanny.

Knowing in advance, or knowing secret and personal details of our lives, is no sign of sanctity nor of connection with the Almighty.

We must be wary of these people. Kabbalah, the true Kabbalah, is something else entirely. It is to understand the inner meaning of the Mitzvot, it is to fathom greater understanding of Holy Scripture. It is to understand Aggadot Chazzal (So says the Wilna Gaon, writing on Mishlei 24 verse 30. And so too says the Sefer Tanya of Lubavitch , page 137). It is to get the real appreciation of Ahavat Hashem ve-yir-ato.

Kabbalah is not be a hatchet to be used for bettering our temporal situations (Kardom lachpor bah - Avot, chapter four). And people relying on the "advice" of these charlatans may bring upon themselves considerable physical, spiritual, emotional and financial sufferings.

Maimonides (d. 1204) tolerated no idea that failed the test of reason. An ancient and robust tradition of superstition among the Jews did not deter him. Maimonides either ignored or rationalized scores of Talmudic halachot based on astrology, demonology, and magic.

Maimonides denounced astrology passionately, despite its popularity, calling the belief “stupidity” and its practitioners “fools.” His argument bears emphasis: Maimonides opposed astrology primarily on scientific rather than religious grounds. The Torah prohibits divination from the sky, he ruled, not because it displays a lack of faith in God, but simply because it is false.

But Nahmanides (d. 1270), pointing to Talmudic sources and consistent with his intellectual milieu, wrote a correspondent that it would be halachically unacceptable to ignore an inauspicious horoscope, because “one should not rely on miracles.”

Though a student of Kabbalah, Nahmanides also worked within the framework of Aristotelian philosophy. He was no anti-rationalist. He was worlds apart from today’s magic-remedy-dispensing “mekubalim” (miracle workers).

Medieval philosophers relied on reason to explain nature, but reason had practical limitations. Even the most confident rationalist could not explain all natural phenomena. Philosophers were forced to distinguish between “manifest” qualities — clearly understood properties such as size, shape, and color — and an “occult” or hidden property unique to a particular object (“segula” in medieval philosophical Hebrew).
The attractive force of the lodestone, a naturally occurring magnet, was the most commonly cited example of an occult quality.

The ancients knew that a magnet draws iron, but the cause of the attraction eluded explanation. Medieval scholastics viewed such “action at a distance” as an occult property; no manifest quality of the lodestone could explain its power. Likewise, the stars and planets were thought to influence the daily affairs of human life by means of emanations penetrating the cosmos — an even more impressive example of action at a distance.

Occult remedies were a problem for halachists and Jewish philosophers. The issue came into sharp focus in the early fourteenth century, during the Maimonidean Controversy.

Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet (“Rashba,” d. 1310), a student of Nahmanides, played a major role in this episode. Like many of his contemporaries, Rashba revered both Maimonides and Nahmanides.

Rashba was asked for his decision: Was it permissible to use a medallion engraved with the image of a lion — after the zodiac constellation Leo — to treat kidney stones? (Ironically, the radical Maimonidean rationalists were using this talisman; the anti-Maimonideans objected).

Rashba deliberates carefully, and takes great pains to address Maimonides’ broad prohibition of magic. He notes that Maimonides himself, following the Talmud, allowed for an exception: He permitted any empirically effective remedy, even if it was poorly understood and attributed to an occult virtue. Does this exception, Rashba wonders, cover the Leo medallion?

Rashba ultimately allows the practice. He skillfully argues that the medallion’s healing property, though occult, is as natural as magnetism (the following is the earliest description of a magnetic compass in Hebrew literature):

“Consider the occult property of the magnet, at which iron leaps, and furthermore, the common practice of sailors: They insert a needle into a floating piece of wood and magnetize the needle, which navigates on the water’s surface until it points to the pole. Not a single philosopher comprehends this in terms of natural philosophy. Likewise, all occult properties are natural — in the manner of drugs and herbs — and include no element of paganism.”

This chapter in the history of three intersecting fields — philosophy, science, and halacha — remains relevant today. How should a modern traditional Jew respond to magical cures, astrology, and the variety of “segulot” (talismans, in its current usage) increasingly promoted by Jewish charismatics?

We may be tempted to fall back on the old debate between Maimonides and Nahmanides and decline to take a stand. It would be presumptuous, so the argument goes, to come down on either side.

But there is a better approach, which takes historical context into account. An example from another area of halacha may help disentangle the issue.

Centuries ago, several prominent halachists permitted smoking on non-Sabbath holidays, based on its presumed health benefits. The rationale was that smoking fell into the halachic category of kindling for a universally appreciated pleasure (e.g., a healthful activity), which is permitted on holidays.

No halachist today would tout the health benefits of smoking simply because this (erroneous) idea is part of the halachic record. Thankfully, scientific progress makes such a prospect laughable.

Needless to say, science has evolved considerably since the fourteenth century: The Renaissance, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and the Enlightenment; not to mention Darwin and Einstein.

We have known for some time that magnetism is not an occult force. We also know that astrology is a pseudo-scientific fantasy (on this score, Maimonides was far ahead of his time). Much of what was fact to the medievals may be of interest to historians of science, but is no longer scientific reality.

Nahmanides and Rashba were no fools. If they were active today, they no doubt would mock practitioners of magical cures and those who would read fortunes from molten lead or coffee grinds. Maimonides likewise would abandon his own outdated science.
On scientific questions, religion must follow the very latest science. To settle for anything less is to invite a return to a darker, occult age.

National Scholar Second Year Report June 1, 2014—May 31, 2015

Rabbi Hayyim Angel National Scholar, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals [email protected] jewishideas.org

To our members and friends, I now have completed my second year of working as the National Scholar of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. It has been an honor and privilege working to promote our vision nationwide primarily through teaching, and also through writing and creating internet classes. This report summarizes my various projects and activities over the past year. In addition to the wide variety of classes and programs, this past year has witnessed remarkable progress in terms of focusing our classes and programs toward articulating the vision of the Institute, finding a new home and partner at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan, and addressing the pressing religious issues of the day through partnerships with other rabbis and scholars.

This past fall, I gave an eight-part series entitled “Creating Jewish Unity.” In this course, I outlined some of the most important elements of a traditionally faithful vision of Judaism that simultaneously is as inclusive as possible. You can hear the series on our website, http://www.jewishideas.org//online-learning. Our partnership with Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun has grown beautifully over the past year with my serving as the KJ Rabbinic Scholar, and we held our first two symposia at KJ this past year:

(1) From the Academy to the Religious Community: How We Can Gain Religious Insight from Academic Jewish Studies, and (

2) Extremely Religious Without Religious Extremism. Each symposium featured three speakers from different disciplines, attracted a wonderful crowd, and most of the talks are posted on our website, http://www.jewishideas.org//online-learning. We will also publish most of the talks in article form in upcoming issues of Conversations.

My major areas of focus have been:

• Community Education:

o There is a serious thirst for the kind of learning represented by our Institute, and a sizable number of communities have invited us. Through a combination of scholar-in-residence programs and lectures in different communities, we reached thousands of interested adults directly in the past year.

o In addition to the concentration of programs in the New York tri-state area, it was gratifying to visit the communities in Memphis, TN; Overland Park, KS; and Los Angeles, CA.

• Teacher Training: o One of our central goals is to train other rabbis, community leaders, and educators to spread Torah to schools and communities. In this manner we create bridges with many people in the field to work together. o I taught a course in “How to Teach Bible in Synagogues” to honors rabbinical students at Yeshiva University.

o I participate annually as faculty in Yeshiva University’s graduate program in Experiential Education. o I taught students at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School, and Yeshivat Maharat. o I gave teacher-training seminars to the Bible faculties at CHAT school in Toronto, Ontario. Given the complexities of Bible and Jewish Studies our graduates are likely to encounter on secular university campuses, our training focuses on how to equip Jewish Studies high school faculties to prepare their students for the University setting.

• Publications:

o I published a new collection of essays on Tanakh, entitled Peshat Isn’t So Simple, Kodesh Press.

o The Institute published my Jewish Holiday Companion this past November. It was distributed to Institute members and interested synagogues, educators, and laypeople across the country. This volume makes accessible comments on the holidays and their ritual readings. Additional copies are available at amazon.com.

o I am in the editing stages of a commentary on the prophetic books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in the context of the Second Temple Period. It will be published by Maggid Press in Jerusalem.

• Internet Learning:

o We have expanded our Online Learning section on our website, jewishideas.org. You can find links to a growing number of classes of mine there. Below is an itemized listing of the various classes and programs over the past year.

• Most frequently, I served in my capacity of Rabbinic Scholar at Kehilath Jeshurun on a monthly basis from September-June. Going forward, I will be there on most Shabbatot when not away in a different community as a scholar-in-residence.

• June 3-5: Shavuot scholar-in-residence, Young Israel of West Hartford, CT.

• June 16: Book Launch for my book, Peshat Isn’t So Simple. • June 20-21: Scholar-in-residence, Young Israel of Oceanside, NY.

• June 24: Lecture in the Experiential Education program by Yeshiva University.

• May 7-June 25: Seven-part series on the Book of Samuel, Lincoln Square Synagogue, NY.

• June 29-30: Three lectures on Tanakh at the yemei iyyun of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

• July 2-30: Five-part series on the Haftarot Lamdeinu Teaneck, NJ.

• October 21:-December 16: Eight-part series on Creating Jewish Unity, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, NY.

• October 22-December 17: Eight-part series on the Book of Samuel, Lincoln Square Synagogue, NY.

• October 24-25: Scholar-in-residence, Anshei Sfard, Memphis, TN.

• November 14-15: Scholar-in-residence, Young Israel of Hillcrest, NY.

• November 18-December 20: Four-part series on the Haftarot Lamdeinu Teaneck, NJ.

• November 30: Scholarly panel on the movie, Noah. Yeshiva University Museum.

• December 5-6: Scholar-in-residence, BIAV, Overland Park, KS.

• December 9: Class for Yeshiva University’s women’s group, NY.

• December 15: Seminar on Hanukkah to students and parents of the Frisch School, Paramus, NJ.

• January 2-3: Scholar-in-residence, Young Israel of Woodmere-Cedarhurst, NY.

• January 5: Class at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah-Maharat winter intensive, NY.

• January 23-March 27: Nine-part series on how to teach Bible in synagogues, Yeshiva University Honors Rabbinical Students, NY.

• January 28-March 25: Eight-part series on the Book of Samuel, Lincoln Square Synagogue, NY.

• February 7: Scholar-in-residence, Congregation Ohab Shalom, NY.

• February 12: Book Launch for my book, Jewish Holiday Companion.

• February 27-28: Scholar-in-residence, Congregation Ahavath Torah, Englewood, NJ.

• March 10: Teacher training at CHAT school, Toronto, Ontario.

• April 15-June 3: Eight-part series on the Book of Samuel, Lincoln Square Synagogue, NY.

• April 19-May 3: Three-part series on the Book of Ruth, Young Israel of Jamaica Estates, NY. • May 23-25: Shavuot scholar-in-residence, Young Israel of Century City, CA.

Thank you all for your support and enthusiasm, and I look forward to promoting our Torah vision for many years to come.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Israel’s new political reality—with the two main Ultra-Orthodox or Haredi political parties, the Sephardic-based Shas party and the Ashkenazi-based United Torah Judaism, inside the government won’t help the next generation of Haredi young people—in fact, on the contrary, it will perpetuate a broken system. While Shas and United Torah Judaism have negotiated financial windfalls for their constituencies, as well as a pull-back on the demand that Ultra-Orthodox young men serve in the Israeli Defense Force, this old style of conducting business could be harmful to our community’s young people. That’s because the reality is that education—not political power--is the key to the future for the Haredi community in Israel, especially if the government doesn’t put advancing Haredim through education and employment at the core of the agenda.

“Educate each child according to his own path,” the Book of Proverbs teaches us, “and he will not stray from it, even when he is old.” And yet, when it comes to educating Haredi youth in Israel, we still have much to learn. Quite honestly, there is nothing short of an education crisis in our community. Rather than providing real choices, our leaders have traditionally insisted that Haredi students have only one path: a formal, rote curriculum dominated by intensive Talmud study, with no option for students to take general studies or complete an Israeli matriculation certificate. This is the path that is likely to dominate the agenda right now—and it is not the path that our young people need or deserve.

The reality is that in the absence of a meaningful alternative, nearly a third of Haredi teenage boys will continue to become alienated from both mainstream Israeli society and the traditional ways of their community. Many drop out of school, spend their time on the streets, or are lost to the Haredi community altogether. They are unable to build families and successful lives.

Those yeshivas that do offer secular matriculation (and there are only a handful in the entire country) are far too expensive for most Haredi families to afford.

By creating Hachmey Lev Yeshiva High School, my aim is to do nothing short of transforming the Yeshiva model. We offer teens who are under stimulated in classical Yeshiva settings the opportunity to maximize their social, educational, and cognitive potential all while still maintaining a Haredi lifestyle. We are teaching the boys Gemara at the highest standards, in Hebrew and without compromise, and to live a Haredi lifestyle that will also allow them to earn a good living for themselves and their future families.

I was inspired to create Hachmay Lev based on my own family’s experience when our son reached seventh grade and boredom got the better of him. He showed little interest in his traditional yeshiva schooling. As a product of this schooling myself, I know the value of its rigor, but this model simply is outmoded for today’s young people.

Our students combine study of Talmud (32 hours each week) and general studies (20 hours each week), giving them a broader education than any other Haredi institutions in Israel. They study the core curriculum like English, math, history, Bible, civics, computer science, and Hebrew, while also enjoying music and sports. Students sleep in Jerusalem during the week and return home on weekends. Once the model has been fine-tuned, Hachmey Lev will be replicated in other locations across Israel.

I spent ten years putting Haredim into the workforce and that’s why I know that education is the core issue. After spending a lifetime of activism in the Haredi community on a variety of pressing issues, including making sure that our men serve in the IDF, and find gainful employment, I am convinced that unless and until we transform our educational system, there will simply never be the systemic change that we need.

North American and British donors know the necessity of getting the 20% of Israeli society that is Haredi into the workforce—and are supporting efforts to increase employment opportunities in the Haredi community, so that our young people can have new models to emulate. Philanthropists outside of Israel also know that Israel is the global exception, since nowhere else in the world are young people exempt from learning a broad range of studies or from working. But, money for employment without strengthening and expanding serious alternative educational models won’t create the type of workers for a 21st century workforce that Israel needs.

Philanthropists who want to impact the Israeli economy need to invest in educational models that will recast the pattern of poverty in our community. Now, more than ever, those of us who trying to change Haredi society from within need to show that our model can work for a broader segment of our community.

www.kidum-edu.org.il/en/education-campuses/hachmey-lev-yeshiva-high-school

The Kosher Bookworm
Pirkei Avot As An Intellectual Challenge
by Alan Jay Gerber

With Shavuot now behind up, we once again commence our learning of Pirkei Avot starting with the first chapter. Thus, it is most opportune to bring to your attention a new commentary by a former classmate of mine at Yeshiva University and the Director of The Institute For Jewish Ideas and Ideals, Rabbi Marc Angel. This commentary entitled, "The Koren Pirkei Avot" features a translation by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and a publisher's preface by Matthew Miller. In this preface Miller asks and answers the following question:

"Why is Pirkei Avot so widely studied ? Of all the books of the Mishna, it is the one that directly touches scholars and lay people alike; it requires little background, yet it offers the collected wisdom of our sages in a manner more accessible than any other book."

This brief observation by Miller informs us right at the start of the historical importance of this work.

Rabbi Angel, in his introduction informs us of the following as background to his commentary:

"Pirkei Avot, popularly translated as Ethics of the Fathers, is a collection of rabbinic teachings, mainly from the Tannaitic period. It is included at the end of the Talmudic tractates dealing with business law and torts [Nezikin]. The first chapter presents teachings of the early sages in chronological order; the next four chapters provide assorted teachings; the sixth chapter is a later addition to the original. This final chapter, transferred to Pirkei Avot from the eighth chapter of the tractate Kalla, was added due to the widespread custom of studying one chapter of Pirkei Avot on each of the six Sabbaths between the festivals of Pesach and Shavuot."

In a most perceptive statement sent for publication for this week's essay, Rabbi Angel further extends to us his teaching as to the background and importance of Pirkei Avot to our faith.

"Many thinking people today are searching for authentic wisdom that can deepen their lives, and put their lives into a spiritual perspective. Over the centuries, the Jewish people have been able to draw on the wisdom of Pirkei Avot to contemplate basic ideas in faith and ethics. Each generation of Jews sees and experiences the world with different eyes, and our generation today represents the latest chapter in the Jewish adventure. While earlier commentaries on the Pirkei Avot were -- and continue to be -- highly important, each generation needs to study the ancient texts with contemporary eyes. We need to draw on the insights garnered from the past; but we also need to draw on insights derived from modern perspectives in literature, psychology, and philosophy. My commentary does not attempt to 'reinvent the wheel' by simply reciting what earlier commentaries have already stated. Rather, it attempts to confront the ancient texts with modern eyes, in a manner that will empower modern readers to find new insights and inspiration from the Pirkei Avot."

Throughout this work Rabbi Angel cites numerous citations, teachings and admonitions from "outside" sources that serve to buttress the teachings of our sages. Each citation is not a passing partial one sentence quote, but an extensive citation that will give you the full flavor of the author's intent and justification for its use together with the sacred text.

This work is different from others on Pirkei Avot. You will not be disappointed in the content, and the intellectual challenge will be a joy to experience.

May, 2015

To our members and friends, I hope you are all well.

As summer approaches, we still have several important upcoming Institute programs in store:

On Sunday, June 7, from 10:00am-1:00pm, I will be running our second symposium, co-sponsored by Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan: “Extremely Religious without Religious Extremism: Perspectives within Jewish Tradition.” This symposium will feature three talks:

· “Who Are You Calling a Fundamentalist?: The Taxonomy of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” by Dr. Rivka Press Schwartz, Director of General Studies at the Frisch School.

· “The Binding of Isaac: An Extreme Narrative with the Keys to a Non-Extremist Religious Life,” by Rabbi Hayyim Angel, National Scholar, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals; Rabbinic Scholar, Kehilath Jeshurun; Bible Faculty, Yeshiva University.

· “Between Piety and Extremism: Talmudic Insights,” by Rabbi Ozer Glickman, Rosh Yeshiva, and Adjunct Professor in the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and the Sy Syms School of Business, Yeshiva University. It will be held at the Ramaz Middle School, 114 East 85th Street (between Park and Lexington Avenue). Light refreshments served, and it is free and open to the public.

Here are some other upcoming Institute programs:

Kehilath Jeshurun (114 East 85th Street, between Park and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan): I am pleased to announce that beginning June 1, I will be participating more robustly as the Rabbinic Scholar of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, with a greater Shabbat presence (primarily at the Sephardic minyan). I also am making a New York home for our Institute classes and programs at Kehilath Jeshurun. Stay tuned for future announcements.

May 22-25 (Shavuot): I will be the scholar-in-residence at the Young Israel of Century City, Los Angeles (9317 West Pico Blvd). Free and open to the public. For more information visit their website, http://www.yicc.org/.

April 15-June 3: My eight-part series on The First Book of Kings continues at Lincoln Square Synagogue (68th Street and Amsterdam in Manhattan). Newcomers are always welcome. Classes meet on Wednesday evenings, 7:15-8:15pm.

Remaining dates for the spring semester are: May 20, 27, June 3. Classes are co-sponsored by our Institute and Lincoln Square Synagogue. Registration is required, please go to lss.org/RabbiAngel.

June 28-29: I will present three papers at the annual Bible Study Days of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. The two-day event will be held at Manhattan Day School, 310 West 75th Street (between West End Avenue and Riverside Drive) in Manhattan. Open to the public, registration is required. For brochure and registration information, http://www.yctorah.org/content/view/957/17/

On April 19, 26, and May 3, I gave a three-part series on the Book of Ruth at the Young Israel of Jamaica Estates. These classes are now available online, along with many other lectures of mine, at http://www.jewishideas.org//online-learning.

As always, I thank our members and friends for their support and for enabling us to spread our Institute’s vision through teaching and publications throughout the country and beyond.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

My remarks are dedicated to my paternal cousin, Shlomo Guttman and to my wife’s paternal uncle, David Teitlebaum, who both fell in Milchemet HaShichrur. May their memories be for a blessing.

I would also like to thank Dr Jeffrey Gurock, professor of American-Jewish history at YU for his leads and encouragement in my research.

This presentation will focus on two Americans, who each had a significant role in the establishment of the State of Israel. David (Mickey) Marcus served as a military advisor to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister. He was given the title of aluf, the first Jewish general since Yehoshua ben Nun. Charles (Charlie) Winters, a Protestant, who sold two cargo planes to Palestinians, i.e. Israeli agents and flew one of them from the U.S. to Czechoslovakia, where they were turned into fighter planes before flying on to Palestine. His activities in helping the fledgling state first received wide notoriety when President George W Bush issued a posthumous pardon in his name. Without the assistance of Marcus and Winters, along with many, many other Americans, it is doubtful that Israel would have emerged victorious from its War of Independence

I remember always being interested in the subject of how Americans, both Jewish and others assisted Israel in its War of Independence. As a teenager and in later years, I would see references to gun smuggling operations associated with the gangster, Meyer Lansky and how Paul O’Dwyer, a lawyer, who would become the president of the NYC Council, would defend some of those who had been arrested for such activities. In addition, there was MACHAL (mitnadvei chutz la’aretz or volunteers from abroad), for which approximately 5,000 volunteers from abroad came to help defend the future Jewish state.

However, at the time I never came across any comprehensive account of the activities of the above. It was only when I began to research this area that I found out why. What was being done in the case of sending war material was outright illegal under U.S. Federal law at the time and what American MACHAL volunteers had to consider was the potential loss of U.S. citizenship. This however, did not deter the approximately 1,500 U.S, volunteers, many of whom were WWII vets who did go to fight and played a crucial role in Israel’s winning the war.

David Marcus was born on New York’s Lower East Side in 1902 and was accepted at West Point in 1920, graduating four years later. He left service in 1927, earning a law degree and working in the U.S. Attorney General’s office and later under NY’s Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia in the department of corrections, where he was appointed to Commissioner of Corrections in 1940. However, with the outbreak of WWII, Marcus re-enlisted in the army as a lieutenant colonel, with duties as a division judge advocate. Later he was commandant of the army’s ranger school in Hawaii. Marcus parachuted into Normandy, France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, which was the major allied offensive of the war, and essentially marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich. In 1947, Marcus left service with the rank of colonel, having been awarded a number of U.S. and British decorations.

Shortly after November 29, 1947, when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine, dividing it into Arab and Jewish states, the Haganah sent Shlomo Shamir to recruit high-ranking U.S military officers and technical experts in order to create a modern army for what would become the State of Israel. Shamir contacted Marcus, who began to look for such individuals. To his chagrin, he found none were willing to go, citing the need for assurances that their military status, citizenship or careers would not suffer as a result. This led Marcus to conclude, ‘I may not be the best man for the job, but I’m the only one willing to go.’

The Haganah was in no way prepared to fight the type of war it would be confronted with once Israeli statehood was declared. Aside from lacking sufficient arms for its troops, it also did not possess the organizational structure required to be successful in such an endeavor. Most of its leadership was composed of veterans of the Jewish Brigade, who did not have any training in large-scale operations. Therefore, before going to Palestine, Marcus memorized information from U.S. Army training manuals. While this material was not classified, it would not pass the scrutiny of British customs when he arrived at Lod. In addition, to avoid causing a diplomatic flap between the U.S. and its British ally, Marcus travelled incognito, under the alias of Michael Stone.

Unfortunately, David Marcus was killed by ‘friendly fire’, when he did not respond to a sentry, who addressed him in Ivrit, asking for the password. Aluf Marcus’ remains were returned to the United States and interred in the cemetery at West Point. The only American soldier buried at the military academy who died while in defense of another country.

On December 23, 2008, The New York Times ran the following headline: ‘Jailed for Aiding Israel, but Pardoned by Bush’. The article went on to describe the circumstances under which the 43d President of the United States took this step. What made this action unique is that it is only the second time that a presidential pardon has been issued posthumously. The pardon was issued on behalf of Charlie Winters, who was involved with the smuggling of three B-17 bombers to Palestine on behalf of the Haganah. At the time, this was in violation of the United States Neutrality Act along with an embargo on weapons to what was to become the Jewish state.

At this point, I’d like to give some background information that will help you understand what was going on in this country, right after WWII. The United States had been at war for four years and had converted its industrial complex to the making of materials for that purpose. Now with the end of hostilities, all these manufacturing facilities needed to be switched back for peacetime use. In addition, companies had huge inventories of war goods that they had no use for and began selling them at greatly reduced prices to anyone who could show the requisite paperwork and pay for them.
Realizing that, agents from Palestine (remember this is before the State of Israel came into being) came to the U.S. and recruited American Jews to assist them in this endeavor along with a number of other operations in preparation for what everyone knew would be a war, once the Jewish state was declared.

Charles (Charlie) Winters was born in Brookline, MA on February 10, 1923. He was the son of Scotch-Canadian and Irish parents, and at a young age contracted polio, which left him with a limp. This impediment prevented his performing military service and instead he worked for the government as a purchasing agent.

After the war, Winters went into the produce export business, buying two decommissioned B-17 bombers, which were converted to cargo planes and planned to use them in transporting fruits around the Caribbean. At that time he was living in Miami, FL. This plan was not working as he had hoped, so when his friend of his, Al Schwimmer, who was a flight engineer for TWA and also assisting the Haganah in obtaining war planes, asked Winters if he would be willing to sell the planes and ‘consider guiding them to somewhere in Europe’, Winters told Schwimmer that he would think it over.

In the end not only did Winters sell the planes to Schwimmer, he also flew one of them, with another pilot in the second plane Taking off from Miami, with a third B-17 that had been purchased in Oklahoma, the aircraft refueled in Puerto Rico, as if completing a normal shipping route and headed for Palestine by way of the Azores and Czechoslovakia. The Czech government was perfectly willing to provide landing facilities along with armaments for a price. These three planes, which were retrofitted to warplanes, constituted the only heavy bombers that the Israeli Air Force had during the war, but were reportedly essential in turning the tide of the war in Israel’s favor. In his diary on July 16, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister noted their arrival in Israel and that they had already been used on several bombing runs in Egypt. They became the 69th Squadron Bombing Group of the Israeli Air Force, known as ‘the hammers’.

For his part in this enterprise, Charlie Winters, along with Al Schwimmer and several others were arrested, tried and convicted in U.S. Federal Court in Miami in January, 1949. While his co-defendants were not given prison sentences, on February 4, 1949, Winters was sentenced to 36 months in a federal penitentiary along with having to pay a $2,500 fine. This was due to his being found in violation on two counts of Title 18, section 88 and Title 22, section 452 of the U.S. Code. These citations deal with ‘conspiracy to export implementations of war’. Winters ended up serving 18 months of his sentence before being released. As a result of his sentence, he became the only American to go to prison for helping Israel!

When I originally began the research for this presentation, I contacted the federal archives in Atlanta, GA to see if they had a transcript of Charlie Winters’ trial. Unfortunately, they did not. However, they were able to supply me with court documents related to the trial, which gave me a sense of what went on in the courtroom. For example, initially Winters pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charges against him. Then for some reason he changed his plea to ‘guilty’. While I didn’t see anything to explain this change, maybe some kind of deal was in the works. If that was the case, apparently it didn’t work out as subsequently Winters’ tried to change his plea back to not ‘guilty’, but the judge would not allow it.

Another bit of information that I received from these same papers and other sources is that just prior to Winters’ and his co-defendants being put on trial, there was a similar case in California, in which the defendants, although found guilty, did not do any jail time, having to pay a fine of $10,000 each. ‘unnamed friends of Israel’ provided the money for this. Perhaps these individuals also paid Winters’ fine as I was not able to find any information on this. After being released, Winters established a small export business in Miami.

At the time of his death on October 30, 1984,Winters had told his current wife, Joan about this incident. His two children from this marriage, Lisa and James along with Charles Todd and Charles Jr. from a prior one were totally unaware of their father’s activities in support of Israel. However, there were clues. According to his son, James, as a teenager his father refused to let him go hunting with his friends. This was because as a result of his criminal record, the senior Winters was not allowed to purchase weapons or keep them at home. The real tip off came at Winters’ funeral, when James found the setting decorated with blue and white flowers, Israel’s national colors along with Israeli officials in attendance. Afterwards, Israel flew Joan Winters to their country, where some of his ashes were interred at the Templars Cemetery in Jerusalem and the remainder spread over Har Tavor, located in Emek Yazreal, near Haifa.

Bibliography

Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 11, pgs 722-3 and 945-6, Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem Ltd. 1972.

“Jailed for Aiding Israel in ’48, But Pardoned by Bush in ’08”, New York Times, December 24, 2008, pg. 1.

Medoff, Rafael. Militant Zionism in America: The Rise and Impact of the Jabotinsky Movement in the United States, 1926-1948. The University of Alabama Press, 2002.

Newspaper clippings, undated; MACHAL[Mitnadvei Hutz LaAretz] and Aliyah Bet Records; I-501; 16; 39; American Jewish Historical Society, Boston, MA and New York, NY.

Porath, Zipporah, Col. David (Mickey) Marcus, ‘A Soldier for All Humanity’. American Veterans of Israel Legacy Corp. 2010.

Slater, Leonard, The Pledge. Simon and Schuster: NY, 1970.

Weiss, Jeffrey and Weiss, Craig, I Am My Brother’s Keeper. Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, 1998.

Wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Winters

At around the time that the State of Israel was being recognized by the United Nations, the Chief Rabbis of Israel wrote a letter in Arabic to the Arab world. The Sephardic Chief Rabbi Benzion Uziel, who was fluent in Arabic, likely wrote this letter that was signed by him and the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog.

Although so many years have passed since the formal establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the message of peace conveyed in this letter has largely been eclipsed by the ongoing hostilities and warfare.

Yom Ha'Atsma'ut, Israel Independence day, is observed this year on Wednesday night April 22 and Thursday April 23. It's worthwhile to review the words of Rabbis Uziel and Herzog, and pray that the message of peace will prevail...sooner rather than later.

21 Kislev, 5708
"A Call to the Leaders of Islam for Peace and Brotherhood."

To the Heads of The Islamic Religion in the Land of Israel and throughout
the Arab lands near and far, Shalom U'Vracha:

Brothers, at this hour, as the Jewish people have returned to its land and
state, per the word of God and the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and in
accordance with the decision of the United Nations, we approach you in peace
and brotherhood, in the name of God's Torah and the Holy Scriptures, and we
say to you:

Please remember the peaceful and friendly relations that existed between us
when we lived together in Arab lands and under Islamic Rulers during the
Golden Age, when together we developed brilliant intellectual insights of
wisdom and science for all of humanity's benefit. Please remember the sacred
words of the prophet Malachi, who said: "Have we not all one Father? Did not
one God create us? Why do we break faith with one another, profaning the
covenant of our ancestors?" (Malachi 2:10).

We were brothers, and we shall once again be brothers, working together in
cordial and neighborly relations in this Holy Land, so that we will build it
and make it flourish, for the benefit of all of its inhabitants, without
discrimination against anyone. We shall do so in faithful and calm
collaboration, so that we may all merit God's blessing on His land, from
which there shall radiate the light of peace to the entire world.

Signed,
Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel
Yitschak Isaac Ha-Levi Herzog