November 10, 2009 | 1:02 pm

Being Machmir (stringent) about being Meikil (lenient) – Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Being Machmir (stringent) about being Meikil (lenient) – Rabbi Barry Gelman
What is the value of lenient Halachik decisions?
Issues of monetary expense, shalom bayit and kavod habriyot (human dignity) are well documented as factors in applying lenient halachik rulings. This blog entry begins a discussion on applying lenient Halachik decisions as a way to open the gates of observance to as many people as possible. I argue that once a person is shown that they can live a halachik lifestyle in certain areas where they may have been challenged, they will be more able to adopt halachik living in other areas. Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson stated that: “If the rabbis in America fifty years ago were as great as today’s halakhic authorities, able to see clearly and anticipate developments, they would have found ways to permit, on the basis of the Shulhan Arukh and the decisors…and we would not have come to the sorry situation that prevails today. “
In this passage Rabbi Hirschenson is pleading for Poskim to Halachikally ease the situation of those who find it difficult to observe Shabbat as it had been understood in his time. I understand this approach to be in the spirit of what Hillel taught in Pirkei Avot: Hillel says: “Be like the students of Aaron. Love peace and pursue peace. Love humanity and bring them close to Torah.”
One responsibility that religious leaders (but not exclusively religious leaders) have is to bring people closer to Torah. One way of doing that is by interpreting Halacha in a way that makes Halachik living accessible to as many people as possible.
Here is an example from my experience. A few years ago I met with a couple who were slowly but surely adopting an observant lifestyle. During the course of our conversation this couple mentioned that they had a set of china dishes that were a family heirloom. The dishes were given to them by a family member who did not keep kosher and were most probably used with either treif food or interchangeably for both dairy and meat. They then told me that they were under the impression that the dishes could not be “koshered.” They told me as well that the dishes had important sentimental value to them, and that they were saddened by the notion of not being able to use them. After seeing how difficult this decision was for them, I shared with them the view of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who allowed kashering china in circumstances very similar to theirs and told them that I thought that they too could kasher their dishes. At that moment the wife turned to her husband and said with a gleam in her eye, “See, I told you we could do it.” She went on to explain that they had been bombarded with so many strict interpretations of Orthodox Judaism that her husband began to doubt whether or not they could pull off a total assimilation into orthodoxy.
In hindsight, I could have tried to convince the couple that their attachment to the dishes should not serve as a barrier for further religious growth and counsel them how to best integrate themselves into orthodoxy –just without the dishes! –but instead, I simply removed the barrier. Removing barriers to religious growth can be a very effective tool towards increasing religious observance and we see that this method has, in fact, been used by great poskim. This is being a student of Aaron.
In the response that records Rabbi Feinstein’s permissive ruling about china he invokes the idea of takanat ha-shavim, regulations or enactments made in order to help those who wish to repent (literally: return). Rabbi Feinstein understood that the use of permissive rulings in cases such as this would make the road to observance easier to navigate for those who wish to embrace an orthodox style of religious observance.
A related phenomenon is the common occurrence that halacha guidebooks often offer the more stringent opinions as the only or highly preferred options. One example of this is the issue of making egg salad or tuna fish on Shabbat. There is an impressive list of poskim (Rav Shlommo Kluger, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Rav Avraham Borenstein, known as the Eglei Tal and Avnei Nezer), who rule that the prohibition of mixing substances into one mass only applies to items that grow from the ground, therefore excluding tuna fish and egg salad from the prohibition entirely. Notwithstanding this, the contemporary shabbat halacha guides reject such an option. This may seem like a small issue but it is precisely rulings like this that make observance very hard to accept. Marginalizing positions like these is an error that will ultimately lead to less observance.
When discussing leniencies and stringencies, we should not focus on the spectrum of less stringent or more stringent, but rather on the strategic use of leniency to encourage greater observance. Put differently, when rendering halakhic decisions, rabbis should not focus on whether or not a decision is in line with the most stringent approach or is in accord with as many opinions as possible, but rather on the long term affects the particular decision will have on an individual’s level of observance.

November 10, 2009 | 1:02 pm

Being Machmir (stringent) about being Meikil (lenient) – Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

What is the value of lenient Halachik decisions?
Issues of monetary expense, shalom bayit and kavod habriyot (human dignity) are well documented as factors in applying lenient halachik rulings.
This blog entry begins a discussion on applying lenient Halachik decisions as a way to oprn the gates of observance to as many people as possible. I argue that once a [person is showed that they can live a halachik lifestyle in certain areas where they may have been challenged, they will be more able to adopt halachik living in other areas.
Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson stated that:  “If the rabbis in America fifty years ago were as great as today’s halakhic authorities, able to see clearly and anticipate developments, they would have found ways to permit, on the basis of the Shulhan Arukh and the decisors…and we would not have come to the sorry situation that prevails today. “
In this passage Rabbi Hirschenson is pleading for Poskim to Halachikally ease the situation of those who find it difficult to observe Shabbat as it had been understood in his time.
I understand this approach to be in the spirit of what Hilel taught in Pirkei Avot: Hillel says: “Be like the students of Aaron .Love peace and pursue peace. Love humanity and bring them close to Torah.”
One responsibility that religious leaders (but not exclusively religious leaders) have is to bring people closer to Torah.
One way of doing that is by interpreting Halacha in a way that makes Halachik living accessible to as many people as possible.
Here is an example from my experience.
A few years ago I met with a couple who were slowly but surely adopting an observant lifestyle. During the course of our conversation this couple mentioned that they had a set of china dishes that were a family heirloom. The dishes were given to them by a family member who did not keep kosher and were most probably used with either treif food or interchangeably for both dairy and meat. They then told me that they were under the impression that the dishes could not be “koshered.” They told me as well that the dishes had important sentimental value to them, and that they were saddened by the notion of not being able to use them. After seeing how difficult this decision was for them, I shared with them the view of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who allowed kashering china in circumstances very similar to theirs and told them that I thought that they too could kasher their dishes. At that moment the wife turned to her husband and said with a gleam in her eye, “See, I told you we could do it.” She went on to explain that they had been bombarded with so many strict interpretations of Orthodox Judaism that her husband began to doubt whether or not they could pull off a total assimilation into orthodoxy.
In hindsight, I could have tried to convince the couple that their attachment to the dishes should not serve as a barrier for further religious growth and counsel them how to best integrate themselves into orthodoxy –just without the dishes! –but instead, I simply removed the barrier. Removing barriers to religious growth can be a very effective tool towards increasing religious observance and we see that this method has, in fact, been used by great poskim. This is being a student of Aaron.
In the response that records Rabbi Feinstein’s permissive ruling about china he invokes the idea of takanat ha-shavim, regulations or enactments made in order to help those who wish to repent (literally: return). Rabbi Feinstein understood that the use of permissive rulings in cases such as this would make the road to observance easier to navigate for those who wish to embrace an orthodox style of religious observance.
A related phenomenon is the common occurrence that halacha guidebooks often offer the more stringent opinions as the only or highly preferred options. One example of this is the issue of making egg salad or tuna fish on Shabbat. There is an impressive list of poskim (Rav Shlommo Kluger, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Rav Avraham Borenstein, known as the Eglei Tal and Avnei Nezer),  rule that the prohibition of mixing substances into one mass only applies to items that grow from the ground, therefore excluding tuna fish and egg salad from the prohibition entirely. Notwithstanding this, the contemporary shabbat halacha guides reject such an option. This may seem like a small issue but it is precisely rulings like this that make observance very hard to accept. Marginalizing positions like these is an error that will ultimately lead to less observance.
When discussing leniencies and stringencies, we should not focus on the spectrum of less stringent or more stringent, but rather on the strategic use of leniency to encourage greater observance. Put differently, when rendering halakhic decisions, rabbis should not focus on whether or not a decision is in line with the most stringent approach or is in accord with as many opinions as possible, but rather on the long term affects the particular decision will have on an individual’s level of observance.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 9, 2009 | 1:22 pm

Revitalizing the Law of Return for All Jews, by Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Posted by Rabbi Asher Lopatin

On Friday an Op Ed appeared in the Jerusalem post, written jointly by Rabbi Seth Farber – Orthodox – and Rabbi Ed Rettig – Reform – where together they excoriated the Israeli government and its bureaucratic arms for preventing Jewish converts from becoming Jewish citizens under the Law of Return.  Rather than recognizing all Jewish converts as Jews, as the Israeli Supreme court ordered over a decade ago, the relevant ministries are requiring converts to jump through multi-year hoops in order to gain acceptance.  I would add to it, that I was involved in an Orthodox conversion that was flat-out rejected since the Interior ministry did not recognize the Beit Din of Evanston as a legitimate Beit Din. 
Rather than getting angry at the government of Israel or the ministries or the individual bureaucrats involved, I suggest there is a systemic problem that has a simple solution.  The problem is once again: “Who is a Jew?”  True, Israel years ago veered away from defining that halachically, but still – is anyone who is converted by anyone, or anyone who just claims they are Jewish with no evidence to be admitted under the Law of Return?  If not – and on the surface it seems we need some control – then who determines the criteria? The Rabbanut doesn’t, but now secular ministries do, and that is worse!
I say the only way for the Law of Return to work the way it is supposed to – to protect every “Jew” in the world from potential persecution and to allow any “Jew” in the world to return to the Land of the Jews is if yes, Israel accepts anyone who converts to Judaism in any way, and anyone who declares that they are Jewish. Wouldn’t the Nazis kill anyone who claimed to be Jewish?  Wouldn’t the crusades kill anyone who claimed they were Jewish?  Would the Muslim mobs in Morocco or Yemen kill any Muslim who declared they had become Jewish no matter who converted them or how?  Of course.  So the Law of Return should apply to anyone who claims they are Jewish and who is willing to have “Yehudi” stamped on there Te’udat Zehut – their Israeli identity card.  Yes, we may get millions from around the world, from Africa and Asia and South America declaring they are Jewish – Oy gevalt!  More self identifying Jews in Israel!!  That is exactly what we want. 
Yes, if you are racist, or bigoted or xenophobic you will be afraid of these “Jews” coming to Israel.  But that is what Ben Hecht claimed some of the early Jews living in Israel felt about the masses from Europe – were they the right kinds of Jews to bring to the Holy Land?  That is was some of the Gedolim told Rav Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg when he wanted to save the Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Germany from Nazi destruction by bringing it to Palestine – they felt it was the wrong type of Yeshiva and Torah for the Holy Land of Israel.  So they perished at the hand of the Germans. 
Just as the system works today, the Jewish and religious community in Israel will have to sort out “Who is a Jew?” from a Halachic point of view.  Following the Mishna B’rurah’s p’sak for minyan and leading services, anyone who shows up in shul will be counted (males, that is, for the Orthodox) and can daven, because of the law of the majority.  When it comes to weddings, anyone who wants to get married will have to convert – if they haven’t already – based on the standard of that community: chareidim, Modern Orthodox, s’faradim, etc.  No hard feelings. If I can verify to the community I want to live in and marry in that I am Jewish, fine.  Otherwise, that community should welcome me if I meet their standards of conversion.  But no one in the world who self identifies as a Jew should be denied admission to Israel as an Israeli citizen.
We need the Law of Return to work to save Jews and bring them home to Israel.  Let us welcome all Jews – anyone who says they are Jewish should be welcome in the Jewish state.  And maybe if those masses of self-identifying Jews come back to the Homeland, in all their shapes and colors, then maybe those Jews from America and Europe, who have the proof that they are Jewish, will return as well.  Then Israel will be the safe-heaven for Jews which the founding fathers of Israel, such as Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky envisioned.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 6, 2009 | 5:49 pm

What does it take to be a Jewish leader?

Posted by Rabbi Hyim Shafner

Is talking to God a prerequisite for being a Jewish leader?  If so Adam would have been the first Jewish leader; but he was not.  Is being a tzadik, a righteous person a prerequisite for Jewish leadership?  If so Noah would have been first Jewish leader; but he was not.  It is Abraham in our Torah portion this week who is the first Jewish leader.  Abraham is a very contradictory figure.  He has two very different experiences and reactions in this week’s portion.

God tells Abraham that He is going to destroy the city of Sodom and Abraham argues with God.  Perhaps there are 50 righteous people in Sodom?  Maybe 40? maybe 30?  Will the Judge of the universe not do justice?  In the end of course it turns out that there aren’t even 10 righteous people.  Abraham brings Lot his nephew, the one righteous person out of Sodom.

Here we see Abraham fighting for the world and even questioning God, showing justice to the world.  Being a blessing to the nations, teaching them justice as God commanded him to.  On the other hand, just a few paragraphs later, Abram is told by God to “take your only son and bring him up as a burnt offering.”  What does Abraham say?  Nothing! Abraham is the dutiful servant of God, spiritually turned it to the Divine and God’s command.  Abraham is both very outwardly directed, concerned about the welfare of the world and its nitty gritty, and about being a blessing unto the nations and teaching them justice, about feeding he hungry, saving the people of Sodom and welcoming the stranger yet at the same time Abraham lives a profound spiritual life completely tuned into God, completely dutiful, so much so that he is willing to sacrifice his only son when God says to.

In Moses we see the same thing.  He concerns himself with the welfare of the people, getting them food and water, rebuking them, deciding cases of justice between them.  He is the leader of the Jews and must concern himself with the structure of the people, the nitty gritty of taking them through the desert.  The same Moses goes up on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights, does not eat or drink for those full 40 days and descends the mountain on such a high spiritual level that he has to wear a veil to protect the people from the the light rays which emerge from him.

The same is true of Rabbis and Jewish leaders today.  The rabbi might have to change the light bulbs in the shul, make peace among congregants, feed the hungry, cloth the naked and council the downtrodden.  At the same time we must cultivate a deep, dutiful and elevated spiritual life and relationship to the Divine.  It is from that spiritual place that our ability to be a blessing to the nations, to take care of the Jewish people and the world must emerge.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

November 5, 2009 | 12:00 pm

Seeing That Which is Right Before Your Eyes

Posted by Rabba Sara Hurwitz

Avraham Aveinu, and the Akeida story have much to teach us about the important interplay between sight and self-examination.  In fact, the word “ירא” – to see – is repeated throughout the Akeida story.

In Bereishit chapter 22 verse 4, the Torah says
וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת־הַמָּקוֹם מֵֽרָחֹֽק
Avraham raised his eyes and saw the place from afar”.

Avraham is described as a man who is able to see into the distance.  His level of perception was so keen, that Chazal explain that he was able to “see” God, as it were.  The word Hamakom in the above-cited verse, commonly translated as “the place,” is also one of God’s many names (typically invoked in the house a mourner), and therefore the verse would read that Avraham raised his eyes and saw God from afar. 

But Avraham’s level of perception is also lacking.  Although he can see great distances, he is short sighted in other respects – he was unable to see that which was right before his eyes.  The Talmud (Brachot 13a) describes Avraham as the father to the whole world.  Not the father of Isaac. Avraham is the embodiment of hachnasat orchim (welcoming guests) – he knows exactly how to see to the needs of others – and yet, he leaves family quarrels to his wife to rectify, not being able to perceive the problems in his very own household. 

It is, however, through the experience of the Akeidah that Avraham is able to correct his vision.  As Avraham and Yitzchak embark on their journey up the mountain, Yitzchak asks, Abba, where is the lamb for the offering? Avraham answers, אֱלֹקים יִרְאֶה־לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה בְּנִי God will seek out for Himself the lamb for the offering, my son.”
Avraham can no longer answer with the abilities of one who sees God.  Thus he states in effect: “God can see clearly, elokim yireh.  But for the first time, I cannot truly see God’s plan.”  Avraham is undergoing a change.  He is losing his abilities to see past great distances, but he is gaining the ability to see the detail that surrounds him.

Suddenly, the man who could see God, must learn to perceive that which is right before him.  Right after the Angel stays Avraham’s hand, the Torah tells us again: “וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא Abraham raised his eyes and saw”—not into the distance, like before. But right in front of him, he suddenly saw a ram—וְהִנֵּה־אַיִל.  It is possible, that the ram was there all along.  But only after he was able to truly see his son, did the God allow him to see the korban. 

Avraham began to see that what was close to him, thereby introducing him to a new level of leadership, one where he is focused not only on others, but on the building of his own family. Therefore, the Akeida story must conclude with the genealogy that leads to birth of Rebecca, because it is through Rebecca and Isaac, Avrahams’ inner family that the story continues.  Now Avraham and Yitzchak can “walk together וַיֵּֽלְכוּ יַחְדָּו,” as a cohesive family unit, bound together forever by the experience that they shared.  Avraham, the father of the world, can now settle down and direct his servant to find a wife for his son.

The Akedia represented for Avraham a transformation from one who could only perceive lofty ideals, to one who finally understood that which was most important: the family that had surrounded him all along.  Yes, Avraham is the farther of monotheism; he had to be concerned with universal truths. But the message of the Akieda is that looking outward, in the distance is not enough.  It is imperative that we are able to see that which is right before our eyes. 

Avraham names the site of the Akeidah “Hashem Yireh—the place where God will be seen.” A place where people will be blessed with the ability to see, to perceive God’s love through seeing the blessing that are right before our eyes.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 4, 2009 | 3:58 am

Evolved

Posted by Rav Yosef Kanefsky

It’s always unfair to compare one era in human history to another. The sorts of things that people did or believed during some earlier time, are easy targets for criticism by people who live at a later time. All behaviors and beliefs occur within a larger social and historical context, and need to be understood in this light.  But extending this understanding to those who came before us doesn’t in any way mitigate our sense of joy and relief upon our realizing how far we have evolved since their days. When it comes to the ability and willingness of Orthodox rabbis to interact cordially and respectfully with non-Orthodox colleagues - although the progress is still uneven – we’ve come a long way, baby.

Many of us can remember the days, a decade or four ago, when Orthodox rabbinic leaders almost uniformly refused to attend Jewish community events at which they would be seated with, or worse, be photographed with Conservative or Reform rabbis. The days when Orthodox rabbis tied themselves into linguistic knots to avoid using the title “rabbi” when referring to their non-Orthodox whatever-they-are. The days when Orthodox young women were denied the opportunity to celebrate their Bat Mitzvah in their shul simply because this would hand a moral victory of some kind to the Conservative and Reform rabbis who had already initiated this practice. Yes, it was a different time. A time when mechitzas were disappearing form erstwhile Orthodox shuls, and Orthodoxy was trying to beat back the reports of its imminent demise. Thank God, we have now come – or are at least coming - to a different time.

Last week I was in Israel, on a trip organized by our local Israeli Consul General. Very purposefully, our group was assembled as an inter-denominational – and multi-gender - rabbinic group, a third of which was Orthodox. . We were brought to Israel to symbolize our unity in our support of Israel, despite our differences in the areas of Jewish religious doctrine and practice.  We traveled together, laughed together, were repeatedly photographed together, and pledged to continue to work together in our community on behalf of Israel. Sure we disagreed about things (like J Street, for example), and sure we couldn’t really daven together as a group. But there was never a moment at which we were not a “chevra” of yes, Rabbis, who each in our own way, was serving Klal Yisrael and strengthening the future of the Jewish people. It’s not that our differences are no longer important. It’s just that they we no longer find them threatening.  And we will therefore no longer allow them to thwart or undermine all the good that our common passion can bring to Am Yisrael. 

I know that many of my Orthodox colleagues have not yet evolved. And while this is clearly not a case in which only the “fittest” will literally survive, it is one in which only the “fittest” will truly fulfill their obligations to the Jewish people. Only the evolved will live up fully to their job description of “Rabbi in Israel”.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 3, 2009 | 9:33 am

Innovation in Halacha – Rabbi Barry Gelman

Posted by Rabbi Barry Gelman

Our tag line – Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth Depth and Passion Of Orthodox Judaism means different things to different people. For me, it is a call to educate the Morethodox public, and others, about the fundamental ideas of Modern Orthodox Judaism. One of the foundations of Modern Orthodoxy is that the Torah does not have a limited warranty. The reform movement essentially clams that the rituals of the Torah does not speak to the modern Jew and are unnecessary to live a full Jewish life. On the other hand, certain segments of the Orthodox community believe that (or act as if) when it comes to ritual and practical halacha there is no room for the Torah to expand to incorporate modern sensibilities and concerns.

Below is part of the introduction to the book of Responsa entitled Dor Rivii written by Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glassner. The biographical information below a well as the English translation of the text is taken from an article written by Rabbi Yaakov Elman for Tradition magazine, 25(3), Spring 1991, pp. 63-69.

This work serves as an important theoretical basis for some of the practices that some in the Modern Orthodox world innovated. Often the claim again such innovations (women dancing with the Torah, pain blockers administered before a bris, including a mother’s name in a ketubah, double ring ceremony) is that they are not part of the mesorah(tradition) and that 100 years ago they were not practiced by pious Jews. Rabbi Glasner teaches that a Torah scholar “can derive totally new insights which were never [apprehended] before…”

Rabbi Moses Samuel Glasner (1856-1924), an only son of Rabbi Avraham Glasner and a great grandson of the Hatam Sofer through his mother, Raizel (a daughter of the Hatam Sofer’s oldest daughter Hindel), was born in Pressberg, and later moved with his family to Klausenburg, where his father served as rabbi. The younger Glasner succeeded his father as rabbi in 1878, serving in that capacity until his move to Jerusalem in 1923. In Jerusalem, he was involved in Mizrachi educational activities during the last year-and-a-half of his life. …

“For just as in natural science a person produces innovations with his intelligence and understanding based on old principles, so too with the science of our holy Torah. As Hazal say, “if you hear the old, you will hear the new. “The intent is that one who incessantly occupies himself with the Torah that is with us of old and “kills himself over it” can derive totally new insights which were never [apprehended] before; it is in this sense that Hazal said that “the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses all that an experienced disciple would in future times innovate [in Torah],”commandments ” [the principle] that from that time [of the completion of the Torah as described in Deut. 31:24, even] a prophet may not innovate anything–this refers only to adding to, or subtracting from it, but permission is given to every authorized court [of ordained sages] to interpret it and derive new laws.

Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements. Rather, the truth is that this [issues from] the wonderful wisdom [and] profound insight of the Torah, [which teaches] that the interpretation of Torah [must be] given over to the sages of each generation in order that the Torah remain a living force with the nation, developing with it, and that indeed is its eternity. In this way may we understand correctly the wording of the blessing “Who gave us a Torah of truth and implanted in us eternal life,” which the Tur interprets as follows: “a Torah of truth” refers to the Written Torah and “eternal life” refers to the Oral Torah (Orah Hayyim 138, see Shulhan Arukh thereto).

[The author of] Midirash Shmuel on Ethics of the Fathers (chapter 1, s.v. “Make a fence for the Torah”) makes the same point in this way: “And therefore [the Tanna] says that this Torah was handed over to Joshua to do with it as he wished, making right left and left right according to the time and place [R. Glasner’s emphasis]; in all this it is his, to do with as he wishes, and so too was it handed over to the Elders, etc. and this is one of the reasons that the Oral Torah was not written down but given to the Great Court to do with as it wished [R. Glasner’s emphasis].”

When they contradict that which was [accepted as true until then, their new interpretation becomes the true one [for their generation]; so have we been commanded by Him, may He be blessed, that we “should not depart from the thing (the sages of that generation) tell us either to the right or left” –even if they uproot that which was agreed upon until now. This too is what they intended when they said “Both these and these are the word of the LivingGod . . . .”

Finally, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Below is a quote from Rabbi Glasner as to how halachik innovators were treated in his time. “If one man be found who wishes to remove the thorns and weed the [garden], he is adjudged a rebellious elder, and, God forbid, as one who cuts down the shoots” [= a heretic]. In this way the land is filled with hypocritical flattery in which [each one] suppresses [his sincere] opinions because of the power of those who are willing to use force and intimidation against whoever opposes them”

0 Comments — Leave your comment