Interlude – Who is qualified to be a Teacher of
Torah?
In this article I want to deal with the
issue of who is qualified to be a teacher of Torah in general and specifically
for the Laws of Noah. This is critical because non-Jews, especially on the Internet,
are confronted by many people teaching Torah subjects who are openly unorthodox
(unOrthodox), and unqualified. How are these non-Jews (and some Jews) to know
if they are being fooled as they were in their previous religious experiences?
This is an issue of extreme importance in
these series of articles for two reasons.
1. Underlying these articles is an
attempt to explain clearly why a number of Rabbis who are expert in the 7 laws
have come out against the ‘Ger’ business and see it as dangerous to the
non-Jews themselves who wish to be close to HaShem as HE wants
them to be, and also dangerous to Judaism.
2. Why should you believe me anyway? As
non-Jews are not raised or trained to have the skills to discern who is learning
the Torah texts as they were meant to be understood, why are my words to be given
more consideration than theirs?
This discussion requires us to start with
a basic but obvious assumption. What I am writing here and in these articles
are for those Jews and non-Jews who believe:
There are
7 laws required of all non-Jews and that their observance is defined
within the oral Torah. The later includes the later commentaries on the Talmud
and codes. There is no other valid expression of HaShem’s will. The system of
the oral and written law is called today ‘Torah Judaism’.
If you deny that obligatory nature of Torah
Judaism, which includes the works of our Rabbis, than not only what I say here
is of no purpose for you, but the true meaning and the obligations of the 7
laws themselves are outside your worldview. It is not a part of these articles
to prove the validity of the oral law.
***
There are some pretty basic prerequisites
needed, which should be obvious to all, and without them, you cannot even
consider whether this person is qualitied.
First is that the person needs to be an
Orthodox Jew who is faithful to the Torah, oral and written. His life is based
on the foundation of Torah Judaism. His faithfulness to the Torah needs to be
unquestionable.
This person needs to have spent years in the
study of Talmud and Halacha in general, and works discussing the 7 laws in
particular. The reason is that true Torah knowledge takes years to acquire. Proper
understanding of Halacha requires knowledge of many areas. It is not acquired
just by reading some books in English.
The teacher should not be a new convert
or Baal Tshuvah (and certainly not a non-Jew). It not only takes time to gather
the skills to understand a page of Talmud or a Halacha in Rambam or Shulchan
Aruch, it takes time to learn the Torah perspective and approach to life in
general. One who has not absorbed the Torah life style, cannot understand the
nuances.
This person should have credentials to
show they have some qualifications to correctly teach Torah subjects.
The best thing would be that the person has already taught in a yeshiva or gave
shiurim in a kollel where they were held under scrutiny to see if they mastered
the Torah subjects they were teaching. Internet classes have no review and so are
not qualifications.
Smicha also indicates some knowledge, but
not with regards to the Noahide laws, nor does it indicate an ability to teach.
Without these some letter of support from
someone who is qualified who will confirm the teacher’s qualifications is also good.
Unfortunately there is no test of ones knowledge of the 7 laws that exists
today. Acceptance by others who have interacted with him who are known to have
the knowledge is certainly a positive indicator.
The bottom line here is that a teacher
needs to be someone who isn’t learning the subject as he goes along, or who
never gained the skills. We don’t want someone who is fooling people influencing
people in life effecting decisions. Yeshivas don’t just hire people from the
street, you should not accept someone who could never be accepted to teach in a
real live Yeshiva.
***
Having the above is not enough. I think
there are a few things that are key in choosing who you are going to follow and
listen to.
Is this person knowledgeable? It is not
hard to appear knowledgeable when speaking to people who do not know the
sources. So how do you tell? One way is if the person is part of a community
and is respected as knowledgeable there.
Does this person present the material in
a way that, from beginning to end, is organized and understandable? If you
don’t understand what he is trying to say then this person may not be such a
good teacher, or worse, he may not really know the material well.
Are they prepared when they teach? Or do
they try to wing it? All gadolim I have known were prepared BEFORE they would
teach. I heard this from one of my Rebbes, HaRav Shmuel Kraus ZT’L. He once saw
his Rebbe the Galanter Rov HY’D before giving a shiur looking over the Gemara.
He asked his Rebbe why he did that since he knew all of Shas (all of the
Talmud) and certainly knew the material he was going to teach. The Rov HY’D
told him that he was taught that before one gives a shiur one has to review the
material you will be teaching, even if you know it.
Many issues in the Talmud and in Halacha
will have differing views. It may come as a surprise, but Jews don’t always
agree with each other, and that is also the case with Rabbis. Does the teacher
understand them? Can he explain what the differences are; why they disagree and
why we follow the Halacha like one of these views?
If there are doubts in your mind,
especially on key issues being taught, then this person is not qualified.
***
It is interesting to note that in
Shulchan Aruch in the laws dealing with from whom we can learn Torah it is not
sufficient to know the subject material; they have to be of a certain
character. How do you discern who has the right character? How do you discover
who is qualified.
Just as an example: I taught for a number
of years in a chassidic yeshiva, and also as a private Rebbe where my students
were weekly tested on the material I taught. I with my sons are integral parts
of a rather large sized Chassidic group. As to my knowledge of the Noahide
laws, I was personally approached to sign the letter about the ‘Ger movement’
because I was known to have in depth knowledge of the subject of the 7 Laws.
This last point will become more apparent as these articles continue.
As I have pointed out in previous
articles, Chaim Clorfene has continually denigrated Torah Judaism, as such he is
not qualified for us to learn from him Torah subjects. (I would like to point
out that after pointing out his previous articles to some who even considered
him a friend, not one will say they support his views on Torah Judaism, and
they agree it is outside of what is acceptable.) David Katz is another story.
There is no question in my mind as to his allegiance to Torah Judaism. I have
other problems with his works that I feel would disqualify him.
***
Let’s move from the theoretical to the
practical. A good way of approaching this problem is to look at those kinds of things
that lead people away from Christianity (or any other false beliefs) in the
first place. These red flags apply here too. This opens some good tools of
analysis that adds to what was said above.
The first thing is the distortions or
mistranslations of the Tenach. In this case there are many good examples from
Katz’ book and lectures which are similar. I intend to have a whole article on
the misuse of the Biblical words by Katz which seems to be the foundation of
the theories of Clorfene and Katz. Let me just give two here.
The first is a minor point in the whole
picture but it indicates what the big problem is. In The Laws of Ger Toshav and
more in his lecture series on Ger, Katz distinguishes between the pshat (פשט) and the lefi pshuto (לפי פשוטו). This happens in his lectures often when
discussing Rashi where he claims Rashi is not ‘pshat’ but ‘lefi pshuto’. But
this is a total distortion and misunderstanding of the Hebrew language.
First pshat (פשט)
is a common noun but pshuto (פשוטו) is possessive. It
literally means: his (or its) pshat. They mean essentially the same. He then
compounds his error by a misunderstanding of Rashi. Rashi never says he is
explaining the ‘pshuto’. What he says is that he is explaining the ‘pshuto shel
mikra’ (פשוטו של מקרא), which literally
means ‘the pshat of the verse’. (See Rashi on Bereishis 3:8 as an example.) These
mean the exact same thing as just saying ‘pshat’.
Rashi’s use of Talmudic and Midrashic
sources in his commentary are well known. It is also well known that his
grandson the Rashbam many times disagreed with his grandfather as to what the
true pshat was, but there is no indication that Rashi’s intention was other
than to explain the pshat (except where he explicitly says he is quoting from a
Midrash and bringing a Midrashic interpretation.) All this is known to those
who learn Rashi weekly, as mentioned in Halacha, and are familiar with his
method of interpretation.
To add to this there is the famous dictum
of the Talmud (Shabbos 63a, Yavamos 24a) Ayn Mikra Yotzei mYidei Peshuto (אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו) which means that a
verse is not to be interpreted other than according to its pshat. Making a
distinction between these two words is just wrong and deceptive.
Next I want to just discuss a single word
of the many I will discuss in a later article. This is the word ‘nochri’. On
page 11 of The Laws of Ger Toshav Katz says a nochri is ‘a goy/akum’
(i.e. idol worshipper).
On page 144 we learn of a ‘nochri chasid’
who appears similar to a Ger toshiv. His language is hard to comprehend there. It
seems to be based on something that appears in Od Yisroel Yosef Beni Chai. On
page 7-8 there the term ‘chasid nochri’ is used by the Beis Yosef in his
commentary, which appears to mean the same as chasidei umos haolom’. This ‘nochri’
is clearly not an ‘akum’.
Then we see on page 149 where he says
something different again, but here it is much closer to the proper definition.
He says ‘nochri’ is “synonymous with acum, goy, non-Jew and sometimes kuti.”
However the clearest definition of
‘nochri’ is in the Talmud Brochos 47b. There the Talmud discusses the Mishnah
that says that we do not make a zimon (united blessing after meals) with a
‘nochri’. There it says the Mishnah refers to a non-Jew who is in the process
of converting but has not yet immersed, and it states: “however long he has not
immersed he is a nochri.” That means everyone born a non-Jew who is not a Ger
Tzedek is a nochri. That is how it is meant in all places in Halacha. (As to
the Biblical text, I will discuss the Biblical terms used in verses in a later
article.)
Besides that he has a continual tendency
to misunderstand or misuse texts. For example chapter 304 has a big place in
his book and it is based on the Gemara in Yavamos. He wants to use it as some
proof of what a non-Jew is or is not allowed to do for a Jew. But that is not
what the purpose of that is.
I will be discussing Yavomos and the
sources behind 304 at length. In short 304 is about slaves and Shabbos, because
it is interested in when it is Biblically forbidden for a non-Jew to do work
for themselves or when a Jew cannot Biblically ask a non-Jew to do work for
themselves. The Biblical prohibition applies when the non-Jew is under the
control of a Jew either as property, or otherwise.
The general laws for non-Jews and Shabbos
work are that they are rabbinic and are discussed in other places like: chapter
307:2-5 (Laws of Shabbos related to speech) 243 (Laws of renting land and a
bathhouse to non-Jews) 244 (The types of work a non-Jew can do for a Jew)
245 (A Jew and non-Jew who are partners; how should they act on Shabbos.) 246
(Laws of borrowing and renting to a non-Jew on Shabbos) and various other places
throughout the laws of Shabbos. Those are the places we need to look for the
relevant laws that apply to a non-Jew today.
Likewise he misrepresents the view of the
late Rebbe of Lubavitch ZT’L. He claims the Rebbe Z’TL ‘got Ger’ but the Rebbe
was clear that there was no Ger Toshiv today. (See Lekutei Sichos vol. 26 page
136. Also the responsa of the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZTL in HaPardes May 1985 page
7).
The confusion seems to come from a simple
error. While it is clear in the sources, like the late Rebbe ZTL there is no
Ger Toshiv today, there are many sources who agree that a Noahide is treated as
one in many cases, like being allowed to live in Israel for example. But that
doesn’t make that Noahide a ‘Ger’
The term itself is found offensive by
some true Gerei Tzeddek because it negates the difficulties and sacrifices they
have made in order to undergo full conversion. Because of the effect this has
on true Gerim calling non-Jews ‘ger’ may even violate the commandment to ‘love
the ger’, which means the Ger Tzedek. (See Rambam Sefer HaMitzvos positive
command 207 and Sefer HaChinuch mitzvah 431 where it states explicitly this is a
ger tzedek who has completed conversion.)
*
One of the big issues is with
contradictions within the New Testament. Obviously someone who writes a book or
teaches and contradicts himself is a problem. We are not talking about minor
misstatements, which anyone can make, and do not indicate lack of qualification.
No book comes out without errors. However contradictions that effect key issues
and concepts are what we are concerned about.
In this case Katz’ book is a good
example. In the back he has two chapters which are almost the same in purpose. One
is an ‘Elucidation of Terms’ and the other a ‘Lexicon’. But when you read the
same definition/issue in both of them and compare you are led to total
confusion.
To give one example of the contradictions
if we compare what he says about Ben Noach gamor/kosher in both places there is
a clear contradiction. Page 141 says this means a gentile in the time of the
Jubilee who has accepted the laws before a rabbinic court. But on page 148 this
is a Ben Noach who has taken on more than the 7. In fact if you just compare
all the multiple categories of Ben Noach and Ger Toshiv in these 2 chapters you
will be totally confused.
If we compare what he says about these
terms with the Ritva, which he discusses on page 165, these definitions make no
sense and are totally confusing. It is either a clear contradiction or just an
indication of total confusion by the author.
I will be clarifying all the issues with
regards to this in the upcoming articles, but let me here summarize 99% of the
issues involved here:
1.
According to the Ritva, Ramban and basically all the Rabbinic
sources I have seen there are 3 categories of non-Jews:
a.
Those who do not follow the 7 Laws.
b.
Benei Noach/Noahides who do keep the 7.
c.
Ger Toshiv who are Noahides who have appeared before a Beis Din (Jewish
Court) to formally accept upon themselves the observance of the 7 mitzvos.
2.
Of those Noahides who keep the 7; according to the Rambam if they
do so because of a belief in the Torah of Moshe, then they are called Chasidei
Umos HaOlam (pious of the nations) and have a place in the world to come.
3.
There are views that a formal acceptance before three Jews of the 7
laws today have a spiritual benefit to the Noahide. (I agree and will discuss
it later)
4.
There is no Ger Toshiv today. Anything that would apply to a Ger Toshiv
(except what I discuss in the next point) does not apply.
5.
In some ways a Noahide is considered like a Ger Toshiv today (allowed
to live among us/forbidden to do harm to them) and they are therefore
considered like Gerei Toshiv, even though they are not.
6.
Tosephus (Avodah Zarah 64b Who is a Ger Toshiv) indicates #5
applies to any non-Jew who repudiates idol worship and has not been convicted
of violating any of the other laws. In this case the concept of ‘Ger’ as
opposed to a Noahide seems meaningless to Tosephus,
That’s it in simple words. In general all
teachers of Noahides really try to influence non-Jews to be Chassidei Umos
HaOlam. What appears above is the view of virtually every Rabbinic work on the
subject. Sometimes Katz seems to agree; other times clearly not. It is just
impossible to make out what he thinks at times.
*
Another issue is that of being deceptive
or being less than totally truthful. One of the obvious examples of this is
done by messianics, who while being non-Jews dress like Jews and imitate Jews
in various ways. I have seen non-Jewish Messianics who you would think they
were very religious Jews, even Rabbis or Rebbes.
There are many followers of Katz and
Clorfene who you would not know were not Jewish if you looked at them and
didn’t know.
We see a similar thing with Katz and his
book. It has a nice picture of him with a hat and suit jacket. That is the
’uniform’ of a Litvish or Yeshivish man. However in real life all the pictures
of him show him without hat or jacket, and looking like what is called
‘Chardel’. This is not a big point, and there is nothing wrong with that, but
many people would find it strange that the picture of him does not match how he
normally dresses.
Though not specifically deceptive, it is
interesting that Chaim Clorfene in his last missive (https://www.chaimclorfene.com/new-blog/2017/11/17/the-nilveh-imperative) uses the nickname ‘serious six’. His
followers use similar names as does Katz. But the Rambam is clear (Laws of
Repentance chapter 3 Halacha 14) that using nicknames for people, and even more
for Talmidei Chochamim (of which there are among the six) is one of the things
for which you lose your place in the world to come. (I will not even bring what
appears in Shaarei Tshuvah says on such things which is even stronger.) He is
misrepresenting himself when he acts that way.
*
The final issue is that it is really
common for Christian pastors to act as if they are prophets and have special
knowledge which makes them above others. One need only look at Chaim’s last
missive to see that this is a perfect description of him. Besides that he
insults the Baal Shem Tov and all the Holy men who follow in his teachings, whose
spiritual path was not Chaim’s.
There are various spiritual paths within
Judaism, so who is he to denigrate any of them? One thing is clear, it is a
sign of arrogance, which the Talmud teaches (Sotah 5a) that if one is arrogant,
HaShem cannot stand to be together with him. That is even ignoring his constant
attacks on Torah Judaism, which place him beyond the pale.
***
In conclusion, there are many Rabbis and
teachers out there, who are knowledgeable and what they teach has clear sources
in Halacha. They do not distort these sources, and even when there are issues on
which we disagree, we can agree that the views were arrived at within the
Halachic system, by people who understand the sources.
That is absolutely not the case with
Chaim Clorfene, and David Katz. I will be examining many of these issues in the
next articles in the hope that Katz and others will read them and reexamine
what they have misunderstood. Maybe it will influence them to change what they
are saying so they teach in accord with what is accepted.
***
I would like to point out that
unfortunately these articles will take time to finish. I have no intention of
making a book of this, nor making any money. I do not insist anyone follow me.
Just listen to those who teach Toras Emes. What I write is just to clarify and
spread Torah. But it will take time.
I again ask for comments, but keep it on
the topic and no personal attacks please.