Seder-Ing in Place: Is Togetherness a Jewish Virtue? Rabbi Ariel Rackovsky Shabbos Hagadol 5780

Seder-ing In Place: Is Togetherness a Jewish Virtue? Rabbi Ariel Rackovsky Shabbos Hagadol 5780

As usual, many thanks to my dear friend and colleague Rabbi Ben Skydell of

Congregation Orach Chaim of Manhattan, for his partnership in the preparation of this presentation. This year’s Shabbos Hagadol Derasha was prepared under circumstances vastly different from the usual. We usually begin preparing for

Shabbat Hagadol on Tu Bishvat; this year, we were ready by Purim with a fascinating presentation when COVID-19 reared its catastrophic head. It became clear to us that we had to rework quickly the ideas we had been planning for several months. Rabbi Skydell’s incisive intellect helped us reframe our discussion so that our subject matter was timely yet timeless. Congregation Orach Chaim is blocks away from Mount Sinai Hospital, one of the most overworked hospitals in the treatment of

COVID-19, and many of the other New York hospitals in the heart of the pandemic are also nearby. Rabbi Skydell delivered his drasha this evening about an hour ago; I wish him, his family and his community continued good health and pray that we both deliver next year’s Shabbos Hagadol Derashah to our communities in person.

When we sit down to the Seder this year and begin asking questions, there is one to which we will all know the answer. “In what way is this night different from all other nights?” All of us feel an acute difference between

Pesach this year, and that celebrated every other year of our lives.

Pesach-the holiday of family, of gathering as a group, of sharing with

others, is going to be experienced in profoundly different ways than normal. People who typically host Sedarim of legendary sizes will have dramatically reduced forces. Rabbi Haskel and Audrey Lookstein, the legendary Rabbi and Rebbetzin Emeritus of Congregation Kehillath

Jeshurun in Manhattan, were scheduled to travel to Israel for Pesach as they’ve done for many years. This year, they were to be joined in Jerusalem by their entire extended family, numbering over 35 children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, in celebration of their 60th anniversary. Instead, each of those family units will be in their own homes and, for the first time ever- at 88 years old, Rabbi and Mrs. Lookstein will be alone together for

Pesach. Those who have been guests at the Sedarim of others- often the same ones for decades- will be observing a Seder for one for the first, and hopefully the last time. We are in a unique moment in which, due to life and death situations, we will override the Jewish value of being together in order to fulfill “v’chai bahem”- that the Torah is meant to be lived through, and not to die for. To put it in starker terms, a Seder shared together could lead to a Shiva observed alone. As we reflect on a Seder in solitude, on Seder-ing in place, I would like to pose another question, on top of the many others the

Seder night will engender this year. Is togetherness always a Jewish value?

Which practices of ours encourage togetherness, and which oppose it? In exploring these questions, I would also like to ponder what this can teach us

about our circumstances, and what it can teach us about our Jewish lives after this moment has passed.

Ha Lachma Anya

Every year, we begin the Seder the same way- with the Aramaic declaration

Ha Lachma Anya, this is the bread of affliction. We continue with an invitation-

ָהא ַל ְחָמא ַענְיָא ִדּי ֲאָכלוּ ְאַבָה ָתָנא ְב ְאַרָעא ְד ִמְצָריִם. ָכּל ִדְכִפין יֵ ֵיתי וְיֵיכֹל, ָכּל ִדְצִר ְיך יֵ ֵיתי וְיְִפ ַסח.

This is the bread of destitution that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Anyone who is famished should come and eat, anyone who is in need should come and partake of the Pesach sacrifice.

There are a few problems with this invitation. First, it is too late; if we want people to join our Seder, we should invite them to do so before Pesach.

Second, if it is designed to invite people to partake of the Paschal sacrifice, that is actually prohibited. The Talmud in Tractate Pesachim (91a) describes the parameters for the consumption of a Korban Pesach:

Talmud Bavli Masechet Pesachim 91a מתני׳ אין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד דברי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי מתיר ואפילו חבורה של מאה שאינן יכולין לאכול כזית אין שוחטין עליהן...

MISHNA: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual, only for a group of people; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei permits it.

And even if there is a group of one hundred who together are unable to eat an olive-bulk of it, we do not slaughter on their behalf....

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מנין שאין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד תלמוד לומר לא תוכל לזבח את הפסח באחד דברי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי אומר יחיד ויכול לאכלו שוחטין עליו עשרה ואין יכולין לאכלו אין שוחטין עליהן GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that we do not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf on an individual? The verse states: “You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates, which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:5). The phrase “in any one” is expounded to mean: For any one person, which indicates that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of an individual; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei says: If there is an individual and he is able to eat an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, one slaughters it on his behalf; whereas if there are ten people and they are unable to eat together an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, we do not slaughter it on their behalf.

The Talmud records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning whether the Korban Pesach could be slaughtered for an individual. According to Rabbi Yehuda, this would be prohibited, but according to Rabbi Yosei, it would be permitted so long as the individual could consume enough of it. Regardless, partaking of the Korban Pesach alone seems to be less than ideal. The Rambam’s language is instructive in this regard.

Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach Chapter 2 Halacha 2 יִָחיד ֶשׁ ָשּׁ ַחט ֶאת ַהֶפַּסח ְלַעְצמוֹ ָכּ ֵשׁר. וְהוּא ֶשׁיְִּהיֶה ָראוּי ֶלֱאכוֹל ֶאת ֻכּלּוֹ. וּ ִמ ְשׁ ַתְּדִּלין ֶשׁלֹּא יִ ְשׁ ַחט ְלַכ ְתּ ִחָלּה ַעל יִָחיד ֶשֶׁנֱּא ַמר (שמות יב מז) (במדבר ט יא יב) "יֲַעשׂוּ אֹתוֹ": When one individual sacrifices a Paschal sacrifice for himself alone, it is acceptable, provided he is capable of partaking of it in its entirety. As an initial preference, an endeavor is made not to sacrifice the Paschal sacrifice for the sake of one individual alone, for Numbers 9:12 states: "They shall offer it." The Korban Pesach is meant to be shared in a group- but even that group is exclusive. You cannot “drop in” on a Korban Pesach, or issue a last minute invitation to others to join. The guest list must be prepared and sealed in advance and only those who are “subscribers” to a Korban and were invited in advance may participate in it.

Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach Chapter 2 Halakhoth 1-2 ֵאין ֲשׁוֹח ִטין ֶאת ַהֶפּ ַסח ֶאָלּא ִל ְמנוּיָיו ֶשֶׁנּ ֱא ַמר (שמות יב ד) " ָתּכֹסּוּ ַעל ַה ֶשּׂה" ְמַלֵמּד ֶשׁ ִמּ ְת ַמנִּים ָעָליו ְכּ ֶשׁהוּא ַחי. וְֵאלּוּ ַה ִמּ ְת ַמנִּים ַעל ַהֶפּ ַסח ֵהם ַהנְִּקָר ִאים ְבֵּני ֲח ָבוּרה:

The Paschal sacrifice should be slaughtered only for the sake of those who were enumerated for partaking of it, as Exodus 13:4 states: "Everyone... should be enumerated on the lamb." The implication is that one should be enumerated on it while it is alive. Those enumerated on a Paschal sacrifice are referred to as "the members of the company."

The dialectic between openness and exclusivity, togetherness and separation, is one that can be found in other areas of halacha that govern eating.

The Talmud in Tractate Sotah records a decree that Rabbi Yochanan the

Kohen Gadol issued as a result of an empirical observation he made.

Collecting data from throughout the land of Israel, he saw that people were not particularly punctilious when it came to the observance of Terumah and Maaser. The only common observance in this regard was Terumah Gedolah, where 1/50 of a person’s produce is given to a Kohen. Other contributions, like Maaser, were not widely observed. It seems that “social Orthodoxy,” or selective observance, was common even in the days of the Beit Hamikdash!

Rabbi Yochanan was appalled; after all, Maaser carries with it a severe punishment if it is not taken. In order to promote observance, he declared that any produced purchased from an Am Ha’Aretz, from an ignoramus or at least from someone who is lax in his observance, had to have Terumah and Maaser taken off after purchase. Talmud Bavli Masechet Sotah 48a

לפי ששלח בכל גבול ישראל וראה שאין מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד ומעשר ראשון ומעשר שני

מקצתן מעשרין ומקצתן אין מעשרין אמר להם בני בואו ואומר לכם כשם שתרומה גדולה יש בה עון

מיתה כך תרומת מעשר וטבל יש בהן עון מיתה עמד והתקין להם הלוקח פירות מע"ה מפריש מהן מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני מעשר ראשון מפריש ממנה תרומת מעשר ונותנה לכהן ומעשר שני עולה ואוכלו בירושלים מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

Why did he (Rabbi Yohanan the High Priest) issue this decree? Because he sent messengers throughout the land, to all the borders of Eretz Yisrael to investigate, and saw that they would separate only teruma gedola, and as for first tithe and second

tithe, some people would tithe and some people would not tithe. He said to them: My sons, come and I will tell you something: Just as the halakhot of teruma gedola include a transgression punishable by death at the hand of God, as one who ate produce from which teruma has not been separated is punished with death from

Heaven, so too, the teruma of the tithe, the portion the Levites must separate from their first tithe and give to priests, and untithed produce, these include a transgression punishable by death at the hand of God, if the produce is eaten without the tithes having been taken. Realizing that it was uncertain with regard to whether or not people were separating tithes, he arose and instituted an ordinance for them with regard to doubtfully tithed produce: One who purchases produce from an am ha’aretz,which may or may not have been tithed, must separate from the produce first tithe and second tithe due to the uncertainty as to whether or not the am ha’aretz separated them. As for first tithe, he then separates teruma of the tithe from it and gives it to a priest, and with regard to second tithe, he goes up and eats it in

Jerusalem. However, with regard to the giving of first tithe to the Levite, and the poor man’s tithe, which can be eaten by anyone, as the Levites and the poor only have monetary rights to the produce, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Since the Levites and the poor cannot prove that these tithes had not already been set aside by the am ha’aretz, they cannot force the buyer to give them those tithes.

This is the background for Mishnah in Masechet Demai, the tractate that deals with produce whose Terumah and Maaser status is in doubt. The Mishnah discusses a case wherein someone purchased fruits or vegetables

from someone not known to be reliable in the area of tithing, which is obligatory in the land of Israel.

Mishnah Masechet Demai Chapter 4 Mishnah 1 ַה ֵלּוֹק ַח ֵפּרוֹת ִמ ִמּי ֶשֵׁאינוֹ ֶנ ֱאָמן ַעל ַה ַמַּע ְשׂרוֹת, וְָשַׁכח ְלַע ְשָּׂרן, וְ ֲשׁוֹאלוֹ ְב ַשָׁבּת, יֹ ַאכל ַעל ִפּיו. ָח ְשָׁכה ָמוֹצֵאי ֹ ֹ ַשָׁבּת, לא יֹ ַאכל ַעד ֶשׁיְַּע ֵשּׂר. לא ְמָצאוֹ, ַאָמר לוֹ ֶאָחד ֶשֵׁאינוֹ ֶנ ֱאָמן ַעל ַה ַמַּע ְשׂרוֹת, ְמֻע ָשִּׂרין ֵהן, ֵאוֹכל ַעל ִפּיו. ֹ ָח ְשָׁכה ָמוֹצֵאי ַשָׁבּת, לא יֹ ַאכל ַעד ֶשׁיְַּע ֵשּׂר. ְתּ ַרוּמת ַמֲע ֵשׂר ֶשׁל ְדּ ַמאי ֶשָׁחְזָרה ִל ְמ ָקוֹמהּ, ַרִבּי ִשׁ ְמעוֹן ְשׁ ִזוּרי ֵאוֹמר, אַף ְבּחֹל ֲשׁוֹאלוֹ וְ ְאוֹכלוֹ ַעל ִפּיו: One who buys produce from someone who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes, and he forgot to tithe it, and he asked [the seller] on Shabbat [if they were tithed], he may eat based on his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. If he could not find the seller, and another person who was not trustworthy in respect of tithes said to him “they are tithed,” he may eat of it at his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. Terumat maaser of demai which had become mixed up again [with the produce] from which it had been taken: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even on a week day he may ask the seller and eat based on his word.

The buyer intended to remove his own tithes but forgot to do so before

Shabbos. On Shabbos, he ran into the seller in shul and asked him if, by any chance, the peppers he purchased had been tithed, and the seller answered in the affirmative. Can the seller be believed? Normally, he would not be.

The Mishnah renders a strange ruling: As long as it is Shabbos, the seller may eat the peppers without any further work necessary on his part. The moment Shabbos is over, however, he can eat no further unless he tithes.

This is true even if he cannot find the seller, and someone else who is not

reliable in this department tells him that the peppers had been tithed. What is so special about Shabbos that suddenly the seller, or the person with lax tithing standards, is considered reliable?

The Talmud Yerushalmi asserts, in response to this question, that even those who are not meticulous about the observance of tithing are careful about the honor of Shabbos. They will not desecrate the Shabbos by cutting corners (per the Rambam), and will not sully the holiness of Shabbos by lying (per the Pnei Moshe).

Talmud Yerushalmi Masechet Demai Chapter 4 Halacha 1 (Translation by Jacob Neusner) גמ' חברייא בשם רבי יוחנן מפני כבוד שבת התירו. אם מפני כבוד שבת למה לי שואלו ע"י עילה ר' ביבי בשם רבי חנינא אימת שבת עליו והוא אומר אמת ואם אימת שבת עליו בדה תנינן חשיכה מוצאי שבת לא יאכל עד שיעשר מפני אחד שאין אימת שבת עליו…

The scholars in the name of R. Yochanan [said], “For the honor of the Sabbath they permitted [him to eat the produce he purchased, without having to separate its tithes].” If the reason [for the Mishnah’s ruling] is the honor of the Sabbath, why

[does the Mishnah state], He asks him [the vendor]? [So that he may eat without tithing] by means of a pretext? R. Bibi in the name of R. Hanina [said], “The fear of

[the sanctity of] the Sabbath is upon him [the vendor] do that he will tell the truth [in this situation when he is asked about the status of the produce he sold.]” Now if [the reason for the Mishnah’s ruling is that] the fear of [the sanctity of] the Sabbath is upon him, [why] in this [same case] have we learned, [But] at nightfall at the close of the Sabbath, he should not eat until he has tithed [the produce]? [The

Mishnah-clause scruples] because of [the possibility of] a single [am ha’aretz vendor] who does not stand in awe of [the sanctity of] the Sabbath [and therefore might lie about the status of the produce that he sold].

In this example, we relax a rule that normally places barriers between people due to differing standards. This way, they can share Shabbos together with others or, at minimum, increase their options in menu planning for a joyous Shabbos meal for themselves. In this case, Shabbos itself is the catalyst for suspending our usual structures to allow more options.

Jerusalem

Indeed, it is not just the time, but a combination of the time and place that causes us to suspend judgements, and to trust people of whom we would normally be suspicious. Psalm 122 extols the virtues of Jerusalem as a connecting city.

Tehillim 122:3

יְ ָרוּשַׁ֥לִם ַהְבּנוּיָ֑ה ְכִּ֝ע֗יר ֶשׁ ֻחְבָּר ָה־לּ֥הּ יְַחָֽדּו׃

Jerusalem built up, a city knit together,

In what way is Jerusalem connected together? The simple reading might be that it was, at the time, a small city enclosed by walls. Nowadays, it could

mean that you are connected in Jerusalem because that is where you will encounter everyone you have ever known. Sadly, this year, that interpretation rings hollow as the State of Israel is on lockdown and

Jerusalem, usually teeming around holidays, is emptier than it has been in recent memory. This is why the explanation of the Talmud might resonate more this year:

א"ר יהושע בן לוי (תהילים קכב, ג) ירושלם הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדיו עיר שהיא עושה כל ישראל

לחברים

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:6

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said: “The built-up Jerusalem is like a city that was joined

(chubra) together within itself.” (Psalms 122:3) A city which makes all of Israel friends (chaverim – also a term for those who are trustworthy regarding tithes and matters of ritual purity).

Merely being in Jerusalem confers on a person the status of trustworthiness that we might not otherwise impute to them. For the rest of the year, those pilgrims who came to Jerusalem on the festivals adhered to different, and in some cases more lax standards regarding tithes and ritual purity. Under normal circumstances, people might not be able to break bread together with one another, because of the justifiable wariness of those who are stricter of those who are more lax. In Jerusalem, on the holidays, all this changed. Perhaps it is the respect everyone feels or the holiness of

Jerusalem or the elevated feeling of the holiday that encourages everyone to

keep to a higher standard. Perhaps it is the desire to be able to share the

Yom Tov with friends and loved ones that causes adherence to the highest

common denominator. The Rambam in the Guide to the Perplexed seems

to favor the latter interpretation when he explains what the purpose was of

the three festivals in Jerusalem:

אבל ה'ימים הטובים' הם כולם לשמחה ולקיבוצים שיש בהם הנאה שבני אדם צריכים אליהם ברוב; ויש מהם תועלת גם כן בענין האהבה שצריך שתהיה בין בני אדם בקיבוצים המדיניים.

Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed 3:43

Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant gathering as people

generally need. They also promote the good feeling that men should have to each

other in their social and political relations.

Social interaction was the purpose of the aliyah leregel, the thrice-annual pilgrimage. It stands to reason that this status was granted to allow people to

interact with one another unfettered, without concern that they might

compromise their personal standards.

Once again, we find a balance between rules that normally serve as a barrier

to social interaction- halachic social distancing, if you will- and the

application of those rules in a way that can foster community and

connection. We find another instance of this balance in what might be a

fairly common scenario in our homes. Normally, a meat meal and a dairy

meal are not allowed to be served together on the same table, at the same time. This prohibition is in effect as a barrier against socializing, which could lead to sharing food and consuming meat and milk together. The

Shulchan Aruch (YD 88:2) qualifies this ruling, saying that it is limited to people who know one another. The concern is that when people know and are comfortable with one another, they will relax their guard and potentially end up mixing meat and dairy together. Conversely, there is less concern that strangers will end up fraternizing in this way. Even two acquaintances would be permitted to dine together so long as there is an object between them that is not usually present on the table, that clearly demarcates between the two diners. In this way, we preserve the distance between the two, yet we also are able to apply the law to create a sense of togetherness.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 88:2 ָהא ְדּאָסוּר ְלַהֲעלוֹתוֹ ַעל ַה ֻשְּׁלָחן, ַדּוְָקא ִבּ ְשׁנֵי ְבּנֵי אָָדם ַהַמִּכּיִרים זֶה ֶאת זֶה, ֲאִפלּוּ ֵהם ַמְקִפּיִדים זֶה ַעל זֶה; ֲאָבל אְַכְסנִָאים, ֶשֵׁאין ַמִכּיִרין זֶה ֶאת זֶה, ֻמָתּר. וֲַאִפלּוּ ַהַמִּכּיִרים, ִאם ָעשׂוּ שׁוּם ֶהֵכּר, ְכּגוֹן ֶשָׁכּל ֶאָחד אוֵֹכל ַעל ַמָפּה ֶשׁלּוֹ, אוֹ ֲאִפלּוּ אוְֹכִלים ַעל ַמָפּה אַַחת וְנוְֹתנִים ֵבּינֵיֶהם ַפּת ְלֶהֵכּר, ֻמָתּר. ַהגָּה: וְַדוְָקא ֶשֵׁאין ְאוֹכִלין ִמן ַהַפּת ַהֻמּנָּח ֵבּינֵ ֶיהם ְלֶהֵכּר, ֲאָבל ִאם ְאוֹכִלין ִמֶמּנּוּ, לֹא ָהוֵי ֶהֵכּר, ִדְּבָלאו ָהֵכי ַהַפּת ֶשׁ ְאוֹכִלין ִמֶמּנּוּ ֻמנָּח ַעל ַה ֻשְּׁלָחן (אָרְֹך וְַהגָּהוֹת ֲא ֵשִׁר''י). ֲאָבל ִאם נְָתנוּ ֵבּינֵ ֶיהם ְכִּלי ֶשׁ ִשּׁוֹתין ִמֶמּנּוּ, ְוּבָלאו ָהֵכי ֵאין ַדְּרכּוֹ ִלְהיוֹת ַעל ַה ֻשְּׁלָחן, ָהוֵי ֶהֵכּר אַף ַעל ִפּי ֶשׁ ִשּׁוֹתין ִמן ַהְכִּלי ֵ(בּית ֵיוֹסף ְבּא''ח ִס ָימן קע''ג). וְָכל ֶשֵׁכּן ִאם נְָתנוּ ָשׁם ְמ ָנוֹרה, אוֹ ְשׁאָר ְדָּבִרים ֶשַׁעל ַה ֻשְּׁלָחן, ְדָּהוֵי ֶהֵכּר. וְיְִהיוּ זְִה ִירים ֶשׁלֹּא ִל ְשׁתּוֹת ִמְכִּלי ֶאָחד, ִמשּׁוּם ֶשַׁהַמֲּאָכל נְִדָבּק ַבְּכִּלי ַ(הגָּ''ה ֲא ֵשִׁר''י ואו''ה). וְָכל ֶשֵׁכּן ֶשׁלֹּא יֹ ְאכלוּ ִמַפּת ַאַחת. וְֵכן ֲנוֹהגִין ְליֵַחד ְכִּלי ֶשׁל ֶמַלח ְלָכל ֶאָחד ִבְּפנֵי ַעְצמוֹ, ִכּי ִלְפָעִמים ְטוֹבִלים ְבֶּמַלח וְנְִשֲׁארוּ ִשׁ ֵיוּרי ַמֲאָכל ְבֶּמַלח.

That which is forbidden to put together on the same table, that is precisely only with two men who recognize each other, even if they insist on not sharing food with each

other. However, for guests who don't recognize one another, it is permitted. And even by those who recognize each other, if they make any sign, such as if each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on a single tablecloth but they place bread between themselves as a sign, it is permitted.

Rema: And this is precisely if they don't eat from the bread that's placed between them as a sign, but if they eat from it, it is no longer considered a sign, because even without this purpose, bread from which they eat from is placed on the table. But if they placed a drinking vessel between themselves, and if not for this purpose it is not normal for it to be on the table, it would be a sign even if they drink from the vessel.

And of course if they place on [the table] a candelabra or other items on the table that they are [valid] signs. And they should be careful not to drink from a single vessel because food sticks to the vessel. And of course they should not eat from the same bread. And so is our custom to have individual salt-vessels for each person themselves, because sometimes when they dip into the salt there remains leftovers of the food in the salt.

The Shulchan Aruch is keenly aware of the tension between maintaining standards and promoting togetherness, and allows the latter when the former is ensured.

I recently heard a story of a Torah giant who wrestled with, and found a solution to, a similar challenge. Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, the

legendary Ponevezher Rav, used to travel throughout the world raising funds for his illustrious Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak. Rising from the ashes of the Holocaust, in which his first wife and children were murdered, he was indefatigable in his single-minded quest to rebuild the Lithuanian

Yeshiva world that had been so brutally destroyed, and to perpetuate Torah in Israel. As he traveled throughout the world, he was uncertain about the standards of his hosts and of the communities he visited, so he adopted a personal stringency that while he was in the United States, he refrained from eating meat. Since he did not know whose shechitah was trustworthy and whose was not, he felt it was better to avoid the issue completely than to potentially give offense to his hosts and Rabbinic partners and, parenthetically, lose donors as a result. One of his trips brought him here to

Dallas, where he fully intended on complying with his usual practice.

However, in advance of his visit, he was told of a local Shochet of the highest caliber, on whose shechitah anyone could rely. His name was Yankev Meyer Vider, known locally to generations of Dallasites as the legendary

Cantor Max Wider. At the tender age of 16, Cantor Wider had received

Rabbinic ordination from Rav Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rav, who encouraged him to study shechitah and later milah as well. The Ponevezher Rav asked to meet with Cantor Wider, and proceeded to test him thoroughly on the laws of ritual slaughter. When he was satisfied with

Cantor Wider’s book knowledge, he asked to inspect his chalaf, his shechitah

knife, to see if it was sharp enough. That inspection also proved satisfactory, and he allowed Cantor Wider to slaughter some chickens for him- one of the only times he ever made an exception to his otherwise steadfast rule.

Cantor Wider experienced the same kinds of horrors the Ponevezer Rav did, losing his first family in the Holocaust. But he described that day- the day the Ponevezher Rav approved his shechitah- as the happiest day of his life. Here too, the Rav made a decision in favor of togetherness, but he did not change his standards- he changed his practice.

Rav Moshe Feinstein

Another fascinating case of the tension between maintaining standards on the one hand and connection on the other, between togetherness and separation, was addressed by another Torah giant, Rav Moshe Feinstein.

When Rav Moshe was still a Rav in Russia, he was asked about what was a tragically common case at the time. Traditionally observant parents who often were supported by, or lived with children who had left the path of

Jewish tradition. Aside from violating kashrut, they were often atheists, perhaps even anti-religious. Rav Moshe was asked whether it was possible for such a couple to rely on the kashrus of their daughter in law whom they knew, from numerous encounters, to be an honorable person who would respect and honor their religious dietary requirements, and who would

never deliberately lead them astray. Rav Moshe offered a reply based on his analysis on a fascinating passage in Tractate Kesubos:

Talmud Bavli Masechet Ketuvot 85a ההיא איתתא דאיחייבא שבועה בי דינא דרבא אמרה ליה בת רב חסדא ידענא בה דחשודה אשבועה אפכה רבא לשבועה אשכנגדה זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה רב פפא ורב אדא בר מתנא אייתו ההוא שטרא גביה א"ל רב פפא ידענא ביה דשטרא פריעא הוא א"ל איכא איניש אחרינא בהדי' דמר א"ל לא א"ל אע"ג דאיכא מר עד אחד לאו כלום הוא א"ל רב אדא בר מתנא ולא יהא רב פפא כבת רב חסדא בת רב חסדא קים לי בגווה מר לא קים לי בגוויה

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath in order to avoid payment in Rava’s court. The daughter of

Rav Ḥisda said to Rava, her husband: I know that she is suspect with regard to taking a false oath. Rava reversed the obligation of the oath so that it fell onto the other party, who now had the option of taking an oath that the woman owes him money and collecting his debt. This is how to act when the court does not trust the one who is obligated to take an oath.

The Gemara continues: On another occasion, Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar

Mattana were sitting before Rava. A certain document was brought before Rava to be examined in court. Rav Pappa said to Rava: I know about this document, that it records a debt that has already been paid. Rava said to him: Is there another person who can testify with the Master about the document? He said to him: No, I am the only one who knows. Rava said to him: Although there is the Master here who attests that the document has been paid, one witness is nothing. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: And should Rav Pappa not be trusted like Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, who as a woman is disqualiﬁed from testimony? Rava replied: I relied on Rav Ḥisda’s daughter because I know with certainty about her that she is always truthful.

However, I cannot rely on the Master because I do not know with the same degree of certainty about him that he is always truthful, and I cannot rule on the basis of one witness unless I have complete certainty.

There are two ways to determine the reliability of a person: Ne’emanut, or the presumption of reliability, which is based on a lack of certainty regarding the behavior of another person. All we can do is assume that a person is reliable based on what we think we know about him or her. But knowing a person intimately, and observing their actions repeatedly and up close, is different. That is more like an empirical observation and carries much greater halachic weight. This is why the daughter of Rav Chisda,

Rava’s wife, was believed. She knew, for certain, that this woman was not trustworthy and was liable to swear falsely to protect her own interests- and

Rava had observed Rav Chisda’s daughter up close for long enough to know that she was always truthful. In the second story, however, Rav Pappa was certain that the document in question recorded a debt that had already been paid...but Rava had not observed Rav Pappa constantly, and was uncertain about the consistency of his reliability. All he had to go on was a presumption. Eyewitness testimony, as manifest in certainty established through years of careful observation and intimate knowledge, is so powerful that it allows a woman- who normally does not render testimony- to do so even though she is one person, and in general, the testimony of a single

witness is prohibited. But the Torah places limits on ne’emanut; when operating with a presumption of trust, even the most trustworthy individuals, like Moshe and Aharon themselves, would not be permitted to testify on their own as single witnesses.

Based on this passage, Rav Moshe found room for leniency in the situation he described.

Shu”t Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah I:54 ליובאן. בהיותי במאסקווא בשנת תרצ"ד נשאלתי בדבר שהאבות ניזונים במדינה הזאת בעוה"ר על שלחן בניהם ובנותיהם האוכלים נבלות וכל דבר איסור ורובם הם כופרים בה' ובתורתו ושבקי היתרא ואכלי איסורא וא"כ אין נאמנים על איסורים ואין להאבות החלושים והזקנים עצה איך לאכול בשר כשצריכים לבריאותם וגם לא כל דבר מבושל דאף שסתם כלים אינם בני יומן מ"מ הרי הוא כלכתחלה כיון שקבע מושבו אצלם.

Luban: When I was on Moscow in the year 1934, I was asked about the matter of parents in this country who are supported, in our abundant sins, at the tables of their sons and daughters who eat non-kosher meat and all sorts of prohibited foods, the majority of whom deny God and his Torah. They leave eschew permitted food in favor of prohibited food, and are therefore untrustworthy about prohibited matters, leaving their elderly parents with no recourse concerning eating meat which is necessary for their health, or for anything cooked, because all their utensils are presumed to have been used within 24 hours...and since the parents live in the same house as their children, the situation is considered ab initio and does not lend itself to certain leniencies that might otherwise apply.

וחדשתי שיש מקום להקל להרבה אנשים, באם האב יודע וקים ליה בגוה דבתו וכלתו שלא יכשילוהו באיסור משום דמכיר טבעה בידיעה ברורה ע"י שניסה אותה הרבה פעמים וראה שאינה מכשילתו מטעם שאינה רוצה לצערו או שטבעה שלא להעביר אחרים על דעתם, יכול לסמוך עליה ולאכול מה שמבשלת בעדו מבשר וכל דבר כשאמרה לו שהוא מבשר כשר ובכלים שהזמינה עבורו. משום שלא נכנס זה בגדר נאמנות אלא בידיעה עצמית שהוא כראיה ממש כיון שיודע בברור שאינה משקרת לו. I came up with a novel solution wherein it is possible to be lenient for many people, if

the father knows and is certain that his daughter-in-law will not cause him to

violate prohibitions because he unequivocally knows her nature, since he has tested

her many times and saw that she does not cause him to stumble because she does not

want to cause him sorrow or that her nature is that she does not want to force others

to violate their religious practices. In such a case, he can rely on her and eat what she

cooks, whether it is meat or anything else, if she says it is kosher meat or on utensils

she prepared for him. This is not a matter of trustworthiness, but rather is a matter

of personal knowledge, which is like seeing with one’s own eyes, because he knows for

certain she will not lie to him.

[וראיה גדולה לזה מהא דכתובות דף פ"ה דהימנה רבא לבת ר"ח לאפוכי שבועה אשכנגדה וא"ר פפא השתא דאמר מר קים לי בגויה מלתא הוא כגון אבא מר ברי מרענא שטרא אפומיה והרי הוא דבר שצריך שני עדים דמטעם זה לא האמין רבא לר"פ לאורועי שטרא דאין אחד נאמן להוציא שטר חתום מיד המחזיק בו כדאיתא ברש"י ומ"מ מועיל קים לי בגויה לאורועי שטרא. אף שודאי אין סברא לומר דרבא לא היה מאמין בר"פ כבת ר"ח דהא הקשה ר' אדא בן מתנא לא יהא ר"פ כבת ר"ח חזינן דלא גרע ר"פ מבת ר"ח דאל"כ לא היה לו מה להקשות אם היה שייך להסתפק שמא בת ר"ח גדולה בצדקתה מר"פ וגם רבא לא השיב לו שבת ר"ח גדולה מר"פ אלא ודאי דר"פ היה מוחזק בחסידות עוד יותר מבת ר"ח ושגם רבא ידע זה ולכן הקשה שפיר וא"כ צריך להבין טעם רבא מ"ט גרע ר"פ מבת ר"ח.] There is a major proof for this in the Talmud, tractate Ketubot 85 concerning the

trust Rava placed in the daughter of Rav Chisda to the degree that he exempted her

from taking an oath. Rav Pappa said that since Rava asserted that he believes this

woman...

וצריך לומר דמצד נאמנות היינו שאינו יודע בידיעה עצמית שאינו משקר רק מחמת שהוא צדיק וחסיד יודעין שלא משקר ויש להאמינו, אינו כלום להאמינו ביחידי דהתורה נתנה גבול שאף משה ואהרן אין נאמנים ביחידי לדיני ממון כמו כל אדם שהם בחזקת כשרות ולא נתנה תורה לשיעורים שכל אחד יאמין מי שרוצה ולכן כל כח הנאמנות נתנה תורה לכל איש שסתמו הוא בחזקת כשרות כמו לצדיק וחסיד היותר גדול בעולם כמשה ואהרן והצריכה דוקא שנים. אבל זהו רק מדין נאמנות שלא מכיר האיש וטבעו ומדותיו בעצם רק מצד חזקתו אבל אם יודע ומכיר את האיש בעצם מצד טבעותיו ומנהגיו שניסהו הרבה פעמים וראה שאינו משקר אין זה מצד נאמנות אלא הוא כראיה ממש כיון שהוא ידיעה עצמית שיודע ומכירו שלא מצד חזקות. [ולכן אף שודאי ידע רבא שר"פ איש נאמן כיון שהוא צדיק וחסיד עוד יותר מבת ר"ח אבל עכ"פ הוא רק מצד חזקתו ונכנס בגדר נאמנות שע"ז נתנה תורה גבול שאף משה ואהרן אין נאמנים ביחידי כסתם איש. וזהו מה שאמר רבא אע"ג דאיכא מר ע"א לאו כלום הוא פי' אף שברי לי שאינך משקר מ"מ ע"א לאו כלום הוא דהתורה פסלו שלא ניתן לשיעורין ושאני בת ר"ח שקים לי בגוה פי' ידיעה עצמית שלא נכנס בגדר נאמנות אלא כראיה שלו ממש. וזה שלא קרעינן שטרא אפומיה הוא מחמת שהרי רק לר"פ נאמן אבא מר בריה ולדיינים אחרים שאין מכירין אותו בעצם הרי לא יאמינו לו יותר מסתם איש ולכן אינו יכול לקרוע השטר שהוא כשר אצל דיינים אחרים ורק שהוא אינו יכול להזדקק לו ודנהו כשטר פסול כפרש"י.] It therefore follows that trustworthiness applies when there is no personal knowledge

that a person is not lying- only the knowledge that a person who is righteous and

pious does not lie and should be trusted, and such a person cannot be believed to

render testimony as a single witness. This is because the Torah itself placed barriers

on trustworthiness- even Moses and Aaron are not believed to testify as single

witnesses with regard to financial matters, like any other person with a presumption

of integrity. The Torah did not discriminate in this regard, and allow anyone to rely

on whomever they wish, and therefore, the Torah bestowed the power of

trustworthiness on anyone with the presumption of integrity, equating them with the

most righteous people such as Moses and Aaron, and therefore required two people.

This is only with regard to trustworthiness, where a person does not know the other

person, his nature and his character, and is only familiar with his presumption of

integrity. But if the person actually knows the other person on account of his nature

and his behaviors that have been tested many times, and he saw that the person does

not lie- that is not an issue of trustworthiness, but rather a matter of personal knowledge, in that he knows the person and does not need to rely on presumptions.

...ולכן בשעת הדחק ולאנשים חלושים יש להקל אם יודע בברור שקים ליה בגוה מצד טבעותיה ומנהגיה באיזה נסיונות שלא תכשילהו לסמוך עליה ולאכול ממה שמבשלת בעדו ואמרה שעשתה בהכשר אבל לאחרים ושלא בשעת הדחק ולבריאים יש להחמיר. משה פיינשטיין. Therefore, in situations of extreme duress, for people who are weak, one should be lenient if it is known, with certainty, that she is trustworthy to him as a result of her nature and her customary behaviors that she will not lead him astray. In such cases, he may rely upon her and eat when she cooks for him when she says it is kosher. For others, however, and in situations with no duress, and for those who are healthy, one should be stringent.

Moshe Feinstein

Rav Moshe recognized that in most circumstances, it would be preferable- and perhaps even forbidden- for this couple to eat with their children.

Concerns of togetherness would not trump halachic integrity and would not be grounds to compromise meticulous observance. Indeed, it was not concerns of “togetherness” that motivated Rav Moshe’s leniency in this matter; it was the simple fact that this couple, and many others like them, were feeble and needed to eat. Rav Moshe made this clear when he qualified this ruling, asserting that this leniency only applied to those who were in these particular dire circumstances. Those who are healthy, who are not living in these situations of duress, have no such recourse.

This year, Rav Moshe’s ruling is oddly, tragically and ironically resonant.

Rav Moshe’s innovation allowed elderly parents to dine with their children so they could live; Now, Rabbis are telling them to dine apart from their children for the same reason.

Mishing

In facing the tension between togetherness and exclusivity, there is a unique application to Pesach as well- an application that was originally supposed to be the subject of this derashah. You may be familiar with people who have the custom of not eating anywhere outside their own homes on Pesach, and you may even follow this practice yourself. Even those who will eat at the homes of others on a regular Shabbos or Yom Tov will refrain from this practice on Pesach, a custom known colloquially as mishing, or “mixing.” If you don’t know of anyone, you now do, as this has been my family’s custom for generations. Some people (not in my family) take this practice to an extreme, only purchasing fresh and raw ingredients and avoiding essentially all prepared products made for Pesach. What is the source of this practice?

Rabbi Gavriel Zinner, a noted Halachic authority in Brooklyn, offers an innovative and textually faithful explanation from the great Chassidic

master Rav Aharon Rokeach (1880-1957), the fourth Rebbe of the Belz

Chassidic movement.

Nitei Gavriel Hilchot Pesach Volume III-19:4, footnote 6 המנהג שלא לאכל איש אצל רעהו בפסח, וכל שלא לשאול מחבירו כלי אכילה וכן לא ישאיל כליו לחבירו. There are those that have a custom not to eat at their friend’s house on Pesach, and they will also refrain from borrowing cooking utensils from their friends, as well as lending such utensils also.

…ומר״ן מהר״א מבעלזא זי״ע אמר רמז למנהג זה דבפרשת ראה כתיב בפרשת חג השבועות ושמחת לפני ד״א אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי אשר בשעריך ובסוכות כתיב שם ושמחת בחגך אתה וגו׳ כמו בשבועות, ואלו בפסח לא כתיב כן לרמז שבפסח אין אחד מתארח אצל חבירו עכ״ד...וכאן המקום להאיר על אלו שמקפידים על המנהג שאין אוכלין אצל חבירו אפילו אצל מדקדק ביותר, ואילו בחניות קונים כל דבר מאכל שיש לו הכשר, ולכאורה הלא זה בכלל המנהג, וק״ו הוא...... and our teacher, Rabbi Aharon of Belz, may his merit protect us, found a hint to this custom in Parshat Re’eh. In regard to the holiday of Shavuot, it is written-“You shall rejoice before the LORD your God with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite in your communities…” In regard to the holiday of Sukkot, it is written-“You shall rejoice in your festival, with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your communities,” similar to the wording used for Shavuot. However, with regard to

Pesach this is not written, to hint that on this holiday we do not join together and visit with friends...this is the place to shed light upon those who are punctiliously strict concerning this custom, and refuse to eat in the houses of even those who are

most observant, yet purchase store bought food (with a Kosher for Pesach

Hashgacha). Seemingly, this behavior should also be included in this custom...

In this interpretation, the popular conception of Pesach as a time of togetherness is all wrong. Certain holidays are meant to foster togetherness- families gathering, communities uniting and society interacting. Pesach is not one of them. It is perfectly legitimate to take steps that lead to further social distancing on Pesach, because adhering to standards should not take a back seat to fostering a meaningful social life. In fact, based on this Rav

Zinner questions those who continue to buy prepared Pesach products under Kosher for Passover supervision- he claims people should be consistent with their practices, and that if people are avoiding mishing, they should do so completely!

The truth is that Rav Aharon of Belz’s reading is not just consistent with the text in Devarim- it is consistent with the Exodus narrative itself. In preparation for the final plague.

ְוּלַק ְח ֶתּ֞ם ֲאֻגַדּ֣ת ֵאז֗וֹב ְוּטַבְל ֶתּם֮ ַבָּ֣דּם ֲא ֶשׁ ַר־בּ ַסּף֒ וְִהַגְּע ֶתּ֤ם ֶא ַל־ה ַמּ ְשׁקוֹף֙ וְֶא ְל־שׁ ֵתּ֣י ַה ְמּזוּזֹ֔ת ִמ ַן־הָדּ֖ם ֲא ֶשׁ֣ר ֹ ַבָּסּ֑ף וְ ֶאַתּ֗ם ל֥א ֵתְצא֛וּ ִ֥אישׁ ִמֶֽפּ ַת ֵח־בּית֖וֹ ַע ֽד־בֶֹּקר׃

Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and to the two doorposts.

None of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning. Yes, the Korban Pesach was meant to be consumed in a group- albeit an exclusive one. But the actual preparation for Pesach took place through closing ranks, retreating behind closed doors and sheltering in place- staying home and staying safe.

Conclusion

This year especially, people are mourning the loss of opportunities for togetherness on Pesach, but being an Eved Hashem, a servant of God, means that we serve God through whatever circumstance he places us even if the reasons for doing so are inscrutable, and even if the circumstances are deeply unsettling. ‘[;Of course, in an ideal world, no one should be alone for the Seder. Families should spend Yom Tov together and their doors should be wide open for anyone who wants or needs to join. Indeed, the forced isolation so many of us are feeling this year should heighten our sensitivity to those for whom this night is really no different from all other nights- the people who are always alone and often lonely, and who go days on end with minimal meaningful social interaction. When all this is over, it will be our added challenge to include them in our lives because we experienced temporarily a little bit of what they experience always. But aside from heightening our sensitivity to others, Seder-ing in place represents an opportunity for us to uncover another aspect of Pesach and

redefine what it is really about. This Pesach, more than any other, represents a time to embrace the aspects of our tradition that encourage turning inward and reevaluating concessions perhaps we’ve made in the past in the interest of togetherness. Certainly, it is an important value in Jewish tradition, but the Rabbis have always been reticent to create a hard and fast rule that privileges it above all other considerations. In fact, it is only one consideration against which many others are weighed.

In his work Beis Yaakov, Rav Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica (1801-1854) offers a remarkable explanation for a passage in Parshat Mishpatim that will prove ever more critical in these economically tenuous days. The Torah tells us that there is a commandment to lend money to another Jew, and a concomitant prohibition against doing so with interest. Indeed, one is even prohibited from taking overnight collateral from an impoverished person.

The Izhbitzer notes that this passage is always read as the Torah reading on one of the days of Chol Hamoed Pesach. Why?

Likkutei Mei Hashiloach-Parshat Mishpatim אם כסף תלווה את עמי את העני עמך וגו'. הענין שקורין פרשה זו בימי הפסח מפני שבזה החג מתרבה האהבה בישראל, לכן מזהיר אותם הכתוב שלא יתפשט האהבה חוץ לגבול למקום נכרי. ולכן גם כן נקרא זה החג בשם חג המצות כמו שאמר אאמו"ר הגה"ק זצללה"ה שמצה רומז על מצה ומריבה. (בית יעקב שמות משפטים ל"א)

If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them. The reason why this Parsha is read during the

holiday of Pesach is because this holiday (Pesach) is the holiday that contains the most extreme expression of love in Israel. Therefore, the Torah warns us that this expression of love should not be extended past its boundary, extending to a “foreign” place. This, too, is why the holiday is referred to as “Chag HaMatzot,” as our teacher and master, the holy genius, may his memory be an eternal blessing, explained that

“matzah” hints to “matzah u’meriva=strife and controversy.”

Even as we think of togetherness at Pesach and beyond, we must make certain that it is not excessive, and that it does not come at the expense of our integrity- a constant balancing act without a universal solution. In some years, in some situations and in some families, more weight might be given to outreach to others; other times, the primary concern might be maintaining rigid standards and bolstering our own observance. In other years still, like this year, the primary concern has to be our health and the health of our loved ones- and this year, that means closing our doors. If

Pesach is usually an opportunity to issue open invitations at the beginning of our Seder and fling our doors open at the end, it also represents an opportunity to draw inward and strengthen ourselves and our families; a

Pesach celebrated internally is not a deviation from how Pesach should beit is simply another valid way to celebrate it. As we prepare for a Pesach like no other, let our smaller or solo Sedarim be marked not by silence but by strength, not by grief but by growth, not through complaint but through

connection. This year, God has planned our Seder for us, and it clearly looks inward. Next year, with God’s help, our Pre-Pesach discussions will revolve around other fascinating aspects of Pesach. Our doors will be open and our Seder tables surrounded by friends, family and loved ones. Once again, we will navigate many manifestations of the potential tension between togetherness and integrity. May our experience this year enrich us and strengthen us in the decisions we will make going forward, and may we all merit to celebrate together, next year, in Yerushalaim- the city that connects us all.