Torah Musings Digests

Home , Asher yatzar, Ashrei, Baal teshuva, Beit Yosef (book), Ben Zion Abba Shaul, Chaim Ozer Grodzinski

July through October, 2014

as published on www.TorahMusings.com

Unedited

Introduction

Started as the Hirhurim blog in 2004, Torah Musings relaunched in August 2013 as an online periodical focusing on multiple areas of interest, including: Textual Studies – halakhah (Jewish law),hashkafah (Jewish thought), history and parshanut (biblical commentary) that is clear, interesting, valuable to experienced students but understandable to those with limited Jewish education; News Stories and Commentary – thoughtful responses based on Jewish texts and traditions to issues of the day; Dialogue – differing views within the Orthodox camp, discussing with post and counter-post or in the responses. In July 2014, the website began sending weekly digests in PDF format. This booklet contains a collection of these weekly digests from July through October 2014, unrevised and in the same format originally sent. Currently, these PDF files flow automatically and sometimes misinterpret formatting commands. Therefore, there are occasional stray sentences that should be ignored. Please note that authorship of each essay is clear on the website but not always in the weekly digest. Unless otherwise indicated, assume that I wrote an essay. Many people contributed to this project. The editorial committee for the first year consisted of R. Micha Berger, R. Basil Herring and R. Moshe Schapiro, the last two continuing into the second year. These three scholars devoted many hours to improving and maintaining the website’s standards. I thank them for their hard work. During the period of this collection, Efraim Vaynman and David Roth served as editorial interns. I thank them both for their hard work. Torah Musings thrives on original contributions by a variety of authors. R. Gidon Rothstein writes a bi-weekly series on the classic Medieval philosophical work, Derashos HaRan. Dr. Arnold Lustiger sends in Torah insights on the weekly reading from R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, titled here “Vort from the Rav” and included in Dr. Lustiger’s Mesoras HaRav Chumash. R. Aharon Ziegler submits Halakhic Positions of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, of which he has already published six volumes. R. Asher Bush writes a monthly halakhah column. R. Daniel Mann of Eretz Hemdah also provides a monthly halakhah column. Joel Rich provides weekly Audio Roundups, which are highly valued but omitted due to the difficulty of including links to audio files in this format. I thank all these and other contributors for their valuable additions to the Torah Musings website. Additionally, Torah Musings maintains a strategic partnership with Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash that allows the website to republish weekly essays on the Torah reading and occasional other essays. These essays are included in this booklet, with a notice at the end of each essay indicating its source. I thank the Virtual Beit Midrash and its senior members, R. Ezra Bick and R. Reuven Ziegler, for allowing this partnership. Finally, I thank my family and my wife in particular for supporting my work on the website and allowing me the time and intellectual environment to succeed. This booklet is theirs.

Gil Student [email protected] 10 Cheshvan 5775 / November 3, 2014

Table of Contents

Halakhah Berachos A Personal Bracha ...... 6 Torah Reading Mas’ei: Mysticism, Geography and the Ba’al Korei’s Dilemma ...... 31 An Overlooked View on Women’s Aliyyot ...... 36 An Overlooked View on Women’s Aliyyot II ...... 39 Shuls The Rabbi’s Drasha ...... 1 Silent and Loud Prayer ...... 10 Shabbos Making Tea and Coffee on Shabbos ...... 68 Diapers With Disappearing Ink ...... 136 Holidays Havdala With Wine During The Nine Days ...... 42 Tefillin on Tisha B’Av ...... 47 The Experience of Rosh HaShana ...... 88 The Mitzva to Eat on Erev Yom Kippur and the Teshuva of Yom Kippur ...... 106 May one wear Crocs on Yom Kippur? ...... 109 How and Why Should One Rejoice On the Festivals? ...... 114 Women Dancing With Torah Scrolls ...... 116 Yom Tov Candles: Women and Shehecheyanu ...... 118 An Israeli in the Diaspora: How Many Days of Yom Tov? ...... 138 Kashrus Gelatin in Halacha: Recent Developments ...... 10 Butchering Judaism ...... 12 Judaism and Industrial Food Production ...... 119 Religions Jews Attending Church ...... 67 Danger Avoiding Danger in our Daily Lives ...... 15 Leadership The Rabbi’s Drasha ...... 1 Mourning Yahrtzeit Practices ...... 26 The 9/11 Memorial and Jewish Law ...... 128 Aveilut for Parents ...... 136 Beis Din Redemptive Justice ...... 2 Where There Is No Beit Din ...... 80 Sacrificing the Sinner ...... 80 The Limits of Teshuvah ...... 84 Interpersonal The Right Way To Rebuke ...... 68 Answer Your Emails! Return Your Phone Calls! ...... 72 Say No to Snark ...... 75 Speaking With Satan ...... 131 The Mitzvah of Bikur Cholim – Visiting the Sick Part 1 ...... 139 Women An Overlooked View on Women’s Aliyyot ...... 36 An Overlooked View on Women’s Aliyyot II ...... 39 Women Dancing With Torah Scrolls ...... 116 The Super-Mitzvah to Have Children ...... 133 Rav Soloveitchik Silent and Loud Prayer ...... 10 Miriam: The Greatest Woman ...... 26 IDF Uniforms ...... 45 Elevating Evil ...... 60 The Right Way To Rebuke ...... 68 Aveilut for Parents ...... 136

Hashkafah Fundamentals Torah From Sinai ...... 45 Why We Do Mitzvos ...... 61 What Tzenius Is Really About ...... 82 Beyond Words ...... 86 Community Looking for the Ghosts ...... 13 Rethinking the Shidduch Crisis: The Role of Jewish Women in Contemporary Society ...... 18 Responding to Catastrophe ...... 43 Modern Orthodoxy and the Right ...... 49 What is the Torah’s Ideal Political System? ...... 64 A New and Old Wind is Blowing ...... 87 The Sukkot Transition: From Individual to Community ...... 117 A Matter of Pride ...... 129 Healing Waters ...... 135 The New Israeli Army ...... 137 Leadership Rabbi Lamm on Da’as Torah ...... 3 Speaking To Each Other ...... 4 Unity in Leadership, Prophecy, and Wisdom ...... 111 Da’as Torah or Advice? ...... 121 Kashrus Judaism and Industrial Food Production ...... 119 Technology Man on the Moon ...... 35 Hebrew The Kalir and Modern Hebrew ...... 54 Incorrect Hebrew Pronunciation ...... 63 Repentance The Ease of Teshuvah: Encouraging or Upsetting? ...... 5 Sacrificing the Sinner ...... 80 The Limits of Teshuvah ...... 84 On Regret, Annulment, and the Essence of Teshuvah ...... 91 Spiritual Math ...... 95 Spiritual Math II ...... 96 Spiritual Math III ...... 98 Spiritual Math IV ...... 100 Spiritual Math V ...... 104 Tragedy On the Untimely Death of the Young ...... 3 Responding to Catastrophe ...... 43 Punishment of the Individual and of the Nation ...... 75 The Sin and Punishment of the Tower of Bavel ...... 124 Sacrifices Seeing God or Being Seen by God ...... 59 Women Rethinking the Shidduch Crisis: The Role of Jewish Women in Contemporary Society ...... 18 Miriam: The Greatest Woman ...... 26 The Super-Mitzvah to Have Children ...... 133 Healing Waters ...... 135 Kashrus Butchering Judaism ...... 12 Derashos HaRan The Ease of Teshuvah: Encouraging or Upsetting? ...... 5 If You’re Only Going to Do One… ...... 51 Why Would Ran Recycle a Whole Drasha? ...... 58 Moshe, Prophecy Catalyst ...... 74 Unity in Leadership, Prophecy, and Wisdom ...... 111 Overcoming Nature or Why Bad Things Happen to Good People ...... 123 Rav Soloveitchik Passing The Mantle ...... 6 The Making of a Lonely Man ...... 52 Lessons from Jewish History in a Time of Crisis and Transition ...... 54 On Regret, Annulment, and the Essence of Teshuvah ...... 91 Vort from the Rav: Bereishis ...... 114 Vort from the Rav: Noach ...... 124 Vort from the Rav: Lech Lecha ...... 134 Miscellaneous New Periodical: Hakirah 17 ...... 40 Were the Tosafists Philosophers? II ...... 72 New Periodical: RJJ Journal LXVIII ...... 112

Chumash Passing The Mantle ...... 6 Seeing God or Being Seen by God ...... 59 What is the Torah’s Ideal Political System? ...... 64 Punishment of the Individual and of the Nation ...... 75 Vort from the Rav: Bereishis ...... 114 Vort from the Rav: Noach ...... 124 The Sin and Punishment of the Tower of Bavel ...... 124 Vort from the Rav: Lech Lecha ...... 134 Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 4 July, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

In many congregations the rabbi delivers his drasha following the The Rabbi’s Drasha Haftara, even before Ashrei and the returning of the Torah to the Aron Kodesh. This arrangement has been opposed by some on the by R. Ari Enkin grounds that it is not proper to unnecessarily postpone the return of 6 It is customary in synagogues worldwide for the rabbi or other the Torah to the Aron Kodesh. It is for this reason that in many designated individual to deliver a drasha – a sermon – every Shabbat congregations the megilla is read on Purim morning only after the morning. In most congregations the drasha is delivered immediately Torah has been returned to the Aron Kodesh. Similarly, whenever a prior to the silent Mussaf amida, while in others it may be given brit is to take place in the synagogue on Shabbat morning it is before the Torah reading service.1 In other congregations, it is given generally performed after the Torah has been put away. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the Haftara even before commencing any of the most authorities allow a drasha, brit, or megilla reading to take place preliminary Mussaf prayers. One will occasionally find congregations while the Torah remains on the bima. It is argued that the mitzva where the drasha is given at the conclusion of the entire service. As value of such activities justifies performing them even before the we will see, it might just be that the different customs as to when the Torah is put away. rabbi should deliver his drasha are all based on different halachic Finally, the custom of delivering the drasha at the conclusion of the considerations. entire service may originate in the words of the Rambam who writes It seems that the custom for the rabbi to deliver his Shabbat drasha that “the sermon which is customarily delivered on Shabbat is to be 7 immediately before the start of Mussaf originates in the Talmudic era, given immediately before proceeding with the Shabbat meal”. All and it is likely the earliest recorded source regarding the placement approaches are equally legitimate. of the weekly drasha.2 On the other hand, there were many On a related note, there have been authorities in the past who have congregations and communities throughout history which placed the frowned upon the practice of delivering a drasha from the bima. They drasha prior to the Torah reading. Among the reasons for this was in argue that standing with one’s back towards the aron kodesh shows a order to allow the mourners the opportunity of reciting an extra lack of respect for the Torah.8 However, most authorities disagree Kaddish following the drasha, which would best be inserted at this and maintain that there is little basis for such a concern, especially time.3 Additionally, as the drasha is usually based on the weekly once the Torah has been returned to the Aron Kodesh.9 It is also parsha, delivering the drasha at this time allows the congregation a noted that the drasha is infrequent and brief in nature and the “sneak preview” of the Torah reading. A good drasha with inspiring speaker’s back is not constantly facing the aron kodesh.10 Finally, interpretations no doubt assists the congregation in better focusing considering that the purpose of the drasha is in order to teach and on the Torah reading. For these and other reasons, Rabbi Dov Lior is inspire the congregation in the ways of the Torah, something which of the opinion that the drasha is best delivered at this time.4 the Torah itself advocates doing, there can be no mistake that 11 In most congregations today the drasha is given after the Torah anything irreverent is taking place. It goes without saying, however, reading, before Mussaf. There is some discussion, however, as to that one must never stand with one’s back towards an actual Torah 12 exactly which point before Mussaf it should be inserted. According to scroll. some authorities, the drasha should be given before the start of “Ashrei”. This is because Ashrei is the prayer which formally begins 1. Mateh Ephraim 602:42. ↩ the Mussaf service. It is argued, therefore, that inserting the drasha 2. Berachot 28b, Rashi s.v. “lo al l’pirka“. ↩ at this point is preferable as it allows for an uninterrupted flow of the Mussaf service. 3. Chikrei Minhagim (Gurary) Vol. II p.96. ↩ Others are of the opinion that it is preferable for the drasha to be given after the Torah has been returned to the Aron Kodesh, 4. http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/?id=17988 ↩ immediately preceding the kaddish and silent Mussaf Amida, which is the most widespread custom today. Some have questioned this 5. Maharam Schik 126. ↩ approach, however, as it is generally preferable not to have any 6. Torat Yekutiel 55, cited in Chikrei Minhagim (Gurary) Vol. II unnecessary interruption between “ashrei” and kaddish. p.99. ↩ Nevertheless, this concern is readily dismissed by the Maharam Schik, who rules that Torah study (the drasha) is not something which 7. Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 23:19. ↩ is to be considered a forbidden interruption between Ashrei and the kaddish. He concludes that congregations which insert the drasha at 8. Based on YD 282:1. ↩ this point are certainly conducting themselves properly, though he personally favors placing the drasha before the Torah reading in 9. Taz, YD 282:1. ↩ order to avoid any question whatsoever.5 10. Pri Megadim, OC 150; Shaar Hatziun 150:13. ↩

Beit Din’s Gap-Filling Function: Using Beit Din to Protect 11. Aruch Hashulchan, YD 282:2. See there for more. ↩ Your Client by Prof. Michael A. Helfand – The US Constitution forbids (secular) courts from ruling on any religious issues. Batei 12. YD 282:1; Aruch Hashulchan, OC 282:1. ↩ din offer a venue of arbitration for these types of consitutionally unadjudicable cases. He is not saying that this should be the only use of beis din, just that people entering agreements with Jewish Redemptive Justice institutions should include a beis din arbitration provision.

If there was any question whether we live in an unredeemed world, Next follow six actual BDA decisions, albeit with identifying the state of our batei din, religious courts, would clear up the status. information changed. I was surprised by the brevity. The decisions I One sign of the redemption, and perhaps a way to bring it more have seen published in other journals are much longer. I guess the quickly, is through justice. “Zion will be redeemed with justice” (Isa. authors only sought to publish article-length decisions. These are 1:27). According to all accounts, much of the beis din system is often generally much shorter. a source of perversion of justice rather than the lofty standard it is supposed to represent. Meir Simons v. L’Chaim Tours and Josh Rosenberg – A Pesach program received food delivery on Yom Tov. A guest left Bribery, bias and manipulation occur way too often. Every court has right after Yom Tov and spent the rest of Pesach at another two opposing parties. If one wins, the other loses. If the court enacts hotel, at considerable expense. He wants a refund from the a compromise, one perspective may be that both sides lose. So it is original program. The beis din ruled that since the guest unsurprising that even the best beis din will face complaints and registered for the program under a specific kosher supervision criticisms. The lack of justice we are discussing goes beyond the agency and that agency approved the food delivery (given the gripes of a losing party. There is a clear and constant call by litigants circumstances), the guest has no claim. and even judges about corruption, particularly in ad hoc “Zabla” courts. Joseph Goldberg v. Aryeh Schwartz – The Plaintiff made three large loans to family members to fund a corporation. He was The Torah requires us to use a beis din as our venue for resolving only repaid about 3/4 of the loan. He is suing a different family disputes. Yet an unjust beis din can hardly be the Torah’s member, who owns 14% of the corporation, for repayment of prescription. 14% of the loan. The beis din ruled against the Plaintiff because The rabbinic solution to this problem has been the establishment of the Defendant did not sign for any of the loans and the courts that are not corrupt and provide transparency and procedural corporation, which is now insolvent, is only liable to the limits of guidelines. Primary among these courts is the Beth Din of America its assets. (BDA), affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). As Golan v. Schwartz – Tenants whose lease had expired and were part of the push for transparency, the BDA recently began publishing renting on a month-to-month basis, failed to evacuate the a journal containing a selection of its decisions. Not all decisions can premises after being given proper notice. The beis din ordered be included, for reasons of general interest and privacy–both parties them to evacuate, which they, and awarded the Plaintiff that have to agree to allow the decision published. However, what has month’s rent plus 1/3 of attorney and litigation costs. A late fee been published offers us a window into the methods of rabbinic on the rent was struck down because it constitutes forbidden adjudication in the modern world. interest and the attorney/litigation fees were reduced based on equitable considerations of the beis din, consistent with The recently published second volume of The Journal of the Beth Din halakhah and NY case law. of America opens with three articles: Kosher Quality Caterers, Inc. V. Kalman Goodman & Retaining the Proceeds of Secular Court Judgments by R. Menachem Moskowitz – Agreement was reached to sell a 50% Mordechai Willig – Rav Willig, the Segan Av Beis Din (second interest in a pizza place. The Defendants stopped payment on leading judge) explores what to do if you are summoned to their check and the Plaintiff sued in beis din for the agreed upon secular court by a Jew who refuses to use a beis din. If you amount. While the details are complicated, the beis din sided adjudicate in secular court, you may be guilty of theft for with the Defendant because there was no written contract, only retaining any proceeds you win and you may have removed the a term sheet. The Defendants are morally obligated to complete possibility of later changing the venue to a beis din if the other the deal but that cannot be enforced by beis din. litigant changes his mind. To avoid all problems, you should Yossi Mandel v. Moshe Hirsch – One of four people who summon the other litigant to a beis din as soon as possible. rented an apartment together decided not to move in. He paid The Torah u-Madda Mandat for Beth Din in Today’s World rent and utilities for three months and suggested possible people by R. Yona Reiss – In a memorial lecture for the former President to replace him. The other roommates sued him in beis din to of the BDA, R. Reiss discusses the importance of including continue paying rent and utilities. Beis Din ruled that while worldly dayanim and consultants who fully understand the halakhah would obligate him to pay, the custom in the details and broader context of the cases they adjudicate. He marketplace is to allow roommates to back out at the last emphasizes the need to professionalize the beis din, to institute minute. As a compromise, beis din ruled that the Defendant has standard procedures and operate with transparency. to pay 2/3 of another month’s rent.

United Savings, LLC v. Dunkirk Center for Health, Inc. and Unquestionably, religious authority in Judaism is not Royal Rehabilitation – The Claimant arranged to reduce the unquestionable. But it is equally true that there is authority. Respondent’s utility costs and receive one-third of the 30-month Emunat Hakhamim, faith in the wise, means that those savings as payment for his services. The Respondent argued that individuals are authoritative. It commands us to have reverence the agreement was invalid and that the savings would have been for religious authorities even if we do not feel we can accept realized even without the Claimant’s services. The beis din ruled their opinions. It means to follow them even though we often do that the agreement is valid because of, among other reasons, the not agree with them. At all times it means that we must have secular law doctrine of “apparent authority,” which is recognized respect, simple derekh eretz. by halakhah as a custom of the marketplace. The agreement I grant that it is not always easy to do that. In Avot 6:5 we are stated that if the Claimant’s advice was implemented and told of the various ways in which Torah can be acquired–one of savings were achieved, he would be paid. His advice was them is emunat hakhamim, faith in the Sages, and right next to it implemented and the savings were achieved, so according to the comes yisurim, pain. Acquiring Torah is indeed painful at times, agreement’s wording it does not matter whether the advice led but it is a pain which must be risked and embraced. to the savings.

Rabbi Lamm on Da’as Torah On the Untimely Death of the Young The issue of Da’as Torah perennially generates confusion. On the one hand, historians rightly point out that its extreme permutations are by R. Basil Herring recent inventions. On the other, responses to the ideology are often overly dismissive, neglecting the historical fact that leading rabbis How is the death of the young different from the death of the have traditionally wielded great influence. Da’as Torah seems like a elderly? ….. R. Yosi b. Chalafta and his students would rise up tool to assert control, either by its purveyors or its antagonists. early to study Torah together under a certain fig tree. When the Neither approach seems authentic. Navigating this minefield owner of the tree made a point to harvest its figs before they faithfully is a critical but rare feat. arrived the next time, they were concerned that he suspected them of improperly taking the figs, so they moved to a different R. Norman Lamm, who was a frequent target of Da’as Torah, field. The owner followed them and said, “rabbosai you have struggled with this task. On the one hand, in the following quote he deprived me of the mitzvah of having you studying Torah under takes a cheap shot at members of Agudah’s Council of Sages. His my tree, please come back.” Said they “we thought you criticism of the group’s name is legitimate but beside the point. suspected us.” So they moved back under the original fig tree, Rabbis rising to leadership positions cannot refuse the title placed and the owner did not harvest its figs – which then were upon them. On the other hand, despite his negative personal devoured by worms. Said they “we learn from this that the experience, which you can see emerging in his writing, he still resists owner of a fig tree knows better than we do when it is the proper the urge to deny all authority to Torah leaders. time to harvest his figs.” (Bereishis Rabbah 62:2)

R. Norman Lamm, Derashot LeDorot: Numbers, p. 120: With heavy hearts, we now know that our three precious boys, Eyal, Certainly, there is a difference between authority and Gilad, and Naftali, have been plucked in the bloom of their youth from authoritarianism. But Korah identified one with the other and the bosom of their grieving families, communities, and all of Klal rejected both. And that rebellion against religious authority Yisrael who prayed for their safe return with all our hearts. It is a exists in each of us–even as we sought to reject parental bitter pill to swallow, a tragedy that we cannot begin to comprehend. authority when we were adolescents. Faced with such barbarity, some might counsel despair and giving up on that place to find some other location to live and study Torah. Baiting and berating gedolim is as popular in one segment of the Others might question God Himself for allowing such heinous acts of Orthodox community as apotheosizing them is in the other. In depravity. But like R. Yosi b. Chalafta and his student, as a people we the right wing of Orthodoxy, a new concept has taken hold which must not succumb to the counsels of doubt or despondency. Instead, makes of religious authorities supermen and attributes to them a like them, we can, we must, find renewed resolve to return to our doctrine heretofore considered exclusively Catholic–infallibility. I original places, even in the forbidding environs of Hevron and Bet have always been uncomfortable with the institution founded by Lechem, surrounded by sworn enemies, while accepting in our hearts Agudath Israel, the Mo’etzet Gedolei haTorah, “The Council of that sometimes Hakadosh Baruch Hu in His inscrutable ways sees fit Giants of the Torah.” What man, with any measure of normal to take from us before their time the sweetest, most precious souls of humility, will allow himself to be inducted in a group which our people. announces itself as “giants” or greats?” Yet, our camp is equally guilty of such adoration and such cult of personality when we Already we have seen how the three of them have brought Klal Yisrael blame the gedolim for all sins, from being anti-Zionist to being together as one. Already we have seen that because of them our unenthusiastic about emigrating from Europe to the United enemies have been weakened at a pivotal moment in the States of America–as if greatness in Torah automatically implies confrontation with terror and evil. And like R. Yosi b. Chalafta and his the gift of prophecy. students, we can declare through the tears that we as a people will ensure that the boys will not have lived or died in vain; that we are

resolved that in their memory we will continue to learn and teach Torah even more than in the past, that we will in their merit And it says in Menachot 29b: “And why is the tip of its head (of strengthen our attachment to the land and state of Israel, that our the letter yod) bent down? Because the heads of the righteous faith in the justice of our cause will never flag, and that we will are bowed because their deeds are not all alike.” Rashi explains: always accept God’s will, even when as today He has taken our boys “And the honor of one is greater than the other, therefore their under the kanfei ha-Shechinah. heads are bowed, for they are embarrassed.” This is bewildering. Because their deeds are not alike–meaning that each one has his Tehay zichram baruch. own approach and method and believes that only his approach is correct and not that of his fellow who is simply mistaken in his Speaking To Each Other approach–if so how can it be that their heads are bowed? These are opposite attitudes! We must conclude that the divine soul of R. Moshe Zuriel is known to graduates of the Sha’alvim yeshiva as its man can contain within it two apparently contradictory things. longtime Mashgi’ach Ruchani, spiritual guide. But to book lovers, Rav On the one hand, to justify and insist upon his approach and Zuriel is the “Ba’al Ha-Otzaros,” author of a series of encyclopedic method, and on the other hand, to also justify the method and treatments of classical Torah personalities. Each book’s title begins approach of his fellow and feel that this was missing to him and with the word “Otzeros,” as in Otzeros HaMalbim and Otzeros because of this he is embarrassed from his friend. HaRambam. The books include intellectual biographies and topical They say in the name of HaGaon R’ Yisrael Salanter ztz”l that anthologies of quotations and citations. They are the ultimate guide to there is no “fixed rule” in the service of God and that this each scholar’s writings. principle too is not fixed. Most of the differences between A number of these books were published together in 2000 in a approaches have to do with the circumstances of the place and four-volume set titled “Otzeros Gedolei Yisrael.” In addition to Rav time; it cannot be said about a particular path or approach “Like Zuriel’s incredible work, the set is adorned with a remarkable this behold and sanctify!” Moreover, we do not deny the approbation by R. Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber ztz”l, the noted halakhic possibility of there being multiple approaches in Judaism. If authority, in which he extols the variety of approaches Rav Zuriel there could be a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel brings together. It is a tribute to peace and unity within the Torah in Eruvin 13b about whether it was better for man to have been community, a call for harmony in a community that is so full of created or not, why shouldn’t there be disputes within the ideological divisions. teachings of Jewish ethics and Chassidic thought? Of course, this is only within the parameters of “These and those are the words The following letter was translated by R. Moshe Schapiro: of the Living God” (Eruvin, ibid.). And regarding the dispute of Approbation Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel they said in Yevamos 14b: “Even though Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel argued… Beis Shammai did HaRav Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber shlit”a [ztz“l] not refrain from marrying with Beis Hillel and Beis Hillel did not Member, Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah refrain from marrying with Beis Shammai–to teach you that the [Author of the series “Az Niberu,” “Zeh HaSha’ar” and other relations between them were conducted with love and works] friendship, to fulfill that which it says, “Love peace and truth” (Zechariah 8:19). Peace and truth went joined together. If there B”H 12th day of Adar II, 5760 is truth here, there is peace here. And if there is peace here, My dear friend of many decades, HaRav HaGaon R’ Moshe Zuriel there is truth here. But in this generation, standing at the end of shlit”a has gathered together in these books indexes and the exile, as the Evil Inclination for divisiveness grows, we must elucidations to many different issues in Jewish ethics that appear try to at least minimize the divisions to fulfill the verse “Then in the works of the great men of the generations: the Rambam, those who fear God shall speak one to another.” Maharal, the Gr”a, the Netziv and others. These ethical schools I express gratitude to the Rav, author and anthologizer, for he each had their own approach. By learning and investigating practices what he preaches and I write and sign to demonstrate these different approaches, the words of the prophet Malachi my approval and appreciation and blessing, that we should merit will, with God’s help, be fulfilled: “Then those who fear God shall to bring merit upon to the public, to bring the true redemption speak [nidberu] one to another” (Malachi 3:16). “Nidberu” is in speedily in our days, Amen. passive conjugation. The prophet declared in God’s name that at the end of days all the divisions should be removed between Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber God-fearing people, though they maintain different attitudes and tendencies in the service of God. Then “nidberu” will automatically be fulfilled. In light of all this, it is not surprising that in our times particularly, “the end of days,” there has been a strengthening of the Evil Inclination for divisiveness between God fearing people, all “for the sake of heaven” of course. If the “nidberu” is missing, this is proof that there is division and divisiveness. Therefore, it is good that the different approaches be brought together.

4 4 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 11 July, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student The Ease of Teshuvah: what befell them. The favor is in Hashem giving us more time than we deserve, starting Encouraging or Upsetting? His collection of spiritual overdrafts with others. We are expected to use what happens to them as a reminder to put our own accounts in by R. Gidon Rothstein order before Hashem comes to discuss our delinquencies.

If Ran has convinced us that we need to focus on the religious as well You Don’t Have To Be Great to Repent, But It Helps as the physical in hoping to avoid calamity, we need a better understanding of the main method of healing religious ills, teshuvah, One worry his listeners seem to have had was that perhaps only those repentance. Much of the sixth drasha exhorts, encourages, and with great wisdom and perfect knowledge of Torah can successfully reassures his listeners that they can in fact take advantage of this gift repent. Ran agrees that study of Torah earns great reward. However, from Hashem, implying that they weren’t so sure. he argues, Berachot 20a—which wonders why miracles happened for generations that had much less Torah knowledge than others– asserts It Should Have Been Hard, But It’s Not that Hashem “cares” most about our sincerity.

Prior essays in this series Ran is striking a balance. While not denying the importance of Torah study, he stays firm on the idea that a sincere interest in penitence The drasha starts with verses that draw our attention to how and return to Hashem will also accomplish a great deal. surprising it is that Hashem allows us to get away with repentance. Really, Michah says (6:6), it should be impossible to make up for The Repentance Doesn’t Have to be Great, But It Helps violating Hashem’s will. What should, by rights, mollify the Creator, Who gave us life out of pure kindness, and Whose commands we Ran’s listeners were also troubled by Yoma’s saying that a “real” willfully violate? penitent faces temptation once, twice, and three times, in similar circumstances, and resists. They took that to mean that those who To our good fortune, Hashem decided to forego His rights, as it were, only repent when they’re older, when many of the urges to sin have and accept repentance. Teshuvah dispenses with compensation in quieted, cannot achieve “real” repentance. favor of regret and re-commitment. While this may sound simple, experience shows that it’s not. Rambam addressed this, too, distinguishing among levels of completeness in one’s repentance, without quantifying the difference. The Downside to How Easy Hashem Made It Ran advances the theory that base-level repentance atones, assuaging the “anger” that is the appropriate response to our sin. More perfect The ease of repentance benefits those who avail themselves of it. repentance converts sins into merits, as Yoma 86b notes. For that, we However, this very unearned ease heightens the wrongs of those who need to face and resist the exact same temptation. [Ran doesn’t fail to repent. Had repentance in fact involved onerous efforts at explain, here, why it would be that such repentance creates merits, rectification, we would have had a bit of an excuse–that it is just too and I don’t have the space to speculate.] hard. Ran reminds us of the indispensability of sincerity for even that lower To Ran, that’s why Michah 6:10 says that the righteous will succeed level of repentance. One marker of sincerity is that we do not stop in the ways of Hashem and the wicked will stumble. The very ease of with the particular sin we’ve noticed, admit it, hope not to repeat it, walking in Hashem’s ways is itself the stumbling block. If it were and leave it at that. Sincerity would lead us to examine all our hard, failure would be understandable. But it’s so easy! actions, looking for other ways in which we’re imperfect. We would Making it even easier is Hashem’s helping us return in other ways, let all of our imperfections sit in our awareness, as Tehillim 51:5 says, such as by bringing calamities on people far away. Seeing them suffer “for I know my iniquity, and my sins are before me always.” They should remind us that we could easily deserve a similar fate, spurring would serve as constant fuel for avoiding recidivism and opting for repentance. improvement. That’s sincerity.

I have seen that passage read as Ran saying that Hashem brings The Power of Sincerity disasters upon those others to teach us a lesson. As if the Merciful This back and forth shows the difficulty Ran faced. He wanted to One would cause needless suffering just to call us to repentance! That show his listeners how much easier repentance is than it could by mistaken reading misses that Ran never says the people affected rights have been, without glossing over how far they needed to go to didn’t also sin. qualify as sincere and wholehearted. Ran’s next sentence says that if we fail to change, those same One last encouragement Ran offers is that proper repentance can calamities will reach us (which supports my Black Death theory, since avert the worst of decrees, on an individual or communal level. that didn’t start in Spain). He’s saying that the favor is that Hashem Hashem’s righteous wrath over biblical sins were all mitigated with starts with those others even though we were equally deserving of sincere repentance. These biblical examples include King David’s sin

with Batsheva which, as Ran notes, Scripture portrays as an Others distinguish based on the text used, which is most severe when adulterous affair to show that whatever the sin was, it was as serious one utters a classic name of Hashem. Some say that if one recites the a sin for a man of David’s stature as actual adultery would be for one beracha in a language other than Hebrew so that the Name is of us; Nineveh’s sins, which were bad enough to deserve annihilation; equivalent only to a kinuy (a descriptive reference) of Hashem, it has and even Nevuchadnezzar’s evils, the benefits of a beracha without the fear of beracha l’vatala (see opinions cited in Shut R. Akiva Eiger I:25, Pitchei Teshuva, YD 328:1, The implication is that even the Black Death could yield, if Ran’s Piskei Teshuvot 209:7). R. Akiva Eiger (ibid.) and the Netziv (Ha’amek audience repented sincerely enough. A challenging claim for them, She’ala 53:2) argue that in the recognized, sensitive context of a clearly, as it would be for us if we, God forbid, faced another such beracha, even a kinuy or foreign language Name can be forbidden, as plague. we find regarding an oath. The Netziv says that the problem is a Let’s be thankful that we don’t, and hope we can absorb Ran’s lessons Rabbinic issue of appearing to recite a beracha l’vatala. Therefore, before we ever do. the closer the text (and/or the context) is to that of a beracha, the more likely it is to be forbidden. The Minchat Shlomo (ibid.) explains that one should not act in a way that challenges the rules the Rabbis A Personal Bracha set. However, those rules were not set to forbid expression of personal thanks to Hashem. by R. Daniel Mann We summarize as follows. Your desire to praise Hashem is Question: I am often overjoyed that Hashem granted me the zechut commendable. Paradoxically, the more creative the text and style are, to live in Israel for many years, causing me to make a “spontaneous” the clearer it is that it is permitted. Convention is that an individual beracha. A friend told me it is forbidden to compose my own berachot should generally refrain from using Hashem’s main Names, which we , as one can only use those Chazal composed.Is Judaism not all about leave primarily to Chazal and to great rabbis who have composed thanking Hashem for all the wonders of creations and providence? prayers and praises throughout history. Saying “Hashem,” “Hakadosh Would I be precluded from thanking Hashem for something important Baruch Hu,” “Ribbono Shel Olam,” or a Name not in Hebrew is safer to me? and as profound. It is at least preferable not to recite anything that resembles a beracha of Chazal by content, by context (e.g., in Birkot Answer: Your assumption that one’s relationship with Hashem should Hashachar) and/or by regularity. That still leaves you with room for be personal and overflowing is poignantly and refreshingly correct. much self-expression. On the other hand, one does not have free reign to serve Hashem as he desires, as evident from such halachot as bal tosif (not adding on to the mitzvot) and beracha l’vatala (unwarranted beracha). Let us Passing The Mantle seek perspective and guidelines. When Did Moshe Pass the Mantle of Leadership to Yehoshua? The gemara (Berachot 33a) says that one who fulfilled a beracha (27:12–23) requirement and then made an unnecessary one violated the prohibition of saying Hashem’s Name in vain. Tosafot (Rosh Hashana by Rav Elchanan Samet 33a) argues that uttering Hashem’s Name to praise Him cannot be in A. Presentation of the problem vain, but that it is a Rabbinic prohibition that “leans” on the pasuk. The Rambam (Berachot 1:15) seems to hold that beracha l’vatala is a (27:12) “And God said to Moshe: Ascend this Mt. Avarim and see Torah prohibition (Magen Avraham 215:6). the land that I have given to Bnei Yisrael.

All agree that uttering Hashem’s Name without any purpose is an isur (13) You shall see it and [then] you, too, shall be gathered to aseh (low-level Torah prohibition – Temura 4a). Yet, using Hashem’s your people, as Aharon your brother was gathered. Name in the context of praising Him is positive and permitted. In fact, the Rambam (Shvuot 12:11) says that if one mistakenly uttered the (14) As you rebelled against My command in the wilderness of Name, he should immediately turn it into an appropriate praise of Tzin, when the nation quarreled – to sanctify Me with the water, Hashem, and one of his suggested texts of spontaneous praise begins before their eyes; these were the waters of dissent of Kadesh in with “baruch.” the wilderness of Tzin.”

Where do we draw the line between appropriate praise and a beracha Among his questions on our parasha, Abarbanel asks: l’vatala? One approach is that the crucial factor is intention and “The ninth question concerns God telling Moshe, ‘Ascend this context. If one intends to recite a required beracha when he is Mt. Avarim and see that land,’ concluding with the words, ‘And actually not required or if a mistake disqualifies the beracha, it is a you, too, shall be gathered to your people AS AHARON YOUR beracha l’vatala. If the same words are said as an expression of BROTHER WAS GATHERED’ – but Moshe did not die upon personal gratitude, it is permitted (Chavat Da’at 110, Beit Hasafek receiving this command! Aharon, upon being commanded to die, 20; see Minchat Shlomo II:3). The Chavat Da’at cites a precedent for ascended the mountain and died. Likewise Moshe, in the parasha the distinction: one is allowed to repeat Shemoneh Esrei (which is of Ha’azinu (Devarim 32:48–52, 34:1–5). But here, why does God comprised of berachot)with the intention it is voluntary, but not with command him [to ascend Mt. Avarim] if the day of his death has an intention for an obligation (see Rosh, Berachot 3:15). not yet arrived?”

appears in its proper place, but also the motive that leads him to A great distance separates Parashat Pinchas, where we find request this – the command that he ascend Mt. Avarim and die – ourselves, and the parashot of Ha’azinu and Ve-Zot Ha-Berakha, appears in its place and at its time, and not in accordance with the where Moshe is commanded once again to ascend Mt. Avarim to die, principle that “there is no chronological order in the Torah”. This and he does so. Admittedly, from a chronological point of view the brings us back to Abarbanel’s question: “But Moshe did not die upon distance in time is not great – only a few months – but those final receiving this command… Why does God command him if the day of months of Moshe’s life were full of momentous events, as attested to his death has not yet arrived?” by the end of Sefer Bemidbar and all of Sefer Devarim. C. Ramban’s solution: an event in the present that is entirely It is therefore impossible that at this very early stage, with many very concerned with the future important tasks still awaiting Moshe, that he would be told that his time has come to die, before completing his life’s mission. What, then, Whether for the reasons above or out of a fundamental objection to is the point of the verses quoted above? the principle of “no chronological order in the Torah” when not absolutely necessary, the Ramban attempts to explain God’s B. “No chronological order in the Torah” – a solution and its command to Moshe (as well as the continuation of the story) in rejection keeping with the chronological context. The solution proposed by Ramban for our verses (12−14) is that they were indeed told to The great similarity Bemidbar 27:12–14 and Devarim 32:48–52 gives Moshe here and now, at the time of the events narrated at the end of the impression that the Torah is describing the same command. This Sefer Bemidbar. However, they are not actually a command, “for if would tempt us to answer that “there is no chronological order in the they had been, Moshe would have been obliged to ascend [Mt. Torah,” and the command appears here before its designated time. Avarim] immediately,” but rather a notice concerning the future. However, this answer is impossible, as we shall see shortly. Ramban’s approach solves the difficulties mentioned previously. Yehoshua’s appointment as Moshe’s successor appears in our Without relying on the principle of “no chronological order in the narrative as the crux of the story. Moshe requests that God appoint “a Torah,” Ramban manages to relate God’s words here to His words at man over the congregation, who will go out before them and come the end of parashat Ha’azinu. They are indeed the same words, but before them,” and he makes no mention of any specific person. Only they are uttered twice, at different times and for different purposes. in God’s response to Moshe, introducing the second half of the story, In our parasha they are only a notification as to the future, while at do we find the big news: the end of parashat Ha’azinu they are uttered as a command that (18) “Take for yourself Yehoshua bin Nun, a man of spirit, and must be fulfilled immediately. place your hand upon him.” The indication of Yehoshua as Moshe’s future successor similarly We may conclude that up until this point it is not clear who will appears in our parasha as notification about the future. From now on, succeed Moshe in the leadership role. Moshe and all of Israel know that Yehoshua will inherit Moshe’s leadership position, even though the actual transfer of power will take Now we ask: where in the Torah is there any clear indication (by place just before Moshe’s death. This, then, is the reason Yehoshua’s Moshe or by God) of Yehoshua as the next leader of Israel? Such appointment as Moshe’s successor is a known fact starting from the indications are found in several places in the Torah, starting in the final parashot of Sefer Bemidbar. final parashot of Sefer Bemidbar and continuing through Sefer Devarim (e.g., Bemidbar 32:28–29; 34:16–19; Devarim 1:37–38; 3:21; Thus, Ramban maintains that the dialogue between God and Moshe in 31:3; etc.). our parasha takes place at the time of its location in the text. It follows the census described previously, but this dialogue in its If the command to Moshe at the end of parashat Ha’azinu to ascend entirety concerns the future. God’s notification to Moshe that he will Mt. Avarim to die there (32:48–52) is the same command given in our die on Mt. Avarim, Moshe’s request that a successor be appointed, parasha, then it is that command that causes Moshe to ask God to and God’s response – all of these pertain to the future, when Moshe’s appoint him a successor, and only then does God notify him that day of death arrives. Why, then, in Ramban’s view, does this dialogue Yehoshua will be the next leader. But this does not sit well with all the about the future take place at such an early stage? Ramban explains: sources in which we discern that Yehoshua was already recognized as Moshe’s successor from the time of the events described at the end of “Since God commands him [right before this], ‘To these shall the Sefer Bemidbar, even before Moshe launches into his great and final land be divided’ (26:53), He notifies him, ‘It will not be divided speech. by you, for you will ascend Mt. Avarim… and die there, and will not get to the land, but only see it.’” We must therefore conclude that the command in our parasha is located in its proper chronological place. Moshe’s request that a Ramban’s explanation for the Torah dealing with the decree of death successor be appointed, and God’s response, revealing Yehoshua as for Moshe in our narrative, such a long time before his actual day of his successor, apparently took place after the census in the plains of death, does not solve the issue of why the Torah must also mention Moav (chapter 26) and before the war against Midian (chapter 31). Yehoshua here – which, according to Ramban’s own explanation, is Indeed, nowhere prior to our narrative is there any mention of also a matter that will become real only in the future. It appears that Yehoshua as Moshe’s successor. Ramban was not troubled by this question because he maintained that the discussion regarding Yehoshua’s appointment was a But if this is so, then not only Moshe’s request for a successor

secondary result of the notice about Moshe’s death in the future, notification about the future. The verbs in this verse do admittedly rather than the whole reason for this parasha. allow such an interpretation, for they are future-tense verbs. The transition from verse 12, commanding Moshe to ascend Mt. Avarim This gives rise to another difficulty. The majority of our story (nine immediately, to verse 13, notifying him about the final viewing, out of twelve verses) is devoted to the discussion of Yehoshua’s following which he will be gathered to his people – is likewise succession. From the point of view of literary structure and the exegetically reasonable. internal proportion between the various parts of the parasha, we must deduce that the notice of Moshe’s impending death appears to be less But Abarbanel’s interpretation is not altogether plausible from the central aspect the story. It seems to appear here only as the pretext thematic perspective. The very idea that God is commanding Moshe for Moshe’s subsequent request that a successor be appointed. This is to ascend Mt. Avarim “several times… for whenever he ascends there especially true if we accept (unlike the Ramban) that God’s command he will lift his eyes to the hills in order to see the land, every day” is a to Moshe to appoint Yehoshua, and Moshe’s fulfillment of this new idea that makes no sense. The command to Moshe to ascend Mt. command, pertain to the actual time when our story takes place, Avarim on the day of his death is a command with a purpose: this rather than to some time in the future. ascent is meant to make the moment of death easier for him to bear, because he will have feasted his eyes upon the promised land. A D. Abarbanel’s solution: The command that Moshe ascend Mt. further difficulty that arises from Abarbanel’s interpretation is that if Avarim pertains to the present God is commanding Moshe to ascend Mt. Avarim NOW, where is this Abarbanel attempts to interpret the imperative style of God’s words command fulfilled? The absence of any description of the fulfillment to Moshe in their literal sense, but not as an instruction to Moshe that of the command to ascend Mt. Avarim proves the Ramban’s view, or he go to die upon Mt. Avarim immediately: one similar to it. As the Ramban notes, what Moshe is told in verse 12 “is not a mitzva that the Holy One commands him to fulfill right now, “In this utterance, although God commands him to ascend the FOR IF THIS WERE THE CASE, HE WOULD BE OBLIGED TO mountain and see the land, it is not in order that he die there ASCEND IMMEDIATELY!” immediately. This [command] is not identical to the narrative at the end of Ha’azinu, and the action described there is not the E. A New Suggestion same as the one described there, as Ramban thought. For this Our discussion of the possibilities raised by the various commentators reason it is not written here, ‘And die upon the mountain,’ as it allows us now to propose an interpretation that will solve the says there. Rather, God commands that he ascend the mountain difficulties we have encountered (while in turn creating new ones). that is before them – i.e., several times, and view the land from there. For whenever he ascends there, he will lift his eyes to the I propose that God’s words to Moshe in verses 12–14, “Ascend this hills in order to see the land, every day.” Mt. Avarim and see the land,” be wholly identified with their parallel at the end of parashat Ha’azinu, as the great similarity between the Thus far, Abarbanel has interpreted verse 12, “Ascend this Mt. two sources would seem to suggest. This being so, the appearance of Avarim and see the land,” which is literally a command, and pertains this utterance by God in our parasha is indeed an instance of “there is to this moment in time. He now begins to address verse 13, “You shall no chronological order in the Torah” – but the same is not true of the see it and you, too, shall be gathered to your people, as Aharon your continuation of the story. brother was gathered”: At the time where we find ourselves, in the middle of parashat “When God says now, ‘You shall see it, and you shall be gathered Pinchas, a few months prior to Moshe’s death, these words are not to your people,’ it is to teach that now Moshe will see the land told to Moshe – neither as a command that must be fulfilled himself, as much as he is able to see, but he will see a different immediately (Abarbanel) nor as notification of what will occur in the view of it again at the time of his death, as is mentioned there (in future (Ramban). These words are destined to be said to Moshe only parashat Ha’azinu). This is the meaning of, ‘You shall see it’ – on the day of his death, as recorded at the end of parashat Ha’azinu. i.e., in the future tense [as opposed to the imperative — re’eh — But in parashat Pinchas the Torah gives us this preview, to fill a need in the previous verse, which refers to the present tense; the ‘vav’ not of Moshe’s, but of ours – the readers. at the beginning of the word ‘ve-ra’ita’ changes the tense from past to future]. Then, ‘you will be gathered to your people’ – at What makes this preview necessary? It is Moshe’s request of God: that time, after that final viewing, ‘as Aharon your brother was “Let God appoint… a man over the congregation,” and the ensuing gathered.’ Thus, Moshe was not commanded that he would die discussion. This request by Moshe comes in the midst of his routine right now, but rather was being told to ascend the mountain activity as leader of the nation. Therefore, it would hit us like a bolt of regularly and to view the land from there, for his death was not lightning, without any psychological preparation on our part and far away. God gives the reason for his being gathered to his without any introduction in the text, were it not for the Torah’s prior people in the wilderness, without entering the land, by stating notification that the day of Moshe’s death is drawing near. This also that it is in accordance with their sin [verse 14].” hints that Moshe himself is conscious of this fact.

Abarbanel interprets all the imperative expressions in our narrative From a thematic point of view, this interpretation is close to the as regular commands pertaining to the immediate situation. Only Ramban’s definition of the function of verses 12–14: as notification of verse 13 – “You SHALL SEE (ve-ra’ita) and you SHALL BE what is destined for Moshe on the day of his death. The difference is GATHERED (ve-né’esafta) to your people” – is treated by him as that the Ramban sees them as NOTIFICATION BY GOD AS

ACTUALLY GIVEN TO MOSHE AT THIS TIME, which forces him to interpret the imperative form of God’s commands as regular future (64) But among these there was not a single man of those tense. According to my suggestion, verses 12–14 should be regarded counted (pekudei) by Moshe and Aharon and kohen, who as NOTIFICATION BY THE TORAH TO THE READERS OF THE counted (pakdu) Bnei Yisrael in the wilderness of Sinai. STORY, taking the command in Ha’azinu and introducing it in our (65) For God had told them: They shall surely die in the parasha, relying on the principle that “there is no chronological order wilderness. And not a single man remained of them, except for in the Torah.” Kalev ben Yefuneh and YEHOSHUA BIN NUN… If verses 12–14 are not God’s actual speech to Moshe, notifying him of (27:16–17) “Let God, Lord of the spirits of all flesh, appoint his impending death, what prompts Moshe to request that a successor (yifkod) a man over the congregation… that God’s congregation be named? In general we may answer that his motivation is his not be like sheep that have no shepherd. awareness that his death is drawing near and that he must take care of the issue of a successor. Moshe needs no reminder of this. He (18) And God said to Moshe: Take for yourself YEHOSHUA BIN knows that the decree that has been passed upon him (20:12), “You NUN…” shall not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them,” The concluding verses of the census themselves indicate that this is will be fulfilled. His brother has already died as a result of this Moshe’s farewell census. These verses contrast the two censuses that decree, just a short while ago, and the nation is already in the final frame Sefer Bemidbar: the census conducted in the wilderness of stages of preparation for entering the land. If Moshe does not attend Sinai in the second year, and the present census, conducted in the to the appointment of a successor now, when will he do it? plains of Moav in the fortieth year. The first census was conducted by But we, the readers of the Torah, need a reminder of that decree. The Moshe and Aharon – the leaders of the generation that left Egypt. The multiplicity of events, of which Moshe is always at the center, may present census is carried out by Moshe and Elazar the kohen. Those lead us to forget that Moshe’s death is drawing near. We may originally counted have all been replaced – “not a single man therefore be taken by surprise by his request of God to appoint a remained of them.” Even Aharon himself has been replaced by his successor when he is still functioning at full strength, fulfilling his son, Elazar. Only Moshe remains as the tangible link between the two role as leader with no signs of weakening. censuses. But it is nevertheless clear from this census that Moshe is not the natural leader of the new generation. F. The census and Yehoshua’s appointment Who, then, will be the leader of this generation? The answer is hinted This interpretation changes our perception of the crux of the story. at quite dramatically in the fact that the larger literary unit Verses 12–14 can no longer be considered the main thrust of the describing the census – sixty-five verses in length – concludes, story; they are merely a necessary technical introduction to assist us surprisingly, with the name of Yehoshua bin Nun, seemingly quite in understanding the rest. It is the continuation, regarding the unnecessarily. This conclusion hints that it is Yehoshua who will be appointment of Yehoshua, that is therefore the essence of the story. entrusted with the leadership of these people. The fact that these verses represent a technical introduction is borne out by thevery fact that our parasha is not their proper place;they Let us now turn to Moshe’s request of God, opening with the word appear here only as a preview. “yifkod” (“Let [God] appoint…”). The meaning of the word here is “appoint” and not “count,” but it is certainly no coincidence that both Because these words were not actually spoken by God to Moshe at the root “p-k-d” and the root “m-n-h” are related both to leadership this time, we need not ask why God chooses specifically this moment and to counting. It appears that there is a fundamental connection to notify Moshe of his impending death. Likewise, there is no need to between these two actions: the leader is one who counts his nation; find any significance to the juxtaposition of the census, or the the “mefaked” (leader, commander) counts (poked); the “memuneh” discussion of the inheritance of the land, to these verses. Verses (appointed one) numbers (moneh). 12–14 are not related to what precedes them; rather, they are a necessary preamble to what follows them. Likewise, Moshe’s words further on – “that God’s congregation not be LIKE SHEEP THAT HAVE NO SHEPHERD” – appear to have their The question we must ask is a different one: why does Moshe ask of source in the census that has just been completed. Counting the God to appoint a new leader specifically at this time? According to the sheep is one of the regular tasks of the shepherd as he ends his day’s literal text, it would seem that the motivation for his request right work and returns the flock to the owner. Similarly, Moshe – the now is the preceding census. Moshe knows that this was his census of faithful shepherd – counts his flock before taking leave of them, and farewell from the nation, and the population that he counted must therefore he is concerned that that flock not be left without a now be entrusted to a new leader. This leads him to ask God to shepherd. appoint such a person. Following all of this we come to God’s response to Moshe, revealing The root “p-k-d” appears twenty times in chapter 26. Let us review the name of the next leader who will guide the flock: Yehoshua bin the concluding verses of this census (mifkad) together with Moshe’s Nun, whose name concluded chapter 26 – the chapter recounting the request and God’s response to it: census of Bnei Yisrael. (26:63) “These are the people numbered (pekudei) by Moshe and This essay originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel Elazar the kohen, who counted (pakdu) Bnei Yisrael in the plains Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with of Moav at the Jordan, near Yericho.

permission. otherwise kosher mixture, the bone counts as part of the kosher meat to nullify the non-kosher meat,5 or at the very least do not count Silent and Loud Prayer towards the forbidden part.6 Although in general the bones are still rabbinically prohibited, in the Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik case of gelatin there may be even more room for leniency because the bones are completely unfit for human consumption. They were never by R. Aharon Ziegler included in the prohibition of eating a non-kosher animal in the first The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 101:2) states that the individual place. This is similar to a case described by the Rama,7 who permits Shemoneh Esrei may not be recited in one’s heart or mind but must putting milk into an animal’s stomach which is completely dry like be articulated and verbalized so that one hears it oneself. On the wood, since it is no longer considered meat. The Shach8 writes that other hand, one must not recite it loud enough for others to hear. The the same applies to any innards of an animal, such as bones.9 Mishnah Berurah comments (note 7) that HaKadosh Baruch Hu hears Based on the above, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski10 permits the use of even silent prayers. gelatin from a non-kosher animal. An additional consideration of his is Although the individual’s Shemoneh Esrei is recited silently, the that the processing of the gelatin makes the bones inedible for even Chazarat Ha-Shatz (the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei) is recited the consumption by a dog. Therefore, the bones, even when aloud. Rav Soloveitchik explained the difference. The individual, no reconstituted in the form of gelatin, are considered “changed” ( matter how righteous, has no right to claim anything from HaShem. nishtanu) in the process and unconnected to the original non-kosher G-d owes the individual nothing. When an individual prays, therefore, product. He also noted that gelatin is almost always used in a way he must do so in the context of supplication, as a poor person at that it is nullified by sixty (i.e., it is less than one sixtieth) in the someone’s door, begging for a donation. The Shali’ach Tzibbur ( finished product.11 This is also the position of R. Ovadia Yosef12 and Chazan or leader), on the other hand, prays on behalf of the entire can be inferred from the responsa of R. David Tzvi Hoffman.13 R. congregation. He thus has the right to demand that HaShem fulfill Yechezkel Abramsky14 also proposed this approach but cautioned His covenantal obligations. He indeed has the right and the obligation against leniency, out of fear that permitting something which had to pray aloud. previously been assumed to be prohibited will lead to people being lax about the halachic process in general.15

Gelatin in Halacha: Recent Forbidden Bones Developments However, R. Aharon Kotler16 argues that the reason that bones are not included in the prohibition of eating non-kosher animals is simply by David Roth because they are unfit for human consumption. However, if they are reconstituted into gelatin, they are fit to eat and the prohibition For many years, gelatin–which is typically derived from non-kosher returns. This is because he holds that when the prohibited item itself sources–has posed a potential problem for kosher consumers and has is reconstituted, as opposed to just being mixed up with other things been a major subject of debate among halachic authorities. However, to make it possible to eat the bones, the bones themselves will recent developments in gelatin production might cause a problem become like the meat. If so, at the very least there is a problem of even for those who have been historically lenient. achshvei (showing that this item has importance), which renders the 17 Gelatin is defined as 1. a nearly transparent, faintly yellow, odorless, item rabbinically prohibited. This is also the position of R. Moshe 18 19 and almost tasteless glutinous substance obtained by boiling in water Feinstein. R. Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss likewise writes that gelatin the ligaments, bones, skin, etc., of animals, and forming the basis of from bones of non-kosher animals has been determined to be jellies, glues, and the like. 2. any of various similar substances, [such] forbidden by most Halachic authorities (al pi daas rov minyan as vegetable gelatin.1 Vegetable gelatin has few if any kashrus u’binyan shel gedolei ha’torah). R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, while concerns but gelatin derived from animals has generated vibrant admitting that there is room to be lenient if the bones are completely discussion. dry, questions whether gelatin is actually made from completely dry bones. He then says that one should act stringently anyway since Although according to the above definition gelatin can be made from such gelatin is available, and we should try to support those making ligaments, bones, skin, etc., of animals, the discussions of halachic gelatin with more stringent standards.20 authorities appear to be exclusively regarding the bones. If the 21 gelatin comes from a kosher animal that has been slaughtered R. Tzvi Pesach Frank takes an interesting middle approach: he properly, it is kosher and pareve2 according to everyone. Today, a argues that the case of bones that are only rendered unfit from major source of kosher gelatin is the bones of kosher fish. human consumption, but are still fit for a dog’s consumption, is a matter of debate. It is contingent on the halachic argument between Gelatin and Bones the Noda b’Yehuda and the Shach about whether the The Gemara3 says that one who cooks bones with milk is exempt from above-mentioned Rama, who permits putting milk into an animal’s punishment because the bones do not have the status of meat on a stomach that is completely dry like wood, also applies to the stomach Biblical level, which is codified in Shulchan Aruch.4 The Gemara of a non-kosher animal. Was the Rama only lenient about the further states that if a non-kosher piece of boned meat falls into an prohibition of meat and milk or even about non-kosher animals?

However, if the bones are rendered unfit even from the consumption 9. The Shach has one caveat, however, which is that he says that by a dog, they should be permitted by all. He concludes that until we one should not l’chatchila (initially, in the first place) make such better determine the actual situation, one should be stringent, but a mixture; however, the Pischei Teshuva (there 19) quotes R. one should not tell those who are lenient that they are acting Akiva Eiger, that this is only when there will not be sixty times incorrectly. the prohibition in the mixture to nullify the stomach. If there will be sixty times the prohibition in the mixture to nullify the Recent Developments stomach, it should be permitted to rely on the leniency even It is also important to realize that the production process today may l’chatchila. ↩ not be the same as that dealt with in the decades-old responsa mentioned above. The Kosharot organization in Israel22 has made the 10. Achiezer 3:33:5 ↩ claim that today most gelatin is made from fresh bones, in which case 11. He explains that there is no problem of ein mevatlin issur the leniency of dried bones would no longer apply. Therefore, the l’chatchila (nullifying a prohibited item in the first place) in this gelatin made from these fresh bones of non-kosher animals should be case based on a responsum of R. Akiva Eiger (207). R. Eiger says forbidden according to all halachic authorities. that if, absent bittul (nullification), there would not be a Biblical 23 R. Yaakov Ariel responded that even if it is true that gelatin is made prohibition, there is no issue of ein mevatlin issur l’chatchila from fresh animal bones, the second leniency still applies. In the (nullifying a prohibited item in the first place). ↩ process of making gelatin, the bones are rendered inedible to a dog. He concludes that it is proper to be strict on that matter, but objects 12. Yabia Omer YD 8:11 ↩ to calling it non-kosher. 13. Melamed l’hoil YD 2:24 ↩ The Kosharot organization responded,24 agreeing with R. Ariel that if the gelatin was indeed made inedible to a dog in the process that it 14. The responsum is printed in the introduction to Volume 4 of Tzitz would indeed be kosher according to some halachic authorities. Eliezer. Note that R. Abramsky rejects the logic to permit gelatin However, they deny that this is what actually happens in the process based on nishtanu (that it is changed), and permits it only 25 of extracting gelatin. Accordingly, even the lenient authorities because the bones are dried up. He does not address the fact would have to rule strictly if the facts as reported by Kosharot are that there is sixty times the gelatin in the mixture, which could confirmed. potentially nullify the gelatin. ↩

The OU and most mainstream kashrus organizations in America are 15. Whenever a Halachic authority mentions something like this, one stringent like R. Aharon Kotler and R. Moshe Feinstein; they only would need to determine whether the conditions under which he certify gelatin that is made from the bones of kosher fish, or from made such a statement would still apply, and whether if he were kosher animals which have been slaughtered properly.26 I have found alive today if he would still say this. In any case, this is well conflicting sources regarding the policies of the Rabbanut in Israel.27 beyond the scope of this article. ↩ (UPDATED) 16. Mishnas Rebbi Aharon, YD 16–17 ↩ 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gelatin?s=t ↩ 17. Achshvei is when one eats something which is not fit for human 2. Igros Moshe YD 1:37 and Igros Moshe YD 2:27, based on Noda consumption; on a Biblical level, there is no prohibition B’Yehuda, Volume 1, YD 26, because something that is whatsoever but rabbinically there is a prohibition to eat this item completely dry does not have enough taste to make a forbidden because you are showing that it does have importance to you. ↩ meat and milk mixture. See also Mishnas Rebbi Aharon YD 16:7–13, where he seems to give an additional reason. ↩ 18. Igros Moshe YD 2:27, in the last paragraph. R. Moshe Feinstein writes that gelatin from a non-kosher animal is forbidden 3. Chullin 114a ↩ because the Rambam ruled that bones are forbidden even though there is no punishment for eating them. Surprisingly, R. 4. YD 87:7. See also in Mishnas Rebbi Aharon YD 16,2, where he is Feinstein seems to ignore the Rama and Shach mentioned above. unsure if the prohibition is really only Rabbinic, as we had However, it is possible (although by no means certain) that he suggested, or if it is indeed Biblical in nature, but one who does really meant something along the lines of what R. Aharon Kotler so is exempt from punishment for side reasons. ↩ said, that they are at least forbidden on the rabbinical level. In any case, it is clear that his position is that gelatin made from 5. YD 99:1 ↩ bones of non-kosher animals is forbidden. Also note that R. Moshe is lenient when it comes to gelatin made from processed 6. First opinion in Rama there. ↩ animal skins, see Igros Moshe YD 2:23. ↩

7. YD 87:10 ↩ 19. Minchas Yitzchak 5:5 ↩

8. There 33 ↩ 20. Edus L’Yisrael, page 177 ↩

21. Har Tzvi YD 83 ↩ Butchering Judaism

A disingenuous animal welfare article stabs Jewish community 22. Emunas Itecha, Volume 97, page 41 ↩ interests in the back

23. Emunas Itecha, Volume 98, page 143 ↩ by R. Ari Zivotofsky

24. Emunas Itecha, Volume 99, page 152 ↩ A growing number of US rabbis are engaged in advancing extra-halachic moral issues. While these are often worthy endeavors, 25. On it is imperative that they be promoted in a positive rather than http://www.toraland.org.il/media/273100/emunatTahapuhotZma negative manner. That is, the inherent good of the cause needs to be n.pdf, page 16 of the pdf, footnote 73, it is suggested that the emphasized, rather than merely appearing to be morally superior by argument over whether it is unfit for consumption of a dog might denigrating others. In addition, in order to maintain credibility, really be a definitional argument. What does it mean for honesty must be strictly adhered to. something to be unfit for consumption of a dog–is it that a dog A text-book example of how not to do it was recently demonstrated in would never eat it, even if it is hungry, or that a domesticated The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article Why This Rabbi is Swearing off dog would not normally eat it? ↩ Kosher Meat (Houses of Worship, May 29, 2014) by Rabbi Shmuly 26. See Yanklowitz. The missive was a broad based attack on a huge swath of http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/the-fascinating-story-o the kosher industry that contained misinformation and clever but f-kosher-gelatin-or-how-a-product-from-beef-can-be-used-in-dairy dishonest tactics. I would first like to address the general issue of -delicacies/, see also sticking to the positive and then briefly mention the specifics of this http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-issues-GettingIntoTheThickOfT article. hingsGelatin.htm. ↩ I can speculate that by publishing this article in the WSJ, Yanklowitz may have had one of two goals in mind. He may have been hoping to 27. According to RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, influence the meat or dairy industries to radically overhaul their Volume 30, page 66, footnote 1, the Rabbanut follows the lenient practices. The likelihood of a Yanklowitz article in the WSJ leading to position. However, according to an article on the Kosharot such a change is negligible in my mind, comparable to the YCT website (http://www.kosharot.co.il/show_hadracha.asp?id=60085 modifying their modus operandi based on a Rabbi Avi Shafran article ), the Rabbanut follows the stringent position, which is in Mishpacha magazine. Alternatively, the goal may have been to contradicted by another article by Kosharot themselves (Emunas proselytize to the uninitiated and convince others to “boycott” kosher Itecha, Volume 99, 152) which claims that only mehadrin kosher animal products. Possible, but I think unlikely that an article in the supervision follows the stringent opinion. According to an article WSJ will persuade somebody to become a vegetarian. on the Tzohar website ( http://www.tzohar.org.il/?content=%D7%94%D7%92%D7%9C% Unfortunately, other than publicly declaring his moral superiority, a D7%98%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%A8% very likely result of Yanklowitz’s article is that when Jewish D7%95%D7%AA%D7%95), the Rabbanut is lenient for “regular” communal organizations are called upon to defend shechita in Europe kashrut (as opposed to mehadrin, or higher standard or other places, the secular governments will now have one more supervision). Also, see the article on the B’chadrei Chareidim piece of ammunition. They can pull out an article by a prominent forum ( “Orthodox” rabbi in the influential WSJ which supports their claim http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2024554&f that shechita is unethical. I have personally been involved in shechita orum_id=16810) about someone who sued the Strauss company defense for many years, working behind the scenes clarifying the and the Rabbanut for misleading them into thinking that certain scientific and halachic facts about kosher slaughter to keep it legal in products containing gelatin are kosher; different parts of the jurisdictions where that is threatened, and this is not a far-fetched article appear to present contradictory positions which the scenario. It may not have been Yanklowitz’s intention, but it is, sadly, Rabbanut allegedly holds on this matter. Also, see on the Tzomet a likely result. website ( A few specifics about this article. He opens by setting up the http://zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=258&ArticleID=274& strawman of kosher being healthier and then knocks it down. For Page=1), where former Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron says Jews and Jewish law it was never primarily about health and if he so that while the Rabbanut does certify gelatin taken from the claims, it is merely a sly tactic to then malign kosher. bones of non-kosher animals, they require it to be labeled as such. ↩ He devotes a large section to factory farming and claims that his big beef is with those practices. If that is true, then he should write an article about why he hates factory farming and therefore went vegan. But he should not use his abhorrence of modern animal husbandry to malign the kosher industry, thereby harming the many observant Jews who still want to legitimately eat meat, including some who require it for health reasons.

He devotes considerable space to the treatment of downed (sic) Eastern Europe and the Middle East (outside Israel) and North Africa. calves. While this practice may be inappropriate, it is irrelevant to the Today, 80% of the world’s Jews live in Israel and America. There are kosher meat industry which does not use such animals, a fact that surely a higher number of Jews today who are only second or third Rabbi Yanklowitz surely knows. He talks about “story after story” of generation in their land of birth than at most points in Jewish history. Israeli kosher-slaughterhouse scandals. You can count the scandals The old stories of shuls that dated back to eternity, families living in (which are unfortunate and most certainly should be dealt with) on the same city for generation after generation, even century after one hand. They are few and infrequent. century, whilst obviously never applying to the whole Jewish people, certainly describe even fewer Jews today. The city of Bnei Brak, now What makes this article truly disturbing is the blatant dishonesty home to around 180,000 Jews and maybe the spiritual centre of involved. The article implies that after much painful soul-searching Charedi Jewry, was only built in 1924. We have few daily reminders of Yanklowitz recently reached his conclusion to stop eating kosher the Jews who lived one, two, three hundred years ago simply because meat. In reality, he has been a vegan for several years. His ethical we live thousands of kilometres away from the place of their homes, decision is not based on a new epiphany and it relates to all animal schools, shuls and cemeteries. products. His eating habits are not related specifically to the manner in which kosher meat is slaughtered. This intentional misleading is A second factor that undermines our connection to our past is the nothing less than gneivat da’at. style of contemporary Jewish education. Dr. Haym Soloveitchik famously argued that as we moved from the Shtetl to open Western Most Orthodox Jews who embrace vegetarianism do so with societies, Jewish education shifted from being a function of the home commendable motivations and do not feel a need to malign kosher and street to a function of the school. When we lived in closed slaughter to justify their choice. In contrast, Yanklowitz attacks the communities, the home, and by extension, tradition, were seen as true kosher industry, yet concludes with a personal prayer that the kosher expressions of Judaism, capable of accurately transmitting the Jewish meat and dairy industries will yet rectify their ways; implying that if tradition to the next generation. As we became more westernised, our so, he might renounce his veganism. If I invite him to a BBQ with a culture and community became infiltrated with other values; books backyard raised lamb that I personally schecht gently and with and study, rather than the practise and experience of the home, compassion, will he partake? When the sacrifices are reinstated, as became the focus. The role of tradition in Jewish education has been Orthodox Jews daily pray for, will he willingly eat from the Paschal reduced. sacrifice, after it is lovingly processed by our holy kohanim? The experience of mitzvos, the folklore of mitzvos, is consistent If Yanklowitz chooses to forego meat and other animal products he is across generations entitled to his choice. He is not entitled to stand on a soap box and publicly misrepresent the facts about kosher slaughter. There are two The third factor leading to a weakening of historical consciousness is serious problems with this WSJ article – the potential misuse of it and somewhat ironic. Whilst such generalisations are difficult, it can be the deceit in its presentation. His claims, stated and implied, are false stated that for the last 2 generations, Orthodox children and and destructive. In his stab at promoting animal welfare he is (I hope teenagers have received more Jewish education, and are more inadvertently!) harming the interests of the global Jewish community. Jewishly knowledgeable, than their parents. The first generation after the Second World War saw parents who had had little Jewish She’nishma bsorot tovot. education sending their children to Jewish day schools, and the next generation saw the flourishing of Year in Israel programs. The Looking for the Ghosts standard image of a child asking his father about the Exodus from Egypt at the Seder night has been inverted – for nearly two by Aron White generations, many Jewish children have grown up with a higher level of Jewish education than their parents. Whilst this situation is clearly A central feature of the thought of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik is the positive, it has had a side affect of reducing our connection to our concept of a Mesorah community. Jews are conceived as part of a past – for many religiously committed individuals, they look around to shared community spanning generations, with a shared religious and their contemporaries and rebbeim for religious inspiration, rather spiritual mission and destiny. (Recently this concept was summarised than their less religious parents and grandparents. (In numerous in an article on this website.) cases, this affect has become so pronounced that, terribly, teenagers However, I think that this concept is in danger. I believe that today, actually look down on their predecessors, and/or consciously distance the average Jew is far less conscious, in a daily, existential way, of themselves from family events and functions. This situation is very being part of an age-old tradition, than Jews of other eras were. serious, and is worthy of a lengthier discussion in and of its own right, but is too far afield from our current topic.) It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to fully understand the components of another person‘s identity, certainly when talking about Together, these forces have caused us to lose the sense of being part a person one never met. Nevertheless, three factors lead me to the of an age-old tradition in a meaningful, tangible way. We live in conclusion that we are less conscious of our past than Jews living in relatively new communities and have ceased to see the chain of family previous eras. tradition as a method of transmitting Judaism. Is there any way to revive the Mesorah consciousness, for people to feel part of an age First, most of the world’s Jews live in relatively young Jewish old tradition in a daily, tangible way? communities. 150 years ago the largest Jewish communities were in

The answer came to me, as many answers do, in Tzfat. I was attending a Shabbat meal at the home of a local family. After the head of the table cut the challa, a guest at the table, a convert from Scandinavia, turned to me and made a striking comment. She said, in an offhand manner, but with a seriousness that is hard to describe, the following:

When I see the head of the table cutting the challa, all I can see is the ghost of his father cutting the challa, and the ghost of his father cutting the challa, and so on, for generation upon generation. And then I see the ghost of his son cutting the challa, and the ghost of his son cutting the challa, and so on for generation upon generation. I am a convert, and also I biologically cannot have children. When I cut the challa, it is just me, cutting the challa.

The situation of this woman is poignant, even heartbreaking. Her point, however, is spot on. So many of the actions we perform as Jews are identical to those performed for generation upon generation. Philosophically, there have been a huge range of approaches within Judaism. There are debates over some of the basic philosophical tenets of the religion (and whether there even are such tenets). Yet, the mainstays of Jewish observance are remarkably uniform across communities and across millennia. Our day, as theirs, is framed by three Tefillot, the wearing of tzitzis, tallis and tefillin, and the reciting of brachos over food. Our year, as theirs, is framed by Shabbat and chagim. Our lives, as theirs, are framed by the Jewish rites of passage.

It is not just the technical mitzvos performance, but the experience of mitzvos, the folklore of mitzvos, that is also consistent across generations. My mother always points out that certain pages in the Haggada are dirtier than others, and in different ways. The page which contains the brachos for matza always has crumbs in it, leftovers from previous years Seder night. The pages at which we drink the cups of wine, and the page where we read out the makkos, and dip our finger in to the cup, normally are stained red. Last summer, I was in the Jewish Museum in Amsterdam, where among other things, there were a number of beautiful handwritten and decorated Haggados from the 17th century displayed. One was open to the page of the makkos. The hand that had dipped into the wine hundreds of years ago had left the telltale wine drops on the page.

Jews have spilled wine on their Haggados for centuries. The wrapping of the child under the tallis during Birkas Kohanim, the serene moment of prayer after the lighting of the Shabbat candles, the tune of Kol Nidrei, are identical across time.

The connection to our Mesorah, to those generations before us, is present in so much of what we do. We just need to look for the ghosts.

Avoiding Danger in our Daily “Hashem Watches the Fools” In many places, the Gemorah13 permits a dangerous action on the Lives grounds that it is done by many people, and it is included in “shomer 14 In previous articles we dealt with the halachos of dangerous activities, pisayim Hashem” – Hashem watches the fools.” There are many restric‐ such as eating fish together with meat, talking with food in your mouth, tions to this idea, as will be discussed below. learning the halachos of avielus, and going for blood tests on Erev Yom The simple meaning is that one is permitted to do a dangerous act, since Tov. In addition, we have dealt with placing food under the bed, leaving Hashem watches the fools. However, this only applies to a common act eggs peeled overnight, and the will of Rav Yehuda Hachasid which all in‐ 15 16 volve some form of danger. which is not considered dangerous. The Achiezer maintains that this idea was used in a unique case and cannot be applied to other cases.17 Halachically Speaking The Binyon Tzion18 has a different approach. He says that if one is al‐ Volume 10 Issue 7 ready in danger he has to do whatever is possible to remove himself from the danger. However, if the danger is not yet at hand and there is less Authored by Moishe Dovid Lebovits than a fifty percent chance that the action will result in a dangerous situa‐ Reviewed by Rabbi Ben-zion Schiffenbauer Shlit”a tion, then the specific action is permitted. This is where we apply shomer Piskei Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlit”a pisayim Hashem. Reviewed by Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlit”a Some only apply this idea where there is doubt if the action is dangerous In this article, we will focus on other halachos. For example, is one al‐ at all.19 Others limit this idea to someone who is not a learned person (am lowed to place himself in a potentially dangerous situation, such as at‐ ha’aretz).20 tending a Yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel in a time of war? May one visit danger‐ ous places? Is it permitted to join the army? Kashrus professionals fre‐ “One Who Keeps a Mitzvah Will Know no Evil” quently go to remote countries to supervise kosher production. Is this per‐ mitted in spite of a potential danger? This topic is especially relevant in Another common phrase used to permit a dangerous act is that, “One who the summer months when people like to vacation to remote locations. All keeps a mitzvah will know no evil.” However, the poskim discuss many these and other areas of danger will be discussed below. variables as to when this applies.21

Introduction “When One is Doing a Mitzvah He Will Not be Hurt”

1 A person has a mitzvah to remove himself from danger. Many poskim say The Gemorah22 permits bedikas chometz in a snake-infested area be‐ 2 3 that this is a mitzvah d’oraisa, while other poskim say it is a d’rabbonon. cause, “When one is doing a Mitzvah he will not be hurt.” However, this The Chinuch4 explains that Hashem gave us a nefesh which resides within only applies if the possible danger is not a frequent occurrence. The Ge‐ the body, and one must protect his body in order to protect the nefesh. morah23 says that when one learns Torah lishma he is protected from The Be’er Hagolah5 says that Hashem created the world with kindness for even dangers that are common, even when he is not learning. the purpose of doing good to His creations. One who puts himself in dan‐ ger is implying that he does not want the good that Hashem gave him. For One’s Livelihood There is no greater apikores than such a person. The Mesillas Yeshorim6 24 writes that one who does not treat his body with the appropriate respect The Gemorah records that workers would risk their lives in order to 25 is a shotah. The Sefer Chassidim7 says that one who places himself in a make a living. The Nodeh B’Yehuda permits hunting for one’s livelihood, 26 dangerous situation will have to give a din and cheshbon to Hashem why even if it is a danger. Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l also permits possibly he did so. The Ritvah8 says that one should not eat any unhealthy food. dangerous activities for a livelihood. However, one should consult with his Many people will scrupulously avoid an issur, and Chazal tell us that Rav before going into business which can involve danger, since there are something that involves danger is more severe than an issur.9 Whoever no clear cut rules for this matter. does dangerous things to himself and destroys himself has no olom Living in a Dangerous Place haba.10 A person may not say, “I will go to a dangerous place or do some‐ thing dangerous and a miracle will happen,” because maybe a miracle will There is no question that the thousands of people who live in Eretz Yisroel not happen to him.11 Although many dangers mentioned in Shas are not face the danger of terrorism. We will not arrive at a ruling as to whether 12 brought in halacha, the Stiepler zt”l was careful with all of them. one should live in Eretz Yisroel. Rather, we will discuss the issues involv‐ 15 ing the exposure to danger. However, some argue that there is no obligation if it entails even a sofek danger.39 Klal Yisroel was given the Torah “to live with (mitzvos)” not to r”l die from them. This is expressed in the words of v’chai bahem.27 In a case of war, the halacha changes. A war is a threat to the tzibbur, and the soldiers represent the tzibur. Therefore, the soldiers can save other We all know that when there is a matter of life and death, one is permitted Jews who are in danger even if there is a concern that the soldiers will r”l to even desecrate Shabbos and Yom Kippur, and is only obligated to give get killed.40 up his life in order to avoid Avodah Zarah, illicit behavior, and murder.28 Kashrus Professionals Some are of the opinion that living in Eretz Yisroel is of such great impor‐ tance that one may live there even if he is in danger.29 This is because the Many times a kashrus agency may be requested to give a hashgacha in re‐ mitzvah applies to the masses and not to the individual.30 In addition, it is mote countries. If the place is known to be dangerous, one should not visit a mitzvah to help ﬁght a war, even if it is dangerous. The admonition of or send mashgichim there. Each kashrus agency should decide which v’chai bahem does not apply to wartime. countries should be avoided.

Furthermore, these people are not in a constant state of danger. In addi‐ The United States Department of State provides a list of dangerous coun‐ tion, those who live in remote locations serve to secure the borders, mak‐ tries: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Colombia, Congo, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, 41 ing sure that the Arabs do not take it over. In this way, they are compara‐ Nigeria, North Korea, New Guinea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. ble to soldiers of the Israeli army. Based on the above, those who have the Certainly, Jews should avoid these countries. courage and strength to live in such places (Shomron, etc.) have on whom to rely on to do so.31 Placing Money in One’s Mouth

A more complicated issue arises when a student is learning in Eretz Yis‐ The halacha is that one should refrain from placing money in his mouth 42 roel and a war breaks out, and his parents demand that he come home. Is for fear of contracting a disease, as people are always touching money, 43 the child required to return home? Although there is a mitzvah to obey and may transfer microbes to the money. Others explain that one may 44 one’s parents, one need not follow an order to nullify a mitzvah.32 How‐ inadvertently swallow the money and choke on the coins. Based on this, ever, some say that living in Eretz Yisroel is not an active mitzvah for each one should be careful not to place small items in his mouth.45 Special individual person, but one who lives there fulfills a mitzvah.33 Others care should be exercised with little children, as they are accustomed to treat this like any other mitzvah, and the child is not obligated to obey his place money in their mouths. parents’ demand that he return home.34 Other Activities to Avoid There is another factor that affects this issue. One should not walk under a shaky bridge, near a shaky wall,46 or enter a There is a dispute among the poskim if the mitzvah of obeying parents ap‐ ruin because of danger.47 One should not take chewed food out of his plies when the request is not for something which would directly benefit mouth and then chew the food again.48 the parent. The consensus is that the mitzvah does not apply. Therefore, if the request is solely motivated by the parents’ concern for the safety of Non-Jewish Barber their child, there is no obligation to obey. However, if the request is due to the parents’ own peace of mind, then one is permitted to leave Eretz Yis‐ There is a little known halacha that one is not allowed to take a haircut by roel. In the final analysis, one who does not feel he is in grave danger and a non-Jew, as he might take the razor49 and use it to r”l murder the client. wishes to stay in Eretz Yisroel may do so, but he may leave if this will con‐ However, it is permitted if other people are present,50 or if there is a mir‐ 35 tribute to his parents’ peace of mind. ror and you can see what he is doing.51

A Sofek Danger to Save From a Definite Danger Some add that since we are accustomed to pay the barber for his services, we are not concerned that he will jeopardize his livelihood by harming his Although a soldier in the Israeli army is definitely exposed to danger, he/ clients.52 she is still permitted to join the army, as will be explained. Based on kabbalah, some say that one should not take a haircut from a A person may expose himself to a sofek danger under certain circum‐ non-Jew,53 especially if there are Jews who are just as capable of giving a stances in order to save someone from a definite danger, since there is a haircut.54 doubt whether he will ever be exposed to danger.36 This contributes to so‐ 37 ciety, as people will be saved from dangerous situations. Loud Music at Weddings

Therefore, one is obligated to make an effort to save others from a dan‐ There is a widespread problem of excessively loud music at weddings. gerous situation, even if there is a possibility of personal danger. If he fails Often, the decibel level is sufficient to damage hearing permanently. It is לא תעמוד על דם רעך 38 to do so, he has transgressed the mitzvah of . 16 common practice in Eretz Yisroel to utilize a sound meter which automati‐ 18. 137. ↩ cally shuts off the amplifier when the music reaches a dangerous level. This is a great idea for us to develop as well. 19. Refer to Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh pages 66–67, Yabea Omer ~~~ Y.D 3:7:3. See Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76. ↩

1. Meseches Berochos 32b, Rambam Hilchos Rotzeach V’shemiras 20. Terumas Hadeshen 211. Refer to Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh Hanefesh 11:4–5, Sefer Sharei Teshuva 3:82, Shulchan Aruch page 67. See Yabea Omer Y.D. 2:7. ↩ C.M. 427:8, Levush C.M. 116:57, Ben Ish Chai Pinchus 2:10, Chochmas Adom 68:4, Shulchan Aruch Harav Shemiras Haguf 4, 21. Refer to Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh pages 69–74 in great depth. Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 116:1, Pela Yoetz Shemirah:pages 577–579 ↩ (new), Kovetz Igeres (Chazzon Ish) 1:136:page 140, Shevet Ha’Levi 6:111:1. ↩ 22. Pesachim 8a-8b. Refer to Meseches Kiddushin 39b, Pri Megadim O.C. M.Z. 433:7. ↩ 2. Based on the posuk in Devarim 4:9. Refer to Levush C.M. 116:57, Pri Megadim M.Z. 84:2, Tevuas Shor 13:2, Shulchan Hatohar C.M. 23. Sotah 21a. Refer to Avnei Nezer O.C. 454:2. ↩ 427:9, Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 427:8, Bais Yehuda Y.D. 25, Shem 24. Meseches Bava Metziah 112a. ↩ Aryeh Y.D. 27, see Yabea Omer Y.D. 1:8:4, Al Pi Hatorah (Shemos) page 343, see Pe’er Tachas Eifer pages 61–68 in great depth. ↩ 25. Y.D. 2:10. ↩

3. Be’er Hagolah C.M. 427:70, Chinuch mitzvah 546, Chai Adom 26. C.M. 1:104. Refer to Halichos Journal 5755:pages 64–67 in great 16:24, Divrei Malkiel 4:62, see Levush Y.D. 116:1, Me’am Loez depth. ↩ Devarim pages 1:232–240. The Betzel Hachuchma 4:118 diﬀeren‐ tiates between what type of danger it is. ↩ 27. Vayikra 18:5. Refer to Meseches Yoma 85b. ↩

4. Mitzvah 73. ↩ 28. Refer to Techumin 22:page 117, see Techumin 2:page 187. ↩

5. C.M. 427:10. ↩ 29. Refer to Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 110 “hu” who argues. ↩

6. 11:page 58. ↩ 30. Refer to Techumin 27:page 117. ↩

7. 675. ↩ 31. Techumin 22:pages 116–119 in depth. ↩

8. Meseches Shavuos 27a. ↩ 32. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 240:15. ↩

9. Meseches Chullin 10a, Rama Y.D. 116:5, see Shulchan Aruch 33. Refer to Igros Moshe E.H. 1:102, Y.D. 3:122, see Yechaveh Da’as 173:2, Imrei Eish Y.D. 60, Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh page 63, 3:69, 5:57, Tzitz Eliezer 6:32, 10:32, Minchas Yitzchok 10:108, Chaim L’lo Ishan pages 74–76. ↩ Minchas Shlomo 2–3:100. ↩

10. Meseches Gittin 57b. ↩ 34. Yechaveh Da’as 4:49 in great depth who brings the opinions on this issue. ↩ 11. Meseches Shabbos 32b. ↩

35. Refer to Techumin 12:pages 187–199 in great depth. ↩ 12. Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh 265:page 756. ↩

36. Bais Yosef C.M. 426. ↩ 13. Meseches Shabbos 129b, Yevamos 12b, 72a, Kesubos 39a. ↩

37. Chinuch Mitzvah 237. ↩ 14. Tehillim 116:6. ↩

38. Shulchan Aruch C.M. 426:1, see Vayikra 19:16. Refer to Sreidim 15. Refer to Rav Akiva Eiger 1:71–72, Pischei Teshuva E.H. 23:2, see (Journal) 13:pages 51–52. ↩ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 33:page 59. ↩

39. Refer to Sreidim (Journal) 13:page 52. ↩ 16. E.H. 1:23. Refer to Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76, Tzitz Eliezer 10:25:17, 15:37:2. ↩ 40. Tzitz Eliezer 12:57, 13:100. Refer to Sreidim (Journal) 13:pages 51–60 in great depth. See Yabea Omer C.M. 10:6. This is related 17. Some say the above phrase only applies to the cases where this to the story of Mordechai and Esther in Megillas Esther as well phrase is brought in the Gemorah (Pe’er Tachas Eifer page (see Yabea Omer C.M. 10:6). ↩ 77:footnote 1). ↩ 17 41. Refer to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html. 49. We are not concerned about him using a scissor since it is not ↩ common to do damage with it (Taz 1). Some say if the barber uses a scissor then other people still have to be present to permit tak‐ 42. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 116:5. ↩ ing a haircut form a non-Jew (Be’er Heitiv 156:1). ↩

43. Shach 3, Chochmas Adom 68:2. ↩ 50. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 156:1. ↩

44. Kaf Hachaim 116:38, Chelkes Binyomin 116:34. ↩ 51. Rama Y.D. 156:1. Some say if it is an important person there is no need for him to look in the mirror (Darchei Teshuva 156:1). ↩ 45. Ibid. ↩ 52. Bais Lechem Yehuda Y.D. 156. Refer to Shach 2. ↩ 46. Meseches Tannis 20b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 116:5, Shach 5, Chochmas Adom 68:4. ↩ 53. Opinion brought in the Darchei Teshuva 156:4. ↩

47. Shach 5. ↩ 54. Ibid. ↩

48. Kaf Hachaim 116:76. ↩

Chareidi life of kollel and klei kodesh, inadequately paid communal work‐ Rethinking the Shidduch Cri‐ ers. sis: The Role of Jewish The unsustainability of such a community is obvious and many have al‐ Women in Contemporary So‐ ready written about it. Slowly but surely, in both the Israeli and American Chareidi societies, people are realizing that not everybody will be able to ciety live a kollel life. While this realization is starting to sink in, there are few individuals who are willing to accept they will be the unfortunate ones by Efraim Vaynman who will have to live the bedieved life of working for a living.

Sometimes we don’t see the obvious until we are forced to. The so-called The question is when these individuals come to this realization. Among “Shidduch Crisis,” the many singles struggling to find a mate, is a case-in- men, this often happens when they arrive at the recognition that they are point. The Chareidi community in particular has proposed many ideas for not successful in their learning. Realizing that the limited funding should solving and alleviating the shidduch crisis such as: financial incentives for go to the best scholars, they wistfully consign themselves to their fate and setting up older girls, having boys get married earlier, and even having join training programs that will enable them to earn a living. With a girls start kindergarten later.1 Much thought has been given to the source yeshiva quota system set to be implemented in Israel in the coming years, of the problem, whether the supposed “age gap theory”2 or the Western this realization will come earlier for these men as they are forcefully re‐ courtship conventions we’ve adopted. However, not much thought has moved from the beis medrash. been given to the more fundamental question of what we are looking for But what of the women? When do they reluctantly accept that they will in a marriage. But soon the Chareidi world will be forced to confront this not be able live the ideal Torah lifestyle? After all, they too are taught to question too. want,3 or rather demand, that their husbands learn as long as they possi‐ The Financial Situation and its Effects on Kollel Life bly can.

The Chareidi world is facing tumultuous times. Recent budget cuts by the For a married woman it would seem that her decision to leave full-time Israeli government to Yeshiva funding and welfare programs are causing learning is reached together with her husband. A wife can encourage her upheaval as Chareidi leaders scramble to arrange alternate funding to husband to continue learning and offer to financially support the family support their schools and to continue paying the meager stipends to their the best she can. However, many times a woman may come to the realiza‐ kollel students. Meanwhile, their American counterparts, while not facing tion that despite her best efforts, she is unable to make ends meet or con‐ nearly as dire a situation, are also struggling to continue to support the tinue doing so while still tending to her responsibilities at home and to ever-expanding kollel system. As more and more yeshiva students marry her children. For single women this unfortunately seems to often happen and join the ranks of those who make torasam umanusam, studying Torah after a prolonged unsuccessful dating period in which they were not able their occupation, the philanthropic supporters of these yeshivas and kolle‐ to become engaged to a ben torah. Facing the prospect of becoming an lim are spread increasingly thin. Affluent grandparents and parents who “older single,” they accept their fate and start dating men who will not be were once proud and happy to support the kollel lifestyle they never had long-term learners. are now pressed hard to come up with the requisite funds to support their many children and grandchildren who almost all choose to live the ideal Impending Changes

18 The tides of change have already started to blow, and the situation is on they will at first only compromise on what they see as the least important course to dramatically transform in the coming years. The future realities things and will progressively concede to more compromises as they sense will compel changes to the Chareidi system of kollel, whether the Charei‐ their shidduch chances wane. The point at which a woman will be willing dim like it or not. Kollel will not disappear but it will be reserved for the to forgo a kollel lifestyle and what compromises she will be willing to best and the brightest. People will eventually realize early on whether make to attain this lifestyle is our interest here. they are learners or earners, and will prepare for their future according to their own self-determination. There is a pivotal difference between the way men and women accept their inauspicious fate of not living a kollel lifestyle. When a man reaches One often overlooked repercussion of this change is its impact this on the the conclusion that he should leave yeshiva and join the workforce, he ac‐ Chareidi shidduch model. With more men deciding that they will not be cepts it as the divine will. There are learners and there are earners in Klal learning long-term there needs to be a commensurate number of women Yisroel, and God has decided that the best way for this individual to con‐ willing to forgo the ideal kollel lifestyle. While it will be apparent which tribute to the nation is through working and supporting Torah, and learn‐ men will be learning, it is not at all known which women will become kol‐ ing Torah himself when he can. He finds comfort in knowing that he is lel wives. The discrepancy in age at which men and women realize their more fit for earning and can be more productive that way than had an‐ fate is already a big contributor to the shidduch crisis, and without some other person learning been forced into his fate. type of change it will be felt more acutely in the coming years. This differ‐ ence in the amount of men planning on learning and women that plan on For a woman, the realization that she must compromise her ideals and being being kollel wives has the potential to exacerbate the shidduch cri‐ marry someone who will not be learning does not naturally lead to the ac‐ sis. Signs of the impending crisis are already emerging and according to a ceptance of her predestined role. After all, until now she was fully pre‐ recent Mishpacha article, the situation in the Chareidi world has been pared to commit to a self-sacrificing life for the sake of her husband’s and heightened from an “orange light” to a “red alert”.4 children’s Torah. What then happened? She was as willing to make the same sacrifice as her peers who successfully married into kollel life. Why In addition, in recent times there has been much material published in is she different? Although it is possible accept that somehow her peers are which working for living is legitimized. Such material, together with the more apt or more righteous and deserving than she, this is not an intuitive growing movement of the so called Blue Shirt Charedim (also called and comforting answer. Chardashim, short for Chareidim Chadashim, New Chareidim), are help‐ ing young yeshiva students realize that not everyone is cut out for a life of The consequence of this thinking is that a woman is less willing to accept full time learning. Although working for a living is being legitimized and a secondary role of forgoing kollel life. She will prefer to compromise on becoming socially more acceptable, the ideal still remains to live a kollel other things first. life if pragmatically possible. The compromises in choosing a marriage partner that some women are An Exacerbated Chareidi Shidduch Crisis willing to make in order to live a kollel life are cause for more concern than the current shidduch crisis. Is it indeed correct to compromise on a The changing attitude to kollel is predominantly occurring among husband’s other qualities for this sake? How much can be compromised Chareidi men. They still cling to the ideal of kollel life, but acknowledge without endangering a marriage? Assuming that living a kollel life is of work as a legitimate undertaking and an appropriate role for some people. paramount importance, it would seem that it would indeed supersede What sets the kollel elite apart from others is their blessing of a mind bet‐ some other aspects of marital compatibility. I believe that such thinking is ter attuned for learning and the zitzfleish, the stamina and diligence, to dangerous and can potentially lead to marital disasters. continue enthusiastically learning long term. A Return to the Sources Because there is no corresponding development among women, this emerging trend threatens to further aggravate the shidduch problem. For In the following essay I will review the Talmudic sources on which the the average shidduch–aged girl, there are not many reasons for her to be‐ Chareidi education system bases itself to teach its daughters to want a lieve that she is different from her friends who will lead a kollel life. kollel lifestyle. Through close examination and analysis of the sources I Although there are women who feel they are not ready be both a full-time will argue that the applicability of these texts to present day society breadwinner and mother, for Chareidi women this is an acknowledgment seems inappropriate. of weakness of character and self-motivation. There are far fewer women willing to admit this than there are Chareidi men who are willing to ac‐ A Return to the Sources knowledge that there are other men whose mental capabilities make them In the prior essay, I argued that the kollel lifestyle is changing but that an more successful at learning. imbalance exists between men and women that will exacerbate the cur‐

The chasm between men’s and women’s willingness to compromise on liv‐ rent shidduch crisis. In this essay I will review the Talmudic sources on ing a kollel lifestyle lies not just at the root of the shidduch crisis, but is which the Chareidi education system bases itself to teach its daughters to also the source of a much more profound problem. want a kollel lifestyle. Through close examination and analysis of the As stated earlier, women tend to be willing to compromise on their ideals sources I will argue that the applicability of these texts to present day so‐ as they age and start to face a much more gloomy perspective. Naturally, ciety seems inappropriate. 19 It is not in my interest to engage in the polemics of feminist halacha. Such Further, the Talmud’s rejection of its initial answer needs clarification. polemics are often colored, whether they are pro or against a progressive While it is true that women are exempt from learning Torah, the Talmud interpretation of halacha. My purpose here is to make a convincing argu‐ elsewhere12 makes it clear that one who performs a mitzvah despite ment for a community that pays no heed to such feminist discourse. being exempt from it will still receive a reward, albeit not as much one Although I will argue that the role of women needs to be redefined in con‐ com‐manded in the mitzvah. Rabbi Meir even says that a gentile who temporary times, I make this argument not on my own, but to clarify that learns To‐rah is considered like a Kohen Gadol.13 What, then, is the such is the view of the gedolim of the previous century whose views on Talmud’s ques‐tion that a woman who learns Torah is not commanded but this matter have already been accepted in most of Chareidi society. fulfills? A woman, too, receives reward for learning. Perhaps it is in that 1 merit that her impending death is delayed. 4 The fundamental discussion focuses around a question that Rav asked R. 5 6 Chiyya, “Whereby do women earn merit?” The response recorded is “By It seems then that when the Talmud says a woman is categorized as one making their children go to the synagogue to learn Scripture and their who is exempt and still fulfills it is implying something more than just the husbands to the Beth Hamidrash to learn Mishnah, and waiting for their technical aspect of fulfillment of the mitzvah. Rather, the Talmud is saying 7 husbands until they return from the Beth Hamidrash”. that because women are exempt from the mitzvah, their fulfillment of the mitzvah is seen negatively.15 The Talmud’s answer would seem to confirm the Chareidi viewpoint that the most important thing a Jewish woman can do to earn a share in the To better understand the Talmud’s intent it is necessary to see the context World-to-Come is to facilitate the learning of her husband and children. of its discussion. The Mishna discusses the disagreement between Ben Upon closer examination of a parallel text, this answer becomes more Azai and R. Eliezer whether it is permitted to teach women Torah: clear. She had scarcely finished drinking when her face turns 8 The Mishna states that although a Sotah who is impure and committed green, her eyes protrude and her veins swell; and it is adultery when secluded with another man will die a bitter death after exclaimed, remove her that the temple-court be not drinking the Sotah water, her impending demise can be suspended for up defiled. If she possessed a merit, it [causes the water] to to three years if she has some merit. The Talmud inquires: suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, another for two years, and another for What sort of merit? If I answer merit of [studying] Torah, three years. Hence declared Ben Azzai, a man is under she is [in the category] of one who is not commanded and the obligation to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she 9 fulfills! has to drink [the water of bitterness], she may know that the merit suspends its effect. R. Eliezer says: whoever After a prolonged discussion of several possible answers that explain the teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity.16 merit of mitzvot, the Talmud returns to its original assumption that the merit mentioned in the Mishna is the merit of Torah. Again we find the fa‐ The Talmud here is trying to understand the merit that the anonymous miliar formulation, this time in the name of Ravina: portion of the Mishna says will spare the Sotah woman for three years. Both Ben Azai and R. Eliezer seem to agree that a certain merit will spare It is certainly merit of [the study of] Torah [which causes the women. The Talmud asks which merit. It cannot be the merit of Torah, the water to suspend its effect]; and when you argue that because according to R. Eliezer, women’s learning is not condoned and she is in the category of one who is not commanded and their learning is not meritorious at all. What then, asks the Talmud, is the fulfills, [it can be answered] that while women are not so merit intended by the Mishnah, to which both Ben Azai and R. Eliezer commanded, when they have their sons taught Scripture agree? and Mishnah and wait for their husbands until they return from the Schools, should they not share [the merit] This explanation would also resolve another perplexity some of the com‐ with them? mentaries point out. The Talmud strangely seems to assume the merit mentioned in the Mishna is of Torah. Only after rejecting this possibility The above quoted passage seems to be self-contradictory. At first the Tal‐ does it propose that the merit could be that of some other mitzvah. This is mud was reluctant to ascribe the merit to the Torah the woman herself quite strange, especially since the source for the Mishna’s statement is had learned because “she is not commanded” to learn Torah and as Rashi learnt from Nebuchadnezzar, whose life was spared for a year for giving explains her merit is not as great as one he who is commanded to learn. 1 charity. 7 Nebuchadnezzar did a mitzvah, and even the mitzvah that he But then the Talmud concludes that her merit is for facilitating the learn‐ 1 did he was not commanded in. 8 Why then does the Talmud ask that ing of her husband and sons. But the original question still remains: her women are not commanded to learn Torah; in that respect they are not action, while surely meritorious, is not one in which she is commanded. different than Nebuchadnezzar who achieved merit by fulfilling a mitzvah The Talmud elsewhere10 makes it clear that he who is charged with learn‐ in which he was not commanded? ing himself is tasked with teaching his sons, which excludes women who are not commanded to learn. How then is the Talmud’s answer better than Following the above-proposed explanation we can explain these difficul‐ 11 its first assumption? ties. The Talmud’s assumption and its following questions concern the un‐ derstanding of merit in the Mishna, even according to R. Eliezer. When 20 Ben Azai says that “a person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah so if should not be taught Tanach.22 Bach23 and Taz24 further limited this per‐ she will ever drink she will have a merit,” he implies that the merit men‐ mission to only the simplest explanation of the text. But in today’s high tioned is Torah. The Talmud’s question about the merit a woman received schools and seminaries, women are not only taught Tanach without ques‐ from learning Torah is based on the understanding that the merit men‐ tion, but they learn it in great depth, often exceeding the level at which it tioned by the anonymous part of the Mishna is also in accordance with R. is taught in male yeshivot.25 Eliezer, who opposes women’s learning. The Talmud’s final resolution is that the merit is that of a woman facilitating the learning of her husband Similarly the permission for a self-motivated woman to learn things nor‐ and sons, which is a deed that even R. Eliezer would consider meritorious. mally restricted to other women does not seem to be applicable to every 2 student in a school. 6 This is especially true for high school students, for My argument here is that the statement that a woman’s greatest merit in whom attendance is compulsory, and is probably true for many seminaries this world is facilitating the learning of her husband and sons is not a which some students attend because of societal pressure rather a genuine unanimous ideological declaration about the role of women in Judaism. desire to learn Torah. Only according to R. Eliezer, who holds that women may not learn Torah, does the Talmud state that a woman’s greatest merit in Torah is ancillary. What, then, do contemporary schools and seminaries rely on when they According to Ben Azai, who condones a woman learning, that is the big‐ teach women Torah?27 There are two approaches, both of which have gest merit she can have, which will keep her alive. Although Ben Azai also sup‐port from prominent and noted rabbis. agrees that women are not commanded to learn Torah, and presumably they will not receive the same reward for learning Torah as men who are One approach is that of the Chafetz Chaim, who famously lent his support commanded, it appears that the tremendous reward for learning is only to the then revolutionary Bais Yaakov movement. According to the Chafetz slightly diminished and it is still greater than other mitzvot. Chaim, women’s education must be more comprehensive today than what the traditional halacha permits. He allows this because “in our many sins, To be sure , R. Chiyya’s state me nt, although independent, also seems to be the education received from the father[’s home] has become very very in accord with R. Eliezer’s prohibitive position. Indeed the halacha, as weak…especially those who have learned how to read and write the secu‐ ruled in the Shulchan Aruch19 and almost all authorities,20 follows R. lar languages, it is a great mitzvah to teach them Chumash, Nach, and Eliezer. The emphasis on women’s secondary role in Torah study follows Mussar of Chazal…so that they be imbued with belief in our holy religion. directly from limiting their ability to study by themselves. Otherwise we risk losing them completely from the path of God and they might God forbid violate all of the tenets of our religion.”28 Since the role of women in Torah study is contingent on their ability to learn Torah themselves, a change to women’s participation in Torah study In other words, the times have changed and the emergency situation de‐ 2 might possibly be grounds for refocusing their spiritual goals as well. mands a new approach to women’s education. The Talmud 9 establishes the principle of “eit laasot lahashem“– upholding the whole Torah some‐ The question then is whether women’s participation in Torah study has times requires abrogating a small part of it. Extensive women’s education changed in recent times. Is the current state of women’s Torah education was not necessary in the past when women were more secluded in the something sanctioned by halacha or a necessary deviation due to exigent home and had little exposure to the outside world.30 Women with little circumstances? If the former, then the quintessential woman is one who Jewish education today are more susceptible to assimilation. To combat strives to support the learning of her husband and sons. But if the latter, that, it is necessary to instill in women a strong Jewish identity and teach then perhaps it is time to reassess the role of women in Jewish society. them the principles of our religion. Teaching women the Oral Torah is not only allowed but it an absolute necessity for the continuity of our reli‐ What the Poskim Permit gion.31

A simple reading of the Talmud seems to forbid almost all Torah learning Some take a different approach to women’s education, and instead of dis‐ by women.21 However, some poskim, halachic authorities, allow women cussing the changed circumstances that necessitate an adjustment to more latitude in the Torah subjects they were allowed to learn. Based on women’s Torah education, they focus on the changed place of women in inferences from the Talmud and logical arguments, many poskim permit contemporary society.32 R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik often quoted his father women to learn the halachot in which they are commanded and to study the entire Tanach. Some even permit them to learn everything that men as saying that “if not for Rav Chaim it would be impossible to study Ge‐ mara with boys who simultaneously study science, mathematics, and learn, including Talmud, as long as the learning is done at the woman’s 33 own initiative. physics. The Gemara would lag behind their other studies”. R. Soloveitchik, sensitive as he was to this issue, also pushed the envelope on But are these permissive rulings the source of the current praxis of women’s education in the Orthodox world when he established Talmud 34 women’s Jewish education? The poskim give strict parameters as to what classes for women in his Maimonides high school. His son-in-law, R. they permit based on the Talmud. The application of these rules in the Aharon Lichtenstein, expanded on this idea and argued that if women can current curriculum in most Yeshivish and Modern Orthodox high schools learn and be involved in any other intellectual and academic field, there is and seminaries seems questionable. Although some of the poskim permit‐ no reason they should not be allowed to learn Torah on an equally ad‐ ted women to learn Tanach, they severely limited this leniency. Rambam, vanced level.35 who is the source of this distinction, clearly writes that women ideally 21 Women’s Torah It happened that the son of Rabbi Akiva married a woman. What did he do? As soon as she entered the room Whatever the halachic justification, Jewish women’s learning is viewed in with him he stood the whole night and read the Torah and Chareidi society as intrinsically valuable and women are encouraged to learnt the aggadot. He said to her, take for us the lamp partake in learning, even if this is confined to certain subjects. Women to‐ and illuminate for me. She took the lamp and illuminated 36 day are finding “spiritual fulfillment through talmud Torah”. The educa‐ for him the whole night. She stood in front of him and tion in schools has moved beyond practical halacha, Jewish history, and illuminated and the book was open and she would roll it morally edifying instruction to Torah lishma – Torah for its own sake.37 [for him] from the beginning to the end and the end to the This newfound spiritual renaissance that has displaced the Tze’nah beginning. The whole night she was standing and u-Re’nah‘s38 of our grandmothers is a natural outgrowth of the deep illuminating for him until daybreak. In the morning Rabbi rever‐ence for Torah learning instilled in our schools coupled with the Akiva approached him and asked him “matza or motze”? skills to actively participate in Torah learning themselves. He said to him matza. This [is what the verse means by] “one who has found a woman has found good”.46 Never before in history have Jewish women been so religiously educated. They are also more involved in religious life than in previous genera‐ Yet, despite her love for Torah and her husband the talmid chacham, the tions.39 At the same time we are also witness to record numbers of men marriage did not end well: who learn full time, enabled by these very women who accept upon them‐ But when years of famine came and they distributed the selves the additional responsibilities of financially providing for the family. 47 The double responsibilities these women accept upon themselves is truly properties among themselves, she started complaining reflective of their dedication and determination to live a life imbued with about him to the Sages of Israel. He said to them, for me religiosity and Torah. she is trustworthy more than anybody. She told them, it is true that thus I stipulated with him. [They said to her], But therein lies the irony. Women–enabled, self-determined, and empow‐ “nothing comes after acquisition.” ered by the education they received–seek religious fulfillment, not through the Torah learning they cherish and that inspires them, but Is there a lesson to be learned from this story? Do contemporary Charei‐ through the learning of their husbands. Supporting their husband’s learn‐ dim believe that one should study Torah even in such circumstances that 48 49 ing comes at a cost, and that cost is their own time they could have used cause extreme strife between spouses? Is this even permitted? for spiritual deeds. Between her career, child rearing, and other domestic responsibilities, time for her own religious expression is increasingly rare. Perhaps the lesson to be learne d from this is that marrying some one be‐ cause she agreed to support one’s Torah learning is what the Mishna in How is it that women prefer the passive religious fulfillment through their Avot terms “love dependent of a specific consideration”. The Mishna husbands’ learning to the active spiritual experience of learning and doing states that “Any love that is depended upon a specific consideration – mitzvot themselves? Why is it that girls fresh out of seminary and still when the consideration vanishes, the love ceases; but if it is not depen‐ 50 very actively involved in learning choose a path in life in which they will dent upon a specific consideration – it will never cease.” When the hard have very little time for it? years came and his wife could no longer support him, the love could not be sustained and their shalom bayit was compromised. It’s true that the Talmud40 and Shulchan Aruch41 say that one should marry off one’s daughter to a talmid chacham if possible, and I do not The story of Rabbi Akiva’s son is not unique; similar stories occur in the 51 argue oth‐erwise. However, the reason for this is not that it ensures the Chareidi world with alarming frequency. In an article in Ami Magazine, woman’s re‐ligious merit, but rather so that the children will be raised to one belligerent husband penned an article blaming his ex-wife and her be talmidei chachamim.42 Moreover, Chida explains that what is meant by school loans for their failed marriage. However, had the husband not been talmid chacham here is not somebody learned but somebody with yirat so reluctant to leave kollel and get a proper job it is likely that the finan‐ shamayim who acts for the sake of Heaven.43 cial straits could have been avoided.

Truth be told, there is hardly any Talmudic precedent for a marriage from Conclusion which the outset the wife agreed to support her husband’s learning.44 It is clear that things are changing in the Chareidi world. The ﬁnancial re‐ The lone exception is a story of Rabbi Akiva’s son: alities are such that not everybody will be able to learn indeﬁnitely. It may

It happened that Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Rabbi Akiva take some time and a cruel crisis but eventually the Chareidi world will married a woman and stipulated with her that it was on adjust itself to the new reality. There are however some changes that will the condition that he would not [have to] feed her or only come about if the community proactively tries to change them. If they continue to educate women toward a kollel lifestyle, then not only will the support her. Not only that, but also [on the condition] that she feed and support him and teach him Torah.45 shidduch crisis grow but marital problems will increase substantially.

I have attempted to show that the groundwork for such a change is al‐ Her commitment to Torah is related in a different story about the night of ready in place. An alternative educational philosophy is readily available. their marriage: 22 The Talmud explicitly acknowledges that women’s Torah learning is 10. Kiddushin 29b ↩ praiseworthy, even if not commanded. In previous generations it was feared that women’s Torah learning could have potential negative reper‐ 11. See Mincha Chareiva ad loc. See also Torat HaKinaot who at‐ cussions and was therefore highly discouraged to the point of complete tempts an answer based of Maharsha. Rabbi A Steinzaltz (Iyyunim condemnation. Despite these fears, for the past century women’s Torah ad loc) explains that Ravina means that a woman would gain more education was not only allowed but was highly encouraged by the greatest merit by splitting the merit her husband earns through his learn‐ rabbis. Today, women’s Torah education is near universal. Even rabbis ing (in which he is commanded) than she would for learning her‐ from the far right wing have given their tacit approval to women’s ad‐ self. But this explanation would not sufficiently explain the men‐ vanced Torah study, albeit with the exclusion of Talmud. tioning of her sons who are also not required biblically to learn themselves. See also R. Eitam Henkin, “Shelat Hashivuto shel mi The past century has shown that because of the circumstances and the Sheno Metzuva vOseh”, Elon Mamre issue 120 (5767), n. 15. To way women’s Torah education was implemented there is no longer a con‐ me the very idea that the Talmud would simply assume that the cern that women will turn the words of Torah into obscenity. The effect reward for helping someone that is commanded to learn is has been only positive. Not only are women now more educated, they also greater than the reward for learning herself is strange and would seek religious fulfillment through Torah study. need some type of proof to back it up. Similarly, I think the same question can be asked of those that explain the first question of The time has come to take the next step. The Orthodox world needs to ac‐ the Talmud was based on the assumption that the reward of one knowledge that today’s women seek religious fulfillment as much as men. not commanded is not enough to protect the women. Why and Their role is not only as an enabler of Torah study but also a participant; based on what is such an assumption? Avot 2:1 exclaims, “One their fulfillment comes from their own accomplishments and not just from does not know the reward given for mitzvot”. ↩ those of their husbands and children. Women should not be viewed as their husbands’ supporters in Torah but as partners with their husbands 12. Kiddushin 31a and Bava Kama 87a. See also Ran to Kiddushin in both supporting and studying Torah. The transformation was started ibid. ↩ one hundred years ago with support from almost all rabbis and it is time that the implications of the new educational model, as they relate to mari‐ 13. Avoda Zara 3a. In Sanhedrin 59a the Talmud limits this to learn‐ tal structures, are accepted. The Torah learning of both men and women ing about the seven Noahide commandments. ↩ is important and one needn’t sacrifice one’s spirituality for the other. 14. This question is asked by many commentaries. See Ye’arot Dvash (Drasha 1 p. 3), Pnei Yehoshua, Imrei Noam, Ben Yehoyada, Chafetz Chaim (Chovat HaShmira ch. 13), Mincha Chareiva. ↩ 1. “Closing the Age gap on Shidduchim goes back to Kindergarten” from The Partial View. ↩ 15. Tiferet Zion ad loc ↩

2. For a mathematical explanation of this theory see, Ariel Halpert, 16. Sotah 20a ↩ “All In The Numbers: A Mathematical Explanation For The ‘Shid‐ duch Crisis’”, Jewish Press, Jan 23 2008. ↩ 17. Yerushalmi Sotah 3:4 15b ↩

3. This is also true in right wing Modern Orthodox circles as well 18. Chida in Maarit Ha’ayin ↩ and is similarly causing its own shidduch crisis. See Harry Maryles’s post A Working Husband? God Forbid!. ↩ 19. Yoreh De’ah 246:6 ↩

4. Issue 472, “From the First Date to the Broken Plate” by Yisroel 20. With the exception of Piskei Riyaz who follows the general rule Besser. ↩ that the halacha is not in accord with R. Eliezer because he is a ‘shamuti’, a follower of Bet Shamai. See also Chida in Responsa 5. The question seems to be in reference to the preceding discussion Tov Ayen 4. ↩ that talked about a woman’s share in the world to come. See Pnei Yehoshua and Imrei No’am ↩ 21. For example in Yerushalmi Sotah 3:4 16a R. Eliezer refuses to an‐ swer a woman’s question about the Biblical story of the sin of the 6. It is not clear who is answering the question, R. Chiyya or Rav. golden calf. In Masechet Sofrim 18:8 it is stated more clearly that See Pnei Yehoshua ad loc. who thinks it is Rav answering his own even in the plain meaning of the Chumash women do not have any question. ↩ business knowing. On his inaugural day as Rosh Yeshiva, R. Elazar ben Azaria is recorded as saying that “Men come to [the 7. Berachot 17a ↩ Hakhel ceremony] to hear (learn), women come to receive reward for their steps, and children, why are they brought? To give re‐ 8. Sotah3:3 ↩ ward for their bringers.” It should be noted that the day R. Elazar ben Azaria displaced Rabban Gamliel is celebrated as day when 9. Sotah 21a ↩ the Beit Medrash became more inclusive and people previously 23 not allowed in were allowed. Apparently his inclusiveness for even permitted to teach a woman Torah sh’Bal Peh, that is the more people to study Torah did not extend to women. ↩ end verdict without having to resort to [halachically questionable discursive] questions and answers.” ↩ 22. Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:13 ↩ 32. It is not only the left wing and centrist poskim that support this 23. Yoreh De’ah 246 s.v. vhu shkatav. In addition he rules that women heter for women’s learning but the right wing as well. In Orchot may not be taught “derech kevah” on a regular basis. ↩ Rabbeinu vol. 1 p. 193 it is recorded that R’ Chaim Kanievsky asked the Chazon Ish if it was permitted to acquiesce to his sis‐ 24. Yoreh De’ah 246:4 s.k. 4. The Shoel U’Meishiv 4:41 rules like the ter’s request that he learn Gemara with her. The Chazon Ish re‐ Taz. ↩ sponded that it was permitted so as long as it was done only from time to time. The Steipler Gaon ruled it was permitted to teach 25. Tzitz Eliezer 9:3 cites the Shulchan Aruch Harav who makes a dis‐ women Mishnayot nowadays. R. Aryeh Zev Ginzberg in his re‐ tinction between the written and oral Torah without Rambam’s sponsa Divrei Chachamim p. 278 records that he heard from R. qualification. This might also be the opinion of Piskei Rid, Shneur Kotler that “halachically there is no prohibition [to teach Nedarim 37b. R. Menachem Mendel Schneersohn in Likutei Si‐ them Gemara] nowaday, but it should not be done…because they chot, Vol. 14 p. 150 n. 12 disagrees with this understanding of the do not have an obligation to learn, and you should oppose one Shulchan Aruch Harav. Even if scripture can be learned without that tries to do this.” R. Ginzberg records that he heard similarly qualification it would seem that these opinions would agree that from R. Yaakov Kamenetsky that “nowadays there is no halachic learning that departs from the actual explanation of the text to a objection to them learning [Gemara] but it should still not be deeper understanding of what the text relates would still be pro‐ done.” R. Ginzberg explains that they hesitated to actually permit hibited. See Hagahot Maharatz Chajes, Sotah 21b. ↩ it because they realized that the main thrust of those advocating for women’s learning was coming from feminists who do not have 26. R. Moshe Weinberger, “Teaching Torah to Women”, printed in the pure intentions. This is also the conclusion of Ilan Fuchs, Jewish Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 9 (Spring 1985), p. Women’s Torah Study, p. _in explaining contradictory rulings by 47 n. 61. He writes, “These scholars would also agree that the R. Moshe Feinstein one in which he permitted a woman to give a fact that a girl attends high school does not necessarily mean she shiur to other women in Talmud while in his printed responsa he is either mature or serious in terms of Torah study.” ↩ forbids the study of Mishnayot in a girls school. Fuchs says the when R. Feinstein sensed that impetus was feminism he ruled 27. There are some schools, in particular those of Satmar and the stringently. ↩ Eida HaChareidis, that truly do limit the curriculum to only those halachot that pertain to women, but the overwhelming majority of 33. The Rav, Aaron Rakffet-Rothkoff (1999) volume 2, p. 42. Rabbi girls schools, even in the Chareidi world, have an expanded cur‐ Soloveitchik continued, “Now the Gemara does not lag behind any riculum which includes material that none of the traditional le‐ philosophical approach, even the most modern analytical ap‐ niencies allow for. I should also note that the answers I assert are proach. We can compete with the most profound and the most not necessarily the answers the school administrator would admit precise philosophical analysis of today.” ↩ to. Unfortunately the exact parameters of the leniencies are com‐

monly not properly understood and some administrators are un‐ 34. Seth Farber, An American Orthodox Dreamer: Rabbi Joseph B. der the impression that they adhere to the strict interpretation of Soloveitchik and Boston’s Maimonides School, Brandeis Series in the law. ↩ American Jewish History, Culture, and Life (2003), chp. 4. The reason why R. Soloveitchik condoned women’s Talmud study 28. Likutei Halachot to Sotah 21 in the footnote. ↩ is a matter of dispute. Walter Wurtzberger, in his article, “Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy”, Tra‐ 29. Mishna Brachot 9:5 ↩ dition 29:1 (1994), p. 17–18, relates the version more popularly known, that R. Soloveitchik “was convinced that under contempo‐ 30. R. Meir Hershkowitz, OhrOr Hamizrach 17:3 p. 130–131. “I say rary conditions, it was necessary to confront the challenge of that [the prohibition to teach women Torah] was only in old times, modernity, and therefore Jewish women must be provided with when a woman’s only wisdom was that with a spindle, and she the intellectual resources needed to appreciate the meaning of watched the doors of her house, and of the outside world she halakhic Judaism.” R. Soloveitchik’s own grandson, R. Mayer Tw‐ knew nothing…and therefore I say that in our times it is very im‐ ersky, maintains that his grandfather’s opinion was that only op‐ portant for the sake of preserving the religion that they be taught tional study of Torah sh’Bal Peh was forbidden by Talmudic in‐ Torah, and all of it will be considered like learning about the junction. Accordingly, since he, like the Chafetz Chaim before ‘mitzvot that she keeps’.” ↩ him, maintained that in modern times women must be taught more halacha, it was permitted to teach these sections of Torah 31. R. Zalman Sorotzkin, Responsa Moznayim L’Mishpat 1:42. “Not sh’Bal Peh in a school setting. R. Twersky stresses that the diﬀer‐ only is it permitted to teach Torah and Yirat Shamayim to the ence between what the Chafetz Chaim advocated and what his daughters of this generation but there is an absolute obligation to grandfather sanctioned is just a matter of magnitude but not a do so, and it is a big mitzvah to establish girls schools…and it is 24 fundamental disagreement of the underlying argument. See his teachings from Judaism’s Oral Law such as the Talmud’s Aggada article, “A Glimpse of the Rav: Talmud Torah for Women and the and Midrash, which are sometimes called “parables, allegories, Mehitsa Controversy”, Women and the Study of Torah, ed. Joel short stories, anecdotes, legends, and admonitions” by secular Wolowelsky, Ktav (2001), p. 49–54. Farber, ibid p. 83, brings both writers. The book came to be used by women who could not un‐ opinions and sides with Wurtzberger. See also Moshe A. Mozeson, derstand Hebrew and was staple in every Ashkenazi home for “Chinukh Banot (Im Horaot R. Soloveitchik)”, Hadarom 66–67 generations. The book played a major role in the informal Jewish (1993), p. 63–66. education women received. ↩

In this light it is interesting to note a letter by Jeffery R. Woolf, 39. I say previous generations because it very well may be that quoted in Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity, p. 143 n. 146. Ac‐ women in medieval Ashkenaz were even more involved than mod‐ cording to Woolf, R. Soloveitchik “explicitly provided for co-educa‐ ern day Orthodox women. See Avraham Grossman, Pious and Re‐ tion in grades K-12, thus ensuring equal education for all enrolled bellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, chp. 8 “The Role of in the school. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that until Women in Religious Life and Family Ceremonies”, Brandeis the time of his illness and subsequent retirement, he never veered University Press (2004), p. 174–197. See also Alan Yuter’s review from the position that such an arrangement was legitimate and in the Edah Journal 5:2 who argues that medieval Ashkenaz halakhically justified, ab initio, and not a begrudged ex-post-facto should serve as a model for the Modern Orthodox who are cur‐ concession. Indeed the current administration of the school, un‐ rently grappling with these issues. ↩ der the guidance of the Rav’s daughter, Dr. Atarah Twersky, bears this fact out fully. (I am going out of my way to emphasize this 40. Pesachim 49a ↩ point, as there is significant amount of conscious ‘historical revi‐ sionism’ in the Orthodox community which seeks to portray Rav 41. Even HaEzer 2:6 ↩ Soloveitchik’s position in a different light.)” ↩ 42. Pesachim ibid. The Talmud there also says that by marrying one’s 35. See his essay “Ba’ayot haYesod b’Hinuch shel ha’Isha”, tran‐ daughter off to a talmid chacham one connects to talmidei scribed and edited by Ben-Zion Rosenfeld in HaIsha v’Chinucha: chachamim. See also Ketubot 111b where connecting to talmidei Asufat Maamarim b’Halakha u’bMachshava, ed. Ben-Zion Rosen‐ chachamim is equated to connecting to God’s holiness, and this is feld, Emunah, Kfar Saba 1979, p. 157. R. Lichtenstein also done by marrying one’s daughter to a talmid chacham. Abarbanel stresses the reason of the Chafetz Chaim, noting that today many Gen 6:1 understands the Talmud in Pesachim as saying that it is women attend universities where they encounter a different important to marry into rabbinic families because good traits are worldview and philosophies often antithetical to Judaism. In his passed through blood and are also taught in rabbinic homes from opinion “what a woman needs to know to have a proper Torah ed‐ a very young age. ↩ ucation is far beyond what they are being taught today.” A nephew of R. Soloveitchik, R. Moshe Meiselman, writes similarly, 43. Birkei Yosef E”H 2:2. Talmid chacham may also be referring to “No authorities ever meant to justify the perverse modern-day sit‐ somebody with proper manners. R. Eliezer is recorded in Kallah uation in which women are allowed to become sophisticatedly Rabbasi 1:2 as saying that women do not have derech eretz be‐ conversant with all cultures other than their own.” See his chap‐ cause “anybody that words of Torah do not pass on their lips does ter “Torah Knowledge for Women” in his book Jewish Women in not have derech eretz”. ↩ Jewish Law, Ktav/Yeshiva University Press, 1978, p. 40. I should 44. The manuscript version of Avot d’Rebbi Nosson (chp 6 version A) point out that this approach implicitly acknowledges the contex‐ says that Rabbi Akiva’s wife supported him during his learning tual aspect of the rabbinic injunction against women’s learning. but other versions of the story seem to imply this was not so and See Responsa Aseh L’cha Rav 2:52 from R. Haim David HaLevi is therefore rejected by Schechter. Even if he was supported, the who writes so explicitly. ↩ other stories make it clear that this only occurred many years into

36. Bryna Jocheved Levy, “Sense and Sensibilities: Women and Tal‐ the marriage. See also Yichus Tannaim vAmoraim entry for Bar mud Torah”, Jewish Action, June 20 2013. Available on the OU Kaparah which says that Bar Kaparah had 12 wives whom he mar‐ website. ↩ ried so that they would support him. Cf. Yerushalmi Yevamot 4:12. ↩ 37. See Hanah Kahat, Maamad HaNashim vLimud Torah b’Chevrah ha’Orthodoxit, available here (PDF). ↩ 45. Yerushalmi Ketubot 5:2. To teach him Torah refers to supporting him while he studied Torah. However, Alei Tamar explains it 38. Wikipedia states: The Tze’nah u-Re’nah, sometimes called the refers to her actually teaching him Torah, see his explanation ad Women’s Bible, was a Yiddish-language prose work of c.1590s loc. ↩ whose structure parallels the weekly Torah portions of the Penta‐ teuch and Haftorahs used in Jewish worship services. The book 46. Midrash Tehillim 59 ↩ was written by Rabbi Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi (1550–1625) of 47. This seems to mean that they got divorced and split their posses‐ Janowa (near Lublin, Poland), and mixes Biblical passages with 25 sions. Compare with Tosefta Ketubot 4:5 “If it was years of famine ning of the marriage. The standard formulation on the ketubah and he said to her take your get and ketubah”. Other commenta‐ states that a husband accepts to support his wife and beit din tors explain that they separated their possessions because she would enforce this even if the husband claims to want to learn. was no longer able to provide for him and and so not to deplete Tosafot in Ketubot 63a s.v. Be’omer ein’i zan v’eini m’farnes de‐ each other’s possessions they split them. See also Chasdei David bates if the formulation would allow beit din to also force the hus‐ and Tosefta Kefshuta to Tosefta Ketubot 4:7 for a diﬀerent expla‐ band to work for somebone else. Chazon Ish, E”H 108:10, writes nation. ↩ that even if not legally empowered to do so by the ketubah, beit din could still force the husband to work for propriety’s sake. See 48. Tosefet Yerushalayim E”H 79:3 says that it is improper to divorce also R. Yitzchak Brand, “Ha’im Limud B’kollel Hu Nachlat Ku‐ one’s wife in years of famine similar to what is codiﬁed in lam?” available on his website. ↩ Shulchan Aruch there about divorcing one’s wife while she is sick. Perhaps Rabbi Akiva’s son’s actions are based on his father’s 50. Avot 5:16 ↩ opinion in Mishnayot Gitin 9:10. ↩ 51. “Do Us Part: This is not what I had signed on for” available here 49. Rabbi Akiva’s son was only technically able to avoid feeding and (PDF). ↩ supporting his wife because he had stipulated such at the begin‐

Miriam: The Greatest Woman ing for Moshe ended” [Devarim 34:8]. According to Rav Soloveitchik, in spite of no mention about her funeral or Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik mourning, she was the greatest woman in our history. Miriam understood from the beginning about Moshe’s leadership role better than anyone by R. Aharon Ziegler else. Thus, she literally stood guard over him and ensured his physical and spiritual survival. As the Torah states: “When she [Yocheved] could no Hakarat Hatov, gratitude, is a fundamental requirement in Judaism. It be‐ longer hide him [Moshe], she took a reed basket, smeared it with clay and hooves us to know and understand the great accomplishments and pitch, placed the child into it, and placed it at the edge of the Nile. His sis‐ achievements that Miriam, the sister of Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon ter stood from afar, to know what would be done to him….Paroh’s daugh‐ HaCohen, contributed towards our people. ter, coming down to bathe with her maidens…saw the child and had com‐ passion on him and said: ‘this is one of the Hebrews’. His sister said to The Torah quickly passes over her demise by simply stating, “The children Paroh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and call for a wet-nurse from the Hebrew of Israel, the entire assembly, arrived at Midbar Tzin in the ﬁrst month women, so that she shall nurse the child for you?’ Paroh’s daughter said to [Nissan] and the people settled in Kadesh; Miriam died there and she was her, ‘Go!’. So she went and called the child’s mother.” [Shemot 2:3–8] buried there” [Bamidbar 20:1]. (According to Seder Olam, it was on the 10th of the month). No mass funeral or mourning is recorded. Yet, when Thus, Miriam is responsible for the emergence of Moshe as a leader and Aharon dies, we read, “When the entire assembly saw that Aharon had redeemer of his people. If not for her, he would never have been imbued died, they wept for Aharon thirty days, the entire House of Israel” [ibid with great passionate love for his poor brethren. Her involvement at that 20:29]. Likewise, when Moshe died, “The Children of Israel bewailed crucial moment with Paroh’s daughter, prevented Moshe from disappear‐ Moshe in plains of Mo’av for thirty days; then the days of tearful mourn‐ ing in anonymity.

Binyamin that the first yahrtzeit should be observed on the anniversary of Yahrtzeit Practices the day of the burial, because otherwise people will come to be confused with the end of the twelve month mourning period because they tend to by David Roth assume the yahrtzeit is the end of the twelve month mourning period, but here it would be before the end of the twelve months, which are counted Jews engage in numerous practices to commemorate a yahrtzeit for the from the time of burial. However, in subsequent years the yahrtzeit should anniversary of a relative’s passing, generally a first degree relative1 for be observed on the day of the death. The Taz himself disagrees with the whom one would observe mourning. What are these practices and on ruling of the Masas Binyamin, and argues that it is better to always ob‐ what date are they observed? serve the yahrtzeit on the day of the death. The Shach4 suggests a com‐ 5 Determining the Date for a Yahrtzeit promise: if the burial took place two days or more after the burial, the yahrtzeit should be observed in the first year on the day of the burial and

The Shulchan Aruch2 rules that yahrtzeit is based on the day of death and in subsequent years on the day of the death. But if the burial took place not on the day of burial, unless, as is common, the mourner was present on the day of the death or the next day, even the first yahrtzeit should be 6 at the burial but not at the death. The Taz3 quotes from the Masas observed on the day of the death. The Pischei Teshuvah notes, however, that if the intervening year was a leap year, one should be able to observe 26 the yahrtzeit on the day of death according to everyone, since the twelve The Shulchan Aruch19 rules that it is proper to fast on the yahrtzeit of a months of mourning already ended almost a month ago. Customs vary re‐ parent. Furthermore, the Rama20 rules that one should not participate in garding how to act in this regard, and you should ask your rabbi questions a meal on the night of a yahrtzeit, even though the fast has not yet begun. about appropriate practice. However, the Pischei Teshuva21 quotes the Mekom Shemuel who limits this to abstaining from a meal for a wedding, but not for the meal of a Determining Date of Yahrtzeit in Special Situations bris, pidyon ha’ben or siyum. If the yahrtzeit falls on Shabbos or Rosh Chodesh, according to the Shulchan Aruch22 one would fast on Sunday, In which Adar does one observe yahrtzeit in a leap year? If the relative but according to the Rama,23 one need not fast at all in such a case. The died in a leap year, one observes the yahrtzeit in another leap year ac‐ 24 cording to whichever month the relative died in, and in a regular year one Rama also adds that this is the halacha on any day on which Tachanun observes the yahrtzeit in the one Adar. The question is when a relative is not recited. dies in a regular year, in which Adar would one observe the yahrtzeit in a The Taz25 writes that if somebody is one of the key players in a bris – leap year. In one place, the Shulchan Aruch7 rules that one should ob‐ which generally includes the mohel, sandak and father of the boy – he is serve the yahrtzeit in the first Adar; in another place,8 he rules that one exempt from fasting. The Gesher Hachaim26 suggests that this should be should observe the yahrtzeit in the second Adar. The Rama9 writes that extended to a siyyum; however, the Shach27 quotes from the Maharil that the [Ashkenazic] custom is to observe the yahrtzeit in the first Adar, and one should not eat at a siyum when he has yahrtzeit. The Gesher that some people are stringent to observe the yahrtzeit in both months.10 Hachaim28 suggests based on the Beis Lechem Yehuda that one can eat at If one’s relative dies on the first day of rosh chodesh of the second Adar in his own siyum on a yahrtzeit, but should not partake at a siyum made by a leap year, meaning on the thirtieth of the first Adar, then since there is 29 no thirtieth of Adar in a regular year, one observes yahrtzeit on the first somebody else. Some say that learning two pages of gemara with the commentary of the Rosh is somehow equivalent to fasting, and one can day of rosh chodesh of Adar, meaning on the thirtieth day of Shvat.11 If fulfill the custom of fasting in such a manner. one’s relative dies on the thirtieth of Marcheshvan, which can have either twenty-nine or thirty days, there is a major debate among the later au‐ The practice of fasting on a yahrtzeit is much less widespread today than thorities whether in a year which has only twenty-nine days whether one it once was. The Minchas Yitzchak30 explains that since it is difficult for should observe the yahrtzeit on the twenty-ninth of the previous month, or many people today to fast, many have the practice to instead sponsor a on the first of the next month. The Mishnah Berurah12 rules that if in the “tikkun” for the yahrtzeit, meaning that they provide food for everyone in next year following the death, Marcheshvan has only twenty-nine days, their synagogue. By doing so, they gain the mitzvah of tzedaka (by giving one should always observe the yahrtzeit on the twenty-ninth of Marchesh‐ this food to the poor), as the recitation of and answering “amen” to the van, but if the next year Marcheshvan has thirty days as well, one should blessings on the food, in memory of the deceased relative of sponsor. observe the yahrtzeit on years when it has only twenty-nine days on the first of Kislev. The same would apply to Kislev, which can also have either Learning Mishnayos twenty-nine or thirty days.13

There is a custom to learn mishnayos beginning with the letters of the If the person died in a diﬀerent time zone than his relative, the yahrtzeit name of the deceased relative.31 If the yahrtzeit falls on Shabbos, it is is determined based on the time and location of the person who died, in‐ permissible to learn the mishnayos on that day,32 although some have the dependent of where the relatives may be.14 custom to learn the mishnayos on Friday.33

Some claim that a yahrtzeit is only observed for ﬁfty years, but the com‐ Visiting the Cemetery mon custom is to observe a yahrtzeit forever.15

Shulchan Aruch34 rules that when a wise person dies, we visit his grave at Yahrtzeit Candle the end of twelve months. The custom has developed to visit the grave of 35 There is a custom to light a candle for the yahrtzeit of a relative. This cus‐ any departed relative on his yahrtzeit. Some say that even one whose tom is mentioned in the Magen Avraham in a completely diﬀerent context. relatives are buried far away and will not be able to go them on the day of 36 The halacha states that when there is a great need, it is permitted to ask a the yahrtzeit, should still go to another Jewish cemetery nearby. Some non-Jew to perform a forbidden act at the beginning of Shabbos, after sun‐ also say that even a kohen, who cannot enter a cemetery, should neverthe‐ 37 set but before it gets dark (tzeis ha’kochavim).16 The Magen Avraham17 less go close to the cemetery. The custom is to recite Psalms chapters 38 says that since people are so careful about lighting a candle for their rela‐ 32, 16, 17, 72, 91, 104 and 130 while at the cemetery; although nor‐ tives’ yahrtzeit, it is considered a great need, such that one would be able mally it is not proper to perform mitzvos in a cemetery since the dead can to ask a non-Jew to do so at the beginning of Shabbos. It is also permitted no longer perform mitzvos, it is permitted to recite words of Torah in to light the yahrtzeit candle on the night of yom tov, since he will beneﬁt honor of the memory of the deceased even in the cemetery.39 The Chazon from its light, but he cannot light it during the daytime of yom tov, since Ish is reported to have said that one who is learning full-time in yeshiva that will not serve a purpose.18 need not leave in order to visit his relative’s grave, but rather should learn extra that day.40 Fasting on the Day of a Yahrtzeit 27 Reciting Kaddish and Leading Prayers Some have the practice to recite kaddish and lead services for their grandparents once their parents are no longer able to do so; however, The Rama41 rules that one always recites kaddish on a yahrtzeit, and if he they are not entitled to do so if that means that they will take these privi‐ is able to, he should lead prayers as well. leges away from other mourners present.59

In a place where only one person says kaddish,42 the Rama43 rules that As always, customs vary and you should ask your rabbi questions about somebody within shiva (the first seven days of mourning after the death of appropriate practice. a relative) would take priority over a yahrtzeit; if there is somebody in sh‐ eloshim (the first thirty days of mourning after the death of a relative), the 1. A first degree relative is defined as a father, mother, son, daugh‐ yahrtzeit gets one kaddish and the person in sheloshim gets the rest of ter, brother, sister and spouse (Shulchan Aruch YD 374:4). ↩ the kaddeishim; and if there is somebody in the eleven-month period of saying kaddish for a parent, the yahrtzeit gets all of the kaddeishim. The 2. YD 402:12 ↩ Biur Halacha,44 however, rules that a yahrtzeit is entitled to one kaddish 3. YD 402:9 ↩ even in the presence of somebody in shiva, and that somebody in the eleven months of saying kaddish for a parent is entitled to certain kad‐ 4. YD 402:10 ↩ deishim which are external to the main part of the prayer service, such as shir shel yom. In any case, the Rama45 himself rules that if there is a vary‐ 5. His position about two days appears to be a little unclear; at one ing local custom, we follow the local custom regarding the matters of how point he says a distance of three days or more, at another point to distribute kaddish. he says “the day of the death or the next day.” My inclination is to read it that a delay of two days should be considered a long gap, How do we determine who leads the prayer service? In general, the priori‐ and a gap of three or more days means three including both the ties for who recites kaddish apply to leading the prayer service as well. days of death and burial themselves, such that one should observe However, there is only one leader of every prayer service, so therefore it the first yahrtzeit on the day of the burial. ↩ would follow that only the person with the highest level of priority to get a kaddish would be entitled to lead the prayer service, namely a yahrtzeit. 6. YD 402:3 ↩ However, R. Moshe Feinstein46 rules that the person in sheloshim has higher priority to lead the prayer services than the yahrtzeit, even though 7. YD 402:12 ↩ the yahrtzeit has higher priority to receive one kaddish. 8. OC 568:7 ↩ Additionally, the Rama47 quotes the practice in many communities during the period of selichos, that the person who leads the services for selichos 9. OC 568:7 ↩ is entitled to lead all of the prayers for the entire day.48 The Mishnah Berurah49 quotes the Magen Avraham50 that he has priority even over a 10. Mishnah Berurah (MB) 568:42 rules, however, that in a place where only one person says kaddish, he is only entitled to a kad‐ yahrtzeit. However, the Mishnah Berurah51 also brings the opinion of the dish in the place of other mourners in one month. Presumably this Eliya Rabba and Pri Megadim that if the yahrtzeit is fasting he should be would be the case for having priority to lead the prayer services allowed to lead services even during the period of selichos. as well. See also Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:10 who brings both opinions of the Rama and says that the common practice is The Rama52 also quotes a practice that when there is a bris (circumci‐ to observe yahrtzeit only in the first Adar. ↩ sion), the mohel (the one who performs the bris) leads the prayer service. The Shach53 questions if this is a correct practice to begin with, and he 11. MB 568:42; Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:10. ↩ says that certainly if there is a mourner or a yahrtzeit, the mohel should not have priority over them to lead the services. However, it is clear from 12. MB 568:42 ↩ the Shach that the prevailing custom was indeed that the mohel does have priority over the mourners to lead services, and yahrtzeit would probably 13. See also Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:11, who rules basically be the same halacha as a mourner. like MB, although he concludes that when he observes yahrtzeit on the twenty-ninth, if there are no other mourners from whom he There is also a custom that on the Shabbos before a yahrtzeit, one should would take kaddish, it is proper to recite kaddish and lead ser‐ 54 receive the maftir aliyah, lead the services for Musaf, as well as the vices on the first of the following month as well. ↩ Maariv service immediately following Shabbos.55 Others have the custom that one leads all of the payer services on the Shabbos before a 14. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:14. See however Penei Baruch yahrtzeit.56 Also, the yahrtzeit is entitled to an aliyah on the Torah read‐ 39:40 who cites other opinions as well. ↩ ing day which coincides, or precedes his yahrtzeit, and he should recite a Kel Malei prayer for the soul of his relative at the time of his aliyah.57 15. Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 77:22 ↩ However, the prevalent custom is to recite the Kel Malei prayer on the 16. Shulchan Aruch 261:1 ↩ Shabbos before the yahrtzeit, or earlier if necessary.58 28 17. OC 261:6 ↩ 39. Shulchan Aruch 344:17 ↩

18. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:4. One could argue that this does 40. Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 76:3 ↩ not apply nowadays when the house is fully lit on Yom Tov night with electric lights. Also, this is difficult for the Penei Baruch, 41. YD 376:4 ↩ chapter 39, footnote 33, who says that the real reason that one should be allowed to one to ask a non-Jew to light a yahrtzeit can‐ 42. The custom in most communities in the past was that only one dle at the beginning of Shabbos is because it is considered a person said each kaddish. This is clear for Rama (YD 376:4), Taz melacha she’eina tzericha l’gufa (an act for a purpose different (YD 376:4), Shach (YD 376:7–13), as well as Biur Halacha (132), than that in the mishkan, which is only forbidden Rabbinically), from the fact that they are discussing who has priority to say and therefore it should be permitted based on the principle of which kaddish. In his responsa, the Chasam Sofer (OC 1:159) shevus d’shevus b’makom mitzva (a double Rabbinic act is permit‐ strongly defends this practice, and argues that a kaddish said by ted in order to perform a mitzva), but according to this, he does more than one person will not have much of an effect for the soul benefit from the light. The last answer in Biur Halacha 514 d”h of the person who has died. I have also observed that when R. ner shel batala could possibly be a resolution to our problem. ↩ Hershel Schachter has yahrtzeit, he prefers to not say kaddish at all, rather than to say kaddish with somebody else. Nonetheless, 19. YD 102:12 and OC 568:1 and 568:7. ↩ the custom in most places today has become to allow all of the mourners to recite kaddish together, as mentioned in the Pischei 20. YD 391:3 ↩ Teshuva (YD 376:6) in the name of the Divrei Igeres and the Hala‐ chos Ketanos. I have also seen a practice that in general everyone 21. YD 391:8 ↩ says kaddish together, but when there is a yahrtzeit he gets a kad‐ dish on his own. I cannot find any source for this practice, but I 22. OC 568:9 ↩ suspect it is a carryover from the original practice of only one person saying kaddish at all times. ↩ 23. There ↩ 43. YD 376:4 ↩ 24. There ↩ 44. Biur Halacha 132 ↩ 25. OC 568:5 ↩ 45. YD 391:3 ↩ 26. 32:7 ↩ 46. Igros Moshe YD 4:60 ↩ 27. YD 246:27 ↩ 47. OC 581:1 ↩ 28. 32:7 ↩ 48. There is a debate among the commentaries on the Shulchan 29. Nitei Gaviel, volume 2, 72:6 ↩ Aruch if this is coming to include just Shacharis and Mincha, or if it even includes Maariv the night before, see MB 581:14. ↩ 30. Minchas Yitzchak 6,135. See also Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 72:1. ↩

49. 581:14 ↩ 31. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:3; Penei Baruch 39:13; Nitei

Gavriel, volume 2, 71:10. ↩ 50. OC 581:7 ↩

32. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:3; Penei Baruch 39:14 ↩ 51. 581:14 ↩

33. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:3; Penei Baruch 39:14 ↩ 52. YD 265:11 ↩

34. YD 344:20 ↩ 53. YD 265:23 ↩

35. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 29:1 and 32:5. He also cites the 54. However, some insist that he should not receive maftir, but rather Tiferes Yisrael in Eduyos 2:6, but there appears to an issue with one of the seven main aliyos, see the second opinion in the Penei the girsa (textual variant) there. ↩ Baruch 39:12. ↩

36. Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 76:10 ↩ 55. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:2 ↩

37. Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 76:11 ↩ 56. Penei Baruch 39:2 ↩

38. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 29:3 and 32:5. ↩ 29 57. Gesher Hachaim, volume 1, 32:2 ↩ 59. Matte Efraim, dinei kaddish yasom, shaar 3, seif 14; Penei Baruch 39:8; and Nitei Gavriel, volume 2, 70:12 ↩ 58. Kol Bo Al Aveilus, 5:4:21 ↩

30 Torah Musings Digest 25 July, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

Sha’arei Ephraim points out that in verse 3 the Torah records that the Mas’ei: Mysticism, Geogra‐ Jews left Ra’amses and then after a short digression repeats that they left phy and the Ba’al Korei’s Ra’amses in verse 5. He suggests that perhaps the repetition should be counted as two masa’ot.6 Inspired by this approach, R. Avraham Rapa‐ Dilemma port7 contends that there really is no repetition and that Ra’amses can le‐ gitimately be counted twice. According to Ibn Ezra8 there actually were by R. Moshe Schapiro two different locations known as Ra’amses: the province (Shemot 12:37) and the city (Shemot 1:11). The Jews first traveled from the city in verse 3 Place Names and then ultimately from the entire province in verse 5. An entirely differ‐ ent solution is suggested by R. Yehoshua Falk.9 Rashi in Shemot 40:38 In ancient times when gypsum was more prevalent than the GPS and Gil‐ writes that the Hebrew term mas’a does not refer only to traveling be‐ gamesh was better known than Google Maps, the Torah detailed, in the tween two places, but to the places traveled to and from. Rashi, here in opening of Parashat Mas’ei, the travels (masa’ot) of the Jewish people in Parashat Mas’ei, is consistent with his comment in Shemot in counting the the desert. Rashi asks why the Torah presents us with this long list of forty-two place names, starting with Ra’amses in verse 5 and ending with forty-two masa’ot, and answers that it teaches us about God’s kindness. It the Jordan River in the Plains of Moav in verse 49, even though there are is true that the Jews wandered for forty years, but if you study their jour‐ only forty-one actual movements between places. R. Rapaport points out ney carefully, you will realize that most of their movements were in the that the practical ramification between these two approaches is whether a first and last years of their desert stay. The intervening years were rela‐ break can be made after verse 3. According to the “two Ra’amses” theory, tively stable. R. Avraham Saba (a Spanish commentator and kabbalist who the forty-two masa’ot begin in verse 3 and no interruption is allowed from died ca. 1508) offers a different perspective on the significance of this list that point on. However, according to the “place-names” theory, the forty- in his Torah commentary Tzeror HaMor. He quotes Chazal (source un‐ two count only begins in verse 5 and an extra aliyah could be inserted be‐ known) that the forty-two masa’ot of the Jewish people parallelthe mysti‐ fore that point. cal forty-two-letter name of God and concludes that since God’s name may not be broken up, when reading this passage in the synagogue, one must Traveling Non-Stop read the entire list without interruption. Practically this means that the first forty-nine verses of Parashat Mas’ei must be read as one aliyah. Though many authorities, following the Magen Avraham, adopt the prac‐ tice of not breaking up the forty-two masa’ot, they disagree about its ex‐ 1 There is a lively exchange in the Journal Ohr Yisrael between two con‐ tent. R. Yechiel Mikhel Epstein10 quotes the Magen Avraham, with one im‐ temporary authors, R. Avraham Rapaport and R. David Yitzchaki regard‐ portant caveat: this rule only applies to the keri’at ha-Torah of Shabbat ing whether this practice is or should be mainstream. If you look at any of morning, not to the readings of Shabbat afternoon and Monday and the chumashim in your local synagogue, you will immediately notice that Thursday mornings.11 The source for this distinction is Rema’s ruling when Matot-Mas’ei are read together, which is most of the time, the about another Torah portion. The Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 31a) reports fourth aliyah ends after the masa’ot. However, when Mas’ei is read sepa‐ that, in the time of the Beit ha-Mikdash, the Levi’im would sing Shirat rately, as it is this year, the second aliyah is indicated after verse 10, Ha’azinu (Devarim 32) during the service for the Shabbat musaf sacrifice. which is right in the middle of the list. A similar break-up is found in older They divided the song into six distinct sections, represented by the acro‐ sources. R. Yissachar ben Mordechai Susan (b. ca.1510) marks the end of nym ha-ziv lach, spelled out by the first letter of each segment.12 The Tal‐ the first aliyah after verse 92 and R. Yosef Kosman (d. 1758),3 while won‐ mud notes that when we read Parashat Ha’azinu in the synagogue, we fol‐ dering why the Tzeror HaMor’s words were disregarded, faithfully low the same divisions. Rif13 and Rosh14 write that these sections are records that the ancient custom of the Frankfort community was also to maintained both on Shabbat and Monday and Thursday morning, and the break at verse 9. More recently, there is a report that R. Yaakov Yisrael Shulchan Arukh (428:5) follows their opinion. However, Rema decides in Kanievsky4 was apparently unfazed when the ba’al korei in his minyan fol‐ accordance with the Mordechai15 that one need only be careful about this lowed the standard printed chumash instead of the Tzeror HaMor. Yet, the on Shabbat. R. Chaim Benveniste (1603−1673)16 believes that the major‐ standard commentaries such as the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 428) ity of medieval authorities followed Rif and Rosh, and therefore insists and the Sha’arei Ephraim (7:25) quote the Tzeror HaMor and the Mishnah that even Ashkenazim must read Ha’azinu during the week according to Berurah cites the Magen Avraham, thereby bringing this somewhat ob‐ the predetermined sections. Still, R. Ephraim Zalman Margoliyot17 and R. scure source to the attention of fastidious ba’alei keri’ah and demanding Epstein in his Arukh HaShulchan decide like Rema. R. Epstein’s ruling gabba’im everywhere. that one may break up the masa’ot during the week is simply an applica‐

A further question is how to count the forty-two masa’ot, as there seem to tion of Rema’s distinction between Shabbat and weekday readings with regard to Parashat Ha’azinu. be only forty-one. R. Shabbtai Lipschutz5 in his commentary on the 31 The Munkaczer Rebbe, R. Chaim Elazar Shapira, disagrees with R. Ep‐ ing. Additionally, Ritva may be relying on the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megillah stein. While apparently accepting Rema’s ruling regarding Ha’azinu, R. 4:1) that anchors Moshe’s establishment of the Yom Tov and Shabbat23 Shapira argues that, with regard to the masa’ot, he cannot fathom any readings to a scriptural source. Ritva’s opinion is unique, but it is still sug‐ reason for a distinction between the Shabbat and weekday readings.18 On gestive of the profound difference between the Shabbat and weekday the other hand, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik19 rejected the ruling of Rema readings. and was careful to maintain the integrity of both Ha’azinu and the masa’ot during both Shabbat and weekday readings. In summary, there are three We can perceive the fundamental distinction between the Shabbat and views. R. Epstein consistently distinguishes between the Shabbat and weekday readings even in the history of the rabbinic construction of weekday readings. R. Soloveitchik consistently equates the readings. And keri’at ha-Torah that is described in Bava Kamma. In that passage, the the Munkaczer Rebbe, while equating them with regard to the reading of Talmud is unsure of the exact historical development of this mitzvah. Per‐ Mas’ei, distinguishes between them with regard to the reading of Ha’az‐ haps Moshe Rabbenu instituted that one person should read three verses inu. We will now attempt to explore these three opinions and place each or, alternatively, that three people should each read one verse, but in any within its conceptual framework. case, Ezra formalized matters, decreeing three aliyot and a total of at least ten pesukim. The Talmud only discusses the development of the The Arukh HaShulchan’s Approach weekday readings with their three aliyot. What of the Shabbat reading? Magen Avraham, in his opening comments to Orach Chaim 135, argues The Talmud (Bava Kamma 82a) teaches that Moshe Rabbenu20 estab‐ that Moshe Rabbenu set the number of aliyot for Shabbat morning at lished the reading cycle of Shabbat morning, Monday and Thursday so seven, whereas the formalization of the weekday readings was left for that the Jews would never go for more than three days without Torah generations until the days of Ezra ha-Sofer. Clearly, when we speak of study. Generations later, Ezra ha-Sofer expanded keri’at ha-Torah, requir‐ keri’at ha-Torah, we must recognize that there are really two categories of ing the reading of more verses and adding to the number of aliyot, and readings. This explains Rema’s ruling that the strictures that apply to the also added the Shabbat afternoon reading. What is the relationship be‐ reading of Ha’azinu only apply on Shabbat morning, the primary reading. tween these different readings? The Talmud (Megillah 31b) records a dis‐ The Arukh HaShulchan’s application of this leniency to the masa’ot makes pute between R. Meir and R. Yehudah about the schedule of Torah reading perfect sense. during the course of the week. According to R. Meir we begin a new parashah on Shabbat afternoon and at each successive reading we con‐ In fact, R. Epstein consistently follows this line of reasoning. As noted, the tinue further along in the parashah until we complete it on Shabbat morn‐ Shulchan Arukh codifies the opinion of R. Yehudah that the weekday read‐ ing. However, the normative ruling21 follows R. Yehudah: we read the be‐ ings repeat the opening of that week’s portion instead of reading further 24 ginning of the new portion on Shabbat afternoon, repeat the same reading into the parashah. Rema, quoting the Or Zaru’a, comments that if a con‐ on Monday and Thursday and then, starting again from the beginning, we gregation skipped the Shabbat morning reading they must make it up on read the parashah in its entirety on Shabbat morning. R. Meir believes the following Shabbat together with that week’s portion. The Mishnah 25 that there is no intrinsic difference between any of the readings. Moshe Berurah writes that if a similar thing happened on Monday or Thursday Rabbenu instituted three readings of essentially equal stature over the morning, there would be no obligation to make up the reading on Tuesday course of the week in order to provide spiritual sustenance to the people. or Friday because Chazal only sanctioned Torah readings on specific days. However, we follow the position of R. Yehudah, that the keri’at ha-Torah of The Arukh HaShulchan26 adds that even without this technical reason the Shabbat morning is primary, while the other readings are only secondary. entire concept of making up the weekday readings does not make sense. They are just place holders. The entire portion will be read on Shabbat The difference between the Shabbat and weekday readings is further un‐ anyway. Another similar scenario is discussed by the poskim. If the Torah derscored by Ritva.22 The Talmud (Megillah 17b), after citing the opinion was read on Monday or Thursday morning, but the wrong portion was of R. Yehudah ha-Nasi that Shema must be recited in Hebrew, inquires read accidentally, must the ba’al korei correct his mistake? Presumably, if whether this implies that according to biblical law, “the rest of the Torah this were to happen on Shabbat morning, the correct parashah would may be recited in any language.” Rashi, as quoted by Tosafot (s.v. kol ha- have to be read, but there is a debate regarding the weekday reading.27 Torah), explains that “the rest of the Torah” refers to keri’at ha-Torah. R. Epstein rules that, in contradistinction to the Shabbat reading, the Tosafot is confounded by Rashi’s explanation, since with the exception of weekday readings need not be corrected.28 This is because the fulfillment Parashat Zachor there are no biblically mandated Torah readings. What is of reading the Torah on Shabbat is the reading of the parshiyot over the this “rest of the Torah” that the Talmud is asking about? Ritva rejects course of the year in consecutive order. If a parashah is omitted, the obli‐ Tosafot’s premise. Moshe and Ezra only innovated the Torah readings of gation is not fulfilled. However, the function of the weekday readings is Monday and Thursday and Shabbat afternoon. The weekly Shabbat morn‐ only to prevent us from going for more than three days without Torah. ing reading is actually a biblical obligation. The proof for this is that the Even if the wrong portion is read, the goal of the weekday reading has Talmud (Berakhot 21a), discussing the biblical commandment to recite a been accomplished. R. Epstein’s understanding of the two categories of blessing over Torah study, speaks of making a blessing before and after keri’at ha-Torah is at the core of his position that when reading Ha’azinu study. But the personal obligation to study Torah is constant and has no and the masa’ot on Shabbat, we must be meticulous in dividing the “after.” Therefore, the Talmud must be speaking of a biblically mandated parshiyot correctly, but during the week we can be less rigorous. communal Torah reading, and the passage in Bava Kamma means to say that Moshe added on the weekday readings to the original Shabbat read‐ R. Soloveitchik’s Approach 32 Even if we accept that the Shabbat morning and weekday readings are Kamma 82a describes the decrees of Moshe and Ezra in terms of how functionally or conceptually different from one another, this may not force many verses must be read: Moshe first decreed that one person read Rema’s ruling regarding Parashat Ha’azinu or R. Epstein’s conclusion re‐ three verses or, alternatively, that three people read one verse each, and garding the masa’ot. R. Benveniste, mentioned above, argues against then Ezra later instituted that three people read a total of ten verses. Rema’s distinction between the Shabbat and weekday readings of Therefore the operative principle in keri’at ha-Torah is “any verse which Parashat Ha’azinu, citing Rambam’s explanation that the Talmud insisted Moshe did not divide we may not divide” and the Gemara in Megillah that on dividing Ha’azinu into six distinct segments: “Because they are a re‐ invokes this principle is, in fact, speaking about the laws of Torah reading. buke, in order that the people should repent.”29 According to R. Ben‐ However, the passage in Berakhot is discussing appending a third section veniste, this reason applies equally on Shabbat or during the week, and onto the first two paragraphs of Shema. Keri’at Shema is not the recita‐ the divisions should be the same for both readings. R. Benveniste’s read‐ tion of individual pesukim; it is a mitzvah of reading parshiyot.33 In the ing of Rambam, is somewhat perplexing, though, because he seems to ig‐ context of Shema, it is the principle of not dividing parshiyot that is opera‐ nore the context of Rambam’s remarks. R. Avraham Dovber Kahane tive. Therefore, had Chazal not settled on the fairly short parashah of tz‐ Shapiro30 observes that Rambam is discussing the principle that aliyot itzit, we would have been bound to read the entire portion of Balak as the must begin and end with positive themes. The problem is that some of the third paragraph of Shema in order to access the one verse that speaks of segments of Ha’azinu, arranged in the pattern of ha-ziv lach, violate this the Exodus. rule. Rambam is explaining that since Ha’azinu is read as a form of re‐ buke to motivate the nation to repent, the need to maintain the themes of Most Torah readings reflect the obligation to read pesukim. However, the song overrides the usual rules of how to divide aliyot. Rambam is not there are certain readings that bear unique status, more akin to reading giving a reason for the intrinsic importance of the six segments, rather, he parshiyot. Parashat Ha’azinu is not just a group of verses strung together, is explaining why this is an exception to the general rule of ending aliyot but a song that must be divided into specific stanzas. The principle “any on positive themes. On Shabbat our purpose in reading Ha’azinu is to give portion which Moshe did not divide, we must not divide” is the operative 34 rebuke to the nation, but, as noted above, our purpose in the weekday principle. The same can be said of the forty-two masa’ot. The list of the readings is just to read some Torah verses, and if there is no intrinsic Jewish people’s travels in the desert constitutes a distinct portion, signi‐ need to divide the verses a specific way, perhaps we need not do so. In fied by the observation that the mystical forty-two letter name of God is fact, we can read three aliyot on Monday and Thursday that all end and contained within the united parashah. R. Soloveitchik argues that it is im‐ begin on a positive note, without following the divisions of ha-ziv lach. material whether the reading takes place on Shabbat morning or during Therefore, R. Benveniste’s citation of Rambam to prove that there is no the week. To put it in Brisker terminology: it’s not a din in keri’at ha-To‐ distinction between the Shabbat and weekday readings is unconvincing. rah, it’s a din in the particular parashah being read. The portions of Ha’azinu and Mas’ei require, intrinsically, that they be read according to R. Soloveitchik31 offers a different rationale to explain his rejection of the sanctioned divisions. Rema, based on the rule that “Any portion that Moshe did not divide, we may not divide.” The Talmud (Megillah 22a) points out that the first para‐ The Munkaczer’s Approach graph of the Rosh Chodesh reading, comprising only five verses, cannot be broken up into two aliyot of three verses each and suggests splitting Why does Rema not employ R. Soloveitchik’s analysis? R. Benveniste, al‐ one verse into two. The Gemara forcefully rejects this suggestion citing though he rejects Rema’s opinion, offers a crucial explanation of his posi‐ the rule: “Any verse that Moshe did not divide, we may not divide.” The tion. Rema sees the Shabbat and weekday readings as two profoundly diff‐ implication is that, while we may not read only part of a verse, there is no fferent institutions, as we explained above. The Shabbat morning reading rule that prohibits selecting an entire verse from a larger portion to read is part of the yearly cycle of reading the Torah. Each Shabbat morning we on its own. But this implication is contradicted by a different Talmudic must read one parashah or, on occasion, a double parashah as the calen‐ passage. Berakhot 12b discusses the third paragraph of Shema in which dar requires. Fundamentally, the Shabbat morning reading is the reading we must mention the Exodus to fulfill the daily obligation of remembering of a parashah in its totality. The weekday readings are place holders, to that God redeemed us from Egypt. The Talmud establishes that we read keep us spiritually connected to Torah between one Shabbat and the next. the parashah of tzitzit (Bemidbar 15:38–41), which concludes with a dec‐ We read and re-read the same short selection of verses until we arrive at laration to remember that God took us out of Egypt. However, originally the next Shabbat and finally fulfill the obligation to read the full parashah. Chazal considered using the entire parashah of Balak, spanning chapters R. Benveniste explains that when reading Ha’azinu on Shabbat morning, R. Soloveitchik’s analysis holds true. We are intending to read the entire 22–24 of Bemidbar, in order to read 23:22 which refers to the Exodus.32 portion. We are going to sing the song. Therefore, we must read stanza by The Gemara asks why it would be necessary to read such a lengthy por‐ stanza as it was intended to be sung. The same is true of the mas’aot. On tion for the sake of one verse and answers: “Any portion that Moshe did Shabbat morning, we are going to read Parashat Mas’ei in full. Our inten‐ not divide, we may not divide.” Clearly, this rule prohibits selecting even tion and focus is on parshiyot and therefore, “any portion that Moshe did one whole verse from a larger context. Is there any way to harmonize not divide we must not divide.” However, during the week, we are not at‐ these two opposing statements? tempting to read the parashah. We are not thinking of the poetry of Ha’az‐

R. Soloveitchik explains that these rules do not contradict each other, inu and we do not look upon the list of place names at the beginning of rather, they apply in different circumstances. The institution of keri’at ha- Parashat Mas’ei as a unified entity. We are only thinking of reading some Torah is fundamentally about reading Torah verses. The passage in Bava verses. We are looking at the trees, not the forest and, therefore, we can divide the parshiyot as we choose. 33 R. Benveniste’s explanation of Rema’s position, that our intention is deter‐ cuss is how the now archaic triennial Torah cycle which was once minative, is the key to understanding the Munkaczer’s split decision. On practiced in Eretz Yisrael fits into this discussion. Most probably, the one hand, the Munkaczer Rebbe seems to accept Rema’s view that the triennial cycle represents a completely different approach to Ha’azinu need not be read in any particular fashion during the week. Yet, the nature of keri’at ha-Torah and works with different rules and when it comes to the masa’ot he writes that he cannot even fathom a rea‐ assumptions, and therefore I will not address that question here. son for a distinction between the Shabbat and weekday readings! What is ↩ the difference between these two parshiyot? The answer is that our inten‐ tion makes the difference. On Monday morning when we read Ha’azinu, 2. Tikkun Yisakhar, 80b ↩ there is no compelling reason to view it as a song. We are reading pe‐ sukim, not parshiyot. However, the masa’ot are a self-contained portion 3. Noheg KaTzon Yosef p.245. ↩ for which there is a compelling reason to view it as a unique parashah and not just as a string of verses. The unity of God’s mystical name binds the 4. Orchot Rabbenu v. 1, p.178. ↩ portion together as one entity. Even during the week the integrity of the 5. Sha’arei Rachamim 7:26. ↩ parashah must be maintained. The Munkaczer thus concludes that regard‐ ing Ha’azinu, which can be a unit or individual verses, we can make a dis‐ 6. See also Rashash, Menachot 30a. ↩ tinction between Shabbat and weekdays, but regarding the masa’ot, which are always a unified entity, we cannot. 7. Ohr Yisrael v. 25 p. 189. ↩

R. Soloveitchik agrees that the masa’ot are a unified entity, but regarding 8. Shemot 12:37. ↩ Ha’azinu he insists that, even though we do not read the entire parashah during the week, our intention is still to sing a song, not just to read se‐ 9. Perishah, Tur, Yoreh De’ah 275:12. ↩ lected verses. Indeed, the original source for the six divisions of Ha’azinu is the Levi’im’s song for the Shabbat musaf offering in the Beit ha-Mik‐ 10. Arukh HaShulchan 428:6. ↩ dash, and the Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 31a) says that they would read only one stanza each week, completing the entire song every six weeks. 11. For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth refer to “weekday Just as the Levi’im did not read the entire parashah at one time, yet each readings” or “Monday and Thursday morning,” but this includes individual stanza constituted a part of the song, so too when we read indi‐ the Shabbat afternoon reading as well. ↩ vidual stanzas from Ha’azinu on Monday and Thursday mornings, we are singing a song, not just reading pesukim. As such, R. Soloveitchik can as‐ 12. Due to the fact that there are several verses that begin with these sert that during the week, even though we are only reading a small ex‐ letters there are multiple opinions how to identify the correct six cerpt of Ha’azinu, we are doing so as a song and therefore we must main‐ sections. See She’elot u-Teshuvot Devar Avraham 1:36. ↩ tain that song’s integrity. 13. Megillah 12b. ↩ The End of the Road 14. Megillah 3:2. ↩ While the reading of Parashat Mas’ei separate from Parashat Matot oc‐ curs more often in Israel than in the Diaspora, it is still a fairly unusual 15. Megillah section 805. ↩ phenomenon. Prior to this year it occurred world-wide in 2005, 2008 and 2011, but will not occur again until 2035 and even in Eretz Yisrael it will 16. Sheyarei Keneset HaGedolah, Orach Chaim 428. See also Peri only occur four times until then. Yet, the question of preserving the unity Chadash ad loc. ↩ of the masa’ot at the beginning of the Parashah can shed light on the con‐ ceptual underpinnings of keriat ha-Torah throughout the year. Speaking 17. Sha’arei Ephraim 7:27. ↩ practically, we have seen that while there are many communities that will read Parashat Mas’ei according to the break-up of aliyot indicated in most 18. Nimukei Orach Chaim 428. See also the Munkacz Siddur Minchat standard chumashim, there are many poskim who strongly advocated fol‐ Elazar, 1992 which has the standard, short reading for Ha’azinu lowing the words of the Tzeror HaMor and insisted on maintaining the during the week, but contains the full, expanded reading for unity of the masa’ot section. A gabbai or ba’al korei who serves in a syna‐ Mas’ei. ↩ gogue that has no tradition with regard to this question should probably 19. Nefesh HaRav pp. 140–141. See also R. Hershel Schachter, follow the standard chumashim, unless the constituency of the synagogue “Lesser-Known Laws of Torah Reading,” Journal of Jewish Music is well educated and might be receptive to what others might consider and Liturgy v. 7, 1985, sections 40–43. ↩ confusing and strange. In the final analysis, whatever the gabbai or ba’al korei decides to do, someone is going to yell at them anyway, so why not 20. The Talmud actually refers to “the prophets” of that generation, change things up a bit? At least it will give people something interesting but Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefilah 12:1) attributes the to talk about during the kiddush. takkanah to Moshe Rabbenu. See Kesef Mishneh ad loc. ↩

1. See vols. 25–26 and 35–37. One important question that they dis‐ 34 21. Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 135:2. ↩ 30. Devar Avraham 1:36. ↩

22. See also Bach, Orach Chaim 685. ↩ 31. Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mari z”l. Jerusalem, 2002, v. 1 pp. 19–20 and Nefesh HaRav op cit. ↩ 23. See Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 135:2 ↩ 32. The Talmud explains that Chazal preferred Parashat Balak to 24. Hilkhot Shabbat 45. ↩ other portions that mention the Exodus because in in 23:24 (or according to some texts 24:9), the Torah alludes to the mitzvah of 25. Be’ur Halakhah s.v. Shabbat Achat. ↩ keri’at Shema. ↩

26. Orach Chaim 135:7 ↩ 33. There are three main opinions among the medieval authorities re‐ garding the biblical commandment of keri’at Shema: to read the 27. See Mishnah Berurah 135:4 and Pitchei Teshuvah 135:2. ↩ first paragraph, to read the first two paragraphs or to merely read the first verse. See Mishnah Berurah 63:16. According to the last 28. Op Cit. 5 ↩ opinion, R. Soloveitchik’s analysis does not apply. ↩

29. Hilkhot Teﬁlah 13:5 ↩ 34. See Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mari z”l. Jerusalem, 2002, v. 2 pp. 24–25 ↩

Man on the Moon vised edition pp. 15–16): As an aside, we learn from these words of the Ramban The July 21, 1969 landing on the moon was a monumental achievement [on Gen. 1:1], and in particular from what he concluded for mankind, and the leading Torah scholars of the time were as im‐ in the continuation of his words on verse 8, that pressed as everyone else in the world. They responded in a variety of everything that exists in the creation in the entire world, ways. including the sun, the moon and all the heavenly hosts, are not called “heavens.” The “heavens” are only things I. May Man Travel to the Moon? that have no physical bodies, such as angels, hayos and the merkavah. However, anything that has a physical R. Hershel Schachter writes in the name of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Beis body is included in the name “earth” in verse 1… Yitzchak Journal, no. 26 [5754] pp. 193–194; Divrei Ha-Rav, p. 243):

These words of the Ramban are what carried me when we “The heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) – [R. Soloveitchik] saw men descending from a space ship on a ladder onto was asked about Judaism’s view of man’s traveling to the the surface of the moon. I thought to myself: “What would moon, with the questioner suspecting that it might be the Rambam, who wrote that the moon has a spiritual forbidden because it is written “The heavens are the form, answer now?” I thought that at that point Kabbalah Lord’s but the land He has given to mankind” (Ps. defeated Philosophy, and comforted myself with the 115:16). [R. Soloveitchik] responded that one can words of the Ramban… distinguish in the definition of heavens and earth. The term “heavens” can be explained in two ways — as We are forced to say that what the Rambam told us in something high and/or distant, as it says “It is not in the these chapters [Hilkhos Yesodei Ha-Torah, chs. 1–4] is heavens” (Deut. 30:12), according to which the moon is neither ma’aseh merkavah nor ma’aseh bereishis. Rather, considered a part of the “heavens.” Alternatively, the he wrote those four chapters from his deep mind and term can be defined as including everything that is from his knowledge of secular wisdom, i.e. not from the beyond human understanding, including the entire wisdom of Torah but only from Philosophy… and the spiritual realm. According to this second understanding, Rambam only wrote these as an introduction to the the stars and most distant galaxies — and certainly the Mishneh Torah while the main part of the book begins moon — are considered part of “earth.” Therefore, with chapter 5… [according to this latter interpretation,] there is no contradiction between traveling in space or scientific R. Menachem Kasher tried to defend the Rambam in what I can only call a studies of the cosmos and the verse “The heavens are for bizarre and forced way (Ha-Adam Al Ha-Yare’ach, ch. 4): the Lord and the land for mankind.”

Question: Is it correct what many are currently saying — II. Is the Moon a Living Being? that when man reached the moon and dug from it dirt and stones, it was proven wrong what the Rambam wrote in R. Ya’akov Kamenetsky (Emes Le-Ya’akov al Ha-Torah, Gen. 1:1, 5761 re‐ 35 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Yesodei Ha-Torah 3:9 and Moreh force is also called an angel because it is an agent of God Nevukhim 2:5, and brings proof (to Aristotle’s position) to be made into matter. It is not impossible that this force from Biblical verses and sayings of the Sages, that the has its own intellect and rules according to its level and heavenly spheres have souls, knowledge and recognizes its creator and master… understanding, and live, stand and recognize He Who said and the world came into being? We can add that the “intellect” of an item is the rules by which it acts with God’s will and is the essence of its Answer: I wrote… the early sages R. Sa’adia Gaon, R. existence. The “soul” of an item is the force that Yehudah Ha-Levi, R. Chasdai Crescas, R. Yitzchak Ibn preserves its existence, with God’s will, and is the energy Latif, the author of Akedas Yitzchak (end of essay 1) and inside it. the Abarbanel strongly reject the position of Aristotle and the Rambam… R. Ya’akov Emden, in his book Migdal Oz III. Mussar Parable writes about Aristotle’s position, “It is all nonsense and lies.” And so the Maharal wrote in the introduction to his R. Shlomo Wolbe, in a talk on Shabbos Parashas Ki Seitzei in 1969, used book Gevuras Hashem, that the Rambam’s position is the moon landing as a parable (Da’as Shlomo, Ma’amarei Yemei Ratzon p. “nonsense”… 81). Unapologetically and unselfconsciously, he told how the astronauts were quarantined for 21 days after returning to Earth to ensure that no In the pamphlet Ge’ulas Yisrael of the Maggid of Koznitz, alien bacteria or viruses came back with them. Similarly, he suggested, if the author attempted to defend the Rambam. He explains there were spiritual beings on the moon they would have quarantined the [that the heavenly spheres] “are intellects without free astronauts for upon landing to ensure they were not bringing any “bacte‐ will”… We can explain this idea based on what R. Chaim ria” of lack-of-God-fearing, any contamination of irreligiosity. If the Vital wrote in his book Sha’arei Kedushah (3:1) based on Chafetz Chaim, R. Yisrael Meir Kagan, had been the first to land on the the principles of Kabbalah, that just like there is a soul in moon, he would have seen a pure landscape entirely untainted by irreli‐ a living creature, so too there is a “soul” in an inanimate giosity, perhaps even attaining the level of prophecy. object. This is the force that combines the four elements… The position of the Rambam is that just like I find this reaction entirely characteristic of a Mussar personality — using there is knowledge and intellect among the angels, which contemporary events to illustrate a spiritual point. I also find it notewor‐ does not refer to the intellect we have that is connected thy that R. Wolbe saw no religious challenge in this monumental event, re‐ to our five senses but rather is a spiritual intellect ferring to it without skeptical disclaimers or intellectual alarm. Instead, according to their level, we can say the same for the he found a Mussar aspect which could further the goal of deepening fear Tohu. [This Tohu] was the first power created by the will of God. of God and remains forever in various forms, at first in the Bohu, i.e. atom, and later in elements and bodies. This (Adapted from earlier posts)

An Overlooked View on not read, out of respect for the congregation. The Frimers, like others including Koren, Artscroll, R. Mendel Shapiro, R. Women’s Aliyyot Yehuda Henkin, R. Avi Weiss, and R. Shlomo Riskin, interpret “le-minyan shivah” to refer to the seven aliyyot at the Torah reading on Shabbat. by Yitzchak Kasdan However, another explanation is that “le-minyan shivah” means the “num‐ 1 I pen this piece in reaction to Rabbis Aryeh and Dov Frimer’s brilliant es‐ ber seven aliyyah” i.e., the seventh aliyyah only. As discussed herein, say on “Women, Kriat Ha-Torah, and Aliyyot” recently published in Tradi‐ that seventh aliyyah, in turn, has been understood speciﬁcally to refer to tion (Winter 2013, volume 46, no. 4). As comprehensive as their article ap‐ maftir, the aliyyah preceding the reading of the haftara, which was added pears to be in covering the subject matter, it misses one overlooked, yet after the conclusion of the requisite number of aliyyot for Shabbat. Ac‐ potentially important, explanation of the baraita in BT Megilla 23a regard‐ cording to some sources, the maftir was indeed the seventh and last ing “hakol olin le-minyan shivah,” which is the primary text about calling aliyyah on Shabbat. women to the Torah. Rav Yitzhak b. Sheshet (the “Rivash”), in his Responsa(no. 326), cites a

The Seventh version of Rashi on the Mishna in BT Megilla 24a that interprets the Mishna’s allowance for a minor to read from the Torah as a reference to The baraita states (Koren translation): the reading of maftir. The Magen Avraham (OH 282) cites the Rivash (al‐ beit the wrong chapter) and states that according to the Rivash, Rashi un‐ The Sages taught: All people count toward the quorum of derstood the baraita to mean that a woman may count “specifically to seven readers (le-minyan shivah), even a minor and even maftir,” given that a minor could only read the maftir portion. a woman. However, the Sages said [that] a woman should 36 Although we do not have the text version of Rashi that the Rivash cites, it The answer to the first question is found on the same page in Megilla as is nonetheless consistent with another comment by Rashi,elsewhere in the the baraita. Earlier, the Gemara relates a dispute between Rabbi Akiva Talmud. and Rabbi Yishmael as to the number of people required to be called to the Torah on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yishmael, and as we hold, that On Brachot 53b, Rashi interprets the discussion there regarding when an number is seven. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, it is only six. There‐ adult may answer “amen” to a minor’s blessing to refer both to the bra‐ fore, any aliyyah beyond seven, according to Rabbi Yishmael, and beyond chot that a minor makes when called to the Torah for maftir and the sub‐ six, according to Rabbi Akiva, was not part of the mandated number of sequent brachot made on the reading of the haftara. The Raavad, as aliyyot for Shabbat. Consequently, according to Rabbi Yishmael, maftir brought down by the Shita M’kubetzet, disagrees with Rashi’sinterpreta‐ was the non-obligatory eighth aliyyah, while the additional non-obligatory tion, asking why the Gemara would only single out the brachot of a minor maftir, according to Rabbi Akiva was the seventh aliyyah. In the end, the when called to read the maftir and haftara — after all, the Mishna in baraita of “ha-kol olin” can also be understood in accordance with Rabbi Megilla 24a appears to allows a minor to read any portion of the Torah, Akiva, i.e. the seventh aliyyah that a woman or a minor could (only) re‐ and by extension (and, presumably per the baraita) to make the brachot ceive was the maftir. when receiving an aliyyah for any of the seven aliyyot. The Meiri in Bra‐ chot defends Rashi, explaining that a minor may only read the maftir, and Moreover, the Gemara, immediately following the baraita of “ha-kol olin,” thus by implication recites a bracha only for the maftir aliyyah (and there‐ raises the question whether maftir can be part of the seven aliyyot. This after the haftara). passage can be interpreted as asking whether maftir was intended to be part of the seven aliyyot, i.e., whether it could be the seventh aliyyah The D’risha on the Tur, OH 215, explains that according to Rashi we may specifically. Understood that way, this sugyah possibly could be another respond “amen” to the brachot of a minor when he is part of the quorum source for the fact that, according to some sources, the seventh aliyyah of seven but that the custom later developed that a minor may not be part indeed was the maftir aliyyah. of the seven who are called to the Torah on Shabbat. However, as we saw, the Magen Avraham understands the Rivash’s explanation of Rashi to That maftir originally was an added, non-obligatory aliyyah clearly com‐ mean that such always was the case, rather than a later practice. ports with Rashi’s comments on the Mishna of Megilla 24a which states that a minor cannot poreis al shema (which consists of leading the congre‐ Moreover, Tosafot (RH 33a d.h. “Hah”) states that “le-minyan shivah” gation) because (per Rashi) he cannot fulfill an adult’s obligation. By con‐ means “be-sof shivah”, specifically “at the end” or “the last” of the seven trast, according to the Rivash’s version of Rashi on the same Mishna, a aliyyot. R. Avraham Naftali Zvi Roth in a 1961 article about the haftara minor can read the maftir portion from the Torah, because, as explained and kaddish yatom found in the Talpioth journal published by Yeshiva above, the maftir reading originally was not obligatory. 5 University2 interprets “be-sof shivah” in this Tosafot to refer to maftir only. Additionally, the Aruch Hashulchan (OH 282:10) also brings a source Because the maftir originally was not obligatory, we can now understand that the baraita refers to the seventh aliyyah only. See also generally Tzitz why even women originally were allowed to receive the maftir aliyyah and Eliezer 7:1 who discusses the Rivash and in particular at the end of sec‐ read from the Torah even though they could not fulfill a male adult’s obli‐ tion 13 where he brings down at least one source that also interprets “le- gation: there was nothing for the adult to fulfill because maftir was not minyan shivah” as a reference to maftir (albeit with a different explana‐ obligatory. tion and rationale than what I suggest below). Finally, it is interesting to note that the total blessings recited by the person receiving the maftir As to why maftir originally was not an obligatory, thus allowing women aliyyah, who then recites the blessings for the haftara, total seven; two for and minors to receive this aliyyah, the answer may be based on one un‐ the Torah reading, one before the haftara and four after.3 Perhaps the derstanding of the underlying reason for Chazal’s enactment of a maftir phrase “le-minyan shivah” refers to the person receiving maftir and the aliyyah and the recitation of the haftara in the first place. haftara who recites these seven brachot. Reasons for Maftir The implications of the above with respect to a Partnership Minyan are obvious. Even before the limitation on aliyyot for women due to the con‐ The origin of, and the rationale for, the haftara is unclear. As one author, cern of “kevod ha-tzibbur,” women never received any of the first six Shlomo Katz, has written in the introduction to his book The Haftarah aliyyot. Therefore, even if “kevod ha-tzibbur” no longer is an issue (which (hereafter “Katz”) at p. 3: “The beginnings of the haftarah is shrouded in the Frimers disprove anyway), to the extent that the baraita of “ha-kol mystery. Although the practice of reading a selection from the Nevi’im/ Prophets following the Torah reading is discussed in the Talmud, no expla‐ olin” supports women’s aliyyot, it could be no more than for maftir. 4 nation is offered why the haftarah is read. Neither does the Talmud tell us 6 Challenges when or where the practice first started.” [Emphasis in original.] .

What remains to be answered, however, are two questions: first, what is One explanation for the maftir relates to its role in offering consolation. In the source to say that maftir was the seventh and not, as today, the post- this regard, the haftara and its blessings are viewed as a vehicle of conso‐ seventh or eighth aliyyah (assuming no additional aliyyot), and second, lation to the Jewish people’s suffering over the generations. As Katz (p. why would Chazal allow women and minors to receive the maftir aliyyah 10) concisely summarized, in citing Divrei Hashkafah (pp. 30, 93): “ … R’ to begin with? Soloveitchik [the “Rav’”] suggests that the purpose of the haftara is pri‐ 37 marily to strengthen our belief in the final redemption and in the coming maftir aliyyah was uniquely made available to minors and women because of mashiach. We see this in the berachot of the haftara, in which the re‐ of its connection to consolation and mourners and its original “non-obliga‐ demption is a recurring theme. This also may be seen in the fact that vir‐ tory” part of the Torah on Shabbat, is worthy of attention and further tually all haftorot end with words of consolation.” analysis by scholars. I raise it in the spirit of yagdil Torah ve-ya’adir.

One can take this view of maftir and haftara one step further and suggest 1. See, e.g., the sources discussed by R. Gidon Rothstein in his that they are connected to consolation of aveilim, mourners. In this re‐ “Women’s Aliyyot in Contemporary Synagogues,” Tradition 39:2 gard, it is noteworthy that the words haftara and maftir have the same (hereafter “Rothstein”), p. 52. ↩ root (“ptr”) as the word “niftar”– a deceased person – and the maftir and haftara have been associated throughout the generations with mourners. 2. ”Azkarah ve-haftarah ve-kaddish yatom” Talpioth 7, nos. 2–4 7 Indeed, it used to be that a mourner within the first twelve months of his (Tishrei 5721 [1961], pp. 369–381 (hereafter “Roth”) ↩ close relative’s death would be called to the maftir aliyyah and recite the 3. See Tosafot Pesachim 104b d.h. “Chutz” ↩ haftara weekly. 8 More recently, the maftir aliyyah and the recitation of the haftara have become reserved for someone observing the “yom ha-pe‐ 4. See also Rothstein, id., who makes this similar point. R. Shapiro tirah” or “yahrzeit” of a mother or father. 9 It well could be, therefore, also apparently concedes this point according to the Rivash. See that mourners were given the right to recite the maftir in order to console his “Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: A Halakhic Analysis,” The Edah them by affording them the hope contained in the brachot of the haftara, Journal 1:2, p. 32. ↩ as well as the actual verses of the haftara which deal with redemption, of one day seeing their departed relatives in the times of mashiach when the 5. See also Meiri, Megilla 24a to the effect that the reading of the dead will return to life. maftir portion is not a “mitzvah gemurah.” See also Tzitz Eliezer 7:1 who notes that the reading of the maftir portion from the To‐ Another connection between the maftir and mourners relates to the kad‐ rah was “not such a great chiyuv.” ↩ dish that is recited after the seventh aliyyah, before the maftir. R. Roth in his Talpioth article cites Orchot Chaim, who connects an agadah about 6. See also Rav Dovid Cohen’s Massat Kapai vol. 5 p. 134 who notes 10 Rabbi Akiva’s search for a young orphaned boy to recite barchu and that no rationale or source for the haftara is brought down in the kaddish to redeem his father from gehenom, with the specific maftir Talmud, and that while the Rishonim had understandings and tra‐ aliyyah. This aliyyah begins with the recitation of barchu like all other ditions about the haftara, it appears to remain a matter of secret aliyyot but, unlike other aliyyot, is preceded by the recitation of kaddish. (“sod”) ↩ 11 R. Avidah also brings a source to the effect that people paid the most for the maftir aliyyah due to its precedingkaddish. 12 7. See for example R. Chaim David Halevy’s M’kor Baruch Hashalem, vol. 3 pp. 161–63. See also R. Yehudah Avidah, Maftir Implications “P’rakim B’inyanei Haazkeret,” Sinai, no. 28 (Yerushalyim 1951) (hereafter “Avidah”), p. 348. ↩ Given the links between the maftir and mourners, one could hypothesize that because the maftir aliyyah originally was not obligatory as part of the 8. See for example Responsa Rivash no. 115; Bet Yosef, YD 36; Rema Torah reading on Shabbat, minors and women initially were allowed by YD 376:4. ↩ Chazal to receive that aliyyah as part of an affirmative outreach to them – perhaps particularly when they became mourners – since they could not 9. M’kor Baruch, id; Katz, pp. 61–62. ↩ participate as a leader of services and recite barchu in that capacity.13 Be‐ ing able to recite the barchu of the maftir aliyyah, as well perhaps the 10. According to other versions Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai ↩ kaddish preceding it, would provide a measure of comfort, much as the optional Mourner’s Kaddish was added to the services as an outreach to 11. See also Katz, pp. 59–61, quoting a different version of the Rabbi Akiva agadah which specifically mentions the need for the de‐ orphans to bring them to shul.14 ceased’s son to recite the haftara. ↩

Today, of course, the maftir and haftara indeed are “obligatory” parts of 12. See Avidah, p. 339, note 10. ↩ the services so that, apart from the kavod hatzibbur problem as related in the baraita, women should not be able to obtain a maftir aliyyah or recite 13. However, see Roth, p. 380, preferring the view that the custom the haftara. Indeed, I would argue that for the same reason, and despite for mourners to obtain the maftir aliyyah was not from the time of some customs and holdings to the contrary, a minor should not be allowed the Mishna, and rejecting this thesis which apparently was pro‐ to obtain the maftir aliyyah either. posed by R. Avidah. In that last regard, see Avidah, p. 348. ↩

In sum, I recognize that the above interpretation of the baraita to refer 14. See Joel Wolowelsky’s Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity (Ktav only to the seventh aliyyah /maftir is not the majority view of how to inter‐ 1997), p. 85: “ … the early authorities enacted the saying of Kad‐ pret those words. However, I believe that this explanation, which limits dish after the recitation of Psalms, which is outside the formal the baraita to the maftir aliyyah only, based on the suggestion that the prayer service, to provide an opportunity for those who would be 38 excluded from acting as hazzan,” citing Roth, p. 375. See also Re‐ “Din Yatom Katan b’Kaddish u’Barchu” wherein he cites some au‐ sponsa Maharil, no. 28; Mishnah Berurah 55:20. As to whether a thorities who would uphold the practice provided that the adults minor can also lead the barchu at the end of services, see Sefer present had already heard barchu (and thus fulﬁlled their obliga‐ Iyunai Halachot by R. D. Y. Tzvi Rabinowitz (Bnei B’rak), ch. 12, tion through the sh’liach tzibbur) earlier. ↩

aveil receiving Maftir. The story of Rabbi Akiva is a very late midrash only An Overlooked View on ﬁrst cited in Rishonim in the thirteenth century (Or Zarua). Most scholars date the recitation of Kaddish Yatom to the generation following the cru‐ Women’s Aliyyot II sades. We would imagine that Maftir and Barekhu are from the same time. We have not studied this at all – and all this is speculation on our part. But In a follow-up from yesterday’s essay, Rabbis Aryeh and Dov Frimer re‐ they all have the same source. It certainly has no mention in Hazal and spond and Yitzchak Kasdan continues the conversation. could not be used to understand the Baraita Megilla 23a. by R. Aryeh and R. Dov Frimer Yiyasher Koah and Kol Tuv,

Dear Reb Yitzchak, Aryeh and Dov Frimer

Thank you for allowing us to see your letter to Torah Musings. Below are a P.S. I neglected to note that the Kaf haChayyim in OH 282:3, no. 23 few of our comments. paskens against the Rema, like the Arizal, that a minor and woman can

1. We were fully aware of the position which you focus on. We chose not get only no. 7. to discuss it for two basic reasons. ~ ~ ~

(a) Firstly, by your own admission it is a minority view. The Rishonim dis‐ I wish to thank the Frimers for taking the time to review and to respond cuss the difference between the original Takana where only the first and to what I wrote. I will take the occasion to respond briefly to what I be‐ seventh oleh made a berakha vs. the later takana where each oleh made a lieve are their two most salient points: berakha. The majority indicate that under the original takana – to which Megilla 23a is referring – women were called to the Torah only for the 1) While they were aware of the position I cited, viz., that minyan shivah middle aliyyot. This is because women are not obligated in keri’at haTo‐ refers to the seventh aliyyah (and only maftir), they chose not to focus on rah and, hence, could not recite the berakhot in aliyyot 1 and 7 and be it because it is a “minority” view (– as I admitted –) that has been rejected motsiot the other olim.1 by halacha; and

(b) In our humble opinion, the view you cite has been rejected le-halakha. 2) My linkage between maftir and aveilut is “tenuous.” In particular, as to The Rema on OH sec 282, no. 3 explicitly states (in the name of Ran and this point, the Frimers note that the midrash of Rabi Akiva is late in origin Rivash) that women and minors cannot receive ALL the aliyyot (which and that most scholars date the recitation of kaddish yatom to the genera‐ Mishna Berura, subsec. 14 modifies to even a majority. The MB’s limita‐ tion following the crusades, i.e., not to the times of the Mishna. tion is rejected by R. Yechiel Zilber, Birrur Halakha, III, sec. 282, end of אבל נראה לכאורה דנקטינן עיקר לדינא כדעת :s.v. “Shulhan Arukh sham” who writes Regarding the Frimers first argument, I do not disagree, although I note (..מהר”ם מרוטנברג ואבודרהם ורבינו ירוחם ומאירי ומשמעות הפוסקים דדוקא כולם קטנים לא מהני that R. Rothstein appears to contend that the view that women originally Thus, me-ikar ha-din and kevod ha-tsibbur and minhag aside, women and “could only take the “seventh [aliyyah] or, perhaps, the reading added on minors can receive any of the seven aliyyot – not just the seventh. Le- for the maftir” “carries greater weight in a traditional halakhic discussion Halakha, then, this is a shita dehuyya. This is explicitly stated by Arukh than any of the others cited [by R. Shapiro].” Rothstein at 52. R. Rothstein ומעיקר דינא לא ראינו לאחד מן הפוסקים שימנע את הקטן מלעלות למניין :haShulhan, 282:10 thus concludes that: “Granting all of R. Shapiro’s points [they] still only .See also Shulhan Arukh haRav, 282:5.שבעה זולת האריז”ל שלא התירו רק לשביעי support[] the conclusion that there was ‘no halakhic impediment’ to call‐ ing women for the seventh section (and sometimes the additional por‐ We have endeavored throughout our Tradition paper on women’s aliyyot tion).” Id. (emphasis in the original).[The Frimers themselves acknowl‐ to base our arguments on positions that represent the overwhelming con‐ edge in their reply that (according to their reading) the Kaf HaChaim, OH sensus of poskim – and certainly not on shitot dehuyyot. To do otherwise 282:3, no. 23, like the Arizal, also hold against the Rema, i.e., that prior to appeared to us somewhat intellectually dishonest when analyzing the ha‐ the issue of kavod hatzibbur arisinga woman could only receive the sev‐ lakhic viability of women’s aliyot. Morover, a serious problem of berakha enth aliyyah. Moreover, my theory at least better explains why the maftir le-vatala may well result. seventh aliyyah was permitted to be given to women and minors, since originally it was not a requirement that needed the congregation to have 2. Your linkage between Maftir and Aveilim is very tenuous. This certainly any obligation fulfilled by a male adult.] cannot be used to interpret the Baraita in Megilla 23a. What comfort would such an aliyya be for a women who could not receive it because of As to the Frimers second point, once again I cannot strongly disagree with kevod ha-tsibbur. Have you researched when the first mention is of an 39 them, as I do not have sources – other than, perhaps, R. Avidah – to sup‐ perhaps the aliyyah as to which he ostensibly taught the boy to recite the port my hypothesis connecting maftir and aveilut at the time of the barchu and/or kaddish and/or the maftir itself. Mishna. And even R. Avidah does not subscribe to a view that a minor aveil necessarily received maftir at that time. SeeAvidah at 348. All in all, there are credible sources to limit “minyan shivah” to the sev‐ enth aliyyah. At the same time, my suggestion to tie the seventh aliyyah to Nonetheless, it is because we really do not definitely know the origin and maftir and aveilut may, upon further examination, may, or perhaps may reason for the haftarah, as I have related above, that I feel legitimately not, be shown to be entirely in error for historical or other reasons. It is (albeit “tenuously”) able to propose the connection between maftir and for that reason, therefore, that I have written this l’hagdil Torah aveilut –even at the time of the Mishna. Moreover, while kaddish yatom u’lehaderah and to seek further analysis, consideration and review from was not introduced until the Middle Ages, kaddish – certainly its core the Rabbis Frimer and other interested readers. “yehei shmei rabbah” – goes back well in time, see, e.g., TB Shabbat 119a, and it is entirely possible that aveilim, including women and minors,were Yitzchak Kasdan given preference to the maftir aliyyah in conjunction with the kaddish that preceded it. As R. Scherman in his Introduction to Artscroll’s “Kaddish” 1. See, inter alia, R. Jacob Tam, Tosafot, Rosh ha-Shana 33a, s.v. “Ha pamphlet (at xxii) writes: “ … the effect of Kaddish was well known in the Rabbi Yehuda” (the second answer at end) – also cited by Or time of the Talmud. What happened in medieval times was only that the Zaru’a, II, Hilkhot Rosh ha-Shana, sec. 266; Hiddushei ha-Rashba, collective spiritual genius of Israel used the earlier teachings as the basis Rosh ha-Shana 33a (Mossad ha-Rav Kook ed.), s.v. “Matnitin” for the universal custom to recite Kaddish as a source of merit for the de‐ (first answer); Meiri, Megilla 23a, s.v. “ha-Kol Olin”; Rosh to Kid‐ parted soul.” Finally, while the Rabi Akivah story was first cited (as the dushin, ch. 1, sec. 49; R. Nissim (Ran) to Rif regarding Megilla Frimers noted) by Rishonim in the 13th century, it is interesting that the 23a; R. David ben Samuel ha-Kokhavi, Sefer ha-Battim, Beit Te‐ majority version of the story is told in Rabi Akivah’s name, and instructive filla, Sha’arei Keri’at ha-Torah, Sha’ar 2, no. 6; Perisha, Tur, O.H., that he is the Tanah who held that only six aliyyot were required for the sec. 282, no. 3; R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida), Birkei Yosef, Shabbat reading, meaning that he held the seventh aliyyah to be maftir – O.H., sec. 282, no. 7; R. Hayyim David ha-Levi, Mayim Hayyim, III, sec. 5. ↩

Letters to the Editor New Periodical: Hakirah 17 Review Essay: Torah, Chazal and Science by Dr. Nathan Aviezer – A review of R. Moshe Meiselman’s book Torah, Chazal & Hakirah no. 17, Summer 2014: Science. Good critique of R. Meiselman’s science but little discus‐ sion of his interpretations of Rishonim. I hope to rectify that somewhat in my review forthcoming in Jewish Action. Modern Orthodoxy: A Philosophical Perspective by Dr. Baruch Brody – Provides a positive definition of Modern Ortho‐ doxy: a pro tanto acceptance of modern values, i.e. acceptance when they do not conflict with the Torah. Valuable definition of modern values and lengthy exploration of what this means. I agree with much of what he says but find the idea a little too close to putting the Torah in a corner and only looking at it when we have no means of escape. I don’t think Dr. Brody means this but his approach can be used in that way. A Kingdom of Priests by R. Asher Benzion Buchman – An analy‐ sis of the Rambam’s approach to certain mitzvos of belief. Squaring the Circle of Faith: The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Divine Masquerade of Otherness by R. Eli Rubin – An ex‐ amination of faith in areas of intellectual debate. Ends with a dis‐ cussion of Lubavitch monism that lost me. The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah by R. Ari Ziv‐ otofsky and R. Ari Greenspan – Historical evidence (including pic‐ tures) of different shapes and sizes of matzah in the past. Matzah wasn’t always a cracker. A Quantitative and Grammatical Analysis of the Shira De‐ sign by R. Sheldon Epstein, R. Bernard Drickman and R. Yonah Wilamowsky – A mathematical analysis of why the “vavei ha- amudim” Torah scrolls (almost all pages begin with a “vav”) are excellent. 40 Review Essay: Kaddish, Women’s Voices by Dr. Joel Wolowel‐ wisdom based in Yiras Shamayim, its opposition to Chassidus, and sky – Answers (without asking) the question: why do we need a the twentieth century suppressing these attitudes. There is much book written only by women? Why can’t women just join the ha‐ more to say on the subject but this article adds very interesting lakhic discussion as equals? He answers that this volume speaks information. Read the footnotes! to the all-important issue of motivation–do women say Kaddish as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson: On Confrontation an act of religious devotion or rebellion? For that, women’s voices with the Secular World by R. Chaim Miller – A translation of R. are what really matter. Although, I’m not sure that a writer al‐ Schneerson’s 1980 speech when R. Soloveitchik came to visit him. ways bares her full soul in public. Especially in semi-polemical lit‐ Extensive and interesting introduction about the friendship and erature such as this, you reveal only what supports your agenda. differences of the two scholars. The Ashkenazi Custom Not to Slaughter Geese in Tevet and The Binding of Isaac by R. Mois Navon – Akedah and morality, Shevat by R. Zvi Ron – This intentionally discarded practice is from R. Soloveitchik’s perspective. And how Avraham’s tests are most likely based on gentile superstition. representative of what every Jew faces personally. “Upon the Wings of Eagles” and “Under the Wings of the A New Solution to the Contradiction in Torah Measure‐ Shekhinah”: Poetry, Conversion and the Memorial Prayer by ments (Hebrew) by R. Mordechai Frank – Proposes the old solu‐ R. Yaakov Jaffe – Most siddurim have the Malei saying “Al Kanfei tion to the contradiction in Talmudic measurements, that some Ha-Shekhinah” for kabbalistic reasons, based on the Shelah. Rav texts refer to an amah of five tefachim and some an amah of six. It Soloveitchik preferred “Tachas Kanfei Ha-Shekhinah,” apparently doesn’t really work but the author throws in a few additional con‐ following the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. In my editorial work cerns that adds wiggle room, unconvincingly in my opinion. Also on the Koren Mesorat HaRav Siddur, I had access to an unpub‐ compares Talmudic measurements to ancient measurements lished manuscript of the customs of the Maimonides Minyan (of (based on Wikipedia) and concludes that the Talmudic and Persian which the author is the current rabbi) and I do not recall this be‐ measurements correspond very closely. ing mentioned, nor in R. Mendy Gopin’s book. Not that I am Characteristics of Abayei and Rava in View of their Debates doubting this testimony–my clear recollections from the funerals and Stories About Them in the Babylonian Talmud (He‐ and memorial services for YU roshei yeshiva in the early 90′s in‐ brew) by R. Zev Frank – The author found 428 disagreements be‐ clude Malei with “tachas.” tween Abayei and Rava in the Babylonian Talmud and believes he Uncovering Mussar’s and Chassidus’ Divergent Approaches has found patterns in them. I often wonder whether such patterns toward Enlightenment by R. Moshe Maimon – Excellent article that people seem to find are merely the result of finding what you about the 19th century Lithuanian/Mussar attitude that is open to are looking for.

41 Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 1 August, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

which references the Responsa of the Maharil as the source of this Havdala With Wine During The practice. However, this is not at all what is written in the Responsa of the Maharil–he writes that he never saw his own teachers refrain Nine Days from drinking wine for Havdala. He does, however, quote those who also allowed drinking wine for Birkas HaMazon, about which he by R. Asher Bush expressed discomfort. Similarly, in the Minhagim of the Maharil,9 it is The communal mourning practices during the period preceding Tisha recorded that he permitted wine for a bris, pidyon haben or siyum, B’Av have changed over time, now challenging the performance of an but would not use wine for Birkas HaMazon, even when it would be important mitzvah. The Talmud1 teaches that as part of our mourning given to a child.10 in the period leading up to Tisha B’Av, a number of restrictions were Ostensibly, this ruling of the Ramo seems confusing and perhaps even imposed. When the month of Av begins, joy should be limited; during problematic, since the practices he records do not seem to match the the week in which Tisha B’Av falls, it is prohibited to launder or cut rulings of the Maharil at all. Before proceeding, it is important to note hair. A prohibition to eat meat and drink wine was only formally made that Rav Moshe Isserles was well aware of the full text of the Maharil, for the Seudah HaMafsekes (the final meal before Tisha B’Av).2 which he quotes fully in his earlier writing, the Darkei Moshe.11 Throughout the generations each of these mourning practices was 3 extended by communal custom, leading the Rambam to record that While there are several resolutions offered to this dilemma, Rav the universal practice is to refrain from eating meat during the week Moshe Feinstein’s12 is the most straightforward. Rav Moshe explained in which Tisha B’Av falls, while some communities refrain from the that today the common practice is for an adult to drink the wine even 4 first day of Av. Three practices are recorded in the Shulchan Aruch if a child is present. This is not a rejection of the ruling of the Ramo, regarding the eating of meat and the drinking of wine: to refrain from but rather a reflection of the fact that wine was not readily available th the 17 of Tamuz, to refrain from Rosh Chodesh Av (with a Sefardic so throughout the year Havdala was commonly recited on other 5 variation of eating these foods on Rosh Chodesh but not after ) and to beverages. This is not true today where wine is readily available and refrain during the week in which Tisha B’Av falls. The universal is generally used for Havdala. Ashkenazic practice is to refrain from Rosh Chodesh. Based on Rav Moshe’s explanation, it is clear why the Ramo’s ruling Does this also apply to Mitzvos? never contradicted the Maharil’s. Given the difficulty in acquiring wine, it was generally not used for Havdala. Accordingly, if a person It is clear from all sources that the custom of refraining from meat were to use wine for Havdala it would be viewed as a treat to enjoy, and wine never applies when there is a mitzvah involved. The Maharil which is most unlike the reason the Maharil permitted its use in the explains that the reason for this exception is that there is no formal first place.13 Accordingly, there is no contradiction between what Rav prohibition on consuming meat and wine. Our practice is based on a Moshe Isserles wrote in Darkei Moshe and in his glosses to Shulchan binding community minhag (custom), which the communities never Aruch. One reflected the ideal while the other reflected the reality accepted when the food is part of a mitzvah.6 The most significant and that wine was an uncommon commodity and viewed as a special obvious example of this is the Shabbos meals themselves, which are pleasure. not subject to any such restrictions, even if one would start the Friday 7 night meal before sunset or extend Seudah Shlishis into the night. So what should be done for Havdala?

Yet we do find that the consumption of meat and wine in various Based on Rav Yosef Karo’s ruling, the universal Sefardic practice is to other mitzvah situations generated significant discussion among the use wine as usual.14 Based on all of the above, it would be assumed poskim. The basic rule is reflected in the words of Rav Yosef Karo that the Ashkenazic practice is to either give the wine to a child or to who wrote that one may drink the wine of Havdala and Birkas drink it oneself. However, another possibility is also found. Until now, 8 HaMazon. This is consistent with the idea that the custom never the thrust of this discussion focused on the permissibility of wine. precluded meat and wine when their consumption was part of a Some took this matter in an entirely different direction, using beer or mitzvah. other alternative beverages instead of wine.15

The Ramo, however, records that the Ashkenazic practice is to refrain While the Ramo recommended giving the wine to a child, the Mishna from drinking wine for Birkas HaMazon and Havdala. Instead, he Brurah ((651:70)) pointed out that this cannot just be “any child.” The writes, the practice is to give the wine of Havdala to a child to drink; child utilized must have reached the age of training for brachos and absent a child, an adult may drink it. He also adds that at a Seudas will drink the proper amount, but not yet reached the age of training Mitzvah, a celebratory meal for a mitzvah such as a bris, pidyon to mourn over Yerushalayim. haben or siyum, it is permitted for all attendees to eat meat and drink 16 wine. Rav Avigdor Nebenzhal pointed out in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is generally difficult to find such a child who Following the Ramo’s comment not to drink wine for Birkas HaMazon understands brachos but not the mourning for Yerushalayim. and Havdala, a parenthetical note is found in the text of the Ramo Accordingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman would drink the wine himself. It

should also be added that given that Tisha B’Av falls in the middle of the summer, by the time Shabbos ends most such children will be 13. As noted above in note #11. ↩ asleep by that time as well. 14. Kaf HaChaim 651:152 ↩ Additionally, it might be suggested that even though for all purposes in Halacha (such as Kiddush, Havdala, Four Cups, etc) grape juice is 15. Aruch HaShulchan 651:26. Even though ordinarily the use of considered wine, it still does not provide the joy of wine and might be alternative beverages is only recommended when wine is not a better choice of beverage on which to make havdala during the nine available (see Mishna Brurah 296:8), this practice considers the days. undesirability of wine during the Nine Days as sufficient reason to view these other beverages as preferred. 1. Ta’anis 26b ↩ It should be noted that while this seems to be a commonly 2. Ta’anis 26b, OC 652:1 ↩ followed practice, it is not noted by most poskim. ↩

3. Laws of Fasting 5:6 ↩ 16. Yerushalayim B’Moadeha, (vol. on The Three Weeks, #167) ↩ 4. OC 651:9 ↩ Responding to Catastrophe 5. Kaf HaChaim 651:125, 126 ↩ by Aron White 6. Minhagim of the Maharil, Laws of Tisha B’Av #5 & #6. This is The destruction of the Second Beis Hamikdash was a devastating also the reason that Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC catastrophe for the Jewish people. The Gemara (Bava Basra 60b) 4:102) permits shaving during the three weeks before Tisha B’Av records the sense of lethargy and depression that set in – Jews were for business purposes. His reason is not that a prohibited action so demoralised, they did not see any reason to continue Judaism. is permitted since it will result in the loss of money but that the Beyond the initial depression, the long term questions of the future of custom was never adopted in such cases. This perspective is Jewish identity and observance loomed large. What does Jewish life important from the point of view of Halacha and perhaps even look like in a post Beis Hamikdash world? The Beis Hamikdash had more importantly philosophically. ↩ been the centre of religious life for centuries. The Jewish calendar featured the pilgrimages of Aliya LaRegel. The agricultural cycle 7. Mishnah Brurah 651:56 ↩ involved bringing the first fruits, the Bikkurim, to Yerushalayim. At 8. OC 651:10 ↩ many important moments in one‘s life, such as the birth of a child, and salvation from a potential danger, one would bring a sacrifice. 9. Minhagim of Maharil (Laws of Tisha B’Av #6) ↩ The absence of the Beis Hamikdash meant there had to be a paradigm shift in Jewish observance and identity. 10. Ibid (#8) ↩ The leader who charted a course forward at this point was Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai. He interacted directly with the Roman 11. OC 651:9. He quotes the Maharil saying one is permitted to authorities, such as when he famously made three requests from the drink wine at a Seudas Mitzvah, and all the more so for Havdala. Roman leader outside Yerushalayim (Gittin 56a). However, it is in his The logic of this would presumably be that if we permit eating Takkanos, enactments, that he made at this time, that we can see the meat and drinking wine at a meal, where the intent is for direction he set for Jewry. pleasure, all the more so drinking wine for Havdala should be permitted since the wine is not primarily consumed for pleasure. One can find within Orthodoxy today all three elements of the reaction of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai The Ramo’s logic would seem to be quite the opposite, since he permitted wine for a bris but not for Birkas HaMazon or Havdala The Gemara in Rosh Hashana records that he made eight Takkanos . The likely explanation for this approach is that were a Seudas after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash (a ninth was made at an Mitzva to be eaten lacking the normal celebratory foods of meat unspecified time). These rulings spanned a broad range of areas, such and wine it will be a noticeably deficient meal, while that is not as the rules of conversion, the setting of the calendar and the true in the cases of Havdala and Birkas HaMazon. In the case of agricultural cycle. However, the enactments were not haphazard, but Havdala, where the ideal choice of the Ramo is for a child to rather represent three different elements of the reaction to the drink, there will be nothing lacking in the mitzva if a child and destruction. not the one who recited Havdala drinks. Regarding Birkas HaMazon, it seems that the Ramo is following the opinion which Past regards the use of a cup of wine as preferable but not required. Some of the rules were made “Zecher LaMikdash”, to remember the ↩ Beis Hamikdash. Various practices that had previously been taken place in the Beis Hamikdash were now to be performed by Jews 12. Quoted by his student Rav Aharon Felder in Moadei Yeshurun everywhere. The Lulav, which had previously only been taken all (vol. 1 page 154 footnote 64). ↩ seven days of Succos in the Beis Hamikdash, was now to be taken for

all seven days everywhere. The Shofar, which had only been blown on earlier than during the time of the Beis Hamikdash. He stated his Shabbos in the Beis Hamikdash, was now to blown on Shabbos in rationale –“Next year the Beis Hamikdash will be rebuilt, will people religious courts outside the Beis Hamikdash. These enactments were not say “Last year we ate at daybreak?”” intended to be a reminder of the Beis Hamikdash – as Jewish life Not content to remember the past, and change in the present, Rabbi developed and changed, we could not forget our roots. Yochanan Ben Zakai looked to the future. As everything around him Present crumbled, on the back of the worst calamity and depression the Jews had faced, he also looked towards a better future. A second group of enactments were made, not to remember what was, but to adapt to the new reality. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai made Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai‘s vision was complex and nuanced. five rules, each of which are based on the fact that the situation on Simultaneously, he required that we remember the Beis Hamikdash, the ground has changed. (Many of these rules are quite technical, so I make the changes necessary to the world without the Beis will attempt to simplify them) Hamikdash, and look forward to rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash. In responding to catastrophe, the Jews needed to hold on to their past, 1. During the time of the Beis Hamikdash, witnesses reporting the adapt in the present, and look to the future. It was such a vision, new moon would come to the Beis Hamikdash. Now, without a simple as a cliché but far more difficult in the midst of a tragedy, Beis Hamikdash, there was a requirement to provide a central which Rabi Yochanan Ben Zakai enacted, providing a direction for the place for them to go. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai legislated a Jewish people. central place that witnesses should always come to. In Our Days, As Then 2. The Beis Din could only accept witnesses reporting the new Since that event, one of the few equivalent catastrophes that has moon if the witnesses arrived at specific times, because of the happened to the Jewish people is the Holocaust. The centre of Jewish cycle of the sacrifices. There were now no sacrifices, so these life for the previous three hundred years was destroyed in less than a limitations were removed. decade. Millions were killed, millions were refugees who had to rebuild their lives from nothing. As with the destruction of the Beis 3. Previously, witnesses who had seen the new moon could violate Hamikdash, beyond the short term mourning and desperation, there Shabbos to arrive on time to report it to Beis Din, in order to was also the more long term question of how to rebuild Jewish life. ensure the sacrifices of Rosh Chodesh were brought correctly. Now, in the absence of sacrifices, this permission was removed. One can find within Orthodoxy today all three elements of the reaction of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai. There has been a move to 4. One element of the conversion process had been the bringing of ensure a continued connection to our past, a move to make the a sacrifice by the new convert. Immediately after the necessary changes in the present, and a move to look towards our destruction, new converts had been told to set aside money for future. the sacrifice, even if they could not bring it. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai ruled that converts should not even set aside money for Three Ways the sacrifice. This money was likely to be misappropriated, In many parts of Orthodoxy, there has been a pronounced effort to because it could not be used for a sacrifice, so it was better not maintain a connection with our past. Many students today learn in to set it aside. yeshivos named Mir, Ponevezh and Grodno, named after the famed yeshivos of pre-war Europe. The great rabbis of pre-war Europe, such 5. Rules had been in place regarding the tithe of produce that was as Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yerucham brought to Yerushalayim. Certain people had to bring fruit to Lebowitz, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, loom large over the discourse Yerushalayim, in order to make Yerushalayim look beautiful, as a of much of Orthodoxy. The wearing of hat, jacket, streimel and mark of respect for the city. Now the city was desolate of the Kappote have been maintained, despite the demise of the cultures presence of God, and such rules were removed. that gave rise to them. Sometimes, the Holocaust is consciously or subconsciously repressed in an attempt to maintain a feeling of The destruction of the Beis Hamikdash had changed many things connection, not a break, with pre-war Europe. In many ways, the about Jewish life. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai adapted those practices great past of European Jewry has been maintained and perpetuated that had to reflect the new reality. within Orthodoxy. Future There has also been a movement within Orthodoxy to adapt to the The eighth enactment is the most astonishing. (Once again, this rule new situation. In many parts of Orthodoxy, the Land of Israel and the is quite technical, but the explanation below, which is the crux of the Jewish people have been consciously introduced into discourse as idea, can be understood without understanding the full rule.) When these topics became more central in our current situation. Yeshivos the Beis Hamikdash was in existence, the new produce of a field could have been established in Israel where students serve in the Israeli only be eaten after the Omer sacrifice was brought on the second day army, with names like Sderot, Petach Tikva, HaKotel, Mitzpe Ramon. of Pesach. In the absence of the sacrifice, the new produce can be In the Diaspora, yeshivos have been established that allow students to eaten from daybreak of the second day of Pesach, a number of hours learn in yeshiva whilst earning a degree or a vocational qualification. earlier than it could be eaten when the Beis Hamikdash existed. Changes in women‘s education and the increase in the study of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai removed this permission to eat produce Tanach are further examples of the changes that Orthodoxy has made

as it adapts to its new environment. Torah From Sinai There has also been a movement in Orthodoxy which is future oriented. Just three years after the Holocaust, Jews had fulfilled that Questions about the laws in Deuteronomy in comparison with those in hope of two thousand years – to live as a people in their land. Now earlier biblical books assume a process of prophetic transmission at was not a time to merely respond to society, but to build one. Jews Mt. Sinai and in the Sinai Desert. However, without even minimally threw themselves into professional and academic occupations, not exploring that transmission, we can never even begin to answer those merely as a way of adapting to a foreign society, but as a way to build questions. Jewish tradition teaches a dual transmission–the Written one of their own. Jewish perspectives on society have been and the Oral Torahs. Distinguishing between these two traditions formulated, the fields of Mishpat Ivri and Jewish political theory have helps us understand the law and resolve texts that otherwise appear been developed, aiming to build the Jewish State in a Jewish way. In contradictory. What follows is a section of R. Yehuda Copperman’s the Diaspora, Jewish perspectives have been formulated in more Peninei Meshech Chochmah. R. Moshe Schapiro translated the text, universalistic terms, also aiming to be proactive in building of wider which was not reviewed by R. Copperman and contains additional society. paragraph breaks and section headers.

Three Sides Of The Same Coin ~~~

One could put names on these sectors – The first is largely Charedi, The point of departure for the study of Torah is the belief in the the middle National Religious and the third Modern Orthodox. transmission of the Torah by the Holy One, blessed be He (HKBH) to However, what this framework can do is break down the barrier we Moshe and the nation of Israel, at the occasion which is called Ma’ generally erect between these three. All the above elements of amad Har Sinai. The point of departure, however, is not the biblical Orthodoxy are not yet working in tandem, but they are all reading text, as is usually the case with literary study, but the will of the Giver from the same script. Just as Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai two thousand of the Torah, HKBH. While an examination of a text composed by years ago, Orthodoxy has seen catastrophe and responded in a similar human beings can suggest any interpretation that is loyal to the way. It has maintained a connection to the past, adapted to its new principles of grammar and syntax, style etc. and any such situation and has continued, even after facing a great catastrophe, to interpretation is perforce legitimate – even though it may generate look towards the future. new meanings that the author had not even considered!- but such is not the case with the words of Torah. Here the Giver of the Torah, HKBH, is central and one must study the text that He gave us “from IDF Uniforms HKBH’s mouth to the ear of Moshe” (introduction of Ramban to Torah), as an expression of the general will to teach Torah to the Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Children of Israel– that “Torah” which was transmitted partly in by R. Aharon Ziegler writing and partly orally.

Rav Soloveitchik was very meticulous and stringent in every phase of Transmission of the Oral Torah Hilchot Tefillah, the laws of prayer. He often cited the Rambam ( As is well known, the Oral Torah preceded, from a historical Tefillah 5:1) that eight specific aspects of prayer must be adhered to perspective, the Written Torah. This is not only expressed through the while standing for Shemoneh Esrei. The first four are: Amidah, commandments that were given orally to the forefathers of the nation, standing; Nochach HaMikdash, facing Eretz Yisrael; Tikun HaGuf, but also through the simple fact that when Moshe Rabbenu ascended feet together and clean body; and Tikun HaMalbushim, proper and Mt. Sinai (if we exclude from our discussion the Ten Commandments dignified attire. which have a different status) he received the Oral Torah before the He was once visited by a student who served in the Israel Defense work on the Written Torah had begun. We can understand this if we Forces who asked the Rav the following question: He worked in the distinguish between the terms “Torah from Sinai” and “Torah from tank division and his job was cleaning and maintaining the tanks. Heaven”. It is clear that we do not intend to obligate the great ones of Often, his uniform would get covered in oil and grime and he wanted the generations (medieval and modern) to use this terminology (for to know if he needed to change clothing before davening Mincha. He example, Rambam in Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:8 writes about “Torah from emphasized that it would be possible to do so but it would be quite Heaven” when he means “Oral Torah”). We are using this distinction inconvenient and difficult. The Rav looked at him in amazement and here between these two terms in order to emphasize that the said out loud, “Why would you need to change? You are wearing receiving of the Written Torah and the receiving of the Oral Torah are bigdei Kodesh, holy clothes”! two distinct categories, related to different disputes in Chazal and the medieval commentators, as will be explained further on. For the sake That is how the Rav felt about someone serving in the the Israel of simplicity alone we will use the term “Torah from Heaven” to mean Defense Forces. the Written Torah and the term “Torah from Sinai” to mean the Oral Torah.

It makes sense to relate the term “Torah from Sinai” to the Oral Torah, for this is the language of Chazal: “Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua etc.”1 On this matter there is a difference of opinion between two schools of thought, R.

Akiva and R. Yishmael.2 R. Akiva maintained that the Torah was given Torah was written at Sinai in a form that it is written today, in in its entirety – its general principles, derivatives and details – from contrast with R. Akiva’s opinion that the entire Oral Torah was given Sinai, while R. Yishmael maintained that the general principles were at Sinai –“its general principles, derivatives and details.”13 given at Sinai, but the details were given [later] in the Tent of What emerges is that “Torah from Sinai” preceded, from a historical Meeting and on the Plains of Moav. This dispute between R. Akiva perspective, “Torah from Heaven”; in other words, the Oral Torah and R. Yishmael applies, as stated, only to the receiving of the preceded the Written Torah.14 This is the basis upon which we commandments orally by Moshe Rabbenu, but is not relevant to his contended that the point of departure for the study of Torah is not the writing down of the Torah.3 Torah text, rather the act of the transmission of the Torah by HKBH It would seem that the dispute between these two schools of thought to Israel. Indeed, it’s important to know that there was a possibility of the Tannaim is echoed much later in history, in the dispute of that the Torah would not only have been given orally to Moshe Ramban and Arbarbanel with Radvaz regarding the question of Rabbenu at Sinai like the opinion of R. Akiva, but also that it would Deuteronomy. Ramban’s opinion4 is that Moshe Rabbenu received all remainoral in its entirety. It was HKBH, Who first gave it orally, Who the commandments orally at Sinai, but only taught the decided to organize it in the form that we have today, namely, the commandments that appear in Deuteronomy to the Children of Israel lesser part in written form, but the greater part in oral form. Any shortly before they entered the Land of Israel. He is therefore deep study of God’s Torah must perforce bring the student to a troubled to explain why HKBH held back Moshe’s prophecy for all fundamental question – what is the foundation for this division those thirty-nine years. In a slightly different vein, Abarbanel5 argues between the Torah which is written and that part which remains oral? that Moshe Rabbenu received and taught to the children of Israel all This question is discussed by the great commentators, but this is not the commandments that he received while they were still at Sinai the place for a lengthy discussion of that issue.15 (and this is the point of contention between him and Ramban).6 In From Oral to Written opposition to Ramban and Abarbanel, Radvaz7 argues that the Deuteronomic commandments were not only introduced for the first Part of the Oral Torah remains oral, while a certain part of the God’s time to the Children of Israel shortly before they entered the land of Torah was transferred now to the status of the Written Torah. We find Israel, but also to Moshe Rabbenu. this process of “transference” of Oral Torah to Written Torah in all the “newest” commandments in the Deuteronomy, and in the Radvaz stretches the line of the “Torah from Sinai” to the maximum, “explicated” commandments therein, as (according to Ramban and in that Moshe Rabbenu was in the process of receiving the Oral Torah Abarbanel) they were written now but were already known to Moshe from the mouth of HKBH, starting from the giving of the Torah at (and maybe even to the Children of Israel) these forty years. And thus Sinai and ending at the end of his life on the plains of Moav.8 It indeed wrote Rashi (Gittin 60a) that “those that were said to him in appears that Abarbanel explains the concept “Torah from Sinai” the first and second years were arranged by him orally until they according to R. Akiva’s approach, whereas Radvaz explains it could be written down.” For example, even according to the opinion according to R. Yishmael. It is hard to know, according to Ramban, that the Torah was given “scroll by scroll” – and already at Mt. Sinai who distinguishes between the receiving of commandments by Moshe the portion of Mishpatim was given in written form, and there it was and their transmission to the Children of Israel. All this, as stated, written “and in the seventh year he shall go free for no charge” – they relates to the question of “Torah from Sinai”, in other words the knew and learned the content of the commandment “Adorn him question of the transmission of the Oral Torah from HKBH to Moshe. generously from your flocks, from your threshing floor and from your Writing the Torah wine cellar” which appears in Deuteronomy. It’s possible that they also knew how to derive this law from the Written Torah (without In comparing “Torah from Sinai” to the concept of “Torah from Deuteronomy), through the particular hermeneutical principles Heaven” we should note the process by which HKBH dictated the through which the Torah is interpreted. Written Torah to Moshe Rabbenu. The process is defined by Ramban in this way:9 “But it is true and clear that the entire Torah from the At a later time in history we find a similar process (but not identical) beginning of the book of Genesis until the last words “Before the eyes when words of prophecy were spoken orally at a particular time in the of all Israel” came from the mouth of HKBH to the ear of Moshe.” life of a prophet (“the fruit of the lips”), part of them were copied down to be written (in general close to the end of the life of the Parallel to the dispute in Chazal about “Torah from Sinai” (the Oral prophet) based on the criterion of “that which is necessary for the Torah), we find in Chazal another dispute about “Torah from Heaven” generations” (Megillah 12a). (the Written Torah), namely the question if the Torah was “given scroll by scroll” or “given complete.”10 Explaining the concept “scroll According to this understanding that the Oral Torah preceded the by scroll,” Rashi11 writes: “When a portion was spoken to Moshe he Written Torah, we can perhaps suggest didactically that instead of would write it down, and at the end of forty years, when all the posing the question: “how did Chazal derive this or that law from the portions were finished he connected them with sinews and sewed verse,” we should reformulate the question and say “how is the oral them together.” Explaining the concept “given complete,” Rashi12 component of this commandment connected with the written part of writes: “It was not written until the end of forty years, after all the this commandment?” This novel formulation would have spared us portions were spoken. And those that were said to him in the first and many of the problems that accompanied the pure, holy study of Torah second years where arranged by him orally until they could be written and its commentaries in the last few centuries. down.” Rashi explicitly says that one should not think that the entire

1. Avot 1:1 ↩ 15. See R. Eliyahu Mizrachi to Numbers, BeHa’alotecha 10:11 s.v. “ le-Mishpechotav”. And see our master the Chazon Ish, 125 to 2. Zevachim 115b ↩ Moed, the essay: Siddur Ketivat Parshiyot HaTorah , and also in our article Signon HaKatuv part 3, at length. ↩ 3. See Maharal, Gur Aryeh, Mishpatim (21:1) why, according to R. Akiva, it was necessary to repeat the entire Torah to Moshe Rabbenu at Sinai, the Tent of Meeting and the plains of Moav, Tefillin on Tisha B’Av and one time was not sufficient. ↩ by David Roth 4. Introduction to Deuteronomy ↩ Contemporary practice seems near universal that tefillin are worn on Tisha B’Av in the afternoon but not in the morning. However, the 5. Introduction to Deuteronomy ↩ exceptions–particularly among Sephardim–point to divergent opinions on the subject. In fact, there is a major debate among the Rishonim 6. It is upon Abarbanel to explain how Deuteronomy is essentially regarding whether one wears tefillin at all on Tisha B’Av. different from the other chumashim, since the commandments contained in it are apparently equal to the other commandments Different Views both in terms of when they were received by Moshe Rabbenu 1 2 3 4 5 and when they were transmitted to the Children of Israel. See Most Rishonim, including Tosafos, Rosh, Ramban, Ran, Rashba in 6 there, at length, in his introduction. ↩ the name of R. Hai Gaon, and Beis Yosef rule that one is obliged to wear tefillin on Tisha B’Av.7 The Rambam8 says that some sages do 7. Responsa, 2143 ↩ not put on tefillin shel rosh (the head part of the tefillin) on Tisha B’Av, but he implies that in principle there is an obligation of tefillin 9 8. According to the approach of Radvaz it is better understood why on Tisha B’Av. the Torah emphasizes, when speaking of Moshe Rabbenu at the However, the Semag10 and Rokeach11 say that one should not put on end of his life, that “his eye was not dimmed, nor his natural tefillin on Tisha B’Av. This is also the simple reading of the Maharam, force abated,” in other words that also at the end of his life, his 12 although the Hagahos Maimoniyos13 says that he personally saw ability to absorb the commandments of the Torah were not one the Maharam putting on tefillin in the afternoon. bit less than his ability to absorb them at the beginning of his career at the giving of the Torah at Sinai ↩ The Middle Ground The Shulchan Aruch14 says that the common custom is what appears 9. His introduction to Genesis, there. ↩ to be a middle position: one does not put on tefillin on Tisha B’Av in the morning, but rather to do so in the afternoon for the mincha 10. Gittin 60a ↩ service.

11. Ad loc ↩ What is the reason for this “middle” custom? The Magen Avraham15 says that this is because tefillin is referred to as “glory” (pe’er), and ↩ 12. Ibid on Tisha B’Av our glory was taken away. However, he offers no explanation for the difference between the morning and the 13. We have emphasized the Written Torah as it is found in our afternoon. The Vilna Gaon16 and Mishna Berurah17 explain that the hands today, to the exclusion of the Written Torah in the sense practice is based on the verse in Lamentations18 that says that G-d of “the names of HKBH” (according to the language of Ramban cast down the glory of Israel from heaven to earth (hishlich in his introduction to Torah), and this is according to the opinion m’shamayim eretz tiferes yisrael)–since tefillin is sometimes referred of those commentators who see the Written Torah as being given to as glory,19 the midrash understands this verse to mean that G-d in its entirety to Moshe Rabbenu in a “closed” form. In other cast away our tefillin. However, the Vilna Gaon explains that since words, with the letters mixed up, not like the peshat or midrash according to the strict halacha one is obligated to put on tefillin on today. See about this in the commentary of R. Ovadyah Seforno Tisha B’Av we do so in the afternoon, because in the afternoon we are to Exodus, Mishpatim 24:14, s.v. “Asher katavti” , and see also in more lenient regarding some of the customs of mourning because the the words of the Netziv of Volozhin there, s.v. “veha-Torah” and Temple had already started burning. The Mishnah Berurah20 quotes see also in the words of the Maharitz Chajes, Yoma 75a. ↩ this explanation for the difference between morning and afternoon, as well as another: in the afternoon, we wear tefillin as a small sign of 14. And there is no contradiction to our words from the words of consolation on Tisha B’Av. Maharal to Exodus, Beshalach 15:25 regarding the commandments at Marah which preceded the giving of the While the later Ashkenazic authorities seem to have accepted the Torah at Sinai about which the Maharalwrites: “For behold the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch to put on tefillin only in the afternoon, a Oral Torah did not precede the Written Torah”- look there very number of Sephardic communities seem not to have accepted the carefully! And see about this in the article by R. Mordechai ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. The Kaf Ha’Chaim,21 the Rama M’Panau 22 Gifter “The Writing of Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim” in the and R. Mordechai Eliyahu in the name of the kabbalists in the Beth 23 memorial book for ha-Gaon R. Y. Weinberg. ↩ El yeshiva rule that one should put on tefillin in the morning. The Kaf Ha’Chaim24 and Ba’er Heitev25 quote a number of opinions that

one should put on tefillin in the morning, but should do so specifically halachic level this compromise does not make sense. in private. One either recites the entire prayer service at home with As always, customs vary and you should ask your rabbi questions tefillin before going to the synagogue,26 or one recites just Shema at about appropriate practice. home with tefillin and then the entire prayer service in the synagogue. The Ba’er Heitev27 says that the practice of the Ari was to 1. Moed Katan 21a d”h m’shelishi v’eilach and 21b d”h m’kan recite Shema with tefillin before coming going to the Synagogue. v’eilach (the second one) ↩ However, R. Ovadia Yosef28 rules that both customs are valid, and every place should follow its own local custom. 2. Taanis 4:37 ↩ Problems with Delaying Tefillin 3. Toras Ha’Adam, Warsaw 1841 edition, page 55a ↩ The practice of delaying the wearing of tefillin is fundamentally problematic. The Gemara29 says that anyone who recites Shema 4. Taanis 10a in the pages of the Rif ↩ without tefillin is as if he testified falsely. Accordingly, if we assume that there is really an obligation to put on tefillin on Tisha B’Av, how 5. Shu”t Rashba 5:214 ↩ can we permit not putting it on in the morning, when one recites Shema? 6. OC 38:6 and 555:1 ↩

30 31 The Rama M’Panau and R. Yitzchak Schmelkes write that the 7. The general rule set down by the Talmud (Taanis 30a) is that prohibition to recite Shema without tefillin is only if one does not put everything which applies to a mourner during the first week of on tefillin that entire day, but if he will put on tefillin later in the day, mourning (shiva) applies on Tisha B’Av. Since a mourner does there is no problem. However, the lack of tefillin is clearly an not wear tefillin on the first day of mourning but does on incomplete fulfillment of the mitzvah of accepting the yoke of heaven. subsequent days (Shulchan Aruch YD 388:1), these Rishonim 32 The Gemara says that one who wants to accept the yoke of heaven explain that Tisha B’Av is more similar to subsequent days of in its complete fashion should go to the bathroom, wash his hands, mourning, when one does wear tefillin. They explain that the put on tefillin, say Shema and then Shemone Esrei. Omitting tefillin is above-mentioned rule that everything which applies to a missing a part of the process. mourner during the first week of mourning (shiva) applies on Tisha B’Av only applies to practices of mourning that are Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin applicable for the entire shiva period, but not to practices which There is a major debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam regarding apply just on the first day. ↩ the order of the four different portions of the Torah which are put inside tefillin.33 The Shulchan Aruch34 says that the general custom is 8. Hilchos Taaniyos 5:11 ↩ like Rashi, and the Mishnah Berurah35 quotes from the Beis Yosef36 who uses a stronger language and says that Rashi is the main 9. This is the understanding of the Magid Mishneh (there) and Beis halachic opinion that we should follow. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Yosef (OC 555:1), unlike the Rabeinu Yerucham (quoted in the Aruch37 recommends that one who is well known for his piety38 should Beis Yosef there) who understood that the position of the have two pairs of tefillin, one according to Rashi and one according to Rambam is that it is forbidden to wear tefillin on Tisha B’Av. ↩ Rabbeinu Tam. He should put them on either at the same time, or 10. Rabbinic positive commandments 3 (Hilchos Tisha B’Av) ↩ wear Rashi during the prayer services, and then Rabbeinu Tam tefillin after services and repeat Shema while wearing them. 11. 310 ↩ The Rama M’Panau39 writes that on Tisha B’Av one should not wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin. However, the Mishnah Berurah40 and Ba’er 12. Hilchos Semachos m’es Rabbeinu Meir ben Rabeinu Baruch Heitev41 rule that one who normally puts on tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam M’Rothenberg, Jerusalem 1976 (5736), page 68 ↩ should do so after mincha. Presumably those who put on tefillin in the morning of Tisha B’Av also wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin in the 13. Hilchos Taaniyos 5:11:3 ↩ morning, as well. 14. OC 555:1 ↩ However, the Sheyarei Keneses Ha’Gedola42 argues against the Rama M’Panau‘s reasoning for omitting Rabbeinu Tam tefillin entirely on 15. OC 555:1 ↩ Tisha B’Av. One who puts on Rabbeinu Tam tefillin does so because he is concerned for the possibility that Rabbeinu Tam was correct and 16. Biur Ha’Gra OC 555 ↩ only his tefillin are kosher. Accordingly, since the vast majority of rishonim hold that one is obligated to put on tefillin on Tisha B’Av, 17. 555:1 ↩ there should be no difference between Tisha B’Av and every other day 18. 2:1 ↩ of the year. One should also be concerned on Tisha B’Av that Rabbeinu Tam was correct. The Chida43 and Kaf Ha’Chaim44 answer 19. See Ezekiel 24:17 and Moed Katan 15a ↩ for the Rama M’Panau that he is correct based on Kabbalah, even though the Sheyarei Keneses Ha’Gedola is correct that on a purely 20. 555:3 ↩

44. 555:3 ↩ 21. 555:1 ↩

22. 107 ↩ Modern Orthodoxy and the

23. Maamar Mordechai OC 2:47; This practice of the Beth El yeshiva Right is also mentioned in Kaf Ha’Chaim 555:4 ↩ During the time of unity in which we find ourselves, due both to the war in Israel and the Tisha B’Av season, I want to review an 24. 555:4 ↩ interesting comment by R. Norman Lamm. R. Lamm’s sermons are fascinating for many reasons. He is a master of the sermon, both 25. OC 555:1 ↩ stylistically and with profound midrashic insight. Dating from his time 26. This is the recommendation of R. Haim Palaggi (Ruach Chaim as a pulit rabbi, his sermons show his leadership intuition, his OC 555). R. Refael Aharon ben Shimon (Nehar Mitzraim, Hilchos messages for personal and communal direction. The publication of Tisha B’Av 12) strongly attacks this practice and says that he these edited sermons in Derashot LeDorot (so far, four volumes) is an does not understand who gave them permission to not pray with important contribution. a minyan (quorum) because of this, and says that at the very On Parashas Pinchas, while discussing zealotry (in a 1975 sermon most one should say kerias shema with tefillin at home before titled “Great Ideas Are Dangerous”), R. Lamm explains why he going to the synagogue, but one certainly should not say all of believes Modern Orthodoxy should not cut itself off from the right the prayers by himself; and he suggests that for most people who despite the many disagreements and the frequent heated rhetoric of do not follow Kabbalistic practices in general, they should simply which R. Lamm would later become a regular target. He insists on a follow the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and not put on tefillin in balance, joining together with the right but being conscious of its the morning at all. ↩ extremes.

27. OC 555:1 ↩ He writes (vol. 4, pp. 157–159):

[W]hat is true for the State [of Israel] is true for Judaism. We 28. Yechave Daas 2:67 ↩ have survived to this station because of the self-sacrifice of 29. Berachos 14b↩ countless zealots, the historical successors of Pinhas. That is why I am not overly anxious for our camp, what we call 30. Alfasi Zuta Berachos 14b ↩ “Modern Orthodoxy,” to cut off from the “right wing.” The “yeshiva world” and the “hasidic world” are reservoirs of 31. Beis Yitzchak OC 17:13 ↩ passionate commitment, without which we are wishy-washy, wan, weak, and wavering. Of course I am unhappy with many of 32. Berachos 14b-15a ↩ their policies. But our very survival may well depend on the 33. Rashi Menachos 34b, d”h kan m’yamino; Tosfos Menachos 34b, degree to which we can become inspired by their zeal and learn d”h v’ha’korei korei k’sidran ↩ to bring passion to our own commitments, no matter how much we may disagree with them on specific issues. 34. OC 34:1 ↩ However, even in the Torah itself we find hints of apprehension that, like all great ideas, kana’ut has an “other side,” that of 35. 34:4 ↩ destructive fanaticism. The other side of a warm-blood is a hot-headed one. In our sidra, Pinhas is praised and rewarded and 36. OC 34:2 ↩ yet if we study the verses of today’s sidra carefully, we can find 37. OC 34:2 ↩ in them tell-tale signs of reservation and hesitation about zealousness. Our Rabbis (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 9:7) were much 38. OC 34:3 ↩ more explicit when they said that Pinhas acted “against the wishes of the Sages”… 39. Responsa 107 ↩ So, in all aspects of contemporary life, we must seek out kana’ut, but by keeping it confined and restrained and in the context of 40. 555:4 ↩ love and peace, we will avoid the “other side” of fanaticism.

41. OC 555:2 ↩ As I have said, I admire the zeal of our right-wing. But emor–we must become upset and indignant when it is thoughtless, 42. OC 555:1 ↩ abusive, uncivilized. At that point, it can well become destructive and self-defeating. 43. Birkei Yosef OC 555:1 ↩ Of course it is not easy to propose clear formulae on how to

determine when zeal shades into fanaticism, when passion becomes poisonous.

But if we are conscious of this potential danger, if we are aware of how destructive great ideas can become, then we will be able to latch on to greatness and avoid the snares and ppitfalls of “the other side.”

9 50 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 8 August, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student If You’re Only Going to Do but I suspect it was his source). To Ran, that explains what Makkot 23b-24a was telling us: Moshe One… Rabbenu gave the whole shebang of commandments, not differentiating among them, in the hope that we would fulfill all, or by R. Gidon Rothstein almost all, without regard to more or less important.

The juiciest nuggets often come in the digressions in a lecture. Sometimes You Gotta Prioritize Having discussed the two substantive parts of the sixth drasha, let’s look at the fascinating way in which Ran opens the talk. It’s a What David HaMelech (and the rest of the figures in that complete digression, bearing no clear connection to the rest, except Gemara—Yeshayahu, Michah, and Habakkuk) saw was that people that it’s building off of another point made by the verses he cited. weren’t keeping enough of the range to justify withholding Since he was Ran, even those of his remarks he obviously delivered information about what was important. If people were keeping a small for both introductory and ancillary reasons offer much food for portion of the 613, but were including the most important ones, there thought. might be no need to clarify. But in David’s time, they were neglecting some of the most important ones. One Mitzvah Can Be Enough To rectify that, David came up with a list that could lead to a Prior essays in this series perfection of its own. It wouldn’t be the perfection of the 613, but it would be something meaningful. Before that, while the people of his The verses with which he opened the drasha, as we’ve seen, were time thought they were observing the Torah, they in fact were Michah 6:6–8. But verse 8 figures in another Talmudic discussion, missing some or all of the most crucial parts. This itself is worth Makkot 23b, and it’s that discussion Ran brings up first. The Gemara noting, that people can think of themselves as observing the Torah there (which I discussed in more detail in We’re Missing the Point) and yet be missing what’s most important and essential. Avoiding that says, without explanation, that Moshe brought 613 mitzvot down from is the primary reason to make clear that which qualifies as most Sinai, that David HaMelech reduced those to eleven (derived from important and essential. Tehillim 15), Yeshayahu reduced them to six, Michah to three, Yeshayahu another time to two, and Habakuk to one. In Ran’s view, then, Michah was saying to the people of his time that, whatever they were observing, they had lost sight of the necessity of Ran will get to that, but he starts with Rambam’s view that the full justice, kindness, and modesty to any meaningful definition of Torah and proper performance of even one mitzvah, with no ulterior motives observance. or interests other than love of Hashem, suffices to earn a share in the World to Come. For Rambam, that’s what the last Mishnah in Makkot Ran notes that the examples the Gemara gives for doing something means when it says Hashem gave us many commandments for our modestly are weddings and funerals. Preferably even those events benefit. The more commandments there are, the more likely each of would happen with the unavoidable minimum of public fanfare. us will find one to perform in the best way. Therefore, he says, after the custom spread to have an address at a wedding, it should happen in the wedding hall, not a more public Great Reward Isn’t the Same as Perfection place, because the Torah told us to act in privacy even with those Ran notes that Rosh?? accepted that view, and applauds it himself, activities no one else does privately. but adds an element. He does not accept that any one mitzvah earns Modesty as a Central Part of the Religion us a share in the World to Come (although it does seem that any one mitzvah, done consistently for a lifetime, will earn such a share), The comment suggests Ran was giving this drasha at a wedding, although they all bring some reward, Ran held that differing mitzvot which makes for interesting speculation about his pastoral choices. earn different rewards—some mitzvot might only give us a few more Here he is, at a wedding, and he takes the opportunity to suggest it years of life in this world, some might give us a small share in the would have been better to situate the lecture part of the wedding in a World to Come, and some might give us a share equal to that given more private or modest venue. He seems to have been confident his for several smaller ones. audience would take his comments in the vein in which they were given. Hashem didn’t tell us the rewards for each mitzvah because people would zero in on the most rewarding ones, whereas Hashem wanted Aside from that, he has made two interesting points. First, he reminds us to engage the full panoply of them. Instead of our hoarding us that significant authorities held that there are in fact more and less reward, Hashem wanted us to achieve as complete a perfection as we important mitzvot, even as we know that Hashem prefers the could, and that comes from working on all the mitzvot, not just the well-roundedness of doing all the mitzvot. most important ones (this concern with achieving well-rounded service rather than quantitative reward is already articulated in Second, Ran reads great figures of our past as having noticed when Rabbenu Yonah’s commentary to Avot; Ran doesn’t acknowledge that, the ideal was unattainable and having carved out ways to produce a

meaningful religiosity within the powers of the members of their generation. The hagiographical literature also includes many stories of the Rav’s kindness. Collections of recollections produced by the Rabbinical Last, Ran has reminded us that avoiding publicity was one of the Council of America, Young Israel and the Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik three, according to Michah. When we’re down to articulating all of Institute all included memories of the Rav’s generosity and morality.7 the service of God in three principles, one of those three is not living According to my count, more than seventeen contributors to these our lives in public. I wonder how many of us see that preference for volumes chronicled these attributes of their sainted teacher. Later on, privacy as even a desideratum, let alone one of three indispensable a few dozen rabbis and leaders wrote essays on the Rav that linchpins of any meaningful observance. appeared in a special series hosted in the Yeshiva College newspaper, which I expanded in book form.8 Once again, I counted another ten Each of these points, which really aren’t connected to Ran’s main chapters that delved into the virtuous character of the Rav. thrust, are nonetheless as relevant and challenging to us today as I would imagine they were to whoever showed up at that wedding In addition, one story published in another memorial detailed a most almost six hundred years ago. inspiring instance of the Rav’s charitableness. Since then, it has gained considerable traction. The tale was canonized by Joseph The Making of a Lonely Man Telushkin in his Code of Jewish Ethics and included in a popular documentary on the Rav’s life.9 To my knowledge, it was first The Making of a Lonely Man: The Posthumous Profile of Rabbi recounted in detail by Rachel Wiederkehr about her brother: Soloveitchik When my brother, Ezra, was 16, he was diagnosed with by Zev Eleff1 Hodgkin’s disease. It was about the same time the Rav’s wife became ill with lymphoma, and he would call my parents weekly In 2008, Noah Greenfield posed a provocative question: “Was the Rav to see how Ezra was doing. After graduating from Maimonides, 2 a Tsaddik?” The writer did not doubt that Rabbi Joseph B. Ezra became a Talmid in the Rav’s shiur at YU, and the Rav kept 3 Soloveitchik was a most righteous person. Still, it was striking to up with every detail of my brother’s illness. Ezra was undergoing Greenfield that he was unaware of evidence that could prove that chemotherapy then, though at YU nobody except the Rav knew conviction. Surely, he reckoned, someone with his background should he was even sick. Once, a chemotherapy appointment meant that have been informed of the Rav’s magnanimity. Greenfield graduated Ezra would have to leave shiur early. Aware that my brother’s from YULA High School in Los Angeles, studied at Yeshivat Har departure would arouse the curiosity of his classmates, the Rav Etzion (Gush) and enrolled at Yeshiva College. All three institutions dismissed the entire class early that day so that Ezra would not are pathways to the Rav’s teachings. “While I have read many of the feel conspicuous, and so that his secret remain safe.10 Rav’s writings, studied under many of his students, and heard and read countless stories about him,” explained Greenfield, “I still have However, while the facts do not agree with Greenfield, the sentiment no idea if the Rav was a tsaddik.”4 If his Orthodox community did not of the literary corpus probably does. The tales of the Rav’s kindness extol the virtues of its most esteemed rabbinic figure then, he appear secondary to his scholarly attainments. In fact, other episodes 11 wondered, perhaps the women and men who claimed membership to that depict a far fiercer Rabbi Soloveitchik rise above the rest. that enclave did not value those qualities in their own lives. Among the hundreds of published tributes that memorialize the Rav, just one eulogist devoted his entire remarks to the Rav’s kindness. In The whole matter is a complicated one. On one hand, Greenfield’s contrast to other memoirists who focused on Rabbi Soloveitchik’s claim was something of an overstatement. The Rav’s righteousness towering intellect and leadership, Abe Levovitz of Boston chose was in plain view just as his followers began to construct their instead to focus on the “Rav’s human qualities.”12 Originally delivered master’s posthumous legacy. Rabbi Soloveitchik died in April 1993. before a synagogue audience, Levovitz stressed to his listeners that Shortly afterward, Yeshiva University held a memorial service to he wished to “paint a slightly different pictures of this man among honor him. In the weeks that followed, YU provided a prominent men.” To him, it was most important to share Rabbi Soloveitchik’s evening forum for the Rav’s disciples to share their “Torah” and “humanity, his love, his forgiving nature, his nobility, his aristocracy, 5 “stories” of their beloved teacher. Of course, Rabbi Soloveitchik was his charity, and above all, his human frailty.”13 recalled as a masterful Talmud scholar and, along with his wife, Dr. Tonya Soloveitchik, as a founder of Maimonides School. The Rav was Levovitz’s portrayal of the Rav’s forthcoming forgiveness was more than an educator, however. One memoirist recalled the focus on particularly poignant. In 1941, a number of Boston Jews slandered the the Rav’s benevolence at those lectures in Washington Heights: Rav. They accused him of operating a kosher meat racket. In the end, Judge Abraham Cohen acquitted Rabbi Soloveitchik of all charges. To In the period after the Rav died, I was struck by how much of the Levovitz, this was no surprise. What astonished him was that the Rav eulogizing of the Rav took place through storytelling. There were forgave his Orthodox rabbinical foes and went to certain lengths to wonderful anecdotes about his charming relationship with help them in their times of need.14 In addition, the Rav issued a pass first-graders in Maimonides; his concern for one of his to the well-heeled, Massachusetts-based Feuerstein clan who had shamashim (aids) who was going out on a date but didn’t have powered the assaults on Rabbi Soloveitchik in Boston as well as in the proper socks; his hesed toward the Irish Catholic New York.15 housekeeper who had fallen on bad times, and about his hosting a party for a chambermaid at Yeshiva University.6 The Rav was not the only one who harnessed this supreme skill. Much

earlier in the twentieth century, Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook August 3, 2014). ↩ endured vitriolic attacks on his labors in the Holy Land. His rivals accused him of concocting works of “sorcery” that “turn light to 4. Noah Greenfield, “Was the Rav a Tsaddik?,” 3. ↩ darkness and darkness to light.”16 Similar to Rabbi Soloveitchik after him, Rav Kook did not respond to the assailants. They burned his 5. See “Teachings of the Rav: Something for Us to Remember,” The book but the Zionist ideologue said nothing in retort. Likewise, Rav Commentator (April 28, 1993): 2. ↩ Kook forgave his rivals and offered them aid when his opponents required his support. 6. David Shatz, “Memorializing the Rav: Time and the Masorah,” in Memories of a Giant: Eulogies in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. In all probability, individuals familiar with Rav Kook are not surprised Soloveitchik zt”l, ed. Michael A. Bierman (Jerusalem: Urim, by this. There exists a softer side of Rav Kook that is nearly absent in 2003), 355. ↩ Rabbi Soloveitchik’s posthumous profile. Perhaps that sturdier—or, more expansive—legacy that Rav Kook enjoys is a reason that he can 7. See Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Man of Halacha, Man of Faith, be invoked on so many matters within Israeli religious life. ed. Menachem D. Genack (Hoboken: Ktav, 1998); “Harav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik: A Rosh HaYeshiva and Manhig who In contrast, the Rav’s foremost status is that of a Torah scholar and Inspired Generations,” Viewpoint (Fall 1993): 16–28; and dynamic educator. True, he wrote far less for later generations to Memories of a Giant. A number of essays were reprinted in examine than Rav Kook. Yet, it is also certainly the case that identical form in multiple collections. ↩ America’s Orthodox Jews cast the Rav as an intellectual monolith without much reach into some of the more mundane matters of 8. See Mentor of Generations: Reflections of Rabbi Joseph B. everyday Jewish life. He is the “Lonely Man” after all, somewhat aloof Soloveitchik, ed. Zev Eleff (Jersey City: Ktav, 2008). ↩ and unintelligible to ordinary people. He is not quite grounded enough to aid the rest of us who cannot access his high-level 9. See Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics: You Shall Be 17 rabbinics or highfalutin English. Holy, vol. I (New York: Bell Tower, 2009), 289–90; and Lonely Man of Faith: The Life and Legacy of Rabbi Joseph B. He did not assume this role, of course. Rather, Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Soloveitchik, DVD, directed by Ethan Isenberg (2006; Brooklyn: disciples and devotees stressed these scholarly and philosophical Second Look Productions, 2010). ↩ features in order to construct religious communities that might appropriately match those emphases. Decades ago, the enclaves that 10. June Glazer, “Glimpses of the Rav,” YU Review (Winter 2003): 6. viewed the Rav as a “symbolic exemplar” needed a spiritual godfather For more on Ezra Lightman, see Zev Eleff, Living from of outmatched intellectual ability and pedagogical vision.18 Forces to Convention to Convention: A History of the NCSY, 1954–1980 the left and right questioned the credibility of these religious (Jersey City: Ktav, 2009), 41–42. ↩ communities and Rabbi Soloveitchik offered the middle-ground an elegant, legitimate response. No doubt, it helped that the hoisted role 11. See Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, “Women’s Prayer model was someone who also exhibited good moral character but this Services—Theory and Practice,” Tradition 32 (Winter 1998): 41; was rarely the most poignant point to stress. and Norman Lamm, Seventy Faces: Articles of Faith, vol. 1 In April 2013, dozens of Jews (mostly men) ascended pulpits and (Hoboken: Ktav, 2002), 3–22. ↩ podiums to publicly remember Rabbi Soloveitchik on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of his death. In the United States and 12. Abraham Levovitz, “The Rav’s Human Qualities Invoke Indelible Israel, the Rav’s followers recalled their master as they had in Memories,” in Memories of a Giant, 229–235. ↩ previous forums. Few offered fresh insights and virtually every 13. Ibid., 235. ↩ speaker and writer underscored the Rav’s scholarship rather than his fine character. I could not help but think that we missed a chance to 14. See Seth Farber, “Reproach, Recognition and Respect: Rabbi breathe new life into this very Lonely Man of Faith. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Orthodoxy’s Mid-Century Attitude Toward Non-Orthodox Denominations,” American Jewish History 1. I offer my thanks to Melissa Eleff, Isaac Ehrenberg and Noah 89 (June 2001): 206–7. ↩ Greenfield for their helpful suggestions to improve this essay. ↩

15. See Zev Eleff, “Freedom and Responsibility: The First Orthodox 2. Noah Greenfield, “Was the Rav a Tsaddik?: In Search of Modern College Journalists and Early Yeshiva College Politics, Orthodox Saints,” Kol Hamevaser 1 (February 27, 2008): 3. ↩ 1935–1941,” American Jewish Archives Journal 62 (December 3. Unfortunately, that this was merely a question about the Rav’s 2010): 72–81. ↩ legacy and not a statement about his conduct was missed by at 16. See Yehudah Mirsky, Rav Kook: Mystic in a Time of Revolution least one subsequent critic. See Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff’s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 168. ↩ lecture at the Gruss Kollel in Israel, March 16, 2008. Available online at 17. Of course, much of Rav Kook’s Hebrew writing is esoteric and http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/723037/Rabbi_Aaro “highfalutin” in different ways than the Rav’s essays. Still, many n_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/3008–03-16_R_Yitzchak_Hutner (accessed of the topics included in Rav Kook’s literary corpus deal with

more grounded topics like the importance of exercise and campaign to create a Jewish State in the land of Israel. In so doing he self-defense. ↩ became a leading voice of modern Religious Zionism. In this next section, the Rav turned his attention to the question of how the 18. On the term “symbolic exemplar,” see Jack Bloom, “The Rabbi’s massive persecution of European Jewry could have come about, and Family,” Central Conference of American Rabbis 86 (1976): in particular to understand the nature of the unprecedented 105–14. ↩ anti-semitism that was at its core.

Modern anti-semitism had been on the rise throughout Western and The Kalir and Modern Hebrew Eastern Europe since the late nineteenth century. Most perplexing to Jews was that this had occurred precisely in highly civilized and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Kinot Mesorat HaRav (R. Simon Posner cultured societies where Jews had reached pinnacles of cultural and ed.), pp. 386–387: intellectual influence, and contributed in every way to the enrichment of their societies. In this section, the Rav sought to explain this Rabbi Elazar HaKalir was a master of the Hebrew language and unprecedented hatred and persecution of the Jewish people under very creative in his use of Hebrew. If not for him, modern such paradoxical circumstances. What had changed in modern times Hebrew could not have come into existence. Before HaKalir, the that might account for the Shoah? Hebrew language was very rigid. For example, the nouns and verbs were fixed in their form. It was difficult to transform a Herein lies the importance of his analysis 70 years later. For in 2014 verb into a noun or a noun into a verb, a simple matter in other we are once again confronted with rising anti-semitism, in particular languages. The gender of words was also inflexible. For example, in Europe, but elsewhere too. in the Bible “shoshana” (perhaps a rose or lily, although we are not precisely certain of the meaning) is always in the feminine, ______as in “ani havatzelet hasharon shoshanat ha’amakim” (Song of Holiness versus Wisdom, the Heart versus the Mind Songs 2:1). But Rabbi Elazar HaKalir, in his piyut for Musaf of Yom Kippur, states “shoshan emek,” in the masculine. His A precious homiletic jewel is hidden in the luggage of the Sages, for linguistic style was very complex and often obscure, and he they declared that Jews sin against God by substituting the mind for therefore had many critics. Ibn Ezra, for example, in his the heart. Instead of a vital, beating heart that instinctively longs for commentary on Ecclesiastes 5:1, rails against HaKalir. But its beloved, they embrace a placid mind that belittles emotion and HaKalir made a critical contribution to the development of the feeling. Yehudah Halevy described this precisely when he invoked the Hebrew language by endowing the language with flexibility, midrash that the Jews are the heart of mankind, and that in the heart thereby paving the way for the development of modern Hebrew. of every Jew there is a hidden love for God. The modern secular Jew There were other early paytanim, composers of piyut, such as substituted for this warm heart a cold mind, one that is bereft of the Yose ben Yose, but they were not as radical in their literary style glory of Judaism. as HaKalir. HaKalir was the father of the paytanim, and he dared In referring to the Jewish heart and the mind, we are referring to the to do more than any other paytan. separate goals of holiness and wisdom, respectively. The Torah teaches us, as described at the revelation at Sinai, what makes the Lessons from Jewish History in Jewish people special: namely, being a goy kadosh, a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). What makes our people different from all others is our longing a Time of Crisis and Transition to embrace the transcendent world of holiness. The search for holiness is at the very center of the spiritual life of Israel, infusing We saw the Moon in the Morning in the East, but in the infinite light into its mundane daily existence. By declaring that we Evening in the West: are a holy nation, the Torah taught us that we are distinguished by dedicating our actions, desires, and aspirations to achieving On the Destiny of Contemporary Jews and Judaism: sacredness. In this we are to serve as an example for the entire world Lessons from Jewish History in a Time of Crisis and Transition of a life of purity in each succeeding era, transcending the crude values of those among whom we might live. The task of Israel is to An early Yahrzeit Lecture by Rav Joseph D. Soloveitchik embody the ideal of a holy nation, known for the modesty of its ways, the harmony of its character, and the nobility of its spirit. Our duty is Edited by Rabbi Basil Herring to embody an elevated sensibility, a purity of thought, and a glorious Part II will, as a nation filled with holiness, purity, and an upright soul.

Rising Anti-Semitism: This idea was expressed by the midrash (Lev. Rabbah 30) that “the fruit of a splendid tree – pri etz hadar (Lev. 23:40) – this is the esrog How and Why the Modern Variety Differs from that of the Past which is like the heart.” This reflected the Sages’ world-view that the power and charisma of the Jewish nation are to be found in its heart, Editor’s Introduction as symbolized by the heart-shaped esrog. When a Jew takes an esrog In the first part of this shiur, delivered in 1943 as the horrific and recites a berachah on it, he experiences the light of eternity contours of the Shoah were becoming clear, the Rav embraced the which in turn causes him to praise God by immediately reciting the

Hallel. Thus does he transcend the physical universe to enter the basic rights? domain of the Shechinah. Note that there is nothing among the four The truth is that had our so-called wise men of modernity realized species of Sukkos that might symbolize the mind, for the intellect is that love and appreciation of the Jew would not result from the irrelevant to the process by which man realizes his spiritual contributions of its scientists or intellectuals, and that civic aspirations. acceptance would not ensue from the efforts of its artists, actors, or For the same reason R. Yitzchak in the midrash declares that “the politicians seeking to improve the world, they would never have Torah should logically have begun with ‘this month will be the first of exchanged holiness and a life of separation and elevated living, for months’ for that was the first commandment to the Jewish people (see the meager rewards of cultural utilitarianism. Rashi to Gen 1:1).” That is, it is only when Jews sanctify the world What was the result? It was that the life-giving wellsprings that had that God created by performing His mitzvos, and are themselves watered our soil for centuries dried up, leaving us in a spiritual sanctified in the process, that the world finally achieves the purpose wasteland, deprived of the sources of our intellectual vitality and for which it was created. Conversely, when Jews fail to live holy lives faith. We forfeited the joys that crowned the love of young marrieds in the cosmos too remains formless and empty. their devotion to each other, and the love of parents and children that What the Jews of Modernity have Changed were found in the ancient “tents of Jacob.” The Shabbos queen, that was so pure, holy and blessed, went into exile. The national life of But what has the modern Jew wrought? What have liberal and secular Israel was emptied of the old wine and pomegranate nectar of nationalistic Judaism brought about? tradition. Diminished were the reflections of chesed, and pale was the They have embraced a different view of what makes the Jew special. star of compassion that had served to illuminate our paths from To them, Jews are above all an am chacham ve’navon, “a wise and generation to generation. The flame of refined thought was understanding people (Deut. 4:6).” Modern Jews have substituted extinguished, while purity of feeling was replaced with a polluted wisdom for sanctity, and instead of being a “nation of priests” (Ex. soul. We became preoccupied with the pursuit of many disciplines 19:6) they preferred to be a nation of the wise. Rather than being a and sciences, including philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, esthetics, holy people they have sought only understanding. Worse yet, they and politics, none of which can or will restore the glorious crown of have replaced real wisdom with a much more limited “knowledge,” our people, nor form the dew that might revitalize our dry bones that which itself has been reduced to a mere utilitarianism, pragmatism or are so dispersed over the secular landscape. know-how. The Key Difference between Classical and Modern Judaism of old declared that “the foundation of wisdom is the fear of Anti-Semitism Hashem” (Proverbs 111:10), and the source of understanding is Recognizing this is the key to understanding the difference between purity of the soul. It furthered crucially proclaimed that the nations of classical and modern anti-Semitism. the world would come to recognize that our wisdom as a great nation derives from our adherence to kol ha-chukim ha-eleh, i.e., all of the In earlier times the nations did indeed recognize the glory of our laws and statutes of the Torah (Deut. 4:6). But the Jews of modernity holiness, even if they did not respect our wisdom. In earlier ages our have rejected these teachings by rebelling against the centrality of detractors saw us as an exotic and foreign people, accusing us of holiness. Instead they declare that the foundations of wisdom can being strangers who were very different from all other nations. They only be found in pragmatism and functionality, in which the measure came at us alleging that we deliberately chose to be different and of the good life is in its utilitarian results, as man searches for earthly apart, as they noted that the openings of our tents did not face those happiness and the pleasures of this world. of our neighbors, and that we had marked off the outer perimeters of our domains. Classical anti-semitism faulted the Jews for standing As a result modern Jews have taken inordinate pride in their many apart, but it never came to despise or disrespect Judaism. Never did contributions to modern culture. They are proud to proclaim that Jews ancient Jewry experience their enemy’s abhorrence. Jews knew that are the essential catalysts and agents of society’s highest cultural deep down their enemies respected and admired them. The old Jew, achievements, and that our sons and daughters having enriched the burdened by the weight of adhering to the laws of the sabbatical and Western European spirit, while contributing greatly to its civilization. jubilee years, went about in the land with a raised arm and unbowed And indeed it is true that many of the intellectual and cultural giants head. The hatred of his detractors was the result of their envying his of modern times have been Jews born within the walls of the Jewish hidden strengths and the beauty of his existence. On the one hand the ghetto who went on to embrace the worlds of science, literature and anti-semite never understood the eternal Jew, and was unable to the arts. penetrate into the inner dynamic of his world. This failure to The problem is that the so-called wise men at the helm of our people comprehend the Jew led to perpetual hatred for this eternal people. in recent generations did not fully comprehend what was happening. But on the other hand the anti-semite did not deny the Jews’ They thought that by contributing their many tithes to the cultural transcendental strength or the elevated beauty that God had treasuries of society the Jews would receive appreciation and respect bestowed on this people to ennoble its life with radiance and dignity. from the nations of the world. They thought that the nations would Our enemies knew that in spite of our lowly condition and physical graciously appreciate these gifts. But were they right? Did those poverty, we stood astride the cosmos and attained eternity. They may contributions strengthen the Jews’ political situation, or improve its have attacked Knesset Yisrael, but against their will they recognized fragile standing? Was the Jewish people rewarded with more secure the holiness and dignity of its soul. In the words of King Solomon, in

their eyes Israel was black (shechorah) – but it was also beautiful (na’ the very center of the religious life, relegating intellectual avah) (Song of Songs 1:5.) speculation to a secondary role. In this he explicitly chooses R. Yehudah Halevy (“the Jewish people is the heart of the world”) But now the cursed eternal Jew who was also so mysterious and over Rambam, joining with the former in seeing the Jewish incomprehensible, whose impenetrable existence could not be figured people as the unique “heart” among the nations. The acquisition out, is no more. In his stead there is the modern Jew, all suited and of wisdom is not the defining characteristic of the Jew – rather it perfumed, his soul and spirit revealed to all, filled with intellect and is the pursuit of a life of holiness and purity through the mitzvos modern thought. How does the anti-semite respond to such a person of the Torah. To think otherwise is to fall into a modernist trap of high culture? The anti-semite now deals with a cultured man who that betrays a fundamental teaching of the Torah. seems similar to all men, and inhabits the same sphere with them. No longer are there differing values, spiritual strangeness, or withdrawal 2. We can also note the anti-elitist corollary of this position: a Jew from the world at large. The Jew is not distinguished by a unique embraces the Shechinah by reciting a brachah and then holding spiritual quality. He has no specific philosophical outlook to set him the Four Species of Sukkos. He transcends the physical world by apart. Instead he seeks the approval of his peers. He generously reciting the Hallel, esrog in hand. This is a religion for the contributes of his spirit and intellect to general culture, as an artist, masses, not just for the intellectual or moral elite, or for the scientist, politician, philosopher, author and journalist, participating talmid chacham. This is far indeed from the elevated standing of in cultural creativity with every fiber of his being. He is open to many the chosen few described in the parable of the palace found in ideas and worships many gods. And yet – he is no less hated by his the Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed (Guide 3:51). intellectual peers and colleagues, by the students who benefit so much from his wisdom, and by the world of culture that surrounds 3. This brings us to the central thesis of this section. For the Rav, in him. opposition to many Jews of modernity, anti-semitism is a constant, a given, a matter of fate. Nothing the Jew does can This new hatred differs from other forms of bigotry that have arisen prevent its emergence. Not assimilation or the embrace of in our time. This hatred is not the result of envy but the result of non-Jewish values and behaviors. Not even unparalleled Jewish disgust and abhorrence. The anti-semites mock us, saying “where contributions (read “Nobel Prizes” et al) to the well-being and now is the eternal and mysterious Jew who used to possess progress of humanity in every imaginable sphere. Surely the rise transcendental aspirations and lofty ideals? Where is his spiritual of Hitler was proof that those Jews who thought that by being courage, pride, strength and humility? Where the ancient glory and good citizens of the world who had cast off their Jewish markers the eternal radiance that once characterized him? It must be that the they would be freed from the scourge of anti-semitism, were eternal Jew who saw visions of the divine has become just another completely mistaken. To the contrary, says the Rav, the more citizen of the marketplace, one who has absorbed all of the dirt of the Jews transcend their Jewish otherness or (as he calls it) public domain, in his yearning to embrace a life of ease and comfort. “exoticism,” and the more they reject the life of holiness and That mysterious Jew who was the hero of ancient tales, and whose mitzvos, the less the anti-semites respect them. At least in the exotic visage cast such fear upon us, now stands revealed to us as a past, the bigot grudgingly recognized the holiness, purity, and simple creature of flesh and blood who aspires merely to the eternity of the Jewish soul. But now that so many Jews are enjoyment of physical pleasures and the joys of this world. He has indistinguishable from their fellow citizens, and bereft of the none of the fire of the prophets, or the stubbornness of the unique spiritual qualities that were always the source of Jewish Maccabees, or the sanctity of the Nazirites. Neither does he rise strength, the anti-semite for the first time in history has nothing ethically or in his life-style above his contemporaries, so why did we but scorn and disgust for the Jew, irrespective of all that fear him?” individual Jews have contributed to the enrichment of the Thoughts such as these bring such people to a hatred and enmity that cultural life of society at large. Paradoxically, it seems, the more amount to nothing but loathing. Our contemporary anti-semitism the Jew contributes and assimilates, and the more he loses his contains no awe, fear, or envy that are the result of admiration, but unique otherness and distinctive identity, the less he is instead expresses disdain and revulsion that bring shame and respected, and the more he becomes an object of disgust and indignity upon our people. revulsion.

So, as between hatred that is the result of envy, or hatred that is the 4. An instructive recent illustration of this point can be found in the result of disdain, which is preferable? recently released Notebooks of Martin Heidegger. To the dismay Editor’s Comments of all those who have admired his work, this eminent German philosopher now stands revealed as a thorough and unrepentant 1. It is remarkable how thoroughly the Rav embraced the primacy Nazi. Most interesting, is Heidegger’s characterization of the in Judaism of the heart over the mind, the predominance of modern Jew, in which he writes “contemporary Jewry’s increase warm feelings over cold logic. After all the Rav was a leading in power finds its basis in the fact that Western metaphysics – practitioner of Brisker intellectualism, whose forebears followed above all in its modern incarnation – offers fertile ground for the in the austere footsteps of the Vilna Gaon. Even his academic dissemination of empty rationality and calculability…” He studies and degrees were steeped in Kantian logic and accuses the Jews of excessive intellectualism, and the loss of rationalism. And yet the Rav here places emotion and feeling at loyalty to their historical “national community.” In the past,

Heidegger wrote, the Jews lived as a separate nation or “race,” but now as Jews seek to assimilate and be accepted by other peoples, there is a world-wide cosmopolitan Jewish conspiracy to alienate the world’s peoples from their rootedness in soil and nationality. (See Richard Wolin, in The Jewish Review of Books 5:2, pp. 40ff.)

5. Hence, for the Rav, we can understand the emergence of an unprecedented persecution of the Jews. In this respect it is the discarding of Jewish separateness and holiness itself which leads to the heightened oppression of the Jew, who is now not only hated. The Jew is also an object of disgust in his utter loss of community and nationality on account of his excessive “rationality” and “calculability.”

6. The Rav’s analysis of classical versus modern anti-semitism, written during the unfolding of the Shoah, has many ramifications for the modern Jew. One might argue that much of the recent growth of anti-semitism is connected to the State of Israel in relation to the Moslem world, and thus the Rav’s thesis has only limited application to such changed circumstances. On the other hand, if one views the State of Israel (or modern Zionism) as a stand-in for the historical Jew, one can argue that the Rav’s analysis remains quite relevant to the realities of today. If the State of Israel is to be seen as merely a state of the Jews, one in which Jews can live securely and in freedom like every other nation-state, contributing in a variety of not particularly Jewish ways to world-culture, and without the state bearing an essentially Jewish character, then the Rav’s critique of the modern Jew in relation to anti-semitism remains intact in application to this “state of the Jews.”

7. But if Israel can be a specifically “Jewish State”, one that preserves the uniqueness of the Jew and of Jewish life, seeking to enhance the spiritual and moral identity of the Jewish people by strengthening all that has always identified the Jews as a special or holy nation, both ethically and religiously. If Israel is such a state then it will be a country and a society that will be respected and recognized as the modern-day embodiment of the ancient and glorious Kingdom of Israel, filled with justice and goodness both within and beyond its borders, even if it has the ineluctable fate of always being beset by cruel enemies and detractors.

8. In that respect, which path the State and the Jewish people will follow is the ultimate issue that confronts the State of Israel, and the Jewish people, in our time.

7 57 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 22 August, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

Ran argues that the Shema referenced here is the one in a story in Why Would Ran Recycle a Pesachim 56a. R. Shimon b. Pazi understands Ya’akov Avinu to have wanted to reveal the end of history to his sons, only to find that the Whole Drasha? Divine Spirit had left him (because we aren’t supposed to know the future, we have to live our way to it). Ya’akov worried it was because by R. Gidon Rothstein one of his sons was unworthy; to reassure him, they all said Shema In the seventh Drasha, Ran repeats much material; indeed, almost the (reading “Hear O Israel” as a reference to the Patriarch, not the whole Drasha has appeared before (mostly in the alternate version of people). the fifth Drasha, as discussed here). By paying careful attention to ברוך שם כבוד This story is the source for our custom to add the line] what is different, I think we can discover his true message in this Shema, what the Gemara reports as Ya’akov’s to מלכותו לעולם ועד .Drasha response to his sons’ words. Rambam reports this story in Laws of Is Touchiness a Flaw in Torah Scholars? Keriyat Shema 1:4, meaning he saw this story as halachically significant.] Prior essays in this series Why Take the Long Route? The Drasha opens with a story in Chagigah 3a, R. Yochanan b. Baroka and R. Elazar b. Chisma visiting R. Yehoshua. He asks them what was 3) The third of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s inferences is one we have seen said in the Beit Midrash that day and they demur, saying they are his before, as will be much of the material in the rest of the Drasha. If it’s students. He encourages them to share anyway, since houses of study that third one that mattered to Ran, why include the first two, when always produce new ideas, and they tell him three ideas R. Elazar b. he has not done so the other times he quoted this one? Azaryah had said. We can’t say he did it to be complete—citing a whole piece of the It is the third of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s inferences that will launch Ran Gemara, once he was citing one part of it– because he did not do that on the true topic of the drasha. He has discussed that third inference the other times he quoted this. We might argue that he did it to spice both in the third Drasha and, at greater length, in the second version up the speech, to give listeners some new material, to hide how much of the fifth Drasha. Here, he starts from the beginning of the story, was repeat. But since we’ve seen that this work seems to have been with the interaction between the rabbis and then a discussion of each carefully gathered, that would raise the question of why it was of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s insights. included here. the entire nation gathering in I think a better answer is that all three of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s ,הקהל The first is that the mitzvah (1 Jerusalem after each shmittah year to hear words of Torah, included statements are relevant to this Drasha. Even though Ran is repeating children in order to give reward to those who brought them. R. much if not most of it, I hope to show that it takes him to a different Yehoshua praised the idea, saying, “You had a precious jewel in your place than before. Ran is emphasizing Chazal’s centrality to our hands and wanted to deny it to me?” religious and spiritual welfare. Without their guidance, without following their wisdom and their paths, we cannot truly understand Ran relates their original reluctance to accept a story told on the the Torah, Hashem’s revealed will. other side of that page in Chagigah, where R. Elazar took umbrage at R. Yose b. Dormsekit responding to his inquiry about what happened If I’m right, that explains everything we’ve seen: the students’ in the Beit Midrash. Ran seems comfortable with great scholars hesitance to speak before someone greater than them, the right of objecting to lesser scholars sharing Torah ideas without first asking great scholars to react sharply to disrespect, the sons of Ya’akov permission, even in reply to a direct question. reciting Shema long before Hashem commanded it. These all combine to remind us of the powers of our great leaders. What Ya’akov’s Family Realized Before Hashem Commanded It That focus is made explicit in R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s reading of 2)The second of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s ideas comes from an analysis Kohelet 12:11, the statement we’ve seen before. I will review that and of Devarim 26:17–18. The verse says the Jewish people have affirmed the rest of the repeated material briefly, paving the way, next time, to that Hashem is their God, and Hashem has affirmed that the Jews are see the closing of this Drasha, which adds new insight. I think this His treasured people. R. Elazar b. Azaryah read that as Hashem will let us see Ran’s powerful message in this Drasha as a whole. saying, “you have made me One in the world,” proving it from the first line of Shema. In response, Hashem will make the Jews unique. Into the Land of Repetition: The Importance of Chazal’s Words

Ran notes that Shema is a commandment, so why should that earn Ran proceeds to quote passages that highlight humanity’s decisive people credit for making Hashem One in the world? Further, if role in the interpretation of Torah. The verse declares: “The sayings observing a commandment to recognize Hashem qualifies as of the wise are like goads, like nails fixed in prodding sticks. They are I am the Lord given by one Shepherd.” (Kohelet 12:11) This tells us that the words ,אנכי ה‘ אלוקיך declaring Oneness, why not point to Your God? of Torah, including those of the wise Sages, push us to eternal life. As

twice before, Ran adds that the cleverness Torah gives us is not earns greater reward than other mitzvot and is punished more damaging nor does it teach us wrong ideas (implying that he knew of harshly. Eruvin 21b says that anyone who willfully violates a Rabbinic other kinds of cleverness that do both). commandment deserves the death penalty. For Ran, that is because most of Rabbinic law extends the Torah; anyone who keeps the Torah R. Elazar b. Azaryah also focuses on how two sides of a debate could faithfully but violates Rabbinic law shows disrespect, since Ran be from one mouth, leading Ran to repeat his view that Hashem cannot see how there would be a temptation to violate an extension prefers our following the majority to finding the original intended but not the original law. It is the sinner’s attitude that deserves the Truth. From there, he moves into a recapitulation of stories of the death penalty (this seems to imply that any time any of us violate human intellect confronting the Divine, with the upshot being the halachah out of disregard, we deserve death). value of the former. As in the earlier drasha, this again leads Ran to question Sotah 22b’s Ran then reviews the story of R. Eliezer taking on all the Sages, Bava including those who serve out of fear in a list of people who look Metzia 59b, culminating in R. Yehoshua declaring that the Torah is no pious but actually aren’t. As before, he differentiates between fear of longer in Heaven, and Hashem being quoted as saying that His punishment and fear (or, better, awe) of Hashem; the former is a children have defeated him. From there, Ran moves into the story of lesser form, whereas fear of Hashem is the goal. Rabbah bar Nachmani (Baba Metzia 86a) being called to rule on a heavenly debate about a tsara’at issue, leading to a repeat of Ran’s Other than the opening, this Drasha has hit many themes we have views about the importance of Chazal’s definitions of Torah law as well seen earlier, particularly the role of the human intellect in service of as their additional and protective decrees; all are included in the Hashem, Chazal’s right and responsibility to use that intellect in not straying from what our Sages formulating halachah, the rules they thus enact being key to our fear ,לא תסור Biblical commandment of tell us. This continuing emphasis on the importance of human views, of Hashem, and that fear—the highest version of it—being the central combined with the prior emphasis on respect for the Sages, leads to a focus of observance. The next, brief, closing piece of the Drasha demand for respect and fealty to the Sages’ Torah views. offers new material, which casts what we’ve seen in a new light.

The Centrality of Chazal to Experiencing the Torah As we’ll see next time.

Ran continues with Gittin 60b, that the principle part of Torah (and the reward we earn for observance) comes from following the Sages Seeing God or Being Seen by when they make decrees or ordinances that have no direct basis in the Torah. That means those decrees become like Torah law, since we God have a general principle that those who are commanded are greater by R. Elyakim Krumbein than those who act voluntarily. Our parasha concludes with the mitzva of “aliya le-regel,” the Ran again offers his three explanations for why being commanded obligatory pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year. This mitzva is creates greater reward. First, reward depends on the level of repeated several times throughout Chumash, each time with a similar resistance one feels towards doing an act, and it’s being commanded expression – “Three times a year all your males shall be seen before that sparks resistance. Since Rabbinic ordinances also spark the Lord your God.” As in our parasha, this verse closes the rebelliousness, those who follow their ordinances get that level of discussion of the festivals in both Parashat Mishpatim and Parashat reward. Ki-Tisa. Second, Hashem might direct mitzvot to certain groups because they However, one view in Chazal points to yet another instance in apply more to them, in which case someone else’s doing it wouldn’t Chumash where this mitzva is introduced, in a context seemingly be as valuable. There too, once Chazal obligate an act, it’s equivalent unrelated to the festivals. Towards the end of Parashat Mishpatim, to the Torah having done so. Third, since Hashem commands mitzvot Moshe conducts the ceremony of the covenant between God and to improve us, those who weren’t commanded don’t necessarily need Benei Yisrael at Mount Sinai. As part of this ceremony, we are told, that form of self-improvement, a reasoning that again would not “He [Moshe] designated some young men among the Israelites, and exclude Chazal’s commands. they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as offerings of Fear of Heaven well-being to God” (Shemot 24:5). The Gemara (Chagiga 6a) presents ,יראת שמים The Importance of two views as to the identity of these burnt-offerings: one opinion Ran then (again) cites Rabbenu Yonah, Sha’arei Teshuvah 3:7, who associates this sacrifice with the korban tamid, the daily offering takes for granted that fear of Heaven is the foundation of all the brought each morning and afternoon, while the other view identifies commandments (that’s an arguable assumption—there are other this burnt-offering as an olat re’iya. The olat re’iya is the sacrifice candidates for “the foundation of all the commandments– but Ran required of every pilgrim to the Temple on the festivals, in supports the idea with several Talmudic statements, including accordance with the dictum, “They shall not appear before the Lord Shabbat 31b, where R. Yehudah says Hashem only created the world empty-handed” (Devarim 16:16). The obvious question to be asked of for humans to fear Him, with a supporting verse from Kohelet). The this latter view is: how could one bring a pilgrimage offering during a Sages must be followed out of piety, because their ordinances is that time other than a festival? they train us in fear of Heaven. Rashi, in his comments to that Gemara in Chagiga, explains the Ran adds that that is why observing Rabbinic commandments both

2 59 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com second opinion. Although this occasion was not one of the required This verse, then, sheds light on the grammatical enigma of our pilgrimages to the Temple, the offering of an olat re’iya was phrase, “all your males shall be seen the face of God…” This phrase nevertheless warranted, since this experience, too, involved re’iya implies both seeing as well as being seen. God does not only see man, (beholding): but He is seen by man, as well. He reveals Himself to man, and is thus seen, here on this mountain. “And they saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire… they beheld God, and they If we continue along the lines of Rav Yoel Bin-Nun’s approach cited ate and drank.” (Shemot 24:10–11) above, then we may conclude that the Temple is the place for the renewal of God’s choosing of His nation (we are “seen,” i.e. chosen, Rashi’s interpretation, however, seems quite difficult. A clear by Him) and for our choosing of God. As such, the end of the parasha distinction exists between the “beholding” during the festivals – directly relates to its opening: “See, this day I set before you blessing which involves the people’s being seen by the Almighty – and that of and curse” (11:26), which seems to allude to a later verse in Sefer Mount Sinai, where the people beheld God, as it were. The question, Devarim: “I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse, then, remains: why do Chazal relate these two sacrifices with one and you shall choose life” (30:15). The triennial pilgrimage to the another? Temple constitutes a renewal of the bond between, and mutual This enigmatic passage in the Gemara calls our attention to the selection of, Am Yisrael and their Father in Heaven. unusual wording of this mitzva. The verse literally reads, “… all your Another basis may be suggested, as well, for the peculiar expression, males shall be seen the face of God …” – “yera’eh kol zekhurkha et “be seen the face of God.” The very concept of “seeing God” poses a penei Hashem.” “Yera’eh” is in the “nifal” construction, which does serious theological problem, as God possesses no visible form. The not jibe with the “et” following it. Seeing the face of God would read expression “shall be seen the face of God” may very well expresses “YIR’EH et penei Hashem,” and being seen before God would read the hesitation of the Torah, as well as the student, with regard to the “yera’eh LIFNEI Hashem;” but what is meant by “yera’eh … et penei institution of pilgrimage, the sacrifices offered and the festive Hashem” – “shall be seen the face of God?” celebrations associated therewith. Such festivities in the “presence” Similar to the events at Mount Sinai, there are other instances in of God may result in a certain irreverence towards God. Chumash when God’s “face” is said to have been seen. In Parashat Unquestionably, the experience of “They beheld God, and they ate Vayishlach, Yaakov proclaims after his wrestling with the angel, “I and drank” poses great danger. The Torah therefore substitutes have seen God face to face” (Bereishit 32:31), and later tells Esav, “yireh” – shall see God – with “yera’eh” – will be seen. Similarly, “For to see your face is like seeing the face of God” (33:10). This elsewhere in our parasha the Torah makes a point of entrenching concept appears in one other context in Chumash, namely, akeidat within us the concept of “yir’a,” fear of God, within the context of Yitzchak: “Avraham named that site Hashem Yireh [literally, ‘God will pilgrimage to the Temple: “You shall consume there in the presence see’], whence the present saying, ‘On the Mount of the Lord He/he of the Lord your God, in the place where He will choose to establish will be seen’” (Bereishit 22:14). Here, for the first time, we find the His Name… so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God forever” concept of “seeing” in the context of the Temple site and, (14:23). furthermore, the relationship – or perhaps play on words – between This essay originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel the object and subject: the one who sees and the one who is seen. Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with The “seeing” in the beginning of the verse – Avraham’s name for the permission. mountain, “God will see” – is clearly a reference to his earlier remark to his son, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt-offering” (22:8). Elevating Evil Most likely, as Rav Yoel Bin-Nun posits, the verb “re’iya” in the story of the akeida denotes choosing and selecting, rather than seeing. God Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik chooses a sacrifice – Yitzchak – and now God chooses that spot as the location for sacrifices. Thus, “Hashem Yireh” constitutes both a by R. Aharon Ziegler parallel and precedent to the term, “the place that God will choose,” In the Al HaNissim prayer recited on Chanukah there is one phrase which appears numerous times in our parasha. that is meant to charges us with a responsibility for all year, even However, what is meant by the end of the verse – “whence the beyond Chanukah – namely, “u’temei’im b’yad t’horim” (“and the present saying, ‘On the Mount of the Lord He/he will be seen?’” At impure into the hands of the pure”). first glance, this verse seems to prophesy about a later period, when Who exactly were the “impure” that were handed over into the hands the people will ascend the “Mount of the Lord” in order to “be seen” of “the pure”? Rav Soloveitchik suggested that the “impure” refers thereupon. (And thus the pronoun is “he,” with a lower-case, referring not to our Greek enemies, for they were included in the phrase “ to man.) The problem is that nowhere in this verse is the subject – the ve’rabim b’yad me’atim,” (“the many into the hands of the few”), but person – mentioned. Thus, it seems that the One “being seen” in this rather, it refers to our most dangerous enemy – our own people. The verse is none other than the Almighty Himself [= He, with a capital H, temei’im were the radical assimilationists among our own people. will be seen]. Indeed, this is how Rashi, as well as many other They were our internal enemy, who sought to adopt Greek culture commentators, interpret the verse: “[The mountain] about which the and values and discard the essence and foundation of Judaism. They people of all generations will say, ‘On this mountain God appears to rejected the Torah and its laws as antiquated relics of a bygone past His nation.’”

3 60 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com that had failed to successfully compete with the glory of Greece. the Creator. Ibn Ezra (Ex. 20:1) proceeds to answer with an impressive philosophical excursus. In the course of his discussion, Ibn In contrast, the “pure,” the Maccabees, were a relatively small Ezra asks why we do mitzvos and offers three answers. His first number of Jewish loyalists who were dedicated to maintaining the explains the “Avadim hayinu response. God freed us from servitude glory and integrity of our holy Torah. Thus, the most dangerous part and in response, as a show of gratitude, we obey His commands. of the war was not the war between the Jewish people and our external enemies, the Syrian-Greeks. Rather, the war that determined Ramban (Ex. 20:1) explains the reference to the Exodus in the first the future of our nation was the civil war between the Torah Commandment differently. God did not free us from slavery. Rather, observant (tehorim) and the Hellenistic assimilationists (the temei’im, He redeemed us from Egyptian slavery so that we are now His or mityav’nim). The victory of the tehorim over the temei’im is one of servants. According to the Ramban, we do mitzvos because God the major reasons we exist as a people today. Yet, the Rav suggested, commanded us to. He created us, redeemed us and now retains the one of the true aspects of Chanukah is the concept that it is possible right to tell us how to live our lives. to transform and elevate such evil and change it into a positive force. II. The Authority Approach A similar idea if found in the Gemara (Berachot 10a). There were Ramban’s answer is simple and compelling. We do mitzvos because certain Jewish bandits in R’ Meir’s neighborhood who caused him God told us to. There really is no need to overthink the issue or much distress. Being unable to cope with them, R’ Meir decided to discuss it further. However, Rambam (Commentary to the Mishnah, pray for them to die. His wife B’ruriah objected to such a prayer and Sanhedrin, Introduction to Cheilek) divides this attitude in two. We said to him: “What is the reason to pray for their deaths? King David educate children with a carrot and a stick. If they do good, we reward wrote in Psalms “Let sinners cease from the earth.” But, she asked, is them, and if not we punish them. Similarly, God offers rewards and the word “chot’im,” meaning “sinners,” is not written in the verse? punishments to people for their success and failure in adhering to No! the word used is “chata’im,” which refers to that which causes commandments. one to sin, i.e., the Yeitzer HaRa, the evil inclination. Accordingly, David HaMelech is not praying for the death of sinners, but for the However, the desire for reward and the fear of punishment are not end of the Evil Inclination that leads them to sin. Furthermore, you the optimal reason for fulfilling commandments; that motivation is should pray for mercy regarding these bandits that they should considered she-lo li-shmah. Mature people follow commandments repent, and then indeed, the wicked will be no more. R’Meir heeded because God commanded us to. Out of respect for God, we do the her advice and eventually, these bandits did teshuva, and repented right thing and follow His will. The ultimate reason for doing mitzvos for their wickedness. is that God commanded us to do so, but not everyone can reach that level of understanding. Those who cannot should obey due to the We learn from Chanukah and from B’ruriah to never give up on a Jew. divine carrot and stick. (Source: Rabbi David Etengoff) III. The Philosophical Approach Why We Do Mitzvos The Ibn Ezra’s approach had been previously suggested by R. Sa’adiah Gaon (Emunos Ve-Dei’os 2:1) and thoroughly developed by A large part of an observant Jew’s day consists of performing mitzvos, R. Bachya Ibn Pakuda (Chovos Ha-Levavos, Avodah). R. Sa’adiah fulfilling religious commandments. How often do we stop to ask argues that natural law (ha-seikhel mechayev) requires the ourselves why we do this? Why do we expend so much time and effort beneficiary of a kind act to respond with another kindness to the in the pursuit of mitzvos? I see three general answers to, or benefactor’s liking or at least with a verbal thanks. God continuously approaches to answering, this question. Two of them revolve around sustains us and bestows us with kindness. Therefore, we must the four sons in the Haggadah. respond with a kindness, by fulfilling His request. God’s overwhelming and constant kindness to us demands an impressive I. Two Answers for Four Sons response, which is fulfilling the mitzvos.

The four sons famously ask questions about the Pesach activity (or, It is interesting that R. Yitzchak of Corbeil, in his Semak (no. 4), offers three ask and one is unable to ask). The answer we give is “Avadim two reasons why we must do mitzvos. The first is that we must fulfill hayinu,” we were slaves in Egypt and God took us out. However, God’s commands, either due to reward and punishment or our simply understood, this response fails to answer one of the question: “ profound respect for the King of Kings. The second is the debt of Mah he-eidos ve-ha-chukim ve-ha-mishpatim…, What are the gratitude we owe God for His countless and continuous acts of 1 testimonies, statutes and laws…” This question is too broad to refer kindness to us. to just the Pesach rituals. It is about all of Judaism, all the commandments. It is our question: why do we do mitzvos? The We have already discussed the Semak‘s attitude to philosophy and his answer that we were slaves and God redeemed us does not seem to citation of R. Sa’adiah Gaon (link). Here we find another case in offer a sufficient response. What is this answer in the Haggadah to which he adopts R. Sa’adiah Gaon’s philosophical approach, albeit the four sons’ questions? without citation. (Neither R. Bachya nor Ibn Ezra quote R. Sa’adiah Gaon as their source.) However, I am not yet ready to change my Ibn Ezra and Ramban disagree what this answer means. R. Yehudah conclusion that the Semak did not engage in philosophy.2 The Semak Ha-Levi, author of the Kuzari, asked Ibn Ezra why the first of the Ten utilizes the two approaches we discussed above but–significantly, I Commandments refers to God as the redeemer from Egypt and not believe–omits a third.

IV. The Benefit Approach Maharatz Chajes (Glosses, ad loc.) points out that in many other places the Gemara asks about a command and answers. However, he The Mishnah (Berakhos 33b; Megillah 25a) says that we silence points out, the language here is different. In other places, the Gemara someone who says that God’s mercy extends to birds’ nests. The asks “mipnei mah,” for what reason. Here, regarding shofar, the Torah (Deut. 22:6–7) requires us to shoo away a mother bird before Gemara asks “lamah,” why. We can never know why God gives a taking her eggs. The Mishnah disallows attributing the reason for this command. We can never understand His will. However, we can find mitzvah to God’s mercy on birds. Rashi (Berakhos 33b sv. midosav) reasons for the mitzvos, reasons that speak to us even if they do not explains that it is wrong to attribute mitzvos to specific reasons. fully explain the commandment.. Rather, we must see them as divine decrees. Tosafos (Megillah 25a sv. mipnei) seem to agree. The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 181) explicitly Similarly, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (the great-grandfather in his Beis rejects the attribution of rationales to mitzvos. According to these Ha-Levi Al Ha-Torah, Bo sv. di-kvar, p. 9d/18) says that the mitzvos authorities, we cannot find and should not look for reasons underlying came first and the world was created around them. We do not eat the mitzvos. Even if a mitzvah seems designed to show mercy on a matzah on Pesach because we left Egypt too quickly for bread to rise. bird, we may not assume that this is so. We must see the mitzvah as a Rather, God wanted us to eat matzah on Pesach so He made sure we divine decree.3 left Egypt without time for the bread to leaven. What we see in retrospect is not the true reason. However, it is still meaningful to us. Ramban (Commentary to Deut. 22:6) interprets this Mishnah very differently. He believes that we can find rationales for the mitzvos. R. Chaim Soloveitchik is reported as having explained that the term The Mishnah is only denouncing this specific rationale, that the for the reasons for the mitzvos, “ta’amei ha-mitzvos,” really means command to send away the mother bird is due to compassion for the the tastes of the mitzvos. They are our subjective impressions, the animal. Really, the Ramban contends, the mitzvah is for the sake of meanings we find, in God’s commandments. As long as we do not people. Sending away the mother bird is a way to ingrain mercy and attribute too much authority to these “reasons,” we can gain much compassion in people. Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 3:48) argues that spiritually from them (see this post). this Mishnah follows a rejected opinion that we do not accept. Perhaps we can suggest that Rashi, Tosafos and the others do not Both Rambam and Ramban agree that, in general, we should look for object to finding our own meanings in the mitzvos. They only object to rationales for mitzvos. Indeed, many have followed suit and engaged declaring that these are the reasons for the commandments, which in this search, this reverse engineering of the laws we have received. are ultimately unknowable. They may not even object to the In his monumental study of this extensive literature, Prof. Yitzchak Rambam’s, Ramban’s and many others’ exploration of the meaning of Heinemann divides the approaches to mitzvah rationales into three the mitzvos, when seen in this way. Their objection is to the certainty, categories, reflecting different personalities: practical, rationalistic the attribution of specific motive to the divine will. and symbolic (Ta’amei Ha-Mitzvos Be-Sifrus Yisrael, 1993 edition, vol. It is not just that when we believe we have found the reason for a 1 pp. 138–139). mitzvah, we may rationalize it away. We have seen this in history and All these different rationales point to another reason we observe the the result is a quick disappearance of other commandments, a commandments: doing so is good for us. Whether spiritually or marked diminishment of overall religiosity. It is more than that. When psychologically, individually or socially, the mitzvos make us into we master a mitzvah, when we believe we have fully plumbed its better Jews. depths, we lose respect for it and ultimately interest in it. When the mystery disappears, the mitzvah loses meaning. I find it interesting that the Semak did not offer this reason. He must have been at least a little familiar with the approach. After all, many Finding meaning in mitzvos is crucial in building a spiritually aware earlier scholars–including R. Sa’adiah Gaon in his Emunos Ve-Dei’os personality. We spend so much of our time doing mitzvos, how can –offer rationales for mitzvos. Perhaps the Semak omits this approach anyone fail to question why? But a claim to fully understand is the because he follows Rashi and Tosafos in rejecting it. Perhaps the first step to boredom, to moving on to the next challenge. Bridging Semak, like Rashi, believes we must accept the commandments as the gap to divine intent is crossing over the mystery. We can get God’s decrees. tastes of the reasons but ultimately we perform them because God, to whom we owe our lives, commanded us to. V. Harmonizing the Views

These approaches may not be as far apart as they initially seem. 1. Note that in Deut. 6:20–21, this answer immediately follows the There is a Brisker way of bringing them closer together. The Gemara question about eidos, chukim and mishpatim. ↩ (Rosh Hashanah 16a) asks why we blow a ram’s horn on the Jewish 2. Dr. David Berger brought my attention to an article in his New Year. One opinion is that the ram’s horn reminds God of Akeidas Cultures Yitzchak, the Binding of Yitzchak. Another opinion is that we blow a in Collision and Conversation in which he explores this issue at ram’s horn because God commanded us to. This answer might sound length and reaches a similar conclusion, albeit with more nuance sarcastic but it is actually quite profound. It is implying the futility of and authority than I am capable of mustering. ↩ searching for God’s reasons, the chasm that lies between our understanding and God’s. We can never fully know why God tells us 3. See also Rashi’s commentary to Prov. 25:2; Gen. 26:5; Ex. 15:26; to do something. But that should not stop us from obeying the Lev. 19:19; Num. 19:2, cited in R. Gersion Appel, A Philosophy of command. Mitzvot, 2008 edition, pp. 33–35, as part of an extensive survey

of different views on this subject. ↩ the end of a word where there is a patach genuvah. This is especially serious in “ve-yagea‘” in Parshat Zakhor, but it is serious in any context. (It is the equivalent of saying “Nocha” instead of “Noach.”) Incorrect Hebrew This is a very common error among people who have decided to Pronunciation pronounce the ayin when they come from a community that does not do this. It is a hiddur ha-mevi li-(ye)dei pesul (roughly an intrinsically by Dr. David Berger preferable practice that leads to a disqualifying consequence). It is also virtually impossible to correct since no one—or almost no The issue of incorrect pronunciation is, I think, even more challenging one—will have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. nowadays than what Gil presented in his extremely useful piece on the subject, and we probably have little choice but to be lenient in Prof. Richard Steiner, one of the greatest Hebrew linguists in the most cases. I just heard an otherwise excellent layning in pure world, said to me in discussing these matters, “In my field, every Ashkenazis except that tav without a dagesh was pronounced “t” mistake is called a reading tradition.” We were, I think, discussing the rather than “s.”. Thus, to take one of a myriad examples, “Untonom pronunciation that drops the yod sound in the final diphthong of Hashem Elokekho lefonekho ‚” which is, from the perspective of the words like ‘goy” and the shem adnut (the divine name usually standard pronunciations, internally inconsistent. Conversely, I have translated “Lord”). (I once heard a Jew from such an area say, “Az m’ heard—in the same shul—many laynings in otherwise pure gayt in college iz men shon a go.”) I don’t believe that the newly Ashkenazis (including the “s” sound for the tav without a dagesh), in created abolition of the patach genuvah under an ayin yet qualifies as which every kamatz (or, if you wish, kametz) gadol was pronounced a reading tradition, but the basic point is true, important, and “a” as in Sefaradit rather than the Ashkenazic “o.” Sometimes this probably determinative in most halakhic contexts. Nowadays, when was done even for a kamatz katan, as in “shisha chadashim far-flung Jewish communities have been brought together, every ba-besamim” in Esther (2:12). In this case, a correction may well be genuine reading tradition should probably be respected almost necessary since the erroneous pronunciation produces a different everywhere, though this is not the case is some Sephardi– especially meaning. (“Six months with perfumes ” is turned into “six new things Edot Ha-Mizrach—settings, and in some strongly Zionist Israeli shuls. with perfumes.”) (R. Meir Mazuz, the distinguished Sephardi rosh yeshiva in Israel, once remarked that Ashkenazim are blasphemers because they say “ In addition, the introduction of elements of Sefaradit produces lesakken olam” with the kingdom of God, which in Ashkenazic inconsistencies because the reader’s childhood instincts cannot be pronunciation means to repair the world but in Sephardic to consistently overcome. Thus, sometimes the kamatz is pronounced as endanger the world. I was there, and he was absolutely serious.) (short) “o” and sometimes as “a.” Do you correct the “a” to “o” when dealing with a present tense verb that becomes past tense if My favorite example of the need for mutual respect came when I pronounced with an “a” (as in nikhtav substituted for nikhtov) when heard a rabbi with a Galitizianer reading tradition layn the phrase “ this layner pronounces the kamatz as “a” thirty or forty percent of the asher hukkah et ha-midyanit” (Num. 25:14). He read “asher hikku.” time? (In practice, you don’t.) Had I read it that way, I would have invalidated the reading twice over—no small feat in a two-syllable word–by turning a passive into What about people who pronounce the guttural ayin and the dagesh an active and a singular into a plural. In his case, he had read it chazak (gemination, or doubling of a consonant) even though they absolutely correctly. I ask myself if it would have been necessary to were not brought up to do that? In the large majority of cases, they correct him had he read “hukkah” or “hukkoh,” and I am strongly cannot do this consistently, so that the ayin and the dagesh will go inclined to think that the answer is yes. unpronounced ten to twenty percent of the time. Thus, in the same layning with which I began, the reader pronounced the ayin about Poskim should probably take a serious look at these phenomena, but eighty percent of the time, but—to take one example—he did not do in most instances, the problem is likely to be intractable, and with a so in the word arba’im, which appears several times in that parshah. few exceptions tolerance must prevail. Precisely because he is usually careful to pronounce it, this raises the Addendum: It is extremely common in yeshivish circles to pronounce question of whether the failure to do so constitutes the substitution of the shem adnut with a chirik in the second syllable (A-dee-noy). I’ve an aleph for an ayin. (What if the word were “attah” with an ayin, elicited two speculations from scholars as to how this may have where the same word with an aleph has a different meaning?) Of happened, but the phenomenon is real and very widespread. Someone course we do not correct this, but why we do not is not so clear in asked me how you are yotze when you pronounce the word with a technical terms. I once heard a person brought up in the Litvish chirik instead of a cholam when you don’t do this in any other word. I pronunciation of the cholam (“ay”) who had later moved to standard suppose one can say that a reading tradition has developed for this American Ashkenazi pronunciation (“o”) revert to his childhood one word, but this doesn’t make me particularly comfortable. At the practice when layning the word “levonatah.” He read “levaynosoh,” very least, people who do this—and many may not even be aware that which is, of course, a different word. Do you have to correct this or do they are doing it—should consult their rabbinic authorities to you just accept the fact that this is his original reading tradition? No determine if they need to mend their ways. one in the shul, myself included, corrected him.

An error that I am convinced must be corrected—at least at this stage of development—is the pronunciation of the ayin before the patach at

6 63 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 29 August, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student What is the Torah’s Ideal Tosefta Sanhedrin ch. 4), and in the Sifri Devarim on our parasha. R. Yehuda said, Three commandments were given to Israel [to Political System? fulfill] upon their entry into the land: appointing a king, destroying Amalek, and building the Temple. by Rav Elchanan Samet R. Nehorai said, This parasha [of appointing a king] was given A. Appointing a King: Mandatory or Optional? only in response to their murmurings, as it is written (17:14), “And you shall say, ‘Let us appoint over ourselves a king [like all Does the Torah set out a particular social-political way of life for the the nations around us].’” nation of Israel dwelling in its land, or does it leave this sphere open

to the people’s choice? This question may be clarified in the context Rashi interprets the words of R. Nehorai thus: “‘You shall surely of the section of this week’s parasha (17:14–20) dealing with the appoint over yourselves a king’ is a command, but only in response to mitzva of appointing a king (and also by examining the chapters your murmurings, for it was known to God that they would murmur describing the establishment of the kingship in Shemuel I chapters about this in the future.” The predicted “murmurings” of Israel were 8–12). realized in the days of Shemuel. The mitzva in the Torah was meant to create a response to address this murmuring in advance, i.e., to The central question from an exegetical point of view is this: is the create a framework for this future appointment of a king, which is appointment of a king mandatory or optional? This question arises voluntary and based only upon their dissatisfaction. from a lack of clarity – perhaps it should be called a contradiction – in the text: The Sifri (156) formulates a slightly different explanation:

(17:14) “When you come to the land which Hashem your God has “And you shall say, Let us appoint over ourselves a king” – R. given you and you possess it and dwell in it, and you say, ‘Let us Nehorai says: This is a matter of disgrace to Israel, as it is appoint a king for ourselves like all the nations around us,’ written (Shemuel I 8:7) “For it is not you whom they have despised, but Me whom they have despised from ruling over (17:15) You shall surely appoint a king over yourselves, whom them.” Hashem your God will choose, one of your brethren shall you appoint as king over you. You may not appoint a stranger over R. Yehuda said: But it is a mitzva from the Torah for them to you who is not your brother.” request a king for themselves, as it is written, “You shall surely

appoint over yourselves a king.” So why were they punished for R. Chaim ben Atar (Ohr Ha-Chaim 17:14) presents the problem thus: this in the days of Shemuel? Because it was too early for them to When the text says, “When you come to the land… AND YOU ask. SAY…,” it means that it is not God’s command to you that a king “Like all the nations around us” – R. Nehorai said, They did not should reign; rather, if the nation speaks so, then they are ask for a king for any other reason but so that he would institute permitted [to appoint him]. But later it says, “You shall surely idolatry, as it is written (Shemuel I 8:20), “And we, too, shall be appoint” – the language here shows that God is commanding that like all the nations, and our king will judge, and he will go out they appoint a king! before us and fight our wars.” According to this commentator, the whole of verse 14 contains the Attention should be paid to the fact that R. Nehorai’s statement conditions for the command (i.e., the circumstances in which it contains two parts. At first, when interpreting the beginning of the applies), while the command itself is given in verse 15. The conditions verse (“Let us appoint a king”), he says that the very wish for a king for the mitzva in verse 14 are twofold: the first condition defines the represents a rejection of God’s rule over them, as expressed in Sefer time and the historical circumstances in which the mitzva applies: Shemuel. R. Nehorai then interprets the continuation of the verse after the inheritance of the land and the settlement of it. The second even more critically: their desire to be “like all the nations around us” condition stipulates the necessary social and political circumstances: reveals that their wish for a king is bound up with their wish to be when Am Yisrael requests a king. If the mitzva is conditional upon an free to engage in idolatry. expression of national will that the institution of kingship be established, then what this means is that the appointment of a king is Despite the broad basis the R. Nehorai brings for his claim, the voluntary, and the Torah merely details the procedure of this Rambam – and, following his example, most of the early authorities – appointment. But if this is so, then why does the Torah in the next rules according to R. Yehuda: he counts the mitzva of appointing a verse seem to formulate an absolute command to appoint a king? king as one of the 613 mitzvot (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, positive mitzva no. 173, Hil. Melakhim 1:1). This situation has caused many biblical B. The Tanaitic Dispute commentators throughout the ages to interpret the text here in The beginning of the exegetical dispute on this question is to be found accordance with the explanation of R. Yehuda and the ruling of the in a debate between Tana’im found in a beraita (Sanhedrin 20b, and Rambam, in order that their interpretation be compatible with the

halakha. circumstances? In other words, is it optional and encouraged or optional and discouraged? However, some commentators differ with the majority and maintain that the appointment of a king is a voluntary matter. The existence of Two commentators expressed their positions in this regard explicitly such an opinion among the Tana’im certainly strengthens their case. and in detail. The similarities between the two are not coincidental: both lived in Renaissance Italy and both involved themselves not only C. The Dispute Among Rishonim in Biblical exegesis, but also in Jewish philosophy. They were both As stated, many of the medieval authorities rule as the Rambam did involved in the general culture of their time and had direct contact (the Semag – positive mitzva 114, Sefer Ha-Chinukh 497, the Me’iri in with the European political philosophy of their period as well as the Beit Ha-Bechira on Horayot 11b, the Ran in his eleventh derasha), various regimes that ruled throughout Europe and Italian provinces. and many of the early and later biblical commentators interpret the Thus, their comments regarding the issue of Jewish monarchy take on verses in the Torah accordingly (Radak in his commentary on Sefer special significance. Shemuel, Ramban, Ralbag, Rabbeinu Bechaye, Akeidat Yitzchak, A) Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel: etc.). We shall suffice with examining just one representative of this great camp: the Ramban. Thus writes the Ramban on the words, “And To properly understand his approach on our issue, we must first find you shall say, ‘Let us appoint over ourselves a king’”: out a little bit about his life. Abarbanel was born in 1437 to the minister of the treasury for the Portuguese king. His father provided According to the opinion of our Sages, this is equivalent to the him with both a Jewish and general education. The latter included Torah saying, “and you shall say.” In other words, “Say: Let us Greek and Roman literature as well as command of the Portuguese appoint over ourselves a king.” This is a positive mitzva, language. Rav Yitzchak assumed the post as minister of the treasury obligating us to declare this after the inheritance and settling of upon his father’s death, but shortly thereafter, with the change of rule the land… in Lisbon, he was compelled to flee for his life to neighboring Spain.

Indeed, the Ramban succeeds thus in resolving the contradiction in There he became the general economic advisor to King Ferdinand the text: he changes the boundaries between conditions for the and Queen Isabella. In 1492 he left Spain as a result of the expulsion mitzva and the mitzva itself, defining them differently than the Ohr order. He resided in Naples where he served as royal economic Ha-Chaim previously did. “And you shall say…” is not, in his opinion, advisor until he was again forced to flee, this time as a result of the part of the conditions for the mitzva but rather the beginning of the French conquest. At the end of his life he lived in Venice, which was mitzva itself, which in turn is composed of two parts: one is a then an independent republic, where again he worked as an economic requirement that the nation REQUEST of its leaders that a king be advisor to the authorities. He lived in Venice until his death. appointed, and the other part is that the nation receive a positive Alongside his political and economic involvement, Rav Yitzchak response and that a worthy king in fact be appointed. The logic Abarbanel remained intensely engrossed in Torah studies, writing behind this double mitzva is that in this way the appointment of the commentaries to Tanakh and other works. king will not be forced on an unwilling nation. As for the end of the Abarbanel was the only Jewish exegete of his time whose knowledge verse – “like all the nations” – the Ramban this phrasing is not of various forms of government was that of an insider. He literally mandatory, but rather a prophetic foreshadowing and warning of lived in the households of kings and rulers and caught more than a what they will actually request in the time of Shemuel. glimpse of their respective qualities and shortcomings, as well as Attention should be paid to the fact that the Ramban interprets the those of the differing political theories and policies of his period. text thus in order to adapt it to “the opinion of our Sages” – i.e., the In his lengthy introduction to our parasha, Abarbanel asks: If opinion of R. Yehuda. However, he ignores the existence of a different appointing a king is a mitzva, why didn’t Yehoshua or others fulfill it? opinion among Chazal – that of R. Nehorai. Furthermore, he asserts, Jewish history demonstrated that most As opposed to the large group of commentaries who interpret the Israelite kings led the people astray, and general history has shown appointment of a king as mandatory, there are only a few who that the more power is concentrated in an individual, the more interpret it as voluntary. This latter group includes Targum Yonatan, corrupt he is likely to be. Abarbanel then presents his explanation of Rabbenu Meyuchas of Greece, and Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra expresses his our verses: view clearly and concisely: “When the Torah says, ‘When you come to the land… and you say: Let “You shall appoint” – this is optional; us appoint a king for ourselves like all the nations around us,’ this does not constitute a mitzva at all. God did not command that they “Whom God will choose” – through a prophet or the decision of say this and request a king (as the Ramban had explained). Rather, the Urim Ve-tumim; meaning – not someone whom you yourself this is foretelling the future. It means, after your settlement in the will choose. chosen land, the conquest and all the wars, and after the division [of

D. Abarbanel and Seforno the land] … I know that you will be ungrateful and say of your own volition, ‘I will set a king over me,’ not out of necessity to fight the If we say that the appointment of a king is voluntary, and that the nations and occupy the land, for it will have already come under your mitzva involves merely the procedures that Benei Yisrael must follow occupation, but rather to render yourselves equivalent to the nations under circumstances that they themselves bring about, one important that crown kings over themselves. He mentioned that when this question arises: Is it desirable for Benei Yisrael to bring about these occurs, they should not crown that king based on their own will, but

rather [they must crown] the one who God chooses from among their (perhaps because he did not have firsthand experience with kingship brethren… According to this, then, the issue of the king is a positive as did Abarbanel). commandment that depends upon a voluntary situation, as if to say, Seforno’s approach raises the question: Wherein lies the fundamental when you want to do so, notwithstanding its impropriety, do so only in difference between a king who bequeaths his rule to his son, a system this manner.” that God deems “despicable,” and a king who does not pass down his B) Rav Ovadia Seforno: reign, the appointment of whom constitutes a mitzva? One would perhaps suggest that hereditary kingship contains the potential for Seforno (born in 1470) lived a generation later than Abarbanel and corruption and the ascent of unqualified rulers to the throne. This acquired vast scientific knowledge in the university in Rome. answer, however, fails to justify the irreligious between these two Although he never worked as a politician, Seforno, too, had close forms of government as expressed by the Seforno. relationships with important figures in Italy and was quite familiar with the political culture of his time. He writes: A non-dynastic monarchy requires in every generation – or even more frequently – a selection of a new ruler over the people. When God “Let us appoint a king for ourselves like all the nations around Himself performs this selection, whether He does so directly through us” – that the kingship will belong to him and his offspring, as a prophet (the way Shaul and David were appointed) or in a opposed to the system of judges [“shoftim”] whereby only the roundabout manner through the emergence of a charismatic leader judge himself serves, not his children after him. who saves the people from their enemies (as occurred during the They were commanded regarding the appointment of a judge in period of the judges), then the sense of the presence of divine this manner (that is, without automatic transfer of authority to supervision remains among Benei Yisrael. By contrast, a kingship his children) upon their entry into the land, as it says (Bemidbar “like all the nations” gives the nation a sense of political stability that 27:17), “So that God’s community may not be like sheep that undermines their awareness of divine providence. This concern forms have no shepherd.” True, a king like the kings of the gentiles – the basis of God’s words to Shemuel when the people came to him to who hold kingship for themselves and their offspring – is ask for a king (Shemuel I 8:7): “For it is not you that they have despicable to God. However, He commanded that when they rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king.” insist upon setting up a king over themselves in this manner, E. The Netziv’s Innovative Approach they should select only a deserving person whom God chooses. He will not bring Yisrael to violate their religion, and he will not Two commentators tried to resolve the contradiction between verses be a gentile… When they sinned by asking for a king who will 17:14 and 17:15 by suggesting that the appointment of the king rule as would his offspring “like all the gentiles” (as described in involves both an obligation as well as a voluntary measure. The first is Sefer Shemuel), they were punished through the mishaps the Ohr Ha-Chaim (in his interpretation of R. Nehorai’s view), which I suffered by the masses as a result of the king, as it says will leave for the reader to look up. The second commentator who (Shemuel I, 8:18), “The day will come when you cry out because adopts this approach is the Netziv, in his “He’amek Davar,” only he of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and God will not develops this theory within Rav Yehuda’s view: answer you on that day.” “And you say: Let us appoint a king for ourselves” – This is does The comments of the Abarbanel and Seforno resemble each other, but not imply “saying” in the typical sense, that is, verbally (as the here we will point out their differences: Ramban explained), but rather [it denotes the people’s desire]… Indeed, from this expression it appears that this does not signify 1. The ideal government in the eyes of the Abarbanel is a republic an outright obligation to appoint a king, but it is rather (as he witnessed in Venice). Unlike Seforno, Abarbanel did not voluntary… see in a single, authoritative figure who rules until his death an ideal example of government. However, it is well known in the words of Chazal that there does exist a mitzva to appoint a king. If so, then why is [the mitzva 2. Abarbanel sees the problem with the request for a king as written in an equivocal fashion]? It seems that [this is] because relating to the desire to grant exclusive authority to a single national leadership changes [with regard to] whether it is individual. According to Seforno, by contrast, this is not the controlled by the will of the monarchy or by the desire of the problem at all. Only the establishment of a hereditary kingship population and their elected officials. Some countries cannot renders the request worthy of criticism. tolerate royal authority, and other countries are like a ship without a captain when they do not have a king. This matter 3. Abarbanel emphasizes the failure of the institution of the (determining the form of government) cannot be done according monarchy as demonstrated by both Jewish and general history, a to a mandatory positive mitzva. For with regard to matters failing that he attributes to the ethical shortcomings inherent in relevant to leadership over the nation at large, this involves the institution. Seforno, however, speaks of the punishment that issues of life-and-death that override a positive commandment. will befall Benei Yisrael only for their sin of requesting a king Therefore, it was impossible to command in absolute terms the who will bequeath his power to his heir. appointment of a king UNTIL IT WAS AGREED UPON BY THE NATION to tolerate the royal yoke based on their observation Thus, Rav Ovadia Seforno expresses more mild opposition to the that the surrounding nations managed better [under a institution of the monarchy than does Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel

monarchy]. Only then is it a positive mitzva for the Sanhedrin to According to Rav Yehuda, there is a mitzva for Benei Yisrael to appoint a king. … This is why throughout the three hundred establish a political framework in its land, for only thereby can they years that the Mishkan was chosen to stand in Shilo there was carry out the tasks with which they were charged upon entry into no king – because there was no consensus among the people. Eretz Yisrael – destroying Amalek and building a Mikdash. The Gemara notes that the appointment of a king had to precede the other Underlying this original position of the Netziv are two basic two, since only a political entity with concentrated authority can draft assumptions, and only upon these cornerstones could he posit his the necessary resources for the other two tasks. Shaul’s victory over startling approach. His first assumption he writes explicitly: that Amalek and Shelomo’s construction of the Mikdash could not have Chazal viewed the appointment of a king as a mitzva. Of course, this occurred during the period of the judges. assumes the viewpoint of Rav Yehuda and ignores the opposing position of Rav Nehorai. The Netziv was most likely influenced by the According to what we have said, an anarchist could find in the Torah ruling of the Rambam and others. and the commentaries cited here a basis for his political theory, just as one who insists upon one form of governmental authority or The second assumption emerges from his words more subtly. It is another can find support for his view. clear to the Netziv that careful consideration of the different forms of rule among the nations will bring those contemplating this issue to This essay originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel the conclusion that absolute monarchy is preferable over other forms Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with of government (such as that which operates “according to the desire permission. of the population and their elected officials”). The Netziv attributes this assumption to the Torah itself, which patiently waits for Benei Yisrael to arrive at this “correct” political outlook. Only then does the Jews Attending Church Torah mandate the appointment of a Jewish monarch. Of course, R. Haskel Lookstein generated a storm of criticism when he attended living in nineteenth-century Russia under the Czar, this presumption the inaugural church services for President Obama and recited a may have seemed to him natural and self-evident, but it is one which non-denominational prayer (see this post). Many pointed out the is difficult for contemporary man to accept. questionable halakhic basis for such a practice, and R. Lookstein F. Another Perspective on the Issue himself agreed that he would only attend such a service in the exceptional case of a request by a world leader. Many others noted In conclusion, we should note that most commentators saw the that English Chief Rabbis have historically attended select church parasha of the king as the locus for a discussion regarding the services. Torah’s preferred form of government. However, in the textual and historical contexts in which the issue of the monarchy arose I do not know if anyone quoted the following from the former Chief (especially during the time of Shemuel), it seems that the question Rabbi of England, R. Immanuel Jakobovits, upon which I recently here involves a different issue: is there, according to the Torah, a stumbled. He discusses the issue twice in his 1995 book, Dear Chief need to establish any central authority at all? In other words, does the Rabbi: From the Correspondence of Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits Torah destine Benei Yisrael for life within the framework of a political on Matters of Jewish Law, Ethics and Contemporary Issues, state, or does it prefer existence within a more anarchic social 1980–1990. framework lacking any governmental authority? In one letter (p. 46), R. Jakobovits writes: This second possibility describes Benei Yisrael’s history during the After consultation with the [London] Beth Din, my own practice time of the judges until the period of Shemuel. They lived within the is occasionally to attend Church services on royal and state framework of tribal treaties and agreements with no central authority occasions to represent the Jewish community. But I never endowed with the power of legislation or coercion. This social system actively participate, nor do I wear cap and gown. I find that my was not easy for them, as external pressures from enemies did Christian hosts usually show understanding and respect for this receive proper response given the lack of a king or organized military attitude and its reservations. and governmental mechanism. Indeed, thoughts of a central authority arose from time to time throughout the period of the judges. Gidon Note that he visibly refrained from participating in the prayer responded the people’s request for a hereditary monarchy by services. Also note that he received approval from his beis din to proclaiming, “I will not rule over you myself, nor shall my son rule attend. over you; God alone shall rule over you!” (Shoftim 8:23). Apparently, In another letter (p. 49), he writes: behind this anarchistic societal life stood a firm, religious outlook. The same may be inferred from Shemuel’s reaction to his Naturally I often face the problem of having to respond to constituents’ request for a monarch. Their request in essence meant invitations to take part in interfaith services, sometimes at the turning the voluntary treaty among the tribes into a single political highest level for royal and national events. My attitude invariably body with central authority. The issue of the precise character of such is that I cannot take an active part in a religious service of any a government is but a secondary question. except my own faith, and this is always understood and respected. But I do on occasions attend such services as a The Tana’im who disputed the issue of the mitzva to appoint a king – representative of the Jewish community, though without wearing R. Yehuda and R. Nehorai – seemed to have debated the question of canonicals or “officiating” in any other form. the necessity of a state, not of the best form of government.

He continues that a cantor wishing to take part in an interfaith Making Tea and Coffee on memorial service televised in a church may pre-record an appropriate prayer elsewhere to be played before or after the church service. Shabbos

I make no claim that R. Jakobovits’ view (and that of his beis din) by David Roth become normative. I am describing, not prescribing (nor proscribing), One of the thirty-nine prohibited categories of forbidden activities on them. And even he would agree that the permissive practice only Shabbos is baking or cooking.1 However, much to the relief of many applies to state and royal functions at the highest levels. coffee and tea drinkers, there may be a number of reasons that The Right Way To Rebuke making coffee or tea is not included in the prohibition of cooking. Cooking Something That Has Already Been Cooked

Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Instant coffee:

by R. Aharon Ziegler With dry items, the prohibition of cooking only applies to something 2 Rav Soloveitchik taught that the way to give mussar or rebuke is not that has not been sufficiently cooked, not to re-heating already 3 to belittle or embarrass a person, rather, to show him that he has sufficiently cooked food. Therefore, most halachic authorities permit erred and that he should correct his ways. By verbally attacking the one to pour hot water on instant coffee that has been roasted in the wrongdoer, most likely that person will react negatively and manufacturing process. aggressively, which is the opposite of what we want. Furthermore, he However, some halachic authorities disagree. The Shulchan Aruch4 will raise his defense and spitefully continue his malevolent behavior, cites the concept that there is no prohibition of cooking once in order to enforce the fact that he does not consider such behavior as something has been sufficiently cooked the same way but not with being wrong. Obviously, effective rebuke cannot be achieved by two different forms of cooking, such as boiling and baking. These directly confrontation and belittling the perpetrator. How then should halachic authorities5 argue that the roasting (of beans) and the we convey our message of rebuke? The answer, Rav Soloveitchik cooking with water entailed in making coffee represent different found, is in the Torah. forms of cooking. Although the Shulchan Aruch seems to conclude Yosef HaTzaddik, after revealing himself to his brothers, has good that one can be lenient on this question, the Rama rules that reason to rebuke his brothers for the terrible crimes of throwing him Ashkenazim should act stringently. The previously mentioned into a pit and then selling him to merchants heading down to dissenting authorities argue that this ruling of the Rama poses a Mitzrayim. It is now 22 years later and Yosef is the highest official in concern for Ashkenazim, unless the instant coffee has already been Mitzrayim, only Paroh is above him, and he has his brothers at his cooked in water or the roasting is somehow considered a similar 6 mercy. enough cooking to the making of the coffee. Additionally, R. Mordechai Eliyahu7 argues that although instant coffee is roasted, The very first thing that Yosef does is request that all Egyptians leave adding hot water completes the cooking process. Prior to the addition the room, so as not to embarrass his brothers in front of strangers of hot water, the coffee is not completely cooked, thereby rendering (Bereishit 45:1). Now that they are alone the brothers fear and expect the addition a new act of cooking rather than just re-heating. the harshest rebuke imaginable. But, lo and behold, Yosef chooses According to this, one would never be able to make coffee on three words, and says to them – “Ha’od Avi Chai?” “Is my father still Shabbos, and one could only use coffee that was made before alive?” (Bereishit 45:3). It has its effect, for immediately after hearing Shabbos.8 those words, “his brothers could not answer him for they were left disconcerted before him.” Another potential issue of making coffee on Shabbos is that the Rama 9 says that it is praiseworthy to be stringent (ha’machmir tavo alav From these three words our lesson in giving rebuke becomes clear. beracha) not to add salt to even to a hot keli sheini (a secondary 10 Effective reproof is accomplished by focusing on the victim’s pain vessel, not the one which was on the fire). R. Yitzchak Weiss argues rather than on the wrongdoing of the perpetrator. When he sees the that adding instant coffee to hot water is equivalent to adding salt, 11 12 pain and suffering that he has caused, he comes to the understanding which the Rama said is better not to do. R. Yaakov Breish argues that he has behaved improperly. similarly, but concedes that in a keli sheini there is enough room to be lenient. However, R. Ovadia Yosef13 distinguishes between instant The fact that “Ha’od Avi Chai” was the first thing that Yosef asked coffee and salt because he believes the Rama only recommends indicated that what most concerned him during the previous 22 years against adding uncooked salt. If the salt, or in this case the coffee, is was being away from his father. His question should be interpreted as already cooked, there should be no problem. The general practice an outpouring of his own personal grief over being in a position appears to be lenient regarding making instant coffee on Shabbos. where it was impossible to maintain a loving relationship with his father. The brothers were filled with shame, not because Yosef Instant tea: directly chastised them, rather as a result of understanding the grief Some authorities permit using pre-cooked tea leaves. For example, it that their actions had caused. That is why Yosef focused on my father would be permitted to pour hot water onto the tea leaves before rather than your father. He was expressing his personal grief over the Shabbos and then to pour more hot water onto the same dry leaves to loss of his loving relationship with his father.

make tea on Shabbos. Some halachic authorities14 apply the rule that therefore will not cook in a keli sheini. there is no prohibition of cooking something that has already been Using a Timer cooked completely. The Aruch Ha’Shulchan15 accepts this as well, but adds that when one pre-cooks the tea before Shabbos, he must leave The Mishna37 records an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis the hot water on the tea for a while to make sure that it is fully Hillel whether one can start a melacha (activity forbidden on 16 cooked. However, some halachic authorities forbid this practice Shabbos) before Shabbos that will continue by itself into Shabbos, because the tea leaves are used purely to extract their taste. such as soaking something in water to extract a dye. The halacha Therefore, as long as the tea leaves continue to emit taste, they are follows Beis Hillel to be lenient on this. not considered already cooked. Based on this, we are used to assuming that it is permitted to set a Keli Sheini and Keli Shelishi timer to turn on or off an electric device on Shabbos. However, R. Moshe Feinstein38 does not approve of this leniency and argues that it As a general rule, a keli sheini (a secondary vessel, not the one which should be relied on only for electric lights.39 R. Hershel Schachter is was on the fire) does not cook for Hilchos Shabbos purposes.17Tosafos 18 explain that since a keli sheini was never on the fire, its walls are also very sympathetic to the position that timers should not be used 40 41 cooler and it cannot cook. on Shabbos. Nevertheless, the opinion of most halachic authorities as well as common practice is to allow the use of timers for all However, if something is considered mi’kalei ha’bishul (easy to cook), electric devices whose use does not detract from the spirit of 19 20 21 it will cook even in a keli sheini. The Ran, Magen Avraham, Shabbos. The following discussion assumes that the use of timers in 22 23 Mishna Berura, and R. Moshe Feinstein rule that we do not know general is permitted. what foods are mi’kalei ha’bishul, and therefore we need to be 42 concerned that all foods fall into this category unless explicitly There is another Mishna which says that before Shabbos one may excluded in the Talmud.24 According to this view, one is forbidden to not put water into a vessel that is used to hold a lit candle because he 43 put tea leaves even in a keli sheini, because they might be mi’kalei may come to extinguish the fire. Tosefos explain that the difference ha’bishul. The Aruch Ha’Shulchan25 is certain that tea is mi’kalei between this case and the previous case with the dye is that the ha’bishul. However, the Chazon Ish26 argues that one need not be soaking of a dye on Shabbos is a very serious prohibition, so people concerned that a given food is mi’kalei ha’bishul unless an explicit will be careful to avoid it. In contrast, adding water is not an active source says that it is.27 R. Hershel Schachter writes that R. Joseph B. violation but rather just causing the candle to go out indirectly, about Soloveitchik made tea in a keli sheini because he did not consider tea which people will be less careful. This reason is quoted in the Magen 44 45 46 47 leaves to be mi’kalei ha’bishul,28 and R. Schachter himself rules this Avraham, Taz, and Shulchan Aruch Ha’Rav. Some suggest that way as well.29 putting food to cook or coffee to brew on a timer is equivalent to adding water in the vessel below the candle: one might come to add A keli shelishi (a tertiary vessel, from which something was poured the coffee mix on Shabbos, which would be problematic because he is from a keli sheini) may provide a solution to those who are concerned doing an act on Shabbos that is causing the coffee to be cooked.48 that tea may cook in a keli sheini. Talmudic sources do not mention Furthermore, others who see him cooking might not realize that it such a concept, nor do Rishonim (early authorities) distinguish was set on a timer before Shabbos and might come to do it on between keli sheini and keli shelishi. To the best of my knowledge, Shabbos. the only Rishon who talks about a keli shelishi is R. Eliezer of Metz,30 who explicitly says that a keli shelishi is the same as a keli sheini. Another reason why it might not be permissible to make coffee on Nevertheless, many Achronim (later authorities)31 rule that a keli Shabbos with a timer is the Rabbinic prohibition of returning an even 49 shelishi does not cook even food that is mi’kalei ha’bishul, or that one fully cooked food item to an uncovered fire. This prohibition is need not be concerned that something is mi’kalei ha’bishul when either because of a concern that one may stoke the coals or because 50 51 using a keli shelishi (but they hold that in a keli sheini one should be he appears to be cooking. The Rama says that it is even forbidden concerned). However, many halachic authorities32 disagree. The to ask a non-Jew to return the fully cooked item to the uncovered fire, Chazon Ish33 argues that there is no basis to distinguish in theory even though one might have expected permission to ask a non-Jew to between a keli sheini and a keli shelishi. However, he continues, there do this rabbinically forbidden action in order to fulfill a mitzvah (such 52 may be a practical distinction: the Chayei Adam34 rules that a keli as the enjoyment of Shabbos). The Chazon Ish explains that the sheini that is extremely hot (yad nichveis bo) will cook. Based on this, prohibition is to have the food returned to the uncovered fire, the Chazon Ish says that we use a keli shelishi because by the time whether the Jew does the act himself or not. Thus, the fact that a the item has been transferred twice, it is probably no longer as hot, non-Jew returns the food to the fire is irrelevant; the Jew violates the and therefore one does not need to be concerned for this opinion of prohibition passively. Presumably, the same would apply to a timer: the Chayei Adam.35 even though a Jew does not do any action and the timer turns on the fire which warms up the food, the Jew violates the prohibition of Making Tea Using Essence returning food to the fire by virtue of the fact that such a thing Mishna Berura36 states that the best way to make tea on Shabbos is to occurred in his house, even without an action. In other words, even if make essence, meaning a very strong tea, before Shabbos. When one the Jew does nothing, there is still a concern that he might stoke the wants to drink tea on Shabbos, he can put hot water in the cup, and coals. However, if the system is set up before Shabbos in such a way then add the cold essence. This solution works according to all views that the oven is sealed and cannot easily be opened on Shabbos, this 53 because everyone agrees that water is not mi’kalei ha’bishul and would not be a concern. The same would probably apply to a sealed

coffee maker that cannot be easily opened or adjusted. 4. OC 318:5 ↩

There is an additional reason why it might be prohibited to set up a 5. Chasam Sofer OC 1:74 concedes that there is enough room to be system to cook on Shabbos using a timer, but it may not be applicable lenient that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to make instant 54 to a coffee machine. The Shulchan Aruch rules that if one takes a coffee; R. Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 8:35:8) writes that pot off the fire before it is fully cooked, one may not remove part of Ashkenazim should be stringent if the coffee is only roasted and the dish with a spoon because he will end up stirring it. Regarding a not cooked, but he says that most instant coffee is indeed 55 different case, the Gemara says that it is permitted to put wool in a cooked; See also Kaf Ha’Chaim (318:63) who brings many boiling pot before Shabbos, and we are not concerned that he will stir opinions of achronim on both sides of this issue. ↩ the pot on Shabbos. The pot is covered and sealed, and by the time one breaks the seal, he will remember that it is Shabbos. R. Eliezer 6. R. Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 4:74:16) and R. Ovadia 56 57 Silver and R. Eliezer Waldenberg argue that if one puts food in an Yosef (Yechave Daas 2:44:16) both say that the coffee is cooked oven which is set on a timer to cook on Shabbos, there is a concern already such that this should not be a concern. They seem to be that he will come to stir the unsealed pot. However, I doubt this assuming something along the lines of this second approach. ↩ applies to a coffee machine because it is not normal to stir coffee while it is brewing. 7. Responsa Maamar Mordechai OC 2:11 ↩

R. Gedalia Felder58 states that the Chasam Sofer was lenient to allow 8. Shulchan Shlomo, Shabbos 218:24 quotes R. Shlomo Zalman one to set up a system to light a fire elsewhere before Shabbos, such Auerbach as ruling leniently on this issue. ↩ that the fire will spread over the course of Shabbos and reach the food at the time when he wants his food to be warmed up. This seems 9. OC 318:9 ↩ like a precedent that would allow using a timer to cook. However, R. Felder argues that this is different from the case of a timer. In the 10. Minchas Yitzchak 1:55 ↩ Chasam Sofer‘s case, there was a fire before Shabbos while in the case of a timer the fire did not yet exist before Shabbos. Therefore, 11. However, in the responsum he only addresses making coffee by there is no proof that one can be lenient with a timer. pouring from a keli rishon (the original pot which had been on the fire) and does not address the question of a keli sheini at all. For all of these reasons, many halachic authorities59 forbid using a ↩ timer to cook or brew coffee. However, some halachic authorities60 permit cooking with a timer in the case of monetary loss or illness, 12. Chelkas Yaakov OC 131 ↩ provided that the system is completely set up before Shabbos and the food is already in place before Shabbos, such that no adjustments will 13. Yechave Daas 2:44:6 ↩ need to be made on Shabbos itself. 14. Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav 318:15; R. Yosef Mashash, As always, you should ask your rabbi questions about appropriate Mayim Chaim OC 118; R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Binyan Tziyon, no. 17 practice. (at the very end); first opinion and main ruling of MB 318:39. ↩ 1. Mishna, Shabbos 73a, and Gemara 74b ↩ 15. OC 318:28 ↩ 2. Shulchan Aruch OC 318:4. “Sufficiently cooked” meaning 16. R. Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe OC 2:85; R. Ovadia Yosef, nisbashel kol tzorko. Note that returning something already Yechave Daas 2:44:3; Maharam Shik OC 132:2 ↩ cooked to a fire could be Rabbinically prohibited (see Shulchan Aruch OC 253). Here our discussion is regarding using water 17. Shabbos 40b; Shulchan Aruch OC 318:9; Shulchan Aruch YD which has already been removed from the fire. ↩ 105:2 ↩

3. R. Ovadia Yosef in Yechave Daas 2:44; R. Tzvi Pesach Frank in 18. Shabbos 40b d”h u’shema mina ↩ Har Tzvi, Tal Harim, Bishul 8; R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, as quoted in Chelkas Yaakov OC 131; Mishpetei Uziel YD 2:44:3; R. 19. Mishna, Shabbos 145b, Shulchan Aruch 318:4 ↩ Baruch Avraham Toledano in Shaalu L’Baruch OC 38; The Ben Ish Chai in Rav Pealim OC 3:11 seems to assume that it is 20. Shabbos 20a of Dapei Ha’Rif d”h u’m’ha shaminan ↩ obvious that there is no problem of cooking on Shabbos by making coffee, as the only concern he addresses is regarding 21. OC 318:18 ↩ coloring the water. Although a number of halachic authorities mention this concern about coloring the water, most assume it is 22. 318:42 ↩ not an issue based on the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (OC 320:19) that there is no prohibition of coloring food. However, 23. Igros Moshe 4:74:4 ↩ the Ben Ish Chai argues that this is only for solids, but with liquids there is a prohibition of coloring. ↩ 24. The Rama (OC 318:5) is concerned about the possibility that bread can be cooked in a keli sheini, so one must either say that

he agrees with this position or that bread is easier to cook than 37. Shabbos 17b ↩ other items because it is already baked. ↩ 38. Igros Moshe OC 4:60 ↩ 25. OC 318:28 ↩ 39. R. Moshe is very concerned that the use of timers will detract 26. Chazon Ish OC, Moed, Hilchos Shabbos 52:19 ↩ from the atmosphere of Shabbos (zilusa d’shabbos) since one can do almost anything with them, and he says that if timers would 27. The Aruch Ha’Shulchan (OC 318:44) says that onions are not have been around in the times of the Gemara, they would have mi’kalei ha’bishul. He seems to assume that food should be made a decree against using them, and then he continues to say assumed not to be mi’kalei ha’bishul. However, as we said above, that maybe it is included in the prohibition of amira l’nochri he assumes that tea is in fact mi’kalei ha’bishul because we see (asking a non-Jew to do melacha for a Jew). He permits the use that it cooks so easily. ↩ of timers for electric lights because the custom in many places in Europe was to permit amira l’nochri to light candles anyway. ↩ 28. Nefesh Ha’Rav, page 170 ↩ 40. I heard this from him. See also the responsum of R. Avraham 29. Notes from Rav Hershel Schachter in R. Mordechai Willig, The Litch-Rosenbaum (Ben Yehuda 1:151) who similarly forbids the Laws of Cooking and Warming Food on Shabbat, page 178. ↩ use timers. ↩

30. Sefer Yere’im, no. 274 (in old editions, no. 102) ↩ 41. Shoel U’Meishiv 2:1:5; Maharam Shick OC 157; Shu”t Riv”a OC, Mafteichos 6; Zekan Aharon OC 1:15; Yabia Omer OC 10:26:6; 31. R. Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 4:74:15) rules that a keli Minchas Shlomo 2:26. Elsewhere (Meorei Eish, ch. 4), R. Shlomo shelishi never cooks, even for food that is mi’kalei ha’bishul; Peri Zalman Auerbach permits the use of timers explicitly but raises a Megadim, Eishel Avraham 318:35; MB 318:45 and 318:47 rules concern that one might violate the prohibition of shevisas keilim that a keli shelishi does not cook regarding putting bread in (work done by one’s utensils on Shabbos) according to the soup, but in 318:42, where it comes to making tea, recommends opinion of the Bach. He therefore recommends that one declare using essence. R. Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai, Shabbos, p. the timer ownerless (hefker) in order to avoid this issue. ↩ 70) explains that making tea in a keli shelishi should be a problem according to everyone because it is normal to make tea 42. Shabbos 47b ↩ that way even during the week. Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasa (second edition 1:57, third edition 1:62) says that that the 43. Shabbos 47b d”h m’penei she’mekareiv ↩ general custom is to be lenient in a keli shelishi, but says that one should be stringent on tea leaves because they are mi’kalei 44. OC 265:7 ↩ ha’bishul. R. Yaakov Posen, a student of R. Yitzchak Weiss, says in Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos, p. 48, that tea should be considered 45. OC 265:2 ↩ mi’kalei ha’bishul. ↩ 46. OC 265:8 ↩ 32. Bach OC 318:7 d”h u’ma she’kasav aval seifel; Responsa of Chasam Sofer YD 2:95. R. Binyamin Zilber (Az Nidberu 5:16) 47. Tzitz Eliezer 2:6:3; Oros Ha’Shabbos 45 ↩ argues that there is theoretically no difference between a keli sheini and a keli shelishi, but when it comes to issues of 48. See Tzitz Eliezer 2:6:1 and Chavatzeles Hasharon 1:24 for a something which appears to be but is not really cooking ( discussion about the prohibition one violates by doing this. ↩ mechazi k’mevashel), there is more room to be lenient on a keli 49. Shulchan Aruch 523:2 ↩ shelishi. ↩

50. See Or Sameach, Shabbos 3:1 who discusses the practical 33. OC, Moed, Hilchos Shabbos 52:19 ↩ differences between these reasons. ↩ 34. Volume 2–3, Kelal 20, Seif 4; See, however, Beis Yosef YD 110:2 51. OC 318:5 ↩ d”h v’im hu cham who disagrees and says that a keli sheini does not cook even if it is boiling. ↩ 52. OC, Moed, Hilchos Shabbos 37:21; Minchas Yizchak 4:26:10–13 says similarly. See also Mishpetei Uziel, hashmatos 1:1:3. ↩ 35. R. Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos OC 1:207:5) writes similarly, and suggests that one should be stringent to only add 53. Chazon Ish, OC, Moed, Hilchos Shabbos 38:2; R. Chaim tea essence to hot water in a keli shelishi. R. Binyamin Zilber (Az Kanievsky in Shone Halachos 254:11. ↩ Nidbaru 1:35), however, is concerned about yad nichveis bo even in a keli shelishi. ↩ 54. OC 318:18 ↩

36. 318:39 ↩ 55. Shabbos 18b ↩

56. Quoted in Oros Ha’Shabbos 45 ↩ believe it is obviously forbidden and unworthy of discussion, 2) you believe it is obviously permitted, 3) you do not want to take a 57. Tzitz Eliezer 2:6:5–7 ↩ stand on such a controversial subject. I find it most likely that Semak follows the first view. 58. Yesodei Yeshurun, vol. 3, p. 43 ↩ 3. In the mitzvah to follow God’s ways (Aseh, no. 7), Semag (not 59. See also Zekan Aharon 1:15–16 who feels that putting something Semak) includes a brief anti-philosophical polemic. He tells how, fully cooked and dry into such an oven before Shabbos should be in his travels, he explained to the wise men of Spain that the theoretically permitted, but he cautions against doing so out of verse “Know the God of your father and worship Him” (1 concern that people will take the leniencies too far and come to Chronicles 28:9) refers to acts of kindness (as proven by Jer. do things which are actually prohibited. He also argues that it is 22:15–16). I can imagine him saying this with a gentle, not in the spirit of Shabbos (zilusa d’shabbos). ↩ mischievous smile to Spanish philosophers or to rabbis in Spain who are anti-philosophy. Either way, he seems to knowingly 60. R. Ben Zion Abba Shaul in Or L’Tzion 2:31:18; Yerushas Peleita albeit implicitly denounce the philosophical definition of 16. Melameid L’Ho’il, Even Ha’Ezer 3:58 permits it in principle, knowledge of God. but warns that it should only be done to warm up something that is fully cooked because otherwise he might come to set it up on Shabbos itself. R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin is quoted in Luach Answer Your Emails! Return Ha’Yovel of Ezras Torah (p. 82) as permitting warming up already cooked food in this manner, but not to cook raw food. R. Your Phone Calls! Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer OC 10:27) says that one may use an by Rabbi Ari Enkin electric plata on a timer even without a great need (in accordance with R. Ovadia’s opinion in Yechave Daas 2:45 that It’s fair to say that most people, including this writer, are greatly there is no problem of placing a fully cooked item on such a plata disturbed by those who don’t respond to letters, emails, or return ). R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Meorei Eish, ch. 4) also permits phone calls within a reasonable amount of time. In fact, in the event such an arrangement, although he recommends that one declare of a first time correspondence, the timeliness in which a person the timer ownerless, as explained above (n. 41). ↩ responds is actually the only gesture which offers a glimpse into that person’s level of derech eretz.

Were the Tosafists In fact, failing to respond to others in a timely manner is not only distasteful behavior but it might actually be a Torah transgression, as Philosophers? II well. As Rabbi Chaim Palagi writes:1

I’ve had a few more thoughts about this issue since I wrote the Derech eretz kadma l’torah….Therefore, one who has received a original essay on the topic. I took another look at Dr. David Berger’s letter from a friend should respond immediately as there are a book, Cultures in Collision and Conversation. Aside from a chapter number of prohibitions which one may violate by not responding that directly addresses the question, many parts of the book discuss in a timely manner. Responding to a correspondence is basic it. This is a topic that has been recently debated among the experts. derech eretz, and forcing someone to yearn for a response has What follows are a few of my amateur thoughts after a summer of the potential to cause that person long term health concerns… It teaching classes on the Semak: might just be that one’s reply will be the catalyst for some type of mitzva to be performed… Not responding causes the one who 1. As we discussed last week, the Semak, in the mitzvah of fearing sent the letter great pain while he waits for his query to be God (no. 4), utilizes the philosophical argument that Jews are addressed. It is also cruel and a sign of arrogance. He who obligated in mitzvos as a matter of gratitude. This argument was judges the world will pay back such people midda k’negged also proposed by R. Sa’adiah Gaon and R. Bachya Ben Pakuda. midda. I myself have sent letters to many prominent people, and The Semak does not cite a source for this argument but it is still those who failed to answer my letters fell to unfortunate a philosophical argument. It is noteworthy precisely because it is circumstance. so unusual. Furthermore, in yet another one of his works,2 Rabbi Palagi quotes 2. In the mitzvah to learn Torah (no. 105), Semak speaks at length the Re’im who goes off on an especially lengthy tangent, apologizing about the need for constant, devoted study. More briefly (no. to someone for not having responded to a letter, explaining that he 15), Semak also lists a prohibition against failing to study Torah. did not receive it and that perhaps it got lost. He also emphasizes to In both places, he condemns non-Torah-related speech (albeit the person he is addressing that it is the first time he has ever missed with a nuanced difference). Someone who adopts this strict responding to a letter. The Re’im also writes that he is proud to be regimen of Torah study who is interested in studying philosophy among those who answer letters from all people, regardless of their would have to allow for the time spent on it (as Rambam does in stature or prominence. Rabbi Palagi then elaborates on the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Talmud Torah 1:13). It seems to me that importance of responding to correspondences and says that it should one would omit this permission for any of three reasons: 1) you be one of the first things that one hurries to perform. He again asserts that not doing so is a sign of arrogance.

We also find that Rabbi Chaim Benvinisti once apologized excessively and begged forgiveness from someone for not having responded to a letter in a timely fashion. He too, elaborates on the importance of responding to letters in a timely manner.3 Rabbi Avraham Palagi, the son of Rabbi Chaim, writes regarding his father: “He always answered letters from even the most simple people. He did so even when it was terribly inconvenient.”((Tzavaa M’chaim 75.))

Although the issue of v’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha,4 loving your fellow Jew as yourself and treating others how you yourself would want to be treated5 is not explicitly cited, it is no doubt one of the “number of prohibitions which one may violate by not responding in a timely manner”. I would also add that there are some serious violations of “ lo tonu“,6 the prohibition against wronging another person, along with ona’at devarim – causing others pain and distress.7

After contacting a number of experts in the field of social and business propriety, it seems to be the consensus that proper etiquette calls for electronic and phone correspondences to be responded to within two days or less. As with most matters related to civil and monetary law, the “minhag hamedina“, the custom of the society, has the strength to establish halacha.8 As such, I would like to suggest that those who delay, let alone ignore their obligation to respond to correspondences, will be in violation of the issues discussed above once two or three days have passed since receiving them.

Although the issue of responding to emails and phone messages may seem somewhat trivial in the greater picture of halachic practice, this is simply incorrect. Unfortunately, many people have a conceptual difficulty attaching non-ritualistic precepts to a spiritual accountability. It is time that as part of our constant efforts to upgrade our halachic behavior, we pause to reflect and better apply day-to-day bein adam l’chaveiro principles to the many social obligations we find ourselves in, including this one. Perhaps the words of the Rambam will inspire us to internalize this idea. The Rambam once praised himself saying: “…how many [written] questions have I received and not answered? I swear to you that I have no recollection of ever not answering a single question.”9

1. Ginzei Chaim 20:73. ↩

2. Nefesh Hachaim 1:20. ↩

3. Boei Chayei, CM 1:56. ↩

4. Vayikra 19:18. ↩

5. Shabbat 31a. ↩

6. Vayikra 25:14,17. ↩

7. See Sefer Hachinuch 338. ↩

8. Bava Metzia 83a. ↩

9. Igrot Harambam , vol. 2 in a letter to Rabbi Pinchas Hadayan. ↩

10 73 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 19 September, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

prophecy requires jumping into an experience that contradicts one’s Moshe, Prophecy Catalyst physical nature, which is hard.

by R. Gidon Rothstein This was the first part of Hashem’s lesson in how Moshe differed from them. His physical side did not conflict with his prophetic one, so Does Hashem have to say please? In the eighth drasha, Ran is puzzled there was no resistance to sudden prophecy. Being involved in a that Hashem begins with the word “please” his rebuke of Miriam and marriage would change him to make that no longer true. Aharon for their criticizing Moshe’s separation from his wife. Miriam and Aharon thought that since they maintained healthy married lives, That does not yet explain why Moshe had to be there. Ran suggests why couldn’t Moshe do the same? that it wasn’t just hard for Aharon and Miriam to have sudden prophecy; it was impossible. Moshe served as a sort of receiver for Prior essays in this series the prophetic communications from Hashem, which could then spread Ran thinks they spoke up at this point because Moshe now had to Miriam and Aharon even though they weren’t worthy. seventy elders helping him. Until then, he might have been too Ran applies a similar logic to Moshe’s presence at the first prophecy involved in one mitzvah, leading the people, to perform another, of the seventy elders. Hashem says He will speak with Moshe, taking being married. With the change, his siblings felt he should have some of that spirit and placing it upon them. Because they weren’t returned to Tzipporah. worthy of prophecy on their own, Hashem “needed” Moshe to ease Aside from their error in seeing Moshe as similar to them in prophecy the process. (which Hashem corrects), Ran notes that they failed to ask Moshe for The Beit HaMikdash and the Graves of the Righteous an explanation before they drew conclusions. However, Ran’s real interest is why Moshe had to be present when Hashem showed them Ran does not limit this idea to prophecy. Next time, we will see that their error. He sees Hashem’s politeness as the key to this mysterious he sees it as the reason Moshe was supposed to hold his staff when behavior. speaking to the rock. He also says that about the Beit HaMikdash, a place prepared for prophecy and wisdom. When it was standing, Understanding Moshe’s presence at Miriam and Aharon’s rebuke will wisdom and prophecy spread from that structure throughout Israel. shed light on why Moshe had to be present for the first prophecies of In that time, in other words, it was easier to be a prophet or to the seventy elders. Underlying both issues is the tangible impact our achieve wisdom. non-physical selves have on this world. Notice that he has slipped in wisdom, which is not usually seen as Let’s start with Miriam and Aharon, picking out the pieces of the supernatural in the same way as prophecy. Yet when the Temple Drasha that deal with them (the Drasha starts and ends with them, stood, wisdom was more accessible, all over the world. with some scattered references in the middle—in the name of coherent presentation, I am taking those this time, and will return to Prophets and wise people themselves influence others, Ran says, Ran’s other ideas in essays to come). Ran reminds us of a debate in lifting them to higher levels than they might reach on their own. After Sifrei (Beha’alotcha 100) about whether Moshe heard his siblings’ their deaths, some of that ability to bring Divine influence into this slander (the view of R. Natan). Ramban’s explanation, that Hashem world survives, becoming concentrated at their burial place. That is included Moshe to teach him that Hashem would stand up for his why Sotah 34b favors visiting and praying at the graves of the honor regardless of Moshe’s humility, fits with R. Natan’s view, that righteous. Since the righteous buried there were repositories of Moshe had heard and ignored the original incident. Divine influence in their lifetimes, prayer there has a greater chance of success (not praying to the righteous, praying in the presence of Ran wants an explanation that works for the other view, that no one their earthly remains). heard other than Hashem. Catalyst, Not Cause of Punishment The Difficulties of Immediate Prophecy Ran’s belief in special people’s impact on others, without speech or .please, to Miriam and Aharon ,נא His entry point is Hashem’s saying action, raised the possibility that Moshe caused Miriam’s leprosy by Ran wonders why Hashem had to ask politely. Especially if Hashem taking umbrage at what she said (this is similar to how the Evil Eye was coming to explain what they had done wrong before punishing works, Ran notes). To be sure we not misread Moshe, the verse them, we would not expect Hashem to ask their permission. pauses to tell us that he was exceedingly humble, and was not (or Ran answers that the “please” was to apologize for the suddenness of would not have been) offended by her words. the visitation. Like everyone other than Moshe, Miriam and Aharon’s Then Hashem tells them the several ways Moshe’s prophecy differed physical side made prophecy difficult, necessitating preparation. By from theirs (as Ran said in earlier Derashot). Most directly relevant, appearing without warning, Hashem was pointing out that immediate his physicality did not impede his prophecy, which meant he

prophesied while fully awake. He also did not use his imagination to “An evil man is ensnared by the transgression of his lips. But the prophesy, which means his experience was more directly righteous will escape from trouble.” (12:13) recorded—what he saw was exactly what he told us. “The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the Other prophets’ visions, with metaphors, needed translation and mouth of fools spouts folly.” (12:15) explanation. Moshe didn’t see a house with a rooftop, and then a “Wise men store up knowledge, but with the mouth of the fence being built, letting him and us infer that we should fence in foolish, ruin is at hand.” (10:14) dangerous places. He was told the commandment to build a fence for “The one who guards his mouth preserves his life. The one who one’s roof. opens wide his lips comes to ruin.” (13:3) trustworthy or dependable, “In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, but the lips of ,נאמן Which is why he is called the most of those in Hashem’s house. the wise will protect them.” (14:3)

But all that is not the aspect of the incident that will fuel Ran’s other “He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from interests. The discussion of Miriam and Aharon led him to articulate a troubles.” (21:23) view of how influence can flow without connection or interaction from We all know that speech has this immense power, but we don’t always animate and inanimate objects (people, graves, a staff, the Beit harness that power responsibly. We love sarcasm. It’s the foundation HaMikdash). of the T-shirt and bumper sticker industry (Here’s this week’s bumper That influence affects both prophecy and wisdom, leading to sticker winner: “I’m not speeding. I’m qualifying.”) What we don’t questions of how much teachers affect students, how close a realize is how diminishing sarcasm can be for the growth and esteem connection there is between one prophet and another, one wise of those on the receiving end. person and another. As we’ll see next time. But, wait, there’s good news. A new paper published in Science and reported in The New York Times testing morality in everyday Say No to Snark behaviors found that while there was no difference in the survey between behaviors of religious and nonreligious participants, it did by Dr. Erica Brown find that good deeds are “contagious.” In their words: “People on the receiving end of an act of kindness were about 10 percent more likely “A fool’s lips bring strife…A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips than the average person to do something nice themselves later in the are the snare of his soul.” day.” The only down side of this research is that those who did acts of Proverbs 18:6–7 kindness were slightly more likely to commit a small act of rudeness “as if drawing on moral credit from their previous act.” We’ve all been in the unhappy presence of snark. We know people who make critical, cutting, biting or snide comments when they could This new study should give us renewed energy to help goodness go have easily said the same thing in a more pleasant way. The problem viral and be ever more careful about language that is mean, snarky, with snarkiness is that people find it entertaining. There is always an sarcastic or cynical. As Proverbs warns, we don’t want our lips to be audience for gratuitous meanness wrapped in a thin slice of humor. “the snare of the soul.” The Urban Dictionary coined a term for it – snarcastic – that cynical So please add these two questions to your Elul challenge: voice that makes us laugh at someone else’s expense and then, hopefully, regret it. What can I not say right now because I am concerned about I don’t remember growing up with the word “snarky” and was trying someone else’s feelings and because it will reflect poorly on my to find out how long it’s been in our lexicon of nasty behavior. The moral choices? Grammarphobia blog notes this about the word’s history: “The What can I make a point of saying right now that will make earliest published reference for the verb ‘snark,’ meaning to snore or someone else feel safe, open, special, holy and happy? snort, is from 1866, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.” Apparently by 1882 it also meant to find fault with or to nag. In adjective form as a way to refer to someone as irritable, it’s been Punishment of the Individual around since about1906. Lewis Carroll used it in his poem “The Hunting of the Snark” as an imaginary figure. and of the Nation

So snark has been around a lot longer than most of us realize. In fact, by Rav Mordechai Sabato why date it to 1882 when we can go all the way back to the biblical Parashat Nitzavim, comprising slightly less than two whole chapters book of Proverbs to find evidence for it everywhere – even if it is not (29:9–30:20), opens in the middle of Moshe’s speech. The speech mentioned by name? Language that hurts, damages and dismisses begins at the end of the previous parasha, at the beginning of chapter others is referenced in virtually every chapter of Proverbs as bringing 29: “And Moshe called to all of Israel and said to them…” It concludes harm to the one who uses it and to its victims. Here are a few choice at the end of chapter 30. Proof of the connection between the selections: beginning of our parasha and the previous section is to be found in the linguistic similarity between the last verse of Ki Tavo, “And you “Death and life are in the power of the tongue…” (18:21)

shall observe the WORDS OF THIS COVENANT and perform them”, being made, and the central verse of this unit (12), emphasizing the and the first verse of Nitzavim: “You are all standing today before the significance of the covenant. Lord your God… to enter into THE COVENANT OF THE LORD YOUR The bracketing verses correspond to one another in chiastic form: GOD and into His oath which the Lord your God seals with you verse 11 parallels verse 13; both mention the sealing of the covenant today… Not with you alone do I seal THIS COVENANT and this and the oath. Verses 9–10 parallel verse 14; both mention Israel oath…” (29:9–13). standing before God. The main point that is emphasized in the There can be no doubt, then, that our parasha is not an independent bracketing verses is the absolute universality of participation in the literary unit, and that it should be treated as part of Moshe’s speech covenant. Verses 9–10 stipulate that participants include all strata of starting in chapter 29. In this shiur, we shall address the structure of the nation and all social levels. Verses 13–14 tell us that the covenant chapter 29 and its significance. includes all generations of the nation. Later on we shall address the significance of this point in the chapter as a whole. At the center of chapter 29 stands the covenant that Moshe makes with Israel in the plains of Moav. The word “covenant” (berit) appears In the third section, verses 16–20, Moshe emphasizes the punishment five times in the chapter (8, 11, 13, 20, 24), and connects chapter 29 that awaits someone who violates the covenant: with the conclusion of chapter 28, where we read, “These are the (15) For you know how we dwelled in the land of Egypt and how words of the COVENANT that God commanded Moshe to make with we passed through the nations that you have passed by; the children of Israel in the land of Moav, aside from the COVENANT that he made with them at Chorev.” Thus we may deduce that chapter (16) you have seen their abominations and their idols of wood 28 concluded the speech of the mitzvot and the subsequent blessing and stone, silver and gold, that were among them. and curse, which are called in the Torah “the words of the covenant.” In chapter 29, now that the nation has been made aware of the details (17) Lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe of the covenant, Moshe actually carries out the ceremonial sealing of whose heart turns today away from the Lord our God, to go and the covenant. worship the gods of those nations, lest there be among you a root that gives forth gall and wormwood, Let us now look at the structure of chapter 29. (18) and it happens, when he hears the words of this oath, that The first section of the chapter, comprising verses 1–8, serves as a he blesses himself in his heart, saying, Peace will be with me, sort of introduction to the covenant ceremony, where Moshe urges although I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, in order to add the nation to observe the covenant: drunkenness to thirst.

…You have seen all that God did before your eyes in the land of (19) God will not agree to forgive him, for then the anger and Egypt, to Pharaoh and all of his servant and all of his land… And jealousy of God will smoke against that person, and all the curse you shall observe the words of this covenant and perform them, that is written in this book will come upon him, and God will in order that you may succeed in all that you do. erase his name from under the heavens.

The next section, verses 9–14, describes the ceremony whereby the (20) And God will separate him for evil from among all the tribes covenant is sealed: of Israel, as all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of Torah. (9) You are all standing today before the Lord your God: the

heads of your tribes, your elders, your officers – all the men of The principal difficulty in understanding this section lies in verse 18. Israel, Two points in this verse require explanation: a. Why would a person whose heart has turned away from God still believe that all will be (10) your children, your wives and the strangers that are well with him, despite the fact that he has heard all the words of the amongst your camp, from the hewers of wood to the drawers of oath, and its curses? B. What is the meaning of the idiom, “to add water, drunkenness to thirst?” (11) to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God and His Rashi writes: “Whose heart turns today – i.e., refuses to accept the oath, which the Lord your God seals with you today. covenant upon himself.” From here we may understand that the (12) In order that He may establish you today as His nation, and person believes that the curse will not affect him because he does not He will be your God, as He spoke to you and as He promised to accept the covenant. Rashi then interprets the difficult idiom as your forefathers, to Avraham, to Yitzhak and to Ya’akov. pertaining to the punishment that will come upon him:

(13) It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this “In order to add drunkenness” – For I shall add punishment for oath, him over and above what he has done so far by mistake, and I shall review them and now cause them to be counted as (14) but with those who are standing here with us today before intentional sins, and I shall punish him for all of it… God our God as well as with those who are not standing with us “Drunkenness” – an unintentional sin that was performed, like a here today. person who is drunk and is not aware of his actions. “Thirst” –

In this section, a distinction should be made between the bracketing that which he does knowingly, out of desire.

verses (9−11 and 13–14), which indicate that the covenant is indeed

The idiom therefore relates not to the thoughts of the sinner, but compared to a “lone tamarisk in the desert.” rather to the punishment that awaits him. The Ibn Ezra teaches that the person blesses himself in his heart, Both aspects of Rashi’s explanation seem somewhat forced. The saying that all will be well with him, because he believes that the reason for the person’s thoughts (“whose heart turns today”) should merit of the many righteous people will save the lone sinner. seemingly have been written adjacent to the quotation of his Thematically, this explanation is greatly advantageous, since it gives thoughts, not prior to them. Likewise, the interpretation of the idiom special significance to this section, and to chapter 29 as a whole, as as relating to the punishment seems forced, for it is only in verse 19 well as relating our chapter to the curses in chapter 28 – a that we read, “God will not agree to forgive him” – meaning that it is significance that would seem to fit in well with the language of the only there that the description of the punishment begins. chapter. Most of the curses in chapter 28 pertain to the nation as a The Ibn Ezra quotes R. Yehuda ha-Levi in his explanation, as follows: whole; there is almost no mention there of punishment to individuals. The most outstanding example is the final curse – exile – which is “And he will bless himself in his heart” – R. Yehuda ha-Levi z”l described in chapter 28 as a national punishment, not a punishment taught that this expression is meant literally; when he hears the for individuals. In our chapter, by contrast, Moshe highlights the fact curse then he will bless himself in his heart, saying, “All will be that he is speaking to individuals: “Lest there be among you a man or well with me.” As though, upon hearing the curse, he says, a woman or a family or a tribe…” This is a series of individual “excluding me.” “In order to add (sefot)” – R. Yehudah ha-Levi exceptions: one man among the many, one family among the many, or taught that this is an expression of being destroyed, as in “Will one tribe among the many. The sinful individual therefore believes you destroy (tispeh) the righteous with the wicked?” In other that the curse described in chapter 28 will not come to pass for him, words, the person who blesses himself thinks to cancel or because it is directed to the community as a whole, and since the destroy the words of the righteous, who is referred to in the community is not sinful – only he is, alone – the “satiation” will word “ravah” (previously translated as drunkenness, here protect the “thirst.” interpreted as satiation), by means of his thirst. For the righteous is strong in his satiation like a tree planted by the Ibn Ezra thus understands that in our section, the Torah means to water, and the wicked one languishes in thirst like a tamarisk in teach that this perception is mistaken. The curse, which is essentially the desert. And he believes that his own blessing in his heart will meant as a curse to the nation, may also apply to a sinful individual. stop the curse. “For then God’s anger and His jealousy will smoke against THAT MAN and all the curse that is written in this book will come upon What R. Yehuda ha-Levi means is that a person whose heart turns HIM.” Indeed, the end of the section reads, “And God will separate from God (and such a person is referred in the text as one who is him for evil from among all the tribes of Israel, according to all the “thirsty”) believes that his prediction that “All will be well with me,” curses of the covenant that is written in this book of Torah.” In other which is a kind of blessing, has the power to cancel the effect of the words, although chapter 28 treated the entire nation as a single unit, curse uttered by Moshe (who is referred to as “satiated”). when necessary one tribe may be singled out from among all the The advantage of this explanation lies in the fact that it connects the tribes of Israel for the curses of the covenant. idiom to the thoughts of the sinner, and the text itself hereby explains Despite the thematic advantage of the Ibn Ezra’s explanation, we are why he believes that the curse will not come upon him. still left with a syntactical question concerning his interpretation of However, this explanation also presents some difficulties, concerning the idiom. The righteous one does not “add” to the wicked one, but both syntax and content. The preposition “by” (et) (in “destroying rather “protects” him. satiation by thirst”) is not appropriate here, for this word appears The Abarbanel adopts the Ibn Ezra’s main idea in one of his nowhere else meaning “by means of.” What the text should have said, explanation, and writes as follows: then, is “in order that the thirst cut off the satiation,” for it is the words of the wicked one that are meant to cancel the words of the Perhaps the individual… with bless himself in his heart, saying, righteous. Moreover, we may argue that it is difficult to understand “All will be well with me… because I will be included in that why a person would believe that his prediction, “All will be well with good that the blessed God bestows upon Israel, and the curses me,” has the power to cancel the curse. will not be able to affect me individually, because He will not curse the nation since they are blessed.” And this is what he Hence, it may be preferable to adopt the interpretation of the Ibn means by “All will be well with me” – individually, while I walk in Ezra himself, who writes: the stubbornness of my heart and do whatever I wish to. And this In my opinion, the word “sefot” is derived from “tosefet” is what is meant by, “In order to add satiation to thirst,” which is (addition)… The verse then means: All will be well with me even a parable. For if a person has two fields, one alongside the other, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, because I shall one in need of water and the other well watered and having no live by merit of the righteousness of the righteous ones, for they need for irrigation – there is no doubt that when watering the are many and I am an individual sinner. But God will not agree dry field, he will come to water also the other one, even though to forgive him… Thus, “sefot” means “added,” for the satiation he does not water it intentionally. Likewise, this heretic believes will be added to the thirst. The righteous is represented by that although God does not mean to shower blessings upon him, satiation, for he is compared to a “tree planted by streams of since he walks in the stubbornness of his heart, he will water,” while the wicked one is represented by thirst, for he is nevertheless still receive goodness and salvation and success

because he is part of the whole. (24) And they shall say, “Because they abandoned the covenant The difference between the Abarbanel and the Ibn Ezra is that the of the Lord, God of their fathers, which He made with them former does not understand “satiation” and “thirst” as referring to when He took them out of the land of Egypt. the righteous person and the wicked one, but rather as being part of the parable itself. It is the way of the world that a well-watered field (25) And they went and worshipped other gods and bowed down receives some of the water that is directed towards the neighboring before them, gods that they did not know and that He did not dry field. give to them.

This explanation is advantageous in that in many places in Tanakh the (26) And God’s anger burned against that land, to bring upon it words “satiated” and “thirsty” are used to describe land or a field. But all the curse that is written in this book. we still have a problem with the word “add” (sefot) as it appears here. (27) And God rooted them out of their land with anger and fury S.D. Luzzato proposes a correction to the above explanation, and great wrath, and sent them to another land until this day.

suggesting that the root “s-f-h” is related to the root “s-f-ch,” meaning At first glance, this section would seem to be an exception to the joining or annexing, but this still seems forced. subject of our chapter, as we explained it above. It appears to Perhaps we should adopt the suggestion of N.H. Tur Sinai that the describe the destruction of the land and the exile of the nation as a root of the word “sefot” is “s-f-a,” meaning “eating” in Ugaritic or whole (as would seem explicit from verse 27) and not to refer to “feeding” in Aramaic. According to this theory, the interpretation of punishment of the individual. the idiom would be that a well-watered field also provides water to a Indeed, some commentators maintain that this section is not a dry field, in the same way that the Abarbanel explained. continuation of the previous one, but rather continues from where the In summary, the Torah’s intention in these verses is to negate the Torah left off in chapter 28. After the description of exile in chapter mistaken perception that the concept of collective punishment 28, the Torah goes on in 29:21 to describe the reaction of the nations described in chapter 28 means that there is no individual punishment. to the sight of the land in its destruction and the nation led away into The Torah teaches in Chapter 29 that its curses can come upon the exile. The verses in between – 29:1–20 – are a sort of parenthetical individual – whether an individual person, an individual family, or an explanation of certain points. individual tribe. To this we must add the fact mentioned above, that However, close examination of the language of the text reveals that at the beginning of the parasha Moshe emphasizes that the covenant the above explanation is difficult to accept, for two reasons: applies to everyone, including every individual of every social level and in every generation. Thus the Torah removes the possibility of 1. These verses emphasize once again that the plagues came upon any individual in any generation escaping the covenant and its curse. “that land” (21, 26). This expression is not generally used in the To complete our understanding of this section, we should add that Torah to refer to the land of Israel as a whole, but rather to a both the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban comment on verse 19 that the certain part of it that has previously been mentioned. Torah’s description of the punishment relates to all three levels – 2. Verse 21 distinguishes between the later generation, “your individual, family, and tribe – in order to illustrate most clearly that children that will rise up after you,” and “the stranger that will there is no escape from punishment for the individual on any level. come from a far-off land.” The text does not say of the children The Ramban writes, that they will come from a far-off land as it does of the stranger. This means, logically, that the children are already in the land, “God’s anger and His jealousy will smoke against that person” – and have no need to come from afar. Thus, the Torah cannot be this is a curse upon the individual man or woman; “and He will talking about children who were exiled from the land. erase his name” – a curse upon the family, for the entire household is called after its head; “and He will separate him for The combination of these two questions shows that the land referred evil…” – namely, He will separate this tribe from among all the to by the Torah in these verses is not the land of Israel in its entirety, remaining tribes of Israel. but rather the land belonging to the tribe mentioned at the end of the

previous section. “The later generation” means the children of the Let us move on to the final section of the chapter: tribes who were not exiled, and it is they who wonder at the meaning (21) So that the later generation, your children who will rise up of the destruction that meets their eyes in that portion of the land after you, and the stranger who will come from a far-off land, whose inhabitants were exiled. who will see the plagues of that land and its sicknesses that God But we may still ask why the Torah devotes an entire section to what has sent to it, will say, the stranger will say, arriving from a far-off land, and why his (22) with the whole land burning in brimstone and salt, not being astonishment is described specifically in the context of the sown nor bearing fruit nor giving forth any grass, like the punishment of a single tribe, rather than the exile of the nation as a overthrow of Sedom and Amora, Adma and Tzevoyim, which God whole. overthrew in His anger and His fury, Concerning the first question, the Rashbam writes: (23) Then all the nations will say, “Why did God do thus to this l; “Because they abandoned” – They will not say, “For lack of God’s what is the heat of this great anger?”

ability…,” as I explained on the words, “And I fell before God and Gozan, until this day.” I said…” (9:25–26).” 2. Melakhim II 17:6 – “In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of

This refers back to the Rashbam’s commentary on 9:25 – Ashur captured Shomron and exiled Israel to Ashur, and settled them in Chalach and in Chavor at the river of Gozan, and the “And I fell before God for forty days… and I fell before God and I cities of Madai.” said…” – Who is wise enough to pay attention and understand why there is a need to repeat this “falling before God” for forty In both places, the exile affected more than one tribe. But both are days? Does the Torah then usually repeat itself? … The text instances of a partial exile, and not the exile of the nation as a whole. should have said, “And I said…” in the previous verse, without It is instructive to note that when Chazal discuss the question of any need to repeat itself in order to tell Israel what exactly was whether the “ten lost tribes” will eventually return, they bring proof the content of the prayer. from our chapter. But there is a great wisdom here, with which to reprove Israel. The ten tribes are not destined to return, as it is written Lest you say: In a sin as great as that of the golden calf, Moshe’s (Devarim 29:27), “And He will send them to another land until prayer was effective and we were saved; so in Eretz Yisrael, too, (lit., like) this day.” Just as “this day” disappears as does not if we sin then the prayers of the prophets will be effective. return, so they who go will not return – this is the opinion of R. Moshe is telling them: Prayer will not help you in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva. For here you were forgiven only in order that God’s Name not be desecrated, for that is in fact what I prayed: “Lest they of the R Eliezer says, Just as the day first becomes dark and then land from which you took us out will say, It is for lack of God’s becomes light, so the ten tribes, who at first suffered darkness ability to bring them [to the land, that He destroyed them].” For (exile) will eventually enjoy light. (Sanhedrin 10:3) this reason you were not given the death sentence in the desert. It seems, therefore, that Chazal, too, interpret these verses as But after God wipes out thirty-one kings before you, and makes pertaining to a partial exile, and not the exile of the entire nation. you inherit the land, then He will be able to expel you from the land, for there is no longer an issue of desecration of God’s R. Akiva’s proof from the text seems somewhat forced. It is especially Name, that the nations will say that God was unable to help you. difficult to understand in light of the fact that in the next chapter (30), Rather, the nations will say, “Israel sinned before Him,” as we the Torah promises the return of Israel to their land, if only they will are told explicitly in the parasha of Nitzavim: “And all the return to God. nations will say, For what reason did God do this to this land; what is this great heat of anger?” And they will answer, It is possible that R. Akiva claims as he does because of the context of “Because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, God of their our chapter. As we mentioned in the shiur on parashat Ki Tavo, fathers… and God uprooted them from upon their land with chapter 30 adopts the language of the end of chapter 28, and clearly anger and fury and great wrath, and He sent them to another continues the description there. We asked why the two sections are land until this day.” divided, and why chapter 29 is inserted between them. We may now return to this question. Here the Rashbam answers our first question, but he fails to answer the second one: why do the nations speak thus only concerning a Chapter 29 opens with a description of the sealing of the covenant. partial exile, and not concerning the exile of the whole nation? The fact that this description comes before chapter 30, which speaks of teshuva (repentance) and redemption, teaches that teshuva and Perhaps we may answer as follows: In the event of a complete exile, redemption are not part of the covenant. This coalso arises from the there is no assurance that the nations will attribute the exile to the language of the verse that concludes chapter 28, “These are the sins of Israel. It is more likely that they will attribute the exile to the words of the covenant that God commanded Moshe to make with the limited power of Israel’s God, to their view, as opposed to the nation children of Israel in the land of Moav.” These words – and no more. that waged war against Israel and its God. However, if the exile This means, as we have said, that teshuva and the promise of affects only one tribe, while the rest of the nation remains in place, redemption that will follow it are not part of the covenant. then even the nations will recognize that the reason for the Redemption in the wake of teshuva is a gift from God’s attribute of destruction is God’s anger at their sins – as our parasha teaches. mercy and kindness; it is beyond the letter of the law. The covenant ceremony is not the place for promises that are beyond the letter of Was there any period in history when the threat set down in our the law; these promises are beyond the framework of the covenant chapter was actualized? We may point to at least two instances of itself. partial exile: On the other hand, since chapter 30 echoes the language of chapter 1. Divrei ha-Yamim I 5:25–26 – “And they sinned against the God of 28, we may conclude that the promise of redemption in the wake of their fathers and went astray after the gods of the nations of the teshuva relates only to the event of a total exile of the nation, as land which God had destroyed before them. And the God of described at the end of chapter 28, but does not apply to the exile of a Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Ashur, and the spirit of tribe or a few tribes, as described at the end of chapter 29. Tilgat-Pilnesser, king of Ashur, and He exiled them – the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and the half-tribe of Menashe, and He brought Hence we may say, concerning the status of the individual – man, them to Chalach and to Chavor and to Hara and to the river of woman, family or tribe – is the opposite of what the sinner thinks. The

sinner believes that collective punishment could serve as the refuge one in which the case should have been heard. However, as the of the individual, who would be saved because of the merit of the discussion above implies, out-of town alternatives may be deemed community. But the text teaches us that not only will the individual practically unfeasible. not be saved in the merit of the community, and not only will all the Most poskim posit that when there is no beit din that can adjudicate, curses of the covenant come upon him, but his punishment will be it is permissible to go before a non-Jewish court (Chukot Hachayim even harsher than that of the community. If the nation is exiled, they (Palagi) 6). The Rivash (216) implies this. The Shulchan Aruch (CM are promised that they will be redeemed, if only they will return to 61:6) says that although a contractual stipulation does not allow a God. If an individual (person, family or tribe) is exiled, no such lender to make payment from a borrower’s property without promise is extended. This, then, is the background to R. Akiva’s view. involvement of beit din, he may do so if he cannot find a beit din to Perhaps R. Eliezer’s view may also be anchored in our chapter. It is adjudicate.The Maharikash (Erech Lechem, ad loc.) broadens this true that, linguistically, chapter 30 is a return to chapter 28, but it is concept to allowing a Jew to sue in non-Jewish court when a local beit located after chapter 29. Perhaps it is because of this that R. Eliezer din is unwilling to hear the case. There is discussion about the maintains that the promise contained here applies even to the conditions under which such action is justified (see Chukot Hachayim instance described in chapter 29. Thus we may conclude that even if a ibid.) and on whether a beit din must at least grant permission, but in single tribe or group of tribes is exiled, they are promised that God cases where there is no alternative, it is permitted to go to the courts. will return their exile and bring them back to the land – if only they Spending more money on transportation than the claim warrants is will return to God. one such case (see Sanhedrin 31b). On the other hand, there are This essay originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel often reasonable alternatives. Mediation and non-judicial arbitration Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with are often good ideas in any case. Nowadays, there are recognized permission. batei din which will adjudicate via video-conferencing, as our beit din has done successfully. While a standard hearing is more effective, we find precedents for compromising effectiveness in a case of need. For Where There Is No Beit Din example, when one side wants to go to an expert regional beit din and the other prefers a local lower-level one, they adjudicate locally, and by R. Daniel Mann the beit din sends questions to experts (ibid.; Shulchan Aruch, CM Question: I am a lawyer in a country with a small Jewish population, 14:1). in which when we need a din Torah, we fly someone in from another We suggest that your plaintiff propose one of the above alternatives. country. A Jew who is suing another Jew asked me to represent him, If the other side rejects them, it is like any case in which the and the dispute is on a modest amount of money, which is less than defendant refuses to submit to beit din and beit din grants permission the cost of bringing a beit din. May we sue in non-Jewish courts? to go to court. It would be legitimate for the plaintiff to refuse to offer Answer: Although we respect and value local governmental courts one of these options if he truly believes that they will take away from (see Avot 3:2), Jews are required to seek adjudication specifically in a his right for justice. In any case, it would be permitted for you to beit din (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26). There are two main represent him as a lawyer in court. rationales for this halacha: 1. It is wrong for the incorrect litigant, from the perspective of Torah law, to win the case. 2) Seeking a different system of justice is a severe affront to the Torah’s Sacrificing the Sinner pertinence in the critical realm of justice (see Beit Yosef, CM 26; S’ma by R. Gil Student 26:4). I. Two Reasons for Punishment Factor #1 does not apply if the two sides agree to go before the non-Jewish court, as they can decide on other forms of dispute Beruriah famously inferred from the Bible that God does want sinners resolution, e.g., mediation, flipping a coin … However, factor #2 is to suffer punishment but rather to repent (Berakhos 10a). Does this still a problem. If adjudicating in a beit din is unfeasible, then factor desire for repentance mean that religious authorities should tread #2 should not be a problem because one is not rejecting Torah justice lightly with a sinner to prevent his going farther off the path? On the but is just dealing with a situation where it is not an option. Indeed, other hand, if authorities fail to punish wrong-doers, others will be the gemara talks about adjudication before unknowledgeable Jews emboldened to follow in their path. when no local Jews are capable of functioning as a proper beit din Put differently, one purpose of punishment is rehabilitation, bringing (Sanhedrin 23a, adopted by the Rashba, cited in Beit Yosef, CM 8). the perpetrator back toward good citizenship. Another is to serve as a The implication is that this is preferable to going to the local deterrent, scaring away other would-be criminals. When the goal of non-Jewish court. On the other hand, there is room to argue that this rehabilitation clashes with that of deterrence, which should Jewish was based on an assumption, which is not as prevalent in our days as authorities prefer? in the past, that the courts were a corrupt and a dangerous place for Jews and the Jewish community (see Rashba, Shut II:290). In the modern Jewish community, post-Enlightenment and post-Emancipation, religious authority means something very What does one do when a city has no Jewish tribunal at all? The Rama different than it did when the Jewish community was autonomous and (CM 14:1) says that this is grounds for going to another city from the largely self-governing. For the current study, we will only examine

pre-modern texts, with the latest being a responsum by R. Ya’akov story and not rendering judgment on the outcome. (R. Ya’akov Emden Emden, who lived at the time that the Enlightenment began to (She’eilas Ya’avetz 1:79) was puzzled by the Chavos Yair‘s change of flourish. Later literature overflows with the dilemma of dealing with opinion at the very end of the responsum when discussing this text. sinners, the struggle of tradition in a non-traditional era. Rabbis of But I this it is clear that he was merely discarding this proof without this time are full of angst over this dilemma. But their reality is so changing his opinion.) different from that of prior eras that their discussions deserve III. The Idol Servant separate treatment. The Gemara (Kiddushin 20a-b) discusses the case of a man who sells II. Rebbe’s “Prophecy” himself as a slave to an idol, meaning to work on its behalf by Three Talmudic passages are particularly relevant. The Gemara ( chopping word or cleaning the area around it. Perhaps such a person Kiddushin 72a) records R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi’s surprising last words. who would sell himself to an idol should be abandoned. After all, he He listed four places in Babylonia and denounced their residents. One has clearly separated himself from Judaism. Maybe we should “throw city, he said, was full of mamzerim. Another of Amonites. In a third a rock after the fallen.” No, the Gemara concludes, we must still city, wife-swapping occurred. And in a fourth, they caught fish on redeem him from his servitude. Shabbos. R. Achi Bar Yoshiah was so upset that he excommunicated R. David Ha-Levi Segal of 17th century Poland (Taz, Yoreh De’ah the people of this fourth city, who in turn proceeded to leave Judaism 334:1) cites this passage as a counterproof to the Rema’s above entirely. ruling. Since we are willing to save someone from apostasy, certainly R. Yisrael Isserlein of 15th century Austria (Terumas Ha-Deshen we will prevent causing someone to leave the fold. Better to refrain 2:138) quotes R. Alexander Suslin (14th century German author of from action than to cause someone to abandon Judaism. Sefer Ha-Agudah) who uses this Gemara as proof that religious However, R. Shabsi Cohen (Nekudos Ha-Kessef, ad loc.), a younger authorities should punish wrong-doers even if it will push them contemporary and frequent sparring partner, disputes the relevance farther away from Judaism. The Talmud seems to approve of the of this text. An individual must redeem his relative, even a servant to action despite the unfortunate albeit predictable repercussions. A an idol. But that is about individuals. Why should we be surprised that century later, far from R. Isserlein’s home Vienna, R. David Ibn Zimra we must care for our family, even if they are wayward? However, a of 16th century Egypt (Responsa Radbaz 1:187) infers the same court must fulfill its duty to punish wrongdoers, come what may. conclusion from this passage. Otherwise society will crumble. Similarly, R. Binyamin Ze’ev of early 16th century Greece (Responsa The Taz further quotes a ruling by R. Yehudah Mintz (Responsa Binyamin Ze’ev, no. 287) reads the passage similarly. He was dealing Mahari Mintz, no. 5) about a divorced woman who married while still with a man who consistently insulted rabbis and denigrated conversos nursing, which is rabbinically forbidden. If the court attempted to who had escaped Christian lands and returned to Judaism. This latter force the couple to divorce, there was a distinct possibility that they group had suffered religious persecution and now had to suffer this would leave Judaism to avoid the verdict. Mahari Mintz ruled that the man’s insult. The offender deserved excommunication until he couple may stay together. The Taz sees here a proof for his approach apologized and repented of his ways. However, there was apparently that it is better to allow a violation rather than risk losing the Jews to a concern that he would leave Judaism over the punishment. Based on religion. the above Gemara, R. Binyamin Ze’ev ruled that the punishment should be applied. However, as R. Shimshon Morpurgo (Shemesh Tzedakah, Yoreh De’ah , no. 48) of early 18th century Italy points out, the Mahari Mintz only Significantly, R. Moshe Isserles of 16th century Poland (the Rema; reaches that conclusion because he found other reasons for leniency. Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:1) rules according to the Terumas He argued that a minority opinion among earlier authorities would Ha-Deshen (and the Radbaz and R. Binyamin Ze’ev). However, R. Yair allow this marriage. Additionally, he believed that as a single woman Chaim Bacharach (Chavos Yair 141) of 17th century Germany, while this nursing mother would act promiscuously. He felt that the agreeing with this ruling, questioned the interpretation of this minority opinion combined with his concern for the woman’s possible passage. improper activity and that this couple might leave Judaism were The Chavos Yair was asked whether the community should fine and sufficient for leniency. denounce a man who drank gentile wine if, in response, he would R. Morpurgo’s case was even more vexing. Should the court censure likely eat non-kosher food and leave Judaism entirely. The local rabbi a licentious woman who threatens to convert to Christianity along decided not to punish the man so as not to push him farther away. with her four young children? Even if you follow those who are When the Chavos Yair was asked, he strongly disagreed because unconcerned for the sinner’s possible apostasy, what about the leniency on this man might encourage other sinners by removing innocent children? R. Morpurgo quotes the Rema’s ruling (Yoreh their fear of communal consequences. A court is even empowered to De’ah 334:6) that a religious court may prevent the circumcision of an execute someone for a minor violation in order to prevent widespread excommunicated man’s children or even expel them from school as lawlessness (Sanhedrin 46a). Certainly, the religious leadership may proof that we punish deviant parents even if it affects their children. punish someone appropriately to similarly prevent lawlessness. While this approach is surprising, it recognizes that any action However, the Chavos Yair did not see the text about R. Yehudah against parents cause the children to suffer. Should we refrain from Ha-Nasi as conclusive. In his opinion, the Gemara was only telling the imprisoning parents who commit crimes so the children will not be

abandoned? quotes the verse (Lev. 20:4): “And if the people of the land hide their eyes from that man…” On this verse, the Sages (quoted by Rashi) say IV. Let Him Suffer the Consequences that if the court ignores one sin they will eventually ignore many sins. The Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 5:1) states that someone should mark In other words, by failing to properly rebuke a sinner you are his forbidden food to prevent others from eating it by mistake. R. enabling him and others to sin more. Shimon Ben Gamliel says that this does not apply to food that others Additionally, if we decide not to punish sinners then society will break can only steal. The Gemara (Bava Kama 69a) explains that R. Shimon down. Without law enforcement, there will be no order. Theft, Ben Gamliel holds the surprising view of “haliteihu le-rasha ve-yamus, violence, adultery and the like will proliferate. In other words, society let the wicked stuff themselves and die.” In other words, if they want as a whole needs the deterrence, which prevents us from reducing to sin then they have to suffer the consequences, as serious as they the criminal’s sentence. Similarly, R. Ya’akov Emden (ibid.), in may be. discussing someone who stole from a man, committed adultery with R. Yair Chaim Bacharach (ibid.) applies this to the case of someone the victim’s wife, defamed him and caused his death (presumably who may leave Judaism over punishment for his sin. He sinned and through aggravation), rules that the perpetrator may not be accepted must suffer the punishment. If that causes more problems for him, it into the community without returning the stolen money to the is his fault. The literature on this passage has grown significantly in deceased’s family and asking their forgiveness–even if this recent years but that takes us past our chosen timeframe and must requirement causes the transgressor to leave Judaism. R. Emden wait for separate discussion. argues that if we fail to enforce the law then not only will justice be perverted but the deterrence will be diminished and violations will V. Community Priority spread further. Additionally, we cannot maintain the strength of In an astonishing passage, R. Yitzchak Arama of 15th century Spain ( deterrence if we enforce the law selectively. If we force other people Akedas Yitzchak, Vayera no. 20) discusses the general communal to repay their thefts then the authorities must also force this man. ambivalence to the use of Jewish prostitutes and the existence in a The Radbaz also suggests that someone like that will often leave few places of communally supported brothels. The religious religion regardless of what the religious authorities do. Others point leadership in those places had decided that it was better for people to out that some people who threaten to leave the community do not commit this sin rather than worse sins with married or gentile really intend to. It is generally difficult to gauge whether these women. possibilities are serious concerns.

R. Arama rails against this practice. He distinguishes between the sin VII. Conclusion of an individual and of the community. If an individual sins then he will be punished, either by human or divine hands. But if the The Radbaz reaches a wise and important conclusion. He points out community in general and the religious authorities in particular allow that this is a sensitive matter that must be carefully considered by the the sin, or even support it, then it becomes the sin of the entire generation’s highest leadership. Every person is different and every community, a massive undertaking of sinfulness. Better an individual transgression is different. If we truly believe that mercy will commit a terrible sin than the entire community commit together a rehabilitate the sinner, then we should help him return to good smaller one. Therefore, the religious authorities cannot look the other standing. Ultimately, it the judge must decide based on his best way but must condemn and attempt to prevent such sin. judgment.

There is a concept in Jewish law of preferred ignorance. If someone is Contemporary Jewry faces very different communal challenges than going to ignore warnings and commit a sin, better not to inform him pre-modern Jewry. Of course, that does not mean we ignore the ample that the act is forbidden. In this way, at least he is sinning precedents. However, these rulings must be carefully applied, taking accidentally rather than intentionally (e.g. Shabbos 148b). However, into account the changed circumstances. Unsurprisingly, there is a this rule has limitations. For example, it only applies to rabbinic large body of literature of religious authorities of the past two violations and not biblical (ibid.). R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran ( centuries doing just that. I leave surveying that literature as a subject Responsa Rashbatz 2:47), in 16th century Algeria, rules that we set for a future essay. this concern aside for the sake of the community. We inform a community that an act is forbidden to prevent the general populace What Tzenius Is Really About from sinning, even if an individual will thereby become an intentional sinner. Similarly, R. Bacharach (ibid.) writes: “we worry about the by R. Gil Student interests of the community even if it is against the interests of the individual.” A yeshiva student complained in an online letter, reported in JTA, that checks for adherence to the school’s dress code are “predatory.” She VI. Other Considerations may be right. Enforcement of any standard can be taken too far. Or The Radbaz (ibid.) adds other considerations. First, Jews are she may be a teenager complaining that she is forced to follow rules responsible for one other–Kol Yisrael areivim zeh la-zeh. However, the rather than do what she wants. We cannot comment without knowing application of this principle could easily be reversed on the Radbaz. If the specifics of this situation. we are responsible for their current sins, certainly we should avoid Naturally, some people are taking this story as a condemnation of causing them to commit even worse sins. However, the Radbaz Orthodoxy as a society that represses women with primitive dress

codes. I’m not sure that is really what this story is about. I remember R. Yitzchak of Corbeil is unique among Medieval codifiers in including when I attended high school, the administration strictly enforced its a separate mitzvah for tzeni’us. He counts as the 57th mitzvah: “To be rule that boys must wear shirts with collars. We were routinely modest, as it says (Deut. 23:15) ‘And your camp shall be holy.” Within checked and boys who did not have collars were punished with the obligations of tzeni’us he includes baring oneself as little as increasing severity. Some boys wore fake collars that they removed possible in the bathroom, covering one’s excrement and being modest during the day. It was silly. Requiring a boy to wear a collar is while engaging in marital relations (which he leaves undefined). He probably less onerous than requiring a girl to wear a skirt rather than continues that tzeni’us is particularly important during prayer and pants. But I think an argument can be made that requiring a boy to Torah study. By this he means avoiding urine and excrement, which in wear a tie, as at least one Modern Orthodox yeshiva does, is more the days before plumbing required effort. It still does today when oppressive than requiring a girl to wear a skirt below her knee. One dealing with passed gas or children who are not yet toilet trained. It local boys yeshiva recently instituted a strict white-button-down-shirt is also relevant when walking down the street and discussing Torah in policy, to the great consternation of parents and students. I have not a city that can be littered with animal droppings. While the Semak seen any media outcry about the oppression of boys. But that is does not mention this, there is similarly a problem of studying Torah beside the point. in sight of improperly dressed people. (Note that Shulchan Arukh includes these laws in various places.) Schools have a right to establish dress codes that set a specific desired atmosphere. And if the administration and faculty fail to What do these rules tell us about tzeni’us? God comes down to us and enforce a rule, they make a mockery of themselves and the school’s dwells in our midst, so to speak (see the beginning of Deut. 23:15 and rules. The extent of their enforcement depends on many factors, Chinukh 543). But He avoids a place where people refuse to act including the rebelliousness of the students. A school administration refined, where nakedness, excrement and impurity abound. In this has to carefully balance student freedom with school rules. sense, cleanliness does, indeed, lead to godliness (see Avodah Zarah Overemphasis on either side leads to an unproductive school 20b). environment. I don’t expect teenagers to understand that. They want The reason why nakedness is bad leads us to the character trait of freedom and the ability to express themselves in any way they choose, tzeni’us, which is distinct from the halakhic obligation. The prophet at any time they desire. But I expect adults to understand. Micha (6:8) teaches that God wants to us to “walk humbly (hatznei’a This is even more important because we are dealing with a rule based lekhes) with your God.” Commentators such as Radak and Metzudas on religious requirements. If there was a problem in the school of David explain this to mean worshipping God privately, emphasizing students bringing ham sandwiches for lunch and eating them in front the internal over the external. Sha’arei Teshuvah (1:25) and Orechos of all the other yeshiva students, a flagrant religious violation, the Tzadikim (Anavah) use the concept to describe humility and a lack of administration would be justified in checking students’ lunches or desire for personal honor. These are all true, and there is much more otherwise ensuring that this does not occur. But these adult critics to the character trait of tzeni’us. God desires Jews who are humble presumably do not consider dressing according to halakhah to be a and maintain their own privacy, including physical privacy. We must “real” religious issue. Regardless, a school has every right to define cover our bodies appropriately and use them privately, especially–but and enforce a dress code. Adults who join with the children in not only–during prayer and Torah study, which constitute important complaining are acting, well, childish. It’s sad to see our communal parts of the yeshiva school day. discussion descend to this level. The way to avoid harping over a Most importantly, tzeni’us is not just for women. Tzeni’us is an dress code is to follow it. That makes life much easier and the school obligation and a value for all Jews. Making it primarily about required environment less oppressive. skirt and sleeve lengths, a sad reality of our time, is a perversion of That said, I am further pained that discussion of tzeni’us, roughly the concept. It is sad that people have such difficulty with the basics translated as modesty, revolves around female dress codes. It should of covering themselves that they miss the larger message. not be that way. Shulchan Arukh has a section called “the laws of Undoubtedly, this is due to the permissive society in which we live. tzeni’us” and it does not include dress codes. In fact, women’s dress We have to teach our children that Judaism is a counter-culture, a codes are not directly discussed anywhere in Shulchan Arukh, only tradition with its own values and emphases. Following the latest indirectly (primarily in Orach Chaim 75 and Even Ha-Ezer 21), fashions when they contradict halakhah is a subversion of the basic probably because local customs were historically stricter than idea of Judaism in the modern world, submission to God’s halakhah. (A reader skeptical of the dress codes can find a helpful commandments in order to elevate ourselves. review of the primary sources in R. Elyakim Ellinson’s Hatznei’a Lekhes.)

Hilkhos Tzeni’us in Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 240–241) contains two chapters, one on a married couple’s proper behavior in the bedroom and the other an admonition against urinating naked. The former is much discussed by later authorities, with wide ranging opinions, but these are usually communicated privately. (For an accessible discussion in English, see R. David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, ch. 5.)

10 83 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 24 September, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

converso, who under fear for his life converted to Christianity, The Limits of Teshuvah remove the obligation to recite kaddish and therefore remove all priority for the mourner. The Radakh rules that the mourner has full by R. Gil Student priority as someone mourning for his father. Teshuvah, repentance, breaks through the heavenly barrier, reaching In the course of this discussion, the Radakh points out that criminals the divine throne and tearing evil decrees. However there is a large are required to confess immediately prior to their executions. distance between heaven and earth. Does teshuvah have this same However, we still treat them like wicked people even after their piercing power in the earthly realm? Is there a Jewish concept of deaths, forbidding their family from mourning or burying the parole or even dismissal of charges due to repentance? deceased in family plots. The Radakh suggests that mere recitation of I. Teshuvah and Theodicy a confession does not constitute repentance. However, a truly penitent criminal, after his execution, is buried among his family and Tosafos (Kesubos 30b sv. din) ask the traditional question why bad is mourned. R. Yosef Engel (Gilyonei Ha-Shas, Makkos 13b) points out things do not always happen to bad people. Someone who commits a that the Radakh would still have the court execute a repentant sin that merits execution should be smitten by God. Yet we see many criminal. The lenient treatment does not undo the sentence. such people living long lives. Today, when many find it difficult to accept that truly bad people exist, the common question is why bad R. Engel (ibid.) discusses three reasons why the court should not 1 things happen to good people. Traditionally, however, the more absolve a repentant criminal. However, I am not convinced they all frequent question was about the success of the wicked. As Jeremiah survive scrutiny. (12:1) asks, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper?” III. Who Knows? Tosafos offer two answers: 1) the wicked repent and in response God The Mabit (Beis Elokim, Teshuvah ch. 2) offers two reasons why a lessens or entirely removes the punishment; or 2) a merit of the court must still punish a repentant criminal. One of these is that the wicked, some good deed they performed for which they deserve court cannot know who truly repents. I find this the most surprising reward, delays their punishment. I do not believe that these answers of all reasons because courts already have a procedure for detecting are intended as comprehensive theodicies. I suspect that Tosafos penitents. Indeed, the responsa literature indicates that communities would accept other answers, such as those suggested by other have needed to use this procedure over the ages. commentators. Men who engage in wicked behavior are invalid as witnesses in court. II. Teshuvah and the Commutation of a Sentence The Gemara (Sanhedrin 25b) describes how such men regain their Regardless, Tosafos’ first answer raises another question. A wicked credibility. In theory, all they need to do is repent. However, in person’s teshuvah removes the sin or even transforms it into practice they must prove their repentance by going in the other something positive. This change leads God to lighten or even remove extreme. Gamblers must destroy their gambling paraphernalia and entirely the punishment. Does teshuvah similarly relieve the not even play the gambling game without money; interest lenders perpetrator from human punishment? For example, should a (duly must tear up their contracts and refrain from lending with interest in authorized) religious court execute a murderer who undergoes a even permissible situations; merchants who sell forbidden fruits of religious transformation via teshuvah or should it set him free? The the Shemitah year must pass another Shemitah year without Noda Bi-Yehudah (1:OC:35) puts it this way: If witnesses to a murder succumbing. Jewish law allows for criminals to demonstrate their only come forward decades after the event, and in the meantime the changed ways, to prove their teshuvah. murderer repents and completely turns his life around, should the Similarly, chazzanim and shochetim, cantors and slaughterers, who court convict and execute him for the murder? are caught sinning must be removed from their positions and can only R. Yaakov Weil of fifteenth century Germany (Responsa Mahari Weil, regain their jobs after demonstrating their teshuvah. As can be Dinin Ve-Halakhos 61) states that a blood avenger (Num. 35; Deut. expected, many such cases have arisen over the years, leading to 2 19) retains his right to revenge even if the murderer repents. Mahari wide discussion of general principles and specific cases. The bottom Weil assumes that the earthly punishment is not averted by teshuvah. line is that religious courts already recognize repentance and have a However, he does not explain why. mechanism for determining its sincerity. Therefore, this reason seems difficult. R. David HaKohen of Corfu (Responsa Radakh 30:2) was asked whether a mourner for a converso father has the same priority as IV. Then What? other mourners. In a time when only one person recited kaddish at a The Noda Bi-Yehudah (1:OC:35) argues that if courts commute time, priority was important. If a mourner for a sibling was present, sentences for penitent criminals, they will effectively undermine the would the mourner for a converso take precedence because he is entire judicial system. Of what purpose is a law if we do not enforce saying kaddish for his father? Or does the fact that his father was a

1 84 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com it? God intended the punishments as a deterrent. If no one is ever punishment. There is at least some case in which God refrains punished, and a convicted killer can easily say that he repents, then entirely from punishing a repentant criminal. R. Ya’akov Emden ( the divinely ordained punishment is undermined. She’eilas Ya’avetz 2:9) goes so far as to disagree with Tosafos over this phrase. R. Emden believes that every criminal must be punished. This seems to be a combination of the previous concern of being unable to determine true repentance and another concern about Allow me a brief digression to describe R. Emden’s case because it is deterrence. We already responded to the first issue. This would mean so interesting. One of the attendees at R. Emden’s private minyan that not just anyone could claim to repent. Such a claim would have reluctantly went to the main shul in town and saw someone treat the to be accompanied by appropriate behavior. But even then, someone shul disrespectfully by smoking a pipe at the entrance during service. wishing to avoid execution could falsely change his behavior. While a This man objected and knocked the pipe out of the other man’s cantor wishing to regain his job could fake repentance, presumably mouth. This other man then pulled out a knife and stabbed the first someone awaiting execution has greater motivation. man fatally, in shul. Apparently, there was insufficient evidence to convict the killer so the local (gentile) court was willing to acquit him However, it seems the validity of this concern is a debate between if he swore his innocence. The perpetrator’s rabbi ruled that he was Rashi and Tosafos. Rashi (Makos 5a sv. mai ta’ama) states that a allowed to swear falsely to save his life. R. Emden wrote this criminal who confesses before witnesses testify against him in court responsum to argue that this murderer, even if penitent, must be exempts himself from punishment. Tosafos (ad loc., sv. de-be-idna) punished and may not swear falsely in court. argue that this position would nullify all punishments. Criminals could simply immediately confess their crimes, thereby avoiding VI. Inadmissible punishment. This seems to be precisely the Noda Bi-Yehudah‘s The Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Teshuvah, ch. 2) offers two related concern about repentance. reasons why a court cannot change its sentence based on the R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes (Glosses, Makkos, ad loc.) defends Rashi on two perpetrator’s repentance. First, earthly courts only focus on the bad, points. First, he notes that the conclusion of the Gemara in Bava the crime. In contrast, the heavenly court looks at all sides of the Kama (75b) is that someone who confesses to a fine (as opposed to issue, including the good. I think this means that God considers all physical punishment, which is Rashi’s extension) is exempt from extenuating circumstances, including mindset and subsequent paying the fine, but only if his confession obligates him to pay the developments. A human court can only look at the facts of the crime principal amount. A confession that totally exempts one from paying and not the broader picture. anything is too easy. Similarly, R. Chajes contends, Rashi is arguing Maharal adds that teshuvah brings an individual closer to God. It is a that someone who confesses to murder will still be punished, just not change in the relationship between an individual and God. Therefore, executed. The court will find a lesser punishment to impose. only God can accept penitents and no one else. A human court has no However, R. Ya’akov Ettlinger (Arukh La-Ner, Makkos, ad loc.) place in this personal relationship. This second, mystical approach is convincingly argues that Rashi on Bava Kama reads the Gemara difficult to understand given the practical reality of accepting differently and allows for a confession that completely exempts the penitent chazzanim and shochetim. The human court is not accepting perpetrator. teshuvah but recognizing its effect on the perpetrator. R. Chajes makes another point that indirectly responds to the Noda Perhaps the Maharal means that teshuvah is inadmissible in a Bi-Yehudah. The Sages were not concerned that courts would only criminal trial in a religious court. Certainly American judges are administer the Torah’s punishments infrequently. To the contrary, limited in the evidence they can consider. Evidence obtained illegally they embraced the concept. The Mishnah (Makkos 7a) states that a or otherwise inadmissible cannot be utilized in reaching a decision. court should execute at most once a decade, or even less frequently. We can easily transfer this concept to a religious court and suggest, It seems that allowing repentance to remove an execution sentence is based on the Maharal, that repentance is inadmissible in a Jewish consistent with this Talmudic attitude. R. Chajes suggests that this criminal trial. However, in determining rehabilitation, which is not a explains Rashi’s view that a criminal is exempted from punishment if trial, repentance is admissible as a character assessment. he confesses, even without full repentance, before the court receives testimony against him. This would also seem to respond to the Noda The Mishnah (Avos 1:6) tells us to judge every person–all the Bi-Yehudah‘s explanation for the reason that courts punish a penitent person–favorably. Some commentators (e.g. Sefas Emes) interpret criminal. this to mean that we must look at a person and consider his whole personality and his complete circumstances rather than looking at a V. Sin and Punishment specific incident. From what we have learned, this is a divine The Mabit‘s second reason why a court must punish a repentant perspective. Human courts are procedurally limited in their focus. On criminal is that all sin requires punishment. Even after teshuvah, the a personal level, though, we are asked to look more broadly, to see a sin must still be punished. Either a court will punish the criminal or person’s bigger picture which is usually more positive. God will. The Mabit explains that this is why Tosafos say that God will As we enter Rosh Hashanah and the season of heavenly judgment, we lighten the punishment of a penitent sinner. He must still administer pray that our own larger picture be taken into account. Our many some punishment. And so must a human court. merits should lighten the load of any misdeed we may have However, this approach seems to ignore a key phrase in Tosafos. committed. In preparation, we can consider how we can judge others Tosafos explicitly state that God either lessens or removes the with this heavenly perspective. By acting more divinely, we can see

2 85 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com the world more positively and, in return, be judged favorably as well. Perhaps, the two Mitzvos we heard directly from Hashem are indeed fundamentally different than the others. More specifically, they were 1. I first became aware of R. Engel’s discussion from a Shabbos encoded in our collective conscious/unconscious differently than were Shuvah lecture by R. Ephraim Kanarfogel over 20 years ago. ↩ all the others.

2. See Magen Avraham 53:8; Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 2:11; Pischei Har Sinai was not simply an awe inspiring event for the Jewish Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah 2:5; Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah people. It was traumatic – particularly the moments that Hashem 119:15; Taz, ad loc. 16. ↩ commanded, “I am your G-d… You shall have no other gods…” We would have been absolutely and utterly powerless as the words thundered down upon – or, more accurately, surrounded – us. It was Beyond Words not just a near death experience. The Rabbis teach us that our souls did, at least temporarily, take leave of our bodies, only to Beyond Words: The Dance Between Knowing and Not Knowing miraculously return. Hashem Trauma is encoded differently than are other memories. Typical by R. Yehuda Krohn, Psy.D. memories are verbal in nature and tend to be recalled, in relation to This is for anyone who, even as Rosh Hashanah approaches, faces time, as would be chapters in a book. Trauma, in contrast, is doubt – in particular questions of Emunah/belief. The source of doubt imprinted, in iconic fashion, on a different part of the brain. It could be one’s own uncertainties or perhaps those of someone we typically resides as a group of loosely connected images, sounds and know. tactile impressions. Most significantly, we typically don’t have access to trauma, when trying to recall it. Yet, it may intrude, as a flashback, Questions may arise about Hashem’s existence, the compatibility of when we are not trying to recall it. This leads to trauma being science and Torah, or the presence of suffering and evil in the world. unknown at a verbal, semantic level, while being intimately known at They may involve measuring the congruity of Torah values with those a visceral level – one that is disconnected from the dimension of time. modern values we would not wish to dismiss (e.g., inclusivity). The questions may derive from a comparative religion course we once For some reason, Hashem chose to impart to us the fact of His took. existence – Anochi Hashem – in a manner that we simultaneously recall and don’t recall, know and don’t know. Perhaps it would be too The list is not exhaustive, but for many who try to find inspiration and easy (Nahama Dikisufah/humble pie) if we had the more connectedness in the month of Elul, it can be exhausting – or at least conventionally typed experience of his presence. Alternatively, in depleting of the spirit. It may as well lead to a sense of alarm, shame order for the Jewish people to withstand the challenges they’ve faced and/or isolation. Something along the lines of “Why do these over millennia of exile, they need a belief or, more accurately, a faith questions bother me? Given that I entertain them, can I even consider that is safely ensconced in a realm beyond both time and reason. Our myself Frum? How would others in my community relate to me, if Emunah would, thus, be shielded from, what at different points of they knew what went on inside my head?” time, would seem to be overpowering logic-based counterargument.

I would like to suggest a limud zechus/positive reframe for anyone Either way, the word “Torah” (e.g., equaling 611), which also means who, despite his desire to be observant and to belong, is being “teaching”, cannot fully capture the two commandments that we gnawed at by doubt. It starts with a Gemara toward the end of recall, but don’t recall, know, yet don’t know, given the traumatic Makkos (23b, 24a). manner they were seared into our brains. Even as we listen in Shul to the narratives of the Sinai experience, the primarily verbal, temporal Rabbi Simlai expounds: Six hundred and thirteen Mitzvos were nature of the Kriah/reading, would not and could not fully connect said to Moshe – 365 negative commandments, corresponding to with our collective memory of the event – one that is beyond both the days of the solar year; 248 positive commandments, words and time. corresponding to the limbs of a person. (I will assume that up to this point, most of us are familiar with the material.) Rav For many individuals, the knowing, yet not knowing is experienced as Hamnunah adduces a Biblical proof: Torah was commanded to uncertainty and doubt. The challenges they face with Emunah are less us by Moshe, an inheritance to the congregation of Jacob a function of waywardness, and more a natural, almost expected (Devarim 33:4). The word “Torah” has a numerical value of 611; outcome of the manner that Hashem chose to reveal Himself. [whereas] the commandments of “I (am your G-d)” and “You shall have no (other gods)” we heard directly from the Mighty All the same, persistent, gnawing doubts tend to deplete our energy; one (i.e., G-d himself).1 denial of access to vital memories robs us of our sense of connectedness. This is where Rosh Hashanah and the Shofar come to So, 611 Mitzvos – corresponding to the word “Torah” – were conveyed play. to us through Moshe Rabenu and 2 Mitzvos came directly from Hashem. It would seem odd, given the above, that the one word with Rabbah says. God has said “Say before me [verses corresponding which we try to capture the essence of the Five Books of Moshe – to] Kingship, Memory and Shofar; Kingship so that you may namely “Torah” – points to an incomplete number of Mitzvos. coronate Me; Memory so that memories of you should come Moreover, the Mitzvos that are excluded from the count arguably lie before Me for the good; and with what? The Shofar.” (Rosh at the very foundation of all other Mitzvos. Why should this be? Hashanah 34b)

clandestinely reading literature of the haskalah. However, times have According to Rabbah, the Shofar is the vehicle, not only for invoking changed and the curious student in many yeshivos find the time and good memories, but for the coronation of Hashem. How fitting! tools to learn about the world and its great thinkers. Granted, some Shofar represents sound without speech. (Hence, Kol Shofar and not yeshivos actively discourage intellectual exploration. But this Divrei Shofar.) It is the unarticulated sound of the Shofar that bathes ideological closedness is hardly a uniform policy. However, what’s and nourishes our timeless, wordless memories of Sinai. Moreover, missing in this autodidactic universe is structure and the guidance of the Shofar of Rosh Hashanah bridges 3300 years and sets resonating experts. A recent small seminar took a big step in filling this gap, with our collective memory of the Shofar of Sinai and, with it, the the goal of training a cadre of future community leaders. memories of our most direct experience of Hashem.2 An overview of the seminar is needed to grasp the surprising It is conceivable that we would not be consciously aware of an magnitude of this modest event. Under the aegis of the Tikvah Fund, “Emunah surge” during the Shofar blowing. All the same, it is hard to the seminar invited 17 promising young men (average age in the late imagine that this primal, visceral Mitzvah not touch us in ways that twenties) who spent significant time in yeshivos such as Ner Israel, leave an impression… and perhaps a sense of being a little bit less Mir & Shaar Hatorah (and one person who took an uncommon path alone. from Bais Hatalmud to Bar-Ilan) to spend a week immersed in non-standard Torah study, engaging with the contemporary internal May we all merit this Rosh Hashanah to reconnect Be’emunah and external issues that face our Torah communities. Led by R. Shelaimah to our experience of Hashem’s Kingship and to be granted Yitzchak Adlerstein, R. Mark Gottlieb and R. Jonathan Rosenblum, the a Kesivah VaChasimah Tovah. program began each day with a presentation on the weltanschaung of 1. In fact, the language of the first two commandments indicates various Torah thinkers, some of whom are often neglected during the that Hashem is speaking directly to the Jewish people, whereas standard yeshiva zman, including R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. the language of subsequent commandments indicates that Yisrael Salanter, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik and R. Avraham Yitzchak Moshe is referring to Hashem, as he conveys the Kook. Presentations were geared toward the rigor of yeshiva commandments. ↩ students, beginning with classical texts and proceeding to extract from them approaches to the great issues of Jewish thought, with 2. We may homiletically add that, in this context, the Gemara’s spirited debate all along the way. Issues including rational versus term Zichronos/Memory refers to our own memories (not mystical approaches to Judaism, the proper role of academic Jewish Hashem’s awareness of us) traveling and transcending the studies (such as the traditionalist Wissenschaft of R’ David Zvi limitations of this world, such that we can approach The Good Hoffman) and how to relate to the non-Orthodox and gentile worlds One, whom we understand to exist beyond time and space. ↩ were raised and a genuine milchamtah shel torah echoed through the Glen Cove Mansion in Long Island where the seminar was held. A New and Old Wind is The second part of the program exposed the students to sophisticated thought in the fields of economics and social and public policy. Dr. Blowing James Otteson delivered presentations on the thought of great economists such as Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, as well as the by Shmuel Winiarz moral foundations of free markets and competing visions of political economy. Ryan Anderson, co-author of “What is Marriage? Man and Is the “Yeshiva world” too insular? Does its single-minded focus on Woman; A Defense,” laid out his argument for protecting marriage’s Talmudand codesstifle its members from exploring the world of ideas? traditional definition which avoids religious claims and resonates with One graduate of Volozhin expressed that very notion in a poem he a wider audience. Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, a political science wrote in 1898, entitled Hamatmid. Chaim Nachman Bialik writes of professor at Notre Dame, lectured on John Locke and the origins and his profound ambivalence towards the schools of his youth. He evolution of American political thought through Abraham Lincoln and expresses his admiration for the dedication of yeshiva students to its relevance to contemporary issues of religious liberty. The their Talmudic studies on the one hand, while critiquing what he students’ exposure to political and economic theory introduces these viewed as a narrow world that was insular to broader intellectual future Jewish leaders to the tools and vocabulary necessary to ferment. Yet many people would dare to disagree and a recent formulate public policy. seminar that took place in Long Island serves as ample proof that Bialik would need to update his famous poem were he alive today. One idea that struck me as particularly timely is the notion of Perhaps Hamatmid 2.0. religious liberty. Our faith community derives its value system from a Torah and halacha that doesn’t always conform to the contemporary Certainly the Internet has made knowledge available on an zeitgeist. Issues such as bris milah (ritual circumcision), shechitah unprecedented scope. Unstructured online learning through (ritual slaughter) and medical ethics have been flashpoints of conflict searching, reading and watching educational videos offers insular in recent years between Orthodox communities and parts of the yeshiva students the opportunity to stretch their intellectual wings. broader world. Understanding the meaning of religious liberty (not But even before the Internet, public libraries enabled yeshiva just using it as a catch-phrase), both in its historical context and students to take books out and read them in their free time. In present usage, is invaluable when advocating for tolerance and Volozhin, studying disciplines beyond the yeshiva curriculum was acceptance of faith practices in the modern era. generally discouraged although some students could be found

In between presentations, a marketplace of ideas flourished as like-minded budding scholars debated the hot topics of the day. With The Experience of Rosh animated exchanges typical of the yeshiva study hall, abstract theories were applied to real situations in order to clarify the issues HaShana and resolve communal problems. Topics included effective advocacy by R. David Brofsky, excerpted from Hilkhot Mo’adim: Understanding for Israel, organizational challenges facing Jewish agencies, the the Laws of the Festivals differences between Torah communities in Israel and the United Rosh HaShana in Tanakh States and the meaning, application and limitations of the oft misunderstood term “daas torah”. On Shabbos, R’ Meir Triebitz Rosh HaShana, as it appears in Scripture, is somewhat mysterious. presented a multi-discipline vision spanning many earlier discussed The Torah commands: topics, formulating a philosophy of Halacha and arguing for a Jewish And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, it shall theology of politics and economics. In many ways, this aptly capped be a holy convocation [mikra kodesh] for you; you shall do no the seminar, demonstrating how a wholly traditional talmid chacham servile work; it shall be a day of terua for you. (Num. 29:1) can incorporate the many different perspectives into a single, Torah framework. While the celebration of Rosh HaShana does not entail the pilgrimage component of the other festivals, it shares an issur melakha, the Yet now thinking back on the seminar, two themes resonate as prohibition of labor, as well as the title of “mikra kodesh.” The particularly significant. First, responsibility for the entire Jewish uniqueness of Rosh HaShana seems to lie in its being a “yom terua,” a community or to coin a phrase, having a klal conscious. Because the “day of terua,” the ululating sound that is variously described in seminar’s participants all aspire to find a place in the public square, Scripture as emanating from the shofar, trumpets, or human throats. the seminar included presentations about R’ Moshe Sherer and R’ Similarly, the Torah teaches elsewhere: Nathan Birnbaum, two leading Torah spokesmen of recent times. These larger-than-life leaders articulated compelling narratives for And God spoke to Moshe, saying: “Speak to the Israelites, the entire Jewish people. They rejected a utilitarian view bent on the saying: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, it narrow goal of accessing the public coffers, but rather advocated for shall be a solemn rest for you, a terua memorial [zikhron terua], a deeply Jewish moral responsibility to speak out. They insisted that a holy convocation. You shall do no servile work, and you shall the traditional Jewish voice must be heard on both issues that are bring a fire-offering to God.” (Lev. 23:23–25) particular to Jews and concerns that are universal to humanity, of Here, too, Rosh HaShana is described by the term “terua.” While our which we also have societal interest in engaging. Sadly, their view of sages understand this to refer to the mitzva of shofar, the Torah uses askanus, public advocacy, has lost currency today and cries for the term to describe the day itself. In what way does “terua” revival. characterize the day? What does blowing a shofar or trumpet The second key takeaway is the rejoinder to Bialik. A choice is often symbolize? presented between breadth and depth. Some rabbinic voices claim Throughout Tanakh, we can identify two distinct, yet apparently that the only way to become a talmid chacham is to focus intensely contradictory descriptions of these sounds, and thus, of Rosh and solely on Talmud and codes, to the exclusion of any other field of HaShana itself. On the one hand, the prophet Zephaniah describes study including Jewish History, Jewish Philosophy and even Tanach. the horrors that will befall the Jewish people as follows: But that choice is a false dilemma. One can achieve breadth without significantly altering the yeshiva curriculum by finding opportunities Hark…the great day of God is near; it is near and hastens outside its schedule. Each participant in this event for expanding greatly, the sound of the day of God, wherein the mighty man horizons was already a yodea sofer, well read in a broad range of cries bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and traditional texts. Each came firmly grounded in the tenets of our faith distress, a day of waste and desolation, a day of darkness and yet open to explore new areas of knowledge. gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of shofar and terua, against the fortified cities, and against the high From Volozhin until today, the yeshiva study hall, at its best, nurtures towers. (Zeph. 1:10, 14–16) intellectual curiosity so its brightest stars succeed in traditional Talmud study and find additional time and opportunities to ameliorate The terms “shofar” and “terua” are clearly employed here to depict their unquenchable thirst for knowledge. As I looked around at this alarm and distress. Similarly, Amos describes the blowing of the seminar, I saw in its participants and some of its distinguished shofar and the people’s response: “Shall a shofar be blown in the city, presenters living proof that intense Talmud study of the most and the people not tremble? Shall evil befall a city, and God has not traditional kind does not preclude great breadth and depth of done it?” (Amos 3:6) Indeed, when the Jewish people go out to war, knowledge. they are commanded to make this sound:

And when you go to war in your land against the adversary that oppresses you, then you shall sound a terua with the trumpets; and you shall be remembered before Lord your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies. (Num. 10:9)

These verses strongly imply that “a day of terua” is a day of alarm,

5 88 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com crisis, and distress. HaKippurim, as they are days of repentance [teshuva], fear [yira ], and dread, not days of excessive joy [simcha yeteira].1 On the other hand, the trumpets are also sounded on festive days, as the very next verse in Numbers notes: Rambam describes Rosh HaShana as a day of repentance, characterized by “fear and dread,” yet he still implies that there is And on the day of your joy, and on your appointed seasons, and some mitzva to rejoice. on your new moons, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings; Indeed, the Rishonim disagree as to whether the mitzva of simchat and they shall be for you as a memorial before your God: I am Yom Tov, the command to rejoice on the festivals, applies to Rosh Lord your God. (Num. 10:10) HaShana. The Torah instructs, “Vesamachta bechagekha” – “And you shall rejoice on your holiday” (Deut. 16:14). Is this mitzva limited to Similarly, we find the following description of Ezra’s joyous reading of the consumption of the shalmei simcha, the joyous peace-offerings the Torah on Rosh HaShana: brought on the Shalosh Regalim (the Three Pilgrimage Festivals) for And Ezra the Priest brought the Torah before the congregation, the purpose of rejoicing, in which case it would not apply to Rosh both men and women, and all that could listen with HaShana, or does it extend to other expressions of happiness as well? understanding, on the first day of the seventh month…. And Tosafot assume that the obligation of simchat Yom Tov may only be Nechemia, who was the governor, and Ezra the Priest, the fulfilled through the consumption of shalmei simcha. The obligation to Scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the rejoice on the festivals nowadays, in the absence of the Temple, must people, “This day is holy to the Lord your God; neither mourn be rabbinic in nature.2 On the other hand, Rambam writes: nor weep!” For all the people were weeping, as they heard the words of the Torah. Then he said to them, “Go on your way. Eat A person is obligated to rejoice on these days – he, his children, the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom his wife, his grandchildren, and all those who have joined his nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our God; do not be family – as the Torah states, “And you shall rejoice on your sad, for God’s gladness is your strength.” So the Levites stilled holiday.” Even though the Torah is referring to the obligation to all the people, saying, “Hold your peace, for the day is holy; do offer and consume peace-offerings (the shalmei simcha), not be sad.” And all the people went their way to eat, to drink, to included in this obligation to rejoice is for a person and his entire send portions, and to make great joy; because they had family to rejoice in the manner that is appropriate for him. How understood the words that were said to them. (Nech 8:2, 9–12) is this practiced? One distributes parched grain, nuts, and delicacies to the children. One purchases, depending on what he Nechemia commands the people to overcome their grief over their can afford, clothes and beautiful jewelry for the women in the failure to keep the Torah. Instead, it is time to celebrate, because family. The men eat meat and drink wine, as there is no rejoicing “this day,” Rosh HaShana, “is holy to our God.” without meat and wine.3 In summary, Tanakh portrays Rosh HaShana as both “a day of terua”– Rambam expands the parameters of the mitzva of simchat Yom Tov to of fear and apprehension – and a day of great joy. include other expressions of joy as well. Clearly, Tosafot cannot Hallel and Simchat Yom Tov on Rosh HaShana maintain that the obligation to rejoice on festivals applies to Rosh HaShana, when there is no obligation to offer shalmei simcha. The uncertainty regarding whether Rosh HaShana is a day of alarm Rambam, however, who expands the definition of simchat Yom Tov, and distress or one of happiness and joy continues in the halakhic might apply this mitzva to Rosh HaShana. Indeed, as we saw above, literature. The Gemara instructs us to recite Hallel on the festivals he describes Rosh HaShana as a day without excessive happiness, but and the eight days of Chanukka. The Gemara then questions why with happiness, nonetheless. Furthermore, he implies elsewhere4 that Hallel is not mandated on other special days, such as Rosh Chodesh, the mitzva applies to festivals other than Pesach and Sukkot, Chol HaMo’ed Pesach, and Purim. Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur seemingly referring to Shavuot, Rosh HaShana, and Yom Kippur. seem to meet the requirements for Hallel; they are “appointed seasons” with a prohibition of labor. Why are they excluded? Rabbi Aryeh Leib ben Asher Gunzberg (1695–1785) discusses this issue in his Shaagat Aryeh,5 concluding that there must be a mitzva of R. Abbahu said: Is it seemly for the King to be sitting on His simchat Yom Tov on Rosh HaShana since one is allowed to perform Throne of Judgment, with the Books of Life and Death open certain types of labor necessary for producing food (“okhel nefesh”) before Him, while the people sing joyful praises to Him? on Rosh HaShana. If not for the commandment to rejoice, he (Arakhin 10b) assumes, it would be prohibited to cook on Rosh HaShana.

From the fact that the Gemara asks why Hallel is not recited on Rosh Mourning on Rosh HaShana HaShana, it seems to assume that it would certainly be appropriate, if not obligatory, to recite the joyous prayer of Hallel on Rosh HaShana. The Mishna discusses which holidays preempt the first seven (shiva) The Gemara’s answer, however, is somewhat unclear. Does the and first thirty days (sheloshim) of mourning observed after the burial Gemara intend to deny Rosh HaShana any aspect of joy or happiness, of a close relative (Mo’ed Katan 19a). The Chakhamim and Rabban or merely to temper it by omitting Hallel? Interestingly, Rambam Gamliel dispute whether only the Shalosh Regalim cancel shiva, or if writes: Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur do so as well.

However, we do not recite Hallel on Rosh HaShana and Yom Rabbi Achai Gaon explains that Rabban Gamliel, who rules that “Rosh

HaShana and Yom Kippur are akin to the festivals,” maintains that He cites Rabbi Chaim Vital, who testifies that the Arizal would cry the commandment of simchat Yom Tov also applies on these days. during his Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur prayers. Alternatively, he Rabbi Achai Gaon clearly assumes that it is the mitzvato rejoice that notes that the Vilna Gaon maintains that one should not cry during cancels shiva.6 the prayers on Rosh HaShana and that the cantor should lead the prayers with a traditional festival melody.20 Rabbi Yosef concludes Ramban derives from the verse in Nechemia cited above that there is that one who is naturally overcome by tears may cry, but one should “simcha and a prohibition to be sad” on Rosh HaShana, and the not bring himself to weep; rather, one should pray with happiness and observances of shiva and sheloshim are thus put to an end by Rosh great focus. HaShana.7 The Shulchan Arukh rules in accordance with Rabban Gamliel; Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur cancel shiva and sheloshim.8 Conclusion

Fasting on Rosh HaShana Rosh HaShana surely emerges as a confusing holiday. From the Sages to the later Acharonim, our greatest minds have grappled with its The halakhic ambivalence toward the nature of Rosh HaShana is nature and experience. It would seem that this confusion is no found once again regarding one’s demeanor while eating on the accident. In fact, all service of God, as King David relates, reflects this holiday. The Shulchan Arukh writes: dialectic. In his Tehillim, we find both, “Serve God with joy; come They eat, drink, and rejoice, and they do not fast on Rosh before His presence with singing” (Ps. 100:2) and “Serve God with HaShana and Shabbat Shuvah. However, they should not eat to fear, and rejoice with trembling” (2:11). Midrash Tehillim asks: satiety, in order that they not become lightheaded – “that the “Serve God with joy” – another verse says, “Serve God with fear of God should be upon their faces” [cf. Ex. 20:16].9 fear.” If [one serves] with joy, how is it with fear? And if [one 21 The Mishna Berura explains that although Rosh HaShana is a “day of serves] with fear, how is it with joy? judgment,” the commandment of simcha obligates one to eat and The Midrash records different resolutions to this quandary. R. Acha drink, as stated in Nechemia.10 suggests that one should serve God in this world with fear in order to Rema,11 however, cites the Terumat HaDeshen,12 who asserts that reach the next world with happiness. Similarly, R. Aivu distinguishes some consider it “a mitzvato fast on Rosh HaShana.” Magen Avraham, between tefilla, during which joy is the primary feeling, and other in his introductory comments to this chapter, cites Bach, who relates activities, during which fear dominates. The Midrash suggests that Maharshal would not eat fish on Rosh HaShana, as he especially another type of solution as well: “‘With joy’ – is it possible without enjoyed this dish and he wished to restrict himself in some way. fear as well? The verse therefore teaches, ‘with fear.’” In other words, Magen Avraham also cites a discussion regarding the propriety of joy and fear do not necessarily contradict each other; rather, they are eating meat and wearing festive clothing on Rosh HaShana. crucial and complementary components of our service of God.

In opposition to this opinion, the Mordekhai13 cites Rabbi Nachshon Rosh HaShana is “yom harat olam,” “the day of the world’s creation,” Gaon, who prohibits fasting on Rosh Ha-Shana due to its inherent during which we coronate God as King over humanity. Standing simcha, and Taz14 and Mishna Berura15 concur. before God and accepting upon ourselves His service inspires not only feelings of fear and trepidation, but feelings of joy and happiness as Tefilla on Rosh HaShana well. These seemingly contradictory feelings are natural for one who The question of the nature and experience of Rosh HaShana may also truly experiences and internalizes Rosh HaShana, setting the proper impact upon the text and recitation of the day’s prayers. Rosh16 and tone for the entire year, during which our service of God vacillates 22 his son, the Baal HaTur,17 record different customs regarding the text between simcha and yira, and at times is even made up of both. of the Shemoneh Esreh and Kiddush of Rosh HaShana. They cite 1. Hilkhot Megilla and Chanukka 3:6. ↩ Rabbi Sar-Shalom, Rabbi Paltoi Gaon, and Rabbi Shmuel ben Chofni, who report that in the two major Babylonian yeshivas, the standard 2. Tosafot, Mo’ed Katan 14, s.v. aseh deyachid. ↩ Shalosh Regalim formula was recited on Rosh HaShana, thanking God for giving us “mo’adim lesimcha, chagim uzemanim lesasson” – 3. Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:17–18. ↩ “appointed seasons for rejoicing, holidays and times for jubilation.” Tur concludes, however, that the custom is in accordance with Rabbi 4. Ibid. ↩ Hai Gaon, who omits the references to simcha. Clearly, these scholars are debating the very nature of Rosh HaShana. 5. Sha’agat Aryeh 102. ↩

Interestingly, the posekim also discuss the manner in which one 6. She’iltot, Parashat Chayei Sara 15. ↩ should pray on Rosh HaShana. The Kitzur Shulchan Arukh, for example, records that some are accustomed to praying the silent 7. Ramban, Mo’ed Katan 24b. ↩ prayers of Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur while bowed, with their heads lowered. He personally recommends praying upright, with a 8. Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 399:6. Rabbi Soloveitchik 18 “bent heart and with tears.” addresses this issue as well in his Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mori. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef also discusses this issue: should one pray with ↩ happiness and elation, or out of “fear of judgment,” while crying?19

9. Ibid., Orach Chaim 597:1. ↩ The Nature of Kol Nidrei and Hataras Nedarim

1 10. Mishna Berura 597:1. ↩ We can begin with the Tikkunei Zohar that explains the reason we begin Yom Kippur with Kol Nidrei: on Yom Kippur we seek to annul 11. Rema, Orach Chaim 597:3. ↩ God’s vow to punish the Jewish people for its many sins during the preceding year. Therefore at Kol Nidrei we establish a beis din of 12. Terumat HaDeshen 245. ↩ three dayyanim (i.e., the Shaliach Tzibbur with two men at his side) and in so doing facilitate God’s forgiveness on that holiest of days. 13. Mordekhai, Rosh HaShana 708. ↩ The source of this passage in the Zohar is Rava’s statement in this Gemara. 14. Taz, Orach Chaim 597:1. ↩ The Torah teaches us that when a person takes a vow and then 15. Mishna Berura 597:12. ↩ regrets it (i.e., has charatah) a beis din can void it completely. How can a beis din nullify an actual event, declaring that it never took 16. Rosh, Rosh HaShana 4:14. ↩ place? This can be explained as follows. Generally, regret for an act one has performed can take one of two forms. The first occurs when 17. Tur, Orach Chaim 582. ↩ someone changes his or her mind, in light of new realities that make it clear that the earlier action is no longer appropriate. For example 18. Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 129:2. ↩ we see today how in light of new geopolitical realities the US State Department regrets having cooperated so closely with the European 19. Yechave Da’at 2:69. ↩ powers, and is seeking to align itself with the Asian and African nations.2 According to the Ran in Nedarim such a change of mind 20. Maase Rav 207. ↩ cannot allow hatarah (annulment). Hatarah requires charatah me-ikara, i.e. the person who took the oath must feel that the vow was 21. Midrash Tehillim 100, s.v. ivdu. ↩ mistaken to begin with, as even under the original circumstances it was unjustified. Only thus can one feel the bushah (shame) that can 22. I heard this analysis in 1992 from Rabbi Michael Rosensweig. ↩ undo that earlier action, leading to its annulment by the beis din. Therefore in hataras nedarim we declare (as the hataras nedarim text On Regret, Annulment, and the puts it) boshti ve’nichlamti (I am ashamed and mortified). So too regarding repentance in general – it is not enough to change one’s Essence of Teshuvah behavior because new circumstances lead to the conclusion that it no longer pays to do that aveirah (as would be the case when a Va-Yechal Moshe: On Regret, Annulment, and the Essence of businessman becomes a Shomer Shabbas upon his retirement). Real Teshuvah teshuvah requires one to realize that the preceding behavior was 3 Part of a Shiur by Ha-Rav Joseph Dov Soloveitchik completely wrong and inexcusable from the very beginning. st Congregation Moriah, New York, NY, Dec 1 1956 The Real Self and the Pseudo Self

Edited by Rabbi Basil Herring, Ph.d Moreover, teshuvah requires one to disassociate from the “self” that 4 Editor’s Note: What follows here is not a verbatim performed those earlier acts. One must feel that the person transcription, but a summary of the main ideas of the Rav in committing those actions was not the real “me,” because “I gave in to this lecture. The material constitutes the concluding section of an ‘out of character’ impulse.” Take for instance someone who suffers a larger shiur on the Gemara (Berachos 32a), dealing with from uncontrollable anger. I myself used to be subject to angry related subject matter. The endnotes are supplied by the outbursts, which after much hard work over many years I have editor. The full audio presentation, in its original Yiddish, can learned to keep under control for the most part (although even now I be accessed here: link can get angry when someone kricht arein in mein kop, i.e. gets inside my head).5 But in the days when I would be overwhelmed with such Va-Yechal Moshe (And Moshe pleaded) before Hashem (Ex. outbursts, I would after a while experience deep remorse, with a 32:11). Said Rava: Moshe pleaded with God until he was able to feeling that I had been overtaken by an alien spirit, or possessed by a annul God’s vow (Rashi: “His declaration ‘I will destroy them’ demon – what Chasidim call a dybbuk. It is similar to when a person (vs. 10)”). For it is written here Va-Yechal and it is written acts “under the influence” of an intoxicant and does things that he elsewhere (Numbers 30:3) “lo yacheil devaro (he shall not annul would normally never do. his vow). The master has explained that this teaches that while a person who takes a vow cannot himself annul it (as it says “he So too sometimes we think we know someone, but in due course come shall not annul” it), others can do so. (Berachos 32a) to realize that the real person was hidden from us, and we were misled by external appearances. I myself can recall people whom I at This Gemara is difficult to understand. How can one compare a first held in high regard, only to subsequently understand that my rabbinical court annulling a personal vow to Moshe annulling God’s first impression had been completely mistaken. There were two vow to destroy Israel for worshipping the Golden Calf? completely different persona’s: an outer person and an inner one. So

8 91 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com too the Gemara (Berachos 58a) says that Rav Sheshes turned a Thus at the very outset of the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim the Rema certain Sadducee into a gal shel atzamos “a pile of bones.” Could it be comments: that Rav Sheshes was guilty of taking someone’s life? Of course not! This is a great Torah principle characteristic of the righteous, It simply means that whereas initially he had thought highly of the insofar as normally a person does not act at home as he does in Sadducee, he subsequently came to realize that he was a worthless the presence of a great king, nor is his speech when with his person, i.e., like a pile of dried bones. From this we learn that in family as it is were he to be in the ruler’s palace. How much evaluating people it is important to distinguish between a misleading more so that when one realizes that the King Whose glory fills outer image and the real person. the cosmos is watching him … one should feel fear and shame, So too when it comes to teshuvah: one should feel that even though a and not be embarrassed in front of people who might mock him transgression occurred, it was not the real “me” that was acting, but for serving God… rather a “pseudo-me” – such that my deepest self was not implicated The Foundation of Teshuvah in those acts, and thus has remained in its pristine state. For this reason we declare every morning neshamah she-nasata bi tehorah hi, And so, when a Jew sins, we consider it as if he has two “selves,” two “the soul You have implanted in me remains pure and guiltless” no Yosefs. While the external one may have sinned, the other which is matter how much we may sin. We must strive to be true to our pure the real self, has remained pure, no matter what. And when that Jew 6 neshamah, which is our real self. comes to beg for forgiveness, we say that the inner, core Yosef never sinned, only the superficial one did. This is the yesod of teshuvah (the Avoiding Hypocritical Behavior foundation of repentance). Were it not so, how would it be possible Don’t we all know people who live multiple lives with contradictory for anyone to experience remorse? Surely it is the pure self which personalities or selves? At home they act one way, but in public they experiences charatah, regret. Otherwise how could that person be act very differently. In the synagogue they act righteously, but in motivated to repent out of nowhere? Nothing comes from nothing. business they are dishonest or exploitative. The Gemara (Pesachim Let me further illustrate the point. I have known people who in spite 68b) relates that on Shavuos R. Yosef would have three calves of their Torah upbringing stopped keeping Shabbos, kashrus, and the prepared, and declare “were it not for Shavuos (when the Torah was like, only to return to a life of Torah many years later. When I would given) I would be like these three calves and there would be three ask them what had happened during those interim years they would Yosefs in the marketplace, not just one.” What did he mean by this? say “Rebbe, it wasn’t me who acted that way. Something else He was declaring that without the Torah his life would have been possessed me, and made me do those things.” filled with contradictions and multiple persona’s, like animals that may be placid in the barn, ravenous in the pasture, and aggressive The Rambam expresses this idea exactly when he writes in Hilchos when provoked. For R. Yosef it is the Torah that keeps us true to Teshuvah (2:4) that a baal teshuvah must declare that “I am a ourselves at all times, the Torah that maintains the consistency of our different person, not the one who did those things.” In other words in inner and outer personae, and the Torah that strengthens us to resist order to do real teshuvah one must feel that one was under the the temptation to live fragmented and inconsistent lives. This is the influence of a foreign spirit, dybbuk, or ruach ra’ah (evil spirit), and very opposite of people I have known who in public were respected, thus resolve to expel or control every such force in the future. In upright, and charitable, but who in their private lives were menuvalim Samuel (1 18:10) we find a similar phenomenon: King Saul sought to (despicable). Such people are like three Yosefs, no like fifty Yosefs! kill David on account of what the verse calls a ruach ra’ah, an “evil spirit” that overtook him. After all Saul was a great person, a bechir The Torah essentially demands that we overcome the natural Hashem (chosen by God). Only an overpowering spirit inimical to his temptation to put on appearances tailored to specific settings. For true self, could have caused him to act that way. such is human nature. I know rabbonim who when praying at home finish the Shmoneh Esrei quickly – but in public recite it at great So it is with us when we sin. In hindsight we sometimes think to length. For this reason my grandfather R. Chaim always opposed the ourselves, “Where was I, what was I thinking, how could I have done widespread notion that a Rav should cultivate a distinctive public such a thing?” What do we mean by this? After all we know very well image. For this reason he would wear the same simple clothing both where we were and what we did. What we really mean is that I am at home and in public. This is the real meaning of shivisi Hashem better than that, and “the real ‘me’ could not have done those things. lenegdi samid (I have placed God always before me; Psalms 16:8) – It must be that I was ‘possessed’ or overcome by something else.”7 i.e., I have been shaveh, consistent, in my actions before God, tamid, in every circumstance). This lesson was taught by R. Yisrael Salanter Thus according to Rava in our Gemara the phrase Va-Yechal Moshe who was once traveling with a wagon-driver when they came upon a (Moshe annulled) teaches us how Moshe argued with God on behalf of large pile of unguarded hay in a field. When the driver started to steal Israel. He said “Just as You gave a beis din the mechanism to release some of the hay, R. Salanter called out, “What you are doing, you are a Jew from his vows on the grounds that his real self was not fully in being watched!” Thereupon the driver desisted and anxiously climbed control at the time, I hereby declare that the Israelites did not act in back on the wagon. After a while, he said “There was no one there, accordance with their real selves, but merely under some external or 8 why did you say I was being watched?” To which R. Yisrael answered, foreign influence. Deep down their real selves have remained pure “You were indeed being watched – by God!” That is, in all our ways, and sinless. Therefore, they are not deserving of punishment or and in all circumstances, public and private, our behavior must be destruction, and I am able to void Your punitive decree that held them consistent, for we are always in the presence of an all-seeing God. responsible for something they did not do.” Thus did Moshe annul

God’s vow, and avert the decree. entire approach to Yahadus. And it is the approach we must take in our own day, especially with regard to raising our children. Interestingly, this very idea constitutes the basis of all modern psychotherapy, i.e., a person’s actions do not necessarily reflect or 1. Zohar, Raya Mehemna, Parshas Pinchas 255:1 ↩ emanate from his real self, but from a pseudo-self.9 Thus it is that a person can change behavior, and experience positive change and 2. The Rav here refers to the Suez Canal War that had occurred in personal growth. the months preceding this lecture, in October and November 1956. When Israel attacked the Egyptian forces in the Sinai in Practical Consequences of this Principle response to Egypt’s threats to Israel’s existence, France and This is not simply a philosophical principle, but something that has Britain bombed the Egyptian forces that also threatening their practical consequences for every rabbi, teacher, and parent. interests in the Suez Canal. This led to the complete defeat of Especially in our time, we should each strive always to appeal to the Egyptian army, to the chagrin of its Soviet patrons. The people’s better, deeper, and more authentic selves that are not United States, in partnership with the Soviet Union, and in always apparent to others. I have often said that there are two kinds opposition to its erstwhile allies France and Britain, of mussar, rebuke. The first tells the sinner that he has done bad co-sponsored a UN resolution forcing the withdrawal of Israeli, things and must renounce his erroneous ways. The problem with this French and British forces from the Sinai. ↩ approach is that it does not always work – and can even be counter-productive. This is especially true in our time whether in 3. A feeling of bushah (shame) is integral to the process of Israel or here, for if we tell the modern Jew that he is a sinner, a complete repentance. See the Rambam, Hil. Teshuvah 2:2. ↩ heretic, a bad person on account of his being (for instance) a Shabbos violator, we will not bring even one person back into the fold. Today 4. At this point, the Rav’s analysis takes a dialectical turn that we must favor the second approach, which is the way of Moshe in seems to turn the preceding point on its head. Until this point he Va-Yechal, when approaching sinners. We should speak to them with had emphasized the essential need for the sinner to take words that convey that they are not as bad as they think, that their personal responsibility, and feel profound shame and guilt for his errant actions are not consistent with their core selves which remain actions, without any attempt at self-justification or shifting the unsullied and pure at all times. We must be very cognizant of the fact blame. Now the Rav posits that, having taken responsibility and that today if someone believes that he is a bad person or an expressed deep anguish and guilt for his actions, in order to inveterate sinner, there is a good chance that he will find it avoid feelings of despair or a spiral of spiritual paralysis, the impossible to change for the good. The prophet Yechezkel described sinner must recognize that his “real” self was guilty only of such people as declaring u-nemakosem ba-avonoseichem (you shall allowing himself to fall under an extraneous influence. It is this pine away in your iniquities; Yechezkel 24:23), i.e., being realization that will allow the sinner to summon the inner overwhelmed by your many transgressions you will feel that it is resources to find his way back from the path of sin. ↩ hopeless to even try to change, and thus you will conclude that the gates of repentance are closed to you. I know people who would like 5. As a teacher, The Rav was known to be extremely tough on his to become ba’alei teshuvah but who feel that it is simply impossible students, especially in his younger days, when he would inspire for them to change. For this reason we declare that God is genuine fear and trepidation among them. It would appear that Ha-pose’ach yad la-poshim (He reaches out to sinners with an open in referring to his powerful anger, and his sustained efforts to hand). How does He do that? By allowing the sinner to sense that he control it, the Rav here was acknowledging his effect on his can improve his ways, insofar as his real self has remained untouched students (and possibly others), and felt sufficient remorse that by sin, and is ready to reconnect with God. Granting an “open hand” he sought to temper his emotional response to their bestows the ability to open oneself to discovering the self that was shortcomings. Indeed as he grew older his teaching style in this heretofore hidden, and closed off. Conveying this lesson to respect softened significantly. In any case it is remarkable that transgressors is not an easy task, but it is the hallmark of a real in this shiur the Rav was prepared to bare his soul in a way that leader. So too in our time, I believe that this approach can bring many acknowledged what he considered a personal flaw. Such Jews back to Yahadus. intimate reflections and self-critical honesty only added to the emotional power and impact of his public lectures. They allowed Interestingly, this was the original approach, and the real strength, of him to speak critically of others, including rabbinic leaders, as Chasidus, especially that of Chabad. Their way was to teach that we find him doing in this shiur, albeit never identifying them by kedushah (holiness) can be found in every place and in every person, name. ↩ even in the klipas noga (the tainted outer shell). They taught that because a spark of holiness resides in all such places, our task is to 6. On another occasion (at a lecture in Boston Sept. 6 1972, and liberate and raise those hidden sparks to their original place. The referenced in the Rosh Hashanah Machzor Mesoras Harav, p. great contribution of Chasidus was to proclaim that no matter his or 247), the Rav expressed this idea in the context of Psalm 130 10 her past, a Jew can be saved; that we must never despair of any Jew, that is recited throughout the Ten Days from Rosh Hashanah 11 for otherwise he or she might well be lost to us forever. through Yom Kippur. Mi-Ma’amakim kerasicha Hashem, is usually understood as calling unto God from the depths of This approach to teshuvah was adopted by the Gedolei Yisrael despair or distress. But it can also be taken as referring to one’s throughout the generations – indeed it was the foundation of their deepest, most hidden, mysterious, and truest self, one that is

unaffected by sin. In this sense, the psalmist is declaring “even Chasidus is a repeated theme in his lectures. Throughout this though I have sinned, there is deep within me my real self that shiur, there is a remarkable blending of such widely-disparate remains pure and unaffected by my transgressions, and it is that intellectual sources. Thus he quotes halachic and aggadic which can serve as the springboard for me to return to You. sources; anecdotes relating to his grandfather R. Chaim as well Therefore Hashem shim’ah be’koli – God please hear my real as R. Yisrael Salanter of the Mussar Movement; teachings of the voice, and annul the sins of my pseudo-personality.” This Misnagdim and the Chasidim; little-noticed passages in Tanach alternate understanding of the Psalm is entirely appropriate to and the Zohar, as well as erudite references to the teachings of the required mindset of the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah. ↩ secular psychology. ↩

7. Of course there is a danger in this disassociative approach to sin. One can come to shift the blame for one’s actions onto others, be they other people or specific circumstances that “made me do it.” The archetypical instance of such thinking is the very first human sin, in which Adam blamed Chavah (“she gave it to me so I ate it”), and even shifted responsibility to God Himself (“You placed her at my side”), while Chavah in turn blamed the serpent (“the serpent induced me to eat it”). It is all too easy and facile to deny personal responsibility for one’s actions, for such is human nature. That is how it has always been since the creation of man.

The Rav’s analysis here, however, avoids this problem by focusing on the ability of the individual to immediately recognize his responsibility to overcome those superficial or exterior factors that led to the problematic behaviors. It is not simply that the real me is blameless. It is rather that the real me must prevent that from happening again. Because my innermost being remains pure and uncompromised, I have the ability to rise up to the challenge, and am not hopelessly compromised or sunken in sin. As always, the real me must strive to do the right thing in spite of everything, and I am not free to abdicate responsibility for my future actions. ↩

8. Although the Rav does not at this point makes reference to the so-called erev rav (the 3,000 members of the mixed multitude who went forth from Egypt with the Israelites) that many commentators consider the instigators of the event, one might consider them to be a prime example of such an external influence, as the Rav here describes it. ↩

9. See for instance Freud‘s late theory of the ego as the product of identifications, which render it a false self. So too Erich Fromm, who in his The Fear of Freedom distinguished between original self and pseudo self — the inauthentic nature of the latter being a way to escape what Fromm called the loneliness of freedom. Much earlier Kierkegaard had claimed that “to will to be that self which one truly is, is indeed the opposite of despair” — the despair of choosing “to be another than himself”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self. ↩

10. The point is amply analyzed by the Rav elsewhere. See for instance our presentation in Torah Musings (Tishri 5774) of the Rav’s shiur on Elisha b. Abuya, who failed to understand that even an inveterate sinner such as he could repent, insofar as he misunderstood the heavenly voice that proclaimed the power of repentance by even one such as he. ↩

11. The Rav’s profound affinity for, and indebtedness to, Chabad

(Mishlei 1:29). The Vilna Gaon (ad loc.) emphasizes the failure to Spiritual Math “choose.” To choose implies that there are two roughly equal alternatives. Ideally, one should proactively pursue mitzvot and Torah study, but even if one is not motivated to do so, when a mitzvah presents itself in an easy and convenient way, one should be willing to make the minimum effort to fulfill that mitzvah. Unfortunately, for the scorners of the first chapter of Mishlei, the Torah is not even a choice. It does not rate for them at all. The Vilna Gaon explains that this is the same idea being expressed in the phrase “ve-lo shavah lanu”. The Hebrew root “shavah” appears in the Bi‐ ble with the meaning to be equal, namely, to have “worth” or “value.” For instance, in Esther 5:13 Haman, upset that Mordechai would not bow down to him, tells his wife and advisors, “ve-chol zeh einenu shoveh li” – “all this [my wealth and political power] is of no value to me.” The Vilna by R. Moshe Schapiro Gaon translates the Selichot prayer– “We have strayed from Your com‐ mandments and from Your benevolent statutes and they [the command‐ Spiritual Mathematics: Math Phobia and the Yamim Nora’im ments and statutes] were not of value to us.” It is terrible that we have strayed, but it is even worse that the reason we did so was a failure to = ? value God’s commandments.

We repeat the phrase “sarnu mi-mitzvotecha u-mi-mishpatecha ha-tovim” Why do we not we value the commandments, and what can we do to help – “We have strayed from Your commandments and from Your benevolent ourselves to value them? Two fundamental deficiencies underlie our lack statutes”around forty times from the first night of Selichot until the last of appreciation of the mitzvot. The first problem with which we struggle is moments of Né’ilah, and while we understand these words, the meaning that many of the commandments have no clear purpose or readily under‐ of the three words that follow: “ve-lo shavah lanu” is ambiguous. The standable rationale. Rambam distinguishes between two categories of scriptural source for the expression “ve-lo shavah lanu” is found in Iyov commandments: “The ‘mishpatim’- ‘ordinances’ are commandments 33:27, in which Iyov’s friend Elihu ben Barachel encourages Iyov to make whose reason is obvious and the benefit derived in this world from doing a public confession of his sins and say, “chatati ve-yashar he’eveiti ve-lo them is well known; for example the prohibitions against robbery and shavah li”- “I have sinned, and I have made crooked that which is straight murder, or the commandment of honoring one’s father and mother. The and it is not shavah for me.” The word shavah means “equal,” but that ‘chukim’ – ‘statutes,’ on the other hand, are the commandments whose does not seem to make much sense in this context. The Talmud (Yoma reason is not known” (Hilkhot Me’ilah 8:8). It is human nature to devalue 87a) derives from this verse that one who seeks his friend’s forgiveness that which we do not understand and Rambam (ibid.) cautions against this must appeal to him three times in the presence of three people. Rashi ex‐ kind of thinking: plains that the three expressions “chatati” and “ve-yashar he’eveiti” and

“ve-lo shavah li” are confessionary phrases and therefore we derive from A law for which he ﬁnds no reason and understands no 1 them the requirement of making three attempts to appease a friend. This cause should not be trivial in his eyes…behold it says in is in consonance with the interpretation of Metzudat David, who under‐ the Torah, “u-shemartem et kol chukotai ve-et kol stands that the last phrase “ve-lo shavah li” is synonymous with the previ‐ mishpatai va-asitem otam” – “And you shall observe all My ous phrase “ve-yashar he’eveiti.” The word shavah means equal in the statutes and all My ordinances and perform them” sense of straight. Accordingly, the translation of the Selichot prayer (Vayikra 20:22). Our Sages commented that the verbs should be, “We have strayed from Your commandments and from Your “observe” and “perform” refer to both the statutes and benevolent statutes and we have not kept to the straight path.” However, the ordinances (Sifra 10). Now “va-asitem” – “and many commentators are bothered by the unnecessary redundancy of Met‐ perform” is understood; it means to perform the statutes. zudat David’s reading of the phrase, and suggest alternative understand‐ But “shemirah”- “observe” means that one must be ings that can deepen the meaningfulness of our prayers during the Yamim careful concerning them and not imagine that they are Nora’im season. less important than the ordinances.

= ∞ According to Rambam by recognizing the tendency to devalue that which is not understood, we become self-aware and can overcome that tendency. The book of Mishlei declares that terrible punishments will befall those who scorn the Torah: “tachat ki san’u da’at ve-yirat Hashem lo bacharu” – However, Rambam’s presentation of the Sifra is problematic because the “because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of God” 95 Sifra defines “shemirah” differently in another location. Echoing the Eden and for others it is Gehinnom. Our physical orientation cannot be words of Vayikra 20:22, the Torah states, “u-shemartem mitzvotai va- denied, but a healthy dose of perspective may help to bridge the gap be‐ asitem otam” – “and you shall observe My commandments and perform tween our limited perception in olam ha-zeh and the proper sense of ap‐ them.” Rashi (quoting Sifra 8) explains: “u-shemartem” – “and you shall preciation for what lies before us in olam ha-ba. observe,” this refers to study; “va-asitem” – “and perform,” this refers to action. Sifra clearly defines “shemirah” as study, not as a humble religious The Dubner Maggid (Kol Negidim s.v. havel havalim) explains the opening posture towards the commandments as portrayed by Rambam. Rambam message of Kohelet that everything in the world is “havel havalim” – “van‐ makes use of the Sifra’s emphasis on “shemirah” of chukim, but seems to ity of vanities” by noting the developmental nature of man. A baby’s great‐ ignore the Sifra’s understanding that “shemirah” means study. est desire is for his mother’s milk. After being weaned, he shuns his mother’s milk and wants to play games of pretend. The teenager does not We can harmonize Rambam’s comments with the words of the Sifra by enjoy playing horsey, but derives tremendous pleasure from other activi‐ drawing an analogy to another area of human endeavor. The workings of ties, such as playing video games. Later in life, the same person finds the human brain are frustratingly complex, yet those who study neurology these games silly and gets his pleasure out of making money and acquir‐ will not demean the structures and mechanisms of the brain. On the con‐ ing fancy possessions. Even in adulthood our tastes develop to become trary, they will be filled with awe and inspiration both from the mystery more sophisticated and discerning, so that what we once enjoyed becomes which hovers over their work as well as from the conviction, formed from a memory belonging to a past version of ourselves while we go on to at‐ years of study, that the brain is indeed a brilliant, ordered system, even if tain the next perceived source of pleasure. This is the meaning of havel they have not yet plumbed its depths. The way to find value in the com‐ havalim: each new vanity is just the latest in a long line of vanities. mandments of God is to study them. After working through the intricacies of a dispute between Rashi and Tosafot and laboring over a long Be’ur As mature adults we can recognize that what we once thought was plea‐ Halakhah, one may not understand the philosophical underpinnings of a surable was really childish and foolish. While we may not be able to com‐ given commandment, but a sense of meaning will set in. When Rambam prehend the exact nature of the reward for observing mitzvot, we can now writes regarding the statutes that “one must be careful concerning them dimly perceive that when we leave this world it is reasonable to assume, and not imagine that they are less important than the ordinances,” he is based on all our past experiences, that the forms of pleasure and sources describing the result of “shemirah.” The way to achieve that result– of happiness in the next world might be different, but, nevertheless, will shemirah – is as the Sifra states, through study. The less a person under‐ be fundamentally satisfying. Unlike a child who cannot even imagine how stands the purpose of a commandment the more he should delve into its anyone could possibly enjoy certain adult activities, we should have the details and forms. Like the study of the brain, he may never fully under‐ perspective to appreciate that something truly great awaits us in the final stand the essence of the mitzvah, but he will never again be able to dimin‐ and eternal stage of our existence. ish its value. Every mitzvah equals infinity. Maharal (Tiferet Yisrael 13) explains that it The second aspect of our lack of appreciation for the mitzvot is that we do is for this reason that the Talmud asserts, “sechar mitzvah be-hai alma not have a concrete notion of what the reward for observing the com‐ leika” – “there is no reward for commandments in this world” (Kiddushin mandments will be. We live in a physical world and our ability to imagine 39b). The intrinsic value of a mitzvah is boundless and its reward is im‐ a spiritual concept of reward is strikingly limited. The Talmudic sage Rav measurable. The physical world which is finite cannot possibly contain would often say, “In the World to Come there is no eating, no drinking, no within it the infinite nature of the reward for mitzvot. During Selichot we procreation, no business, no jealousy, no hatred and no rivalry. Rather, the confess that God’s commandments have not been “shavah lanu.” We have righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and delight in the radiance failed to perceive the worth of His commandments, but by committing of the divine Presence” (Berakhot 17a). Now, frankly, to most people that ourselves to Talmud Torah and by contemplating our own developmental probably sounds incredibly boring. In Jewish folklore it is said humorously nature we can strive to correct this serious flaw. that there is no difference between Gan Eden and Gehinnom. In both, one sits in a Beit Midrash and studies Gemara. For some people that is Gan 1. However, see Ran (ibid.) who explains the Talmud’s inference from this verse differently. ↩

Spiritual Math II

by R. Moshe Schapiro 96 = 0 the perspective that what we have accomplished in terms of spirituality is relatively insigniﬁcant and that which we have not yet attained should ap‐ Within the interpretation that the word “shavah” connotes value or worth, pear larger and more tantalizing in our eyes. R. Falkenfeld explains that there is another way to understand the meaning of the phrase “ve-lo this concept of spiritually-focused imagination is the key to understanding shavah lanu.” The Talmud (Sukkah 51a) describes an apocalyptic scene in a parable oﬀered by Chazal to illustrate why Moshe Rabbenu excelled in which God slaughters the Evil Inclination: yirat shamayim compared to the rest of his generation:

In the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will R. Chanina said, “To illustrate by a parable: if a man is bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the asked for a large vessel and he has it, it seems to him like righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the a small vessel. If he is asked for a small vessel and he appearance of a tall mountain, and to the wicked it will does not have it, it appears to him like a large vessel” have the appearance of a thread of hair. Both the former (Berakhot 33b). and the latter will weep. The righteous will weep saying, “How were we able to overcome such a tall mountain?” The common explanation of this passage is that to fulfill what might be The wicked also will weep saying, “How is it that we were considered a difficult request is easy for someone who has the means to unable to conquer this thread of hair?” fulfill it, whereas even a small request is made difficult by not having those means. In the case of Moshe Rabbenu, the small and large vessels This Talmudic passage is perplexing. Is the yetzer ha-ra a mountain or a refer to small and large spiritual demands. Moshe Rabbenu, who had al‐ hair? What accounts for the extreme difference in perception between the ready achieved great spiritual heights, could consider a demanding chal‐ righteous and the wicked? R. Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik (Beit Ha-Levi, lenge to his yirat shamayim like a minor request. The others of his genera‐ Bereshit s.v. be-mas’ sukkah) writes that in fact the Evil Inclination is tion who were not possessed of such greatness, found that even a small merely the power of our imagination. The righteous, who never gave in to spiritual challenge seemed overwhelmingly large. their desires, imagine that the yetzer ha-ra must be monstrous and moun‐ tain-like. They will shed cathartic tears. However, the wicked who never R. Falkenfeld presents a novel interpretation of this parable. The person resisted the Evil Inclination know that the desire is always much greater who owns the large vessel views it as a small vessel because human na‐ than the actual pleasure gained. To the wicked, who will finally contem‐ ture is to devalue that which is already in our possession. However, if a plate their deeds at the end of time, the yetzer ha-ra will seem like a pa‐ small vessel is requested and he does not yet own it, human nature will thetic, puny thread of hair and they will cry tears of bitterness at their in‐ cause him to view it as a large vessel. Moshe channeled this natural in‐ ability to resist its temptations. stinct toward spiritual endeavors. He viewed whatever attainments he had made thus far, no matter how great they might have been, as small mat‐ The Beit Ha-Levi explains that this is the meaning of the Selichot prayer: ters compared to what was yet left to accomplish. Conversely, every new “We have strayed from Your commandments and from Your benevolent spiritual demand, no matter how small, loomed large in Moshe Rabbenu’s statutes and it was not worth it to us.”1 Our yetzer ha-ra fooled us into eyes. Moshe’s contemporaries, whose imaginations were not as focused thinking that we would gain so much pleasure from violating God’s will, on spiritual matters, could not match Moshe’s ambitions and consequently but in the end we realize our folly. We have all experienced that uncom‐ could not equal his accomplishments. fortable sense of guilt and embarrassment after having given into our de‐ sires and realizing that it was not even worth it. While we must strive to emulate Moshe Rabbenu, to channel our imagina‐ tion toward spiritual goals, we must also maintain the battle against get‐ R. Meir Schiff [17th cent.] (Chidushei Maharam Schiff, Chullin, Drushim) ting caught up in our overblown expectations of physical and material also notes this quirk of the human imagination. The Midrash (Kohelet pleasure. The Beit Ha-Levi (Parshat Yitro, s.v. lo tachmod) instructs us Rabbah 1:13) asserts, “A person does not die with half of his desires in how to fight this battle. We can all imagine the following scene: a person hand. For he who has a hundred, desires to make of it two hundred.” One overpowered by his desire for a cheeseburger is running down a snow- does not have to be a math professor to realize that if you have a hundred covered street. Just as he is about to reach the Golden Arches® he slips and you want two hundred that you do in fact have half of your desires in on the ice. The momentary fear that he might fall seizes him and drives hand. The Midrash’s calculations are seemingly flawed. The Maharam the thought of a Big Mac® right out of his mind. Even a small amount of Schiff explains that while it is true that one hundred is half of two hun‐ fear can dispel the physical urges that sometimes take hold of a person. dred, the half that the person does not have seems much larger to him The Beit Ha-Levi concludes that the only way to overcome the maddening than the half he already has. The Midrash is precise in its words. He does clutches of the yetzer ha-ra is with the power of fear. However, this fear not have “half of his desires.” For that which is desired will always seem must be a healthy one. greater. After the revelation of God on Mt. Sinai, the people told Moshe Rabbenu R. Shmuel Falkenfeld [1737–1806] (Beit Shmuel Acharon, Parshat Ekev) that they were terrified by the awesome spectacle they had just wit‐ assumes that the trait to amplify the importance of unsatisfied desires was nessed. Moshe Rabbenu explained to them God’s purpose in revealing implanted in us by God and must serve a higher purpose.2 Instead of Himself in such a daunting manner: “Do not fear. For God has come in or‐ dreaming about material and physical gratification we should endeavor to der to elevate you; so that the fear of Him should be upon your faces, so exaggerate the significance of unfulfilled spiritual goals. We should adopt that you shall not sin” (Shemot 20:17). This verse seems to contradict it‐ 97 self. First Moshe Rabbenu tells the people not to fear and then he says ural human tendency to exaggerate the appeal of what we desire is diffi‐ that the purpose of the revelation was that they should fear. The Sefat cult. Developing a sincere feeling of yirat shamayim and orienting our de‐ Emet (Parshat Yitro, 5648) explains that God does not want us to experi‐ sires toward spiritual attainment are lifelong endeavors. By proclaiming ence a fear that is paralyzing and destructive. Rather, the fear of God “lo shavah lanu” we are committing ourselves to this struggle. should be experienced in a way that is motivating and constructive. If we can ingrain this uplifting sense of awe into our consciences, then when an 1. See Rashi to Iyov 33:27. ↩ illicit desire arises in our hearts it will be banished by the stronger sensa‐ tion of overwhelming dread of the Almighty. 2. The Beit ha-Levi (ibid.) argues that this peculiarity of human na‐ ture was not God-given, but was acquired by man when he ate Before committing a sinful act we imagine we will experience a worth‐ from the etz ha-da’at tov va-ra –“the tree of knowledge of good while pleasure, however, in the end we know the truth: the value of a sin and evil.” He even suggests that the name of the infamous tree is zero. During Selichot we proclaim that we have sinned and we admit should be understood as “etz ha-da’at tov”–“the tree of thinking that “lo shavah lanu” – our sins have gained us nothing. Defeating the nat‐ something is good,”“va-ra”–“but it is really bad.” ↩

Spiritual Math III the same for us.” We often imagine that we can contain the implications and repercussions of our sins, but all too often that is simply not true. Straying from God’s commandments can have di‐ rect and indirect consequences, both of which can be signiﬁcant.

The psychological dynamic that causes us to downplay the direct impact of our actions is very familiar to us. Someone trying to lose weight by R. Moshe Schapiro reaches into a potato chip bag to take “just one chip.” Then, they reach in again for “just one = ≠ more.” Not too long after, an empty bag is thrown away and the consequences show up The word “shavah” can also be defined as “un‐ mercilessly on the scale. The response to this changing” or “constant.” The scriptural basis for psychological foible is articulated by Shlomo Ha- this definition is found in Mishlei 27:15, “delef Melekh in the book of Kohelet: “tovah chochmah tored be-yom sagrir ve-eshet midyanim nish‐ mi-klei kerav ve-chote echad ye’abed tovah har‐ tavah [from the Hebrew root shavah]” – “An irk‐ beh” – “wisdom is better than weapons of war some dripping on a rainy day and a contentious and one sin can destroy much good” (Ko‐ wife are equal [i.e., alike].” Although many of the helet 9:18). The Talmud (Kiddushin 40b) explains commentaries translate the above verse as we the second half of the verse: have done, Metzudat David and Malbim inter‐ pret Mishlei 27:15 as follows: a drip is only irk‐ A person should always perceive some on a yom sagrir – a rainy day when every‐ one is inside the house under the leaky roof. himself as though he were half guilty However, a contentious wife is “nishtavah” a con‐ and half meritorious: if he performs one 1 stant source of irksomeness. If shavah denotes mitzvah he is fortunate, for he has constancy, the meaning of the Selichot prayer is, tipped the balance for himself to the “We have strayed from Your commandments and Your benevolent statutes and things did not stay side of merit. If he commits one 98 transgression, woe to him, for he has Dessler terms their “nekudat ha-bechirah” – the tipped the balance for himself to the point of juncture between Free Will and the per‐ son’s environment. A person who grew up in a re‐ side of guilt. As it says, “and one sin ligious home has a different set of choices before can destroy much good.” Because of a him than a person who grew up in a secular envi‐ single sin that he committed much ronment. They both have bechirah chofshit, but the kinds of choices they need to make are al‐ good is lost to him. ready prepared for them by their previous life choices and experiences. If we sin or if we make However, while the Talmud addresses the end of certain decisions regarding our religious trajec‐ the verse, it does not explain the relevance of the tory, then that will influence the entire context in opening words, “wisdom is better than weapons which we will live our spiritual lives. of war.” R. Yaakov of Lissa (Ta’alumot Chochmah, Kohelet, ad loc.) explains that the be‐ The Torah records the formula to be recited ginning of the verse sets up a contrast between twice in every seven-year Shemittah cycle upon the weapons of the Evil Inclination and the wis‐ the disposition of tithes: dom of the Good Inclination. The all-too-familiar tactic of the yetzer ha-ra is to convince us that what we are about to do is “just one” little thing Then you shall declare before Hashem, with no long term impact. To counteract that your God, “I have cleared out the holy thinking we need the wisdom of the yetzer ha- portions from the house [bi’arti hatov, namely, “ve-chote echad ye’abed tovah har‐ kodesh min ha-bayit]. And I have given beh”–“and one sin can destroy much good.” Every single act is important and can have it to the Levi, the stranger, the orphan weighty repercussions. The Talmud’s formula‐ and the widow, just as You commanded tion, “A person should always perceive himself,” me. I have neither transgressed nor is a restatement of the first half of the verse. neglected any of Your commandments. The chochmah of the yetzer ha-tov is to make the second half of the verse our mantra: “ve-chote I have not eaten of it while in echad ye’abed tovah harbeh.” We have to habitu‐ mourning; I did not consume any of it ate ourselves to a different mode of thinking. At in a state of impurity and I did not give every turn we should reject the “just one” atti‐ tude and consciously adopt an “each and every of it for the needs of the dead. I obeyed one” attitude. Hashem, my God. I have done just as You have commanded me.” Even one sin can directly impact upon our every‐ (Devarim 26:13–14). day life. However, there are many indirect effects of sin that can be more far-reaching and signifi‐ cant. R. Eliyahu Dessler (Michtav me-Eliyahu v.1 Chazal term this declaration “vidui ma’aser”- pp.113–114) writes that while every human being “the confession of the ma’aser tithe.”2 Why do has “bechirah chofshit”- “Free Will,” to choose the Sages use the term “confession”? This decla‐ between good and evil, a person only exercises ration is a boast, not a confession. R. Ovadyah their Free Will within the framework of what R. Seforno explains that originally the service of 99 God in the Temple was to be performed by the ward. We can re-evaluate our religious attitudes first born male of each family and they would re‐ and re-think our religious goals and aspirations. ceive the tithes. It was only after the sin of the Most importantly we must train ourselves to em‐ Golden Calf that the kohanim and levi’im were phasize the importance of every choice we make. chosen to replace the firstborns.3 The farmer’s statement, “bi’arti ha-kodesh min ha-bayit” is a When we stand before God and proclaim that we confession that due to the sins of his forefathers, have strayed from His commandments “ve-lo the holy tithes, instead of staying in the family shavah lanu”–“and things have not stayed the and being given to his first born, must now be same,” we are recognizing two realities. First, we distributed to the levi’im. In effect, the man is realize that we often give in to the “just one” ar‐ saying, “Yes, I did everything as commanded, but gument of the yetzer ha-ra and we acknowledge the entire plane upon which I performed that this is foolish because it is false. Second, we these mitzvot was created through sin. It is not admit that our choices have impacted the sub‐ the ideal. I can be proud that I have acted well stance of who we are and how we live. Starting within my framework, but it is a sorry frame‐ now we must re-invigorate our spiritual ambi‐ work, indeed.” tions so that things will not be the same. They will be better. A single decision or act can sometimes have pro‐ found, life changing consequences. We might pat 1. The same usage is found in the liturgical ourselves on the back now and think that we are poem Ve-chol Ma’aminim recited on being very good Jews in our daily lives, but is our the Yamim Nora’im where we describe God concept of a good Jew as advanced and as ele‐ as “Ha-Shaveh u-mashveh katon ve-gadol”- vated as it could have been if we had made other “the unchanging One, Who treats small and choices or avoided certain kinds of behaviors or great alike.” ↩ activities? We cannot change history. The first born males will never be reinstated to the Temple 2. See Berakhot 40b and Masoret Ha- service. The tithes will always belong to the ko‐ Shas there. See also Megillah 20b. ↩ hanim and levi’im. However, being aware of the fact that we often create the context in which we 3. See Rashi Bemidbar 3:12 ↩ act out our spiritual lives can help us going for‐

Spiritual Math IV ≤ 0

If our spiritual trajectories have changed, and not necessarily for the better, we can suggest an additional interpretation of the phrase ve-lo shavah lanu, returning once again to the mean‐ ing of value or worth.1 Perhaps we have reached a moment of crisis and we despair that we have squandered our talents and wasted our spiritual potential. Just as Haman proclaimed, “ve-chol by R. Moshe Schapiro zeh einenu shoveh li” – “all this is worth nothing 100 to me,” so too we have come to the realization Laws of Repentance. After meticulously listing that ve-lo shavah lanu- nothing is worth anything those sinners who forfeit their share in the World to us. We fear that God will never forgive us and to Come, Rambam concludes: “When were these that we have strayed so far that we can never re‐ words said, that each of these does not have a pent. Our lives are devoid of existential meaning share in the World to Come? When he dies with‐ and all our hopes are dashed against the cruel out having repented. However, if he repents of reality of who we have become and what we have his wickedness and dies in his penitence, behold, failed to accomplish. This loss of hope paralyzes he is worthy of the World to Come. For, there is us. nothing that stands in the way of repentance” (3:14). Later, Rambam lists a series of behaviors To combat the feeling of ye’ush, we must first re‐ or attitudes that prevent or hinder repentance. store our confidence in our own ability to repent. Again, he concludes: “All these matters and such We are afraid that after having sunk so low, we like, even though they prevent repentance, they simply will not be able to climb out of the abyss. do not preclude it. Rather, if a person repents However, Chazal teach, through several dramatic from them, he is a penitent and enjoys a share in examples, that there is no depth from which a the World to Come” (4:6). Finally, Rambam offers person cannot rise. The Midrash (Bereshit Rab‐ words of encouragement, poetically describing bah 65:22) tells the story of Yosef of Shita, who the potency of teshuvah: “How exalted is repen‐ was so indifferent to God, that he willingly dese‐ tance? Last night he was odious before God… to‐ crated the Beit ha-Mikdash and Yakum of Tzero‐ day he is beloved… last night he was separated rot who was so distant from his own people that from Hashem, the God of Israel… but today he he mocked the martyrdom of his own uncle, one clings to the divine presence” (7:6–7). Repen‐ of the Sages of Israel. Yet, they both were moved tance is always possible no matter how odious to repent and were given special passage into the the sinner or how distant he is from God. World to Come. Similarly, the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 17a) tells the story of Elazar ben Dordaya Concomitant with the recognition that we are ca‐ whose descent into immorality and decadence pable of repentance is faith in the power of God’s was simply astounding. His subsequent despair forgiveness. In Psalm 130, Shir HaMa’alot was pathetic and heart-wrenching and his repen‐ MiMa’amakim,the psalmist struggles with the tance was accepted. His example is so inspiring fear that his prayers may not be heard because and emboldening that the Talmud concludes that his sins stand in the way. He beseeches God, “For he received the posthumous title Rebbi, because with You is forgiveness, that You may be feared” he taught that repentance is always possible. Th‐ which seems counterintuitive. Why would for‐ ese stories are extreme examples in which the giveness lead to fear of God? Wouldn’t the expec‐ protagonists’ overwhelming remorse is so power‐ tation of forgiveness lead to an attitude of per‐ ful that it leads to premature death and immedi‐ missiveness and laxity? R. Menachem Meiri (ad ate entry to the World to Come. Obviously, we do loc.) explains that the very possibility of forgive‐ not seek to emulate the exact manner of their re‐ ness means that all is not lost. If there was noth‐ pentance. However, their stories serve as inspira‐ ing we could do to escape punishment or to miti‐ tion to resist the feeling of ye’ush. gate the consequences of our sins, we would sim‐ ply give up. Therefore, the recognition that there Rambam incorporates the concept that repen‐ can be forgiveness leads to the fear of God and tance is always possible in several places in his doubting that forgiveness leads to spiritual paral‐ 101 ysis. In fact, doubting God’s forgiveness is the by rejecting and rising above his feelings first step in a course of self-destructive behavior. of ye’ush can the sinner return to Hashem and be forgiven. Moshe Rabbenu offers a powerful lesson about the self-destructive nature of ye’ush in the begin‐ We may have capitulated to feelings of despair ning of Parashat Nitzavim. After setting forth the and let many opportunities to repent slip through terrible punishments that will be visited upon the our fingers in the past, but, as we declare in Jewish people if they abandon God’s Torah, the Né’ilah service, God’s hand is always Moshe warns that there may be an individual “stretched out to receive those who repent.” R. who will “hear the words of this curse and will Tzvi Hirsch of Dinov (Agra de-Kallah, Parashat Ki bless himself in his heart [ve-hitbareikh bi-lev‐ Tisa s.v. saru maher)notes, homiletically, that avo] saying, ‘Peace will be with me, though I there are only two verses in the Torah that begin walk as my heart sees fit’” (Devarim 29:18). with the Hebrew letter samekh. The first, “Saru God’s reaction to this individual is resolute, maher” – “They have strayed quickly” (She‐ “Hashem will not be willing to forgive him” (ibid. mot 32:8) describes the sin of the Jewish people 19). The Targum Yonatan translates the above with the Golden Calf. The second, “Salachti ki-de‐ bracketed phrase: “ve-yitya’eish be-libeih” – “and varekha” – “I have forgiven according to your he will give up hope in his heart.” The desired re‐ word” (Bemidbar 14:20) is the expression of sponse to hearing the curses is to repent and God’s forgiveness for the sin of the spies. The thereby be forgiven. However, some people, feel‐ roundness of the two letters samekh signifies the ing that they cannot possibly live up to God’s de‐ constant interplay between sin and forgiveness. mands and will never be forgiven, surrender to Man sins again and again, but sin is not a spiri‐ their feelings of ye’ush and take the tual cul-de-sac because, as Yeshayahu teaches us, God is “abundantly forgiving.” He forgives again path of least resistance. R. Yosef Albo (Sefer and again if we only turn to Him and repent. HaIkkarim 4:26) notes that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the possibility of forgiveness Ultimately, even if we feel we can repent and creates not just a hope, but an obligation to re‐ even if we are confident in God’s forgiveness, we pent. If the sinner abandons that hope, he actu‐ may be dragged down by the reality that we have ally intensifies his sinfulness and consequently, caused irreparable damage in many areas of our “Hashem will not be willing to forgive him.”2 On life and nothing can change the ramifications and Fast Days we read the words of the prophet Ye‐ negative outcomes that our sins and flawed per‐ shayahu urging the Jewish nation to repent: sonalities have yielded. It would be dishonest and “May the wicked one forsake his path and the naïve to pretend that this is not the case. Our ac‐ sinful man his thoughts, and let him return to tions and attitudes can have consequences that Hashem Who will show him mercy, and to our will continue beyond our repentance and often God for He is abundantly forgiving” (Ye‐ may not be changed by attaining forgiveness. We shayah 55:7). R. Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer have to lick our wounds and move on. Before the (Derashot Ketav Sofer, Shofar 5655) writes that Jewish nation would go to war the head chaplain the “path” of the sinner is his wicked actions and (mashu’ach milchamah) would proclaim, “Hear O corrupt character traits, but the “thoughts” of Israel [shema yisrael] today you draw near to war the sinner which must be forsaken refer to his against your enemies. Let not your heart be faint; thoughts of self-doubt and giving up hope. Only do not be afraid, do not panic and do not be bro‐ 102 ken before them” (Devarim 20:3). The Talmud yoke of Heaven upon himself by reciting Shema. (Sotah 42a) associating the declaration “shema If a sinful individual can pick himself up, commit yisrael” here with the more famous twice-daily himself to Torah and mitzvot and leap back into recitation of Shema, understands that the fray, then he can fight courageously and be the mashu’ach milchamah is offering words of confident of divine assistance. R. Yossi ha-Galili is encouragement as the army marches out to meet speaking of a man who is afraid of his sins. He the enemy: “Even if you have only fulfilled the wallows in his depression and allows the feelings recitation of Shema morning and evening, you of guilt and hopelessness to overwhelm him. He will not be given over into their hands.” cannot properly recite Shema because he cannot accept the yoke of Heaven and move forward in Fulfilling the mitzvah of Keri’at Shema seems like his service of God. Such a person cannot go out a very low standard to merit divine protection . to war. There may be permanent consequences to An apparently contradictory view emerges from a our sins and we may have lost many battles, but different Talmudic passage (ibid. 44a) that if we cannot let those losses and failures cripple records a dispute between R. Akiva and R. us. If we are confident that we can still prevail, Yossi ha-Galili. After exempting men with specific God will help us to do so. personal needs from army service, the ko‐ hanim make one final proclamation: “Who is the As we stand before God on Yom Kippur and pro‐ man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go claim that we have strayed from His Torah and and return to his house and let him not melt the commandments, we may be struck by a very heart of his fellows like his heart” (De‐ painful realization: ve-lo shavah lanu – nothing is varim 20:8). While R. Akiva understands the in‐ worth anything anymore. We feel powerless to re‐ tent of the kohanim literally, namely that those pent, hopeless that God will forgive us and para‐ who lack physical courage should turn back from lyzed by the real and lasting consequences of our the battle, R. Yossi ha-Galili maintains that actions. Yet, we must immediately stir ourselves. the kohanim’s words are figurative. They refer, We cannot be fearful and softhearted. We must not to “the man who is fearful” of fighting, but to be brave and leap back into the fray. We can re‐ “the man who is fearful” of the sins he has com‐ pent and achieve atonement and we can make mitted and does not have confidence that he will the most out of our circumstances. Our life is not merit divine protection. If the only merit one equal to zero, it can still be full of worth and needs to be victorious in war is the meaning. recital Shema, why would a soldier be fearful that he might not merit protection? 1. I thank Dr. Michael Samet who suggested this interpretation to me. ↩ R. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (Emet ve-Emu‐ nah 507) comments that even a soldier who has 2. For more on this theme see Meshekh committed a transgression can be worthy of di‐ Chochmah, Devarim 30:11. ↩ vine protection in battle, if he can accept the

103 Spiritual Math V candy man’s bag in Shul, his lips may be purple, but his soul is crimson. The Tzeilemer Rav, R. Levi Yitzchak Greenwald (Migdalot Mirkachim, Seder ha-Tefillah p.4) expands this idea beyond chronological stages in life to each person’s unique life circumstances. The religious struggles of a successful Wall Street banker are different than those of a Rosh Kollel- even if they end up in the same jail cell for cheating on their taxes. R. Greenwald suggests that this is the in‐ by R. Moshe Schapiro tent of the phrase “ve-lo shavah lanu.” We are confessing that we have committed sins that > or < were not “worthy of us” namely, that were not appropriate for our circumstances or stage in If we return one final time to the original defini‐ life. tion of the Hebrew root “shavah,” meaning “equal” in the sense of “worth,” we can discern R. Eliyahu Meir Bloch develops a similar inter‐ an additional intent in the phrase “ve-lo shavah pretation, but adds a new dimension. In the haf‐ lanu.” The prophet Yeshayahu promises the peo‐ tarah for Parshat Vayigash, Yechezkel communi‐ ple forgiveness for their sins if they repent, “im cates God’s promise that He will redeem the yiyihu chata’eichem ka-shanim ka-sheleg yalbinu Jewish people and cleanse us of our sins: im yadimu ka-tola ka-tzemer yiyihu” – “if your sins are like scarlet, they will become as white as Behold! I shall take the Children of snow. If they have become as red as crimson they will become as wool” (Yeshayahu 1:18). The Israel from among the nations to which Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 9:3) offers a homileti‐ they went and I shall gather them from cal interpretation of this verse by playing on the around and bring them to their own Hebrew word for scarlet “shanim” which can also land. I shall make them a single nation mean “years.” If a man’s sins are according to his years, then they will become as white as snow. If in the land, on the hills of Israel, and they are greater than that, they will only become one king shall be king of them all. th as white as wool. R. David Frankel [18 Cent.] Never again shall they be two nations (Korban Ha-Edah, ad loc.) explains that it is natu‐ ral for a person to struggle with different kinds of and never again shall they be divided temptations at different times in his life. As long into two kingdoms. And they shall no as he eventually rises above his desires and re‐ longer be contaminated by their idols pents, God is willing to forgive him because the and their abhorrent things, and by all fact that the sins he committed were natural for him at that time in his life is a mitigating factor. their other transgressions. I will save However, if he commits a sin that is unnatural for them from all their dwelling places [mi- his stage in life, it is much harder to achieve for‐ kol moshvoteihem] where they sinned giveness. If an adult filches lollipops from the 104 and I will cleanse them. Then they shall was not worthy of us” as amplifying the serious‐ be My people and I will be their God” ness of our sins, it is also possible to see in this phrase a source of hope and inspiration. We men‐ (Yechezkel 37:21–23). tioned above that the declaration of a farmer upon clearing out his house of tithes is termed These verses seem redundant. We are told that by Chazal “vidu’i ma’aser” – “the confession of God will gather us from exile and that we will no the ma’aser tithe.” We noted that this term is in‐ longer engage in our former sinful behavior. Why congruous because the content of the recitation does the navi repeat that God will save us from seems more like a boast that he has fulfilled all our dwellings in exile and purify us from our the laws correctly, rather than a confession of sins? wrongdoing. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Chameish Derashot, Berit Avot, pp. 85–87) an‐ R. Bloch (Peninei Da’at, Parshat Vayigash) re‐ swers that there are two prerequisites for repen‐ sponds to the seemingly redundant message of tance. First, a person must be able to recognize double salvation by delineating two kinds of sin. that he has sinned. If there is no hakarat ha-chet, A Jew may transgress the Torah’s laws, but still repentance is impossible. Second, the penitent retain his essential character as a Jew. However, must believe that he is capable of purifying him‐ there are some sins and attitudes that are foreign self from the contamination of sin. He must feel to the spirit of a Jew. The navi terms these alien that inside of him are the sources of spiritual behaviors and modes of thought “mi-moshvotei‐ strength and renewal. If he cannot believe in his hem” – adopted from their dwelling places in ex‐ own power to improve and rise above his past be‐ ile because of the forces of assimilation. havior, then the teshuvah process cannot move Yechezkel first addresses our salvation from forward. This second prerequisite is just as cru‐ those offenses which, while of a serious nature, cial as the first. The farmer who comes forward did not compromise our core identity. However, to recite vidu’i ma’aser is stating proudly that he transgressions “mi-moshvoteihem” that stem has fulfilled the commandments of God. This is a from outside influences require a second salva‐ confession. He is admitting that he can live up to tion. Even strictly observant Jews who are com‐ the demands of God’s will. In fact, by recognizing mitted to the Torah’s that he can succeed he will also be able to con‐ fess when he has fallen short. worldview are not always fully aware of the de‐ gree to which ideas antithetical to the Torah can When we declare in Selichot that we have take hold of them. R. Bloch explains the Seli‐ strayed from God’s commandments “and it was chot prayer in this way: “We have strayed from not equal to us” we are saying that our past be‐ Your commandments and Your benevolent havior was not worthy of who we really are. We statutes and it was not worthy of us [i.e., it was are better than our behavior might show and we not consonant with our Jewish identity].” Some of can do better going forward. Our sins are not the behaviors and thoughts that we have had are greater than us. We are greater than our sins. alien to us as Jews. ∑ While both R. Greenwald and R. Bloch under‐ stand the phrase “ve-lo shavah lanu” – “and it After striking our chests and listing off the mis‐ takes and shortcomings of the past year we have 105 to step back and try to figure out how, despite ways possible (Ketav Sofer and Agra de-Kallah) our commitment to the Torah, did we stray from and we must confidently and bravely continue its path. The words “ve-lo shavah lanu” open up the fight even as we feel the pain of our battle- many avenues of introspection. If shavah con‐ scars (Kotzker Rebbi). Finally, we must consider notes “worth” and it is due to our lack of appreci‐ that our statement– “ve-lo shavah lanu” is mak‐ ation for the worth of God’s commandments that ing us aware that many of our sins are not con‐ we have drifted (Vilna Gaon), then we must sistent with our stage in life and individual cir‐ rededicate ourselves to Talmud Torah and rein‐ cumstances and that many of our attitudes actu‐ force the recognition of each mitzvah as infinite ally contradict and undermine our most cher‐ both in terms of its intrinsic value as well as its ished beliefs as Jews (Rabbis Bloch and Green‐ ultimate reward. If we have succumbed to the il‐ wald). lusion that by sinning we will reap great benefit and we are declaring that the sin was “not worth The Yamim Nora’im season is a time of spiritual it to us” (Beit Ha-Levi) then we must channel our mathematics and it is scary. We tally our deeds desires into spiritual venues, enhance our yirat and calculate our accomplishments and deficien‐ shamayim and continually remind ourselves that cies. In elementary school, addition is easier than a sin is really worthless. If we have fallen prey to subtraction. Unfortunately, in the realm of spiri‐ yet another gimmick of the yetzer ha-ra, to down‐ tual math, it is easier to subtract. As we strike play the impact of individual sins or choices and out chests and declare our sins, we can quickly their repercussions (R. Yaakov of Lissa) and we find ourselves in the range of negative numbers. are bemoaning the fact that “things have not This realization can be terrifying and paralyzing. stayed the same for us” then we must train our‐ However, we must not forget to add the essence selves to emphasize the seriousness of every act of who we are to the equation. We are capable of and constantly keep guard over our spiritual better and we have great spiritual potential course which can shift quickly, because things do within us. We must rise above past mistakes and not remain the same. If we despair that “nothing strike out boldly to make this coming year a year is worth anything to us,” we must remind our‐ that is “shavah lanu”– equal to who we really are. selves that repentance and forgiveness are al‐

The Mitzva to Eat on Erev Laws of the Festivals Many customs and laws occupy us on the day preceding Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur and the Teshuva Some have the custom of visiting cemeteries before Yom Kippur,1 others of Yom Kippur participate in kapparot, swinging a live chicken or a small sack of money above their heads,2 and some even have the custom of receiving malkot (lashes).3

In addition, the Gemara teaches that there is a mitzva to eat on Erev Yom Kippur. What is the signiﬁcance of the Se’uda HaMafseket, the meal eaten immediately before the Yom Kippur fast?

The Talmud teaches:

R. Ḥiyya bar R. Difti taught: It says, “And you shall afflict yourselves on the ninth” [Lev. 23:32]. Now on the ninth do we fast? Do we not fast on the tenth? Rather, this is to by R. David Brofsky, excerpted from Hilkhot Mo’adim: Understanding the 106 tell you that anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth, the therefore they would not fast then. Similarly, it is now Scriptures considers it as if he fasted on the ninth and the understood that one who eats and drinks on the ninth, it tenth.4 is as if he fasted for the ninth and the tenth, because the fast on the tenth is harder for him…and therefore the fast Indeed, the Gemara records that “Mar the son of Ravina would sit at all on the tenth counts for him for two fasts.9 times in fast except for the days of Shavuot, Purim, and Erev Yom Kippur” (Pesaḥim 68b). Interestingly, Torah Temima’s father, R. Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829–1908), cites both reasons in his Arukh HaShulḥan, insisting that The Gemara teaches that there is a mitzvato eat on the day before Yom while the fast may be difficult due to excessive eating the day before, Kippur and that eating on Erev Yom Kippur and then fasting on Yom Kip‐ one’s ability to fast successfully will still be enhanced by eating on Erev pur is somehow tantamount to fasting for two days. What function does Yom Kippur. this mitzva fill? How are we to understand the Talmud’s equation between eating on the ninth of Tishrei and fasting on Yom Kippur? And does this Given this discussion, we might question the permissibility of ingesting mitzva somehow reflect the true nature of Yom Kippur? The Rishonim diff‐ pills before a fast that are purported to relieve the discomfort of the fast. ffer as to how to understand this mitzva. Indeed, R. Hayim Hezkia Medini, (1833–1904), in his Sedei Ḥemed, cites a scholar who discouraged engaging in segulot (spiritual remedies) in‐ Some view the obligation as a form of preparation for the fast. Rashi, for tended to ease the fast.10 Most posekim, however, insist that there is no example, explains: reason to be stringent, especially since according to Rashi, the entire in‐ tention of this mitzva is to ease the fast the next day.11 And the verse says, “And you shall afflict yourself on the

ninth,” implying [that you should] prepare yourself on the After citing the views of Rashi and the Rosh, Rabbeinu Yona (Spain, ninth in order to be able to fast on the tenth. And since 1180–1263) presents an alternate perspective of this mitzva. He writes: the Torah employed the language of “affliction,” it 5 teaches that it is as if one fasted on the ninth. If a person transgressed a negative commandment and repented, he should be concerned with his sin and long Rashi understands that one eats on the ninth of Tishrei in order to pre‐ and wait for the arrival of Yom Kippur in order that God pare for Yom Kippur. For this extra preparation, one receives “credit” as if will be appeased.…And this is what they meant [Rosh 6 one fasted on both days. Rosh concurs, explaining: HaShana 9a] [when they said that if] one who eats a special meal on the eve of Yom Kippur it is as if he was In other words, “prepare yourselves on the ninth, commanded to fast on the ninth and tenth and did so, as rejuvenate and strengthen yourselves through eating and he demonstrated his joy that the time for atonement has drinking, in order that you will be able to fast tomorrow.” come, and this will be a testimony for his concern for his This is in order to demonstrate God’s affection for Israel, guilt and his anguish for his sins.…Second, on other similar to a person who has a beloved child who must fast festive days, we eat a meal for the joy of the mitzva…and for a day; he will give him food and drink the day before since the fast is on Yom Kippur, we were commanded to the fast in order that he will tolerate [the fast]. Similarly, designate a meal for the joy of the mitzva on the day God does not normally command the Jewish people to before Yom Kippur.12 fast, except for one day, for their own good, to atone for 7 their sins. Ritva paraphrases Rabbeinu Yona, explaining that the mitzva to eat on Erev Yom Kippur is meant “to demonstrate that this day is holy to our Rosh understands the mitzva, like Rashi, as a preparation for the fast, but Lord, and it is appropriate to eat sweet foods, like on Rosh HaShana, but he adds that it demonstrates God’s affection for the Jewish people and His the Torah commands us to abstain on this day from physical pleasures in desire that they should not suffer. order that we should be like angels, as the Midrash says.”13 Rabbeinu Yona clearly believes that we are not to view the mitzva to eat on Erev Conversely, Shibbolei HaLeket suggests that one who eats “well” on the Yom Kippur as a preparation for the fast, but rather as an independent day before Yom Kippur will experience more discomfort on Yom Kippur it‐ commemoration or celebration of Yom Kippur that was “pushed up” to the 8 self. Similarly, R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein (1860–1941) explains in his To‐ day before. rah Temima: Incidentally, while ostensibly, “ve’initem et nafshoteikhem” (Lev. 16:31, Based upon what appears in Taanit 27b, that the anshei 23:27, 23:32; Num. 29:7) should be translated literally: “And you shall affl‐ mishmar [the Kohanim on duty] in the Temple would not fflict your souls,” implying that the purpose of the inuyim is to afflict, to fast on Sunday…and according to one [reason] in order cause discomfort, in order to motivate the person to repent, most Ris‐ that they should not go from rest and enjoyment [on honim, however, explain that the Torah commands the Jewish people to Shabbat] to discomfort and fasting. And the eat on Erev Yom Kippur so that they should experience less discomfort commentators explain that a fast which comes after a day during the fast (Rashi, Rosh), or to express one’s joy upon the opportunity of excessive eating and drinking is more difficult and to receive absolution (Rabbeinu Yona, Ritva). 107 The Aḥaronim discuss these two approaches – whether the mitzva is in‐ Kippur, when one’’s eating also fulfills the commandment of “inuy.”18 tended as a preparation for the fast of Yom Kippur or as a separate com‐ mandment – at great length. They raise a number of potential differences Rav Avraham Yitzḥak HaKohen Kook (1865–1935) analyzes this mitzvain between these approaches. R. Akiva Eiger (1761–1837), for example, his Ein Aya, a commentary on the Aggadic sections of the Talmud.19 He questions whether women are obligated in this mitzva. He was asked to begins by asserting that there are two dimensions of teshuva that are al‐ rule regarding an ailing woman who was warned by her doctors not to luded to in verses from the Torah: eat, lest her condition deteriorate. He writes: And it shall come to pass when all these things come God forbid, she should not eat. And since you say that she upon you, the blessing and the curse that I have set is learned, and fears the word of God and will hardly before you, and you will take it to your heart among all listen to you, my advice is to take a servant or two to tell the nations where the Lord your God has driven you. And her that a letter arrived from me prohibiting her from you will return unto the Lord your God and hearken to eating anything more than she is accustomed to each day. His voice, according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart and with all He concludes with the following thought: your soul.…And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your children to love the Lord your While this ruling must not be delayed, I am somewhat God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you curious regarding healthy women [as well], whether they may live. (Deut. 30:1–2, 6) are obligated to eat on Erev Yom Kippur, as possibly they may be exempt, as they are exempt from all time-bound If one “returns” to God, then why must God “circumcise his heart” in or‐ commandments.…Or possibly, since the verse employs der to bring about “the love of the Lord your God”? Rav Kook explains the phrase “the ninth of the month,” implying that it is as that sin impacts upon a person in two ways. First, the person has violated if one fasted on the ninth and the tenth, therefore all who the will of God. Second, the person has distanced himself from God, de‐ must fast on the tenth, to fulfill “and you shall afflict creasing the love and fear of God in his heart. The process of repentance, yourselves,” must fast on the ninth.…This question therefore, must both correct the sin as well as restore the love and fear of 14 requires further thought for a less busy time. God to one’s heart. These two goals of teshuva are accomplished in differ‐ ent ways. Other Aḥaronim discuss this question as well.15 In his commentary on R. Aḥai Gaon’s She’iltot, R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1816–1893), Netziv, The teshuva of restoring one’s personal relationship with God can best be supports the understanding that one eats on the ninth in order to prepare achieved without the distractions of the physical world. However, fixing for the fast on the tenth.16 Indeed, the text of the She’iltot reads, “One what one has wronged cannot be fully accomplished while detached from who eats and drinks on the ninth and fasts on the tenth, the Scriptures the world; rather, he must be immersed in this world. The Rabbis teach: considers it as if he fasted on the ninth and the tenth,” implying that one eats on the ninth in order to successfully fast on the tenth. If so, Netziv What is the definition of a baal teshuva (a person who has questions whether one who is confident in his ability to fast must still eat repented)? R. Yehuda said: One who has the opportunity and drink on the ninth. Conversely, must one who is unable to fast on Yom to do the same sin [implying that circumstances are such Kippur eat on the ninth? that his desire to do the sin is the same] and this time does not do it! He is a baal teshuva! (Yoma 86b) R. Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer (1815–1871), Ketav Sofer, also asks whether one who is unable to fast on Yom Kippur must still fulfill this If so, Rav Kook claims, “One must be involved in business dealings and in mitzva on Erev Yom Kippur.17 He concludes that an ailing woman who his day-to-day dealings and [still] act according to the God’s Torah and its cannot fast on Yom Kippur would certainly not be obligated to eat. He ar‐ commandments” in order to perform teshuva properly. One might there‐ gues that if the obligation relates to the fast, then she should be exempt, fore claim that the abstinence of Yom Kippur, through which one restores as she will not fast the next day, and if this halakha constitutes and inde‐ his personal relationship with God, does not actually achieve full and com‐ pendent obligation, she should be exempt because it is a time-bound com‐ plete teshuva. We thus eat and drink on the day before Yom Kippur, “and mandment. are careful in the service of God, placing the fear of God upon us so that we do not stumble with regard to any prohibition, even through eating Finally, should one strive to eat a meal with bread on Erev Yom Kippur? It and drinking, and we therefore engage in active repentance, and only af‐ 20 would seem that those who view this mitzvaas a preparation for the fast terward can we increase our repentance with added sanctity.” This would see no reason to prefer one manner of eating over another. How‐ beautiful idea explains why the Talmud equates the ninth and tenth days, ever, those who view this mitzva as a “se’udat mitzva”” or even a “se’udat as together they compose the complete experience of Yom Kippur. Yom Tov,” might be inclined to prefer a more festive meal made over bread. Similarly, Minḥat Ḥinukh questions whether there is a minimum 1. Rema 605. ↩ amount that one must eat. He concludes, creatively, that since the halakha defines “inuy” on Yom Kippur as abstaining from food the size of a date 2. Ibid. ↩ (kakotevet), one should similarly eat a minimum of a “date” on Erev Yom 108 3. See, for example, Siddur Rashi 211, Me’iri Ḥibbur HaTeshuva 11. See Ḥelkat Yaakov 2:58; Tzitz Eliezer 7:32; Mishneh Halakhot (Buber), p. 404, Rosh, Yoma 8:25, Tur and Shulḥan Arukh 606. 2:66. ↩ See also Rabbi Yitzḥak Tessler, “Matay Lokin Malkot BaErev Yom HaKippurim” Yeshurun, v. 11 (Elul 5762), who discusses when 12. Rabbeinu Yona, Shaarei Teshuva 4:8–10. ↩ lashes were generally given. ↩ 13. Ritva, Rosh HaShana 9a. ↩ 4. Yoma 81b, Rosh HaShana 9a, Pesaḥim 68b, Berakhot 8b. ↩ 14. Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 16. ↩ 5. Rashi, Yoma 81b, s.v. kol. ↩ 15. See Reshash, Sukka 28b; Minḥat Ḥinukh 313. ↩ 6. Rashi offers a similar interpretation in his commentary to Ber‐ akhot 8b, while he explains differently on Rosh HaShana 9a. ↩ 16. HaEmek She’ela 167:12. ↩

7. Rosh, Yoma 8:22. ↩ 17. Ketav Sofer 112. ↩

8. Shibbolei HaLeket 307. ↩ 18. Minḥat Ḥinukh 313:9. ↩

9. Torah Temima, Lev. 23, n. 97. ↩ 19. Ein Aya 38. ↩

10. Sedei Ḥemed, Ma’arekhet Yom HaKippurim 10:1. ↩ 20. Ein Aya 38. ↩

May one wear Crocs on Yom The Torah never specifies which actions are for‐ bidden on Yom Kippur. Rather, five times the Bi‐ Kippur? ble states that a person should afflict (innui) him‐ self, in addition to refraining from the work that is forbidden on Shabbat (Lev. 16, 23; Num. 29). Unlike the medieval Karaites, for whom affliction included wearing sackcloth and ashes, abstaining from sleep, and other deprivations, the sages lim‐ ited this term to five areas of self-denial: bathing, anointment, sexual relations, donning shoes, and nourishment (eating and drinking), with the lat‐ ter seen as the most severe prohibition, whose vi‐ by R. Shlomo Brody, excerpted from his new olation was punishable by spiritual banish‐ book, A Guide to the Complex: Contemporary ment, karet (Yoma 73–74). Halakhic Debates

Some scholars believed that despite this afflic‐ The permissibility of wearing comfortable, non- tion, an element of festive joy is also mandated, leather shoes on Yom Kippur has been much as on other holidays (mikra’ei kodesh) mentioned talked about over the last several years, follow‐ in the Torah (Lev. 23:27). In addition to dressing ing proclamations by rabbis Yosef Shalom nicely (Shabbat 119a), we recite the shehe‐ Elyashiv and Yaakov Ariel, among others, which heyanu blessing, which commemorates special strongly discouraged the wearing of Crocs on occasions. Mourners even halt their seven-day Yom Kippur. Despite the brouhaha, this debate is (shiva) bereavement practices so as to accord actually a continuation of a millennia-old discus‐ some measure of festivity to the day (Rabbi sion regarding the prohibitions of Yom Kippur. Yonatan of Lunel, Eiruvin 40a). Indeed, some un‐ derstood the requirement to eat before Yom Kip‐ 109 pur as fulfilling the obligation to feast on festivals HaMelekh 145). Other scholars allowed people to (BY OH 604). The Talmud further states that Yom swallow slow-release pills before the fast to pre‐ Kippur was deemed a happy occasion because of vent headaches (Tzitz Eliezer 7:32). the atonement afforded by the day (Taanit 30b). Contrary to popular belief, the Talmud never ex‐ Nonetheless, most scholars understood the day plicitly limits the ban on footwear to leather to be uniquely lacking in holiday festivities shoes. The Mishna states a blanket prohibition (Hizkuni, Rabbi Ovadia Seforno, Lev. 23:27). We (Yoma 73b), with a parallel tannaitic text further refrain from reciting the joyful Hallel Prayer or forbidding socks (Tosefta Yoma 4:1). The only ex‐ engaging in excessive happiness (MT Laws of plicit exceptions are for cases of illness, in‐ Reading the Megilla and of Hanukka 3:6), both clement weather, or walking in hazardous areas. deemed inappropriate for a day of judgment However, some sages covered their feet in reeds (Arakhin10b). Ultimately, the Torah aims to or rags (Yoma 78b). Some understood that these achieve a day of respite (shabbaton) from physi‐ rabbis limited the prohibition to formal “shoes,” cal pleasure along with a feeling of affliction rendering all other protective devices permissi‐ (Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Aseh 164). ble. Others, however, allowed such footwear only if one’s foot still felt discomfort from the ground; This goal, however, might afford certain lenien‐ anything providing greater protection was dis‐ cies with respect to activities that are clearly not qualified (Nahmanides, Shabbat 66a). intended for pleasure. The Talmud, for example, allows people to rinse dirt from their body and This dispute continued into the medieval era, wash their hands after using the bathroom or be‐ with Maimonides (MT Laws of Yom Kippur 3:7) fore performing ritual activities (OH 613). These and others requiring one’s foot to feel the dispensations led some to assert that the activi‐ ground, while others, followed by Rabbi Joseph ties prohibited on Yom Kippur for the sake of affl‐ Karo, forbade only footwear made of leather or ffliction – with the exception of nutrition – origi‐ wood (OH 614:2). Despite the latter, normative nated as rabbinic edicts (Rosh, Yoma 8:1). ruling, many prominent figures, including rabbis Others, however, believed that the Torah prohib‐ Yisrael Meir Kagan (MB 614:5) and Yehiel Michel ited only acts of pleasure, leaving room for le‐ Epstein (AH OH 614:4), deemed it meritorious to niency in other circumstances (Yere’im 420). By wear slippers or soft-soled shoes in which one nature, however, anointment and nutrition entail feels the ground. While Rabbi Joseph B. enjoyment; therefore they remain prohibited, ex‐ Soloveitchik also discouraged padded sneakers cept in cases of medical necessity (OH 614:1, (Nefesh HaRav, p. 210), Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch 618). further suggested that any regularly worn, com‐ fortable shoes should not be donned on Yom Kip‐ An interesting debate exists regarding actions pur (Moadim U’Zemanim 6:28). Despite these that alleviate discomfort. Many decisors permit‐ sentiments, the widespread practice – as noted ted the use of snuff (AH OH 612:6), for example, by Israel’s chief rabbi during the recent Crocs which some considered an appropriate way to controversy – is to wear any type of non-leather mark the festivity of the day (Gan shoe.

110 Moshe’s calming response was that Hashem’s granting them prophecy Unity in Leadership, should reassure them of Eldad and Medad’s ﬁtting with the current lead‐ Prophecy, and Wisdom ership. The Value of Teachers and the Decline of Prophecy and Wisdom

Ran’s belief that proximity to a person at a higher level can elevate the one at the lower level gives a value to the presence of teachers beyond their technical roles. Since the teacher—of wisdom or prophecy—is at a higher level than the student, the teacher can help the student advance in ways independent of the explicit act of teaching.

He uses that to explain why Ketubbot 111a stresses the added value of studying with a teacher, and why R. Yehudah haNasi said (Eruvin 13b) that his greater success at Torah study was having seen R. Meir from be‐ by R. Gidon Rothstein hind. He hadn’t received actual learning from R. Meir; he had been in his presence. (This obviously militates against distance learning in all its How unified a leadership do we want? In democracies, we like checks and forms, but that’s a different discussion). balances, diversity and multiplicity of opinion, to avoid getting trapped in one mode of thought. Ran assumes the opposite, that one leader is best. If all learning is jumpstarted by a teacher, whose proximity takes us be‐ This shapes how he views the process of the elders joining Moshe yond what we are ready for, we become an offshoot of that teacher (as Rabbenu’s leadership team. with the elders—not only did they need Moshe because they weren’t ready for prophecy, Hashem wanted them to be offshoot prophets, to Last time, Ran said Moshe had to be present for Miriam and Aharon’s re‐ maintain the unity of leadership). buke because they were not able to have prophecy on such short notice. That also explained why he was there for the anointing of the elders, who If so, since Moshe Rabbenu is the original source of prophecy and Torah were not ready for independent prophecy. knowledge (as Avot reminds us in its first Mishnah, Moshe brought the To‐ rah down from Sinai and passed it along), everyone who follows are off‐ The Elders as Offshoots of Moshe shoots, and cannot surpass him.

But Ran offers another reason Hashem wanted Moshe there. He takes for Ran takes this as a logical necessity, when it’s not. While Miriam and granted, without explanation, that societies run better with one leader. Aharon needed Moshe there that time, for example, they theoretically For him, that is why the Torah obligates establishing a king; any other sys‐ could have surpassed him in prophecy at other times. Even if Devarim tem leads to anarchy. 34:10 tells us that Moshe’s prophecy was unique, it does not force the conclusion that no disciple prophet could be greater than his direct mas‐ (Ran will discuss the role of the king more in upcoming drashot. As we ter (a first-grade teacher might be the reason students are able to grasp read his view, we can weigh the values he saw in a single-leader society the letters of the alphabet when they aren’t yet ready for it, in Ran’s sys‐ against the value we see in societies with more spread out leadership. tem, but that does not translate into their never being able to surpass that With the current dysfunction in Congress, we might be more open to his teacher in the understanding of the letters). claim about anarchy, which Plato also made, than we would have been years ago.) Ran does assume it, though, as we see from his reading of Elisha and Eliyahu. Unfortunately, as Yitro had earlier pointed out to Moshe, it is difficult for one man to lead a large nation all on his own. When Moshe threw up his Elisha Seeing the Elevated Eliyahu hands once the people complained about the man, Hashem wanted the new leaders to function as one unit with Moshe, to maintain the single- The day Eliyahu was taken up to heaven, he asked Elisha what he wanted source leadership. To ensure that, Hashem took the spirit for the elders as a parting gift, and then says that Elisha’s request for double Eliyahu’s from Moshe’s. spirit was a difficult one. If Elisha were to see him taken to heaven, Eliyahu says, he’ll know he’s got it. Ran wants to know why the request For Ran, that explains why Yehoshua and Moshe reacted differently to El‐ was so difficult, and what would change if he saw Eliyahu go. dad and Medad. Yehoshua saw them as interlopers, securing prophecy even after having been told they were not among the elders (according to His answer is that since Elisha’s prophecy was nurtured and grown off of one view), or choosing to stay back and seek prophecy on their own. They Eliyahu’s, asking to surpass it is difficult if not impossible. At the moment were either protesting the elder-selection process or serving as a competi‐ of being taken up to Heaven, however, Eliyahu himself would be reaching tive source of prophecy to Moshe, in Yehoshu’a’s view. a level he never did in his life. Witnessing that would be a new source for Elisha’s prophecy, and could then double what Eliyahu had previously. 111 Forging and Forcing Unity tee that, their prophecy was made an offshoot of his. Yet Ran also recog‐ nizes that Hashem could sometimes do that even without Moshe being This wasn’t Ran’s central point, so he does not deal with it fully. We will present, such as Eldad and Medad. That suggests that unity does not re‐ have to wait for other drashot to see whether and how his interest in cen‐ quire keeping everyone in lockstep with the original leader, that there are tralized leadership, of later generations building off of their teachers, and other ways to achieve the kind of unity Ran saw as necessary for a healthy of all wisdom and prophecy extending from Moshe, figure in his thought. polity.

What he has said clearly is that the process of selecting elders included But that’s not for this drasha. The next and last piece in this drasha is in‐ Moshe out of necessity and will. The necessity was their lack of readiness. herent nature, whether and how we can overcome it, and what that says The will was that they should jell with Moshe, not oppose him. To guaran‐ about when bad things happen to good people.

Letter From the Editor – R. Alfred Cohen, New Periodical: RJJ Journal founding editor and steward of the journal LXVIII for over 30 years, announces his retirement as editor. No hint of his successor. R. Cohen created a genre with this journal. He taught and inspired multiple generations of rabbis, including me. He published many ground‐ breaking articles but, more importantly, served as a Torah resource for scholars and laymen alike. Much of what you see on this website is due to the inﬂuence of R. Cohen and his journal. May he continue teaching New issue of The Journal of Halacha and Con‐ Torah in good health for many years to temporary Society LXVIII (Succot 5775, Fall come. 2014): Using Tzedaka Funds to Pay for Fertility Treatments by R. David Sukenik – Two separate questions: 1) can infertile couples use their own tzedaka money to pay for their fertility treatments? 2) can people in general use their tzedaka money to pay for the fertility treatments for infertile couples? Yes

112 Honoring Parents by R. Alfred Cohen – ing. The editor leaves the journal with a compre‐ Letters hensive article (more than half the issue) on Dr. Ira Taub and R. Moshe Revach dis‐ the mitzvah to honor parents. Starts from cuss R. Revach’s article on giving the basics and addresses many complex tzedaka to collectors. I think R. Re‐ cases such as divorces and adoptions. vach writes too unequivocally, since in Practical Halachic Questions for his article he notes that authorities Anatomy Students by Matthew Schaike‐ disagree while here he says that the witz – A medical student discusses common halacha remains constant. issues arising from cadaver study. I ﬁnd it R. David Zaback corrects a citation on odd that he issues rulings but he generally cloning does a good job. Eliezer Eisenberg, R. Ezra Schwartz When is a Kallah Required to Cover her and R. Micah Segelman critique R. Hair? by R. Dovid Emanuel Feinberg – Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer’s article on Quotes and explains all the opinions: before deciding matters of belief. R. Bech‐ the wedding ceremony, after the ceremony hofer responds at length with citations but before the reception or the next morn‐ and direct quotations.

113 Torah Musings Digest 15 October, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

esthetic experience, the acquisition of the pleasure impulse; he was not Vort from the Rav: Bereishis allowed to overemphasize the moment of wantonness, making the beauty ideal the fascinating force in human life. Genesis 4:6

It is natural that the immediate change precipitated by the eating of the וְכִי תַאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל forbidden fruit expressed itself in the feeling of shame. Adam and Eve be‐ and that it was a desire to the eyes, and the tree was gan to feel embarrassed in exposing their organs. Why? Because the sex attractive to look at. urge was now distorted by the pleasure desire. Each of the partners be‐ gan to feel the pressure of guilt and culpability. Eve became the desired – תַאֲוָה (The Tree of Knowledge is described in purely esthetic categories: 1 beautiful person with whom Adam wanted to merge his existence for the the moment of lust, invincible, hypnotic desire that spells ethical atrophy sheer delight of possessing her. Sympathetic intimacy is here determined :in the sense of attractiveness and fascination – נֶחְמָד (and indiﬀerence; 2 by a sinister longing for dominion and exploitation, for demoting the other esthetic tension brought about by the experience of beauty (Le-haskil) individual to the status of slave. Had the sexual love represented ethical as לְהַשְׂכִּיל therefore in this context denotes to the eye. Onkelos translates solidarity and co-responsibility, the guilt moment would not have ap‐ to look at”). David Kimhi in Sefer Shorashim cites several“) לְאִסתַּכָּ ָלָא בֵּיה peared at all. Partners would in such a case yearn for each other in an ”sechel, normally translated as “understanding שֶכֶל other examples where ethical mood; equality and reciprocity would be the foundation of the exis‐ in fact means visual apprehension: see 1 Sam. 25:3, Prov. 3:4). In light of tential union realized through carnal means. Yet, man freed himself from knowledge) takes on a new meaning. It) דַּעַת this interpretation, the noun the fetters of the ethos, and yielded to esthetic hypnosis. The pleasure and in the cognitive sense—theoretical knowing—but to דַּעַת does not refer to comfort of the partner is irrelevant; his interests come ﬁrst. Man began to עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע .the esthetic subject-object relationship, hedonic knowledge hide his desire, for that very desire spelled the humiliation of his partner. means “the tree of foreknowledge of the pleasant and unpleasant” or “the He acquired the feeling of shame (Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. tree of anticipating the agreeable and disagreeable.” This is the tree of es‐ 117–128). thetic motivation, of the orgiastic tension. God forbade man the orgiastic

as the bread of mourners, all that eat thereof shall be How and Why Should One polluted; for their bread is for their own appetite” (Hoshea 9:4). Rejoicing of this kind is a disgrace to those Rejoice On the Festivals? who indulge in it, as Scripture says: “And I will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your sacriﬁces” by Rav Chaim Navon (Malakhi 2:3). (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:18)

Limits to the Mitzva of Rejoicing Rambam sets here a practical limitation: One is obligated to allow the

Elsewhere, we noted that the mitzva of rejoicing on a festival is excep‐ poor to participate in the rejoicing, or else it is not deemed “rejoicing in a tional, in that it combines concrete action and inner emotion. We also said divine commandment,” but rather “rejoicing in one’s stomach.” The Torah that this combination necessitates special caution. We are dealing here does not legitimize all types of rejoicing during the festival period. It in‐ with a mitzva that can easily turn into wild abandon and blur the spiritual sists that the rejoicing must remain clean and pure, true rejoicing in the aspects of the commandment. When Halakha nurtures and stirs up a mitzva, and not just rejoicing in one’s stomach. volatile emotion like joy, it also imposes limits, for it is well aware of the We ﬁnd another such limitation imposed upon the mitzva of rejoicing in a dangers posed by unrestricted emotion. We shall bring here a famous re‐ famous halakha: striction cited by Rambam, which aims at diminishing these dangers:

Mishna: We may not marry women on Chol Ha-mo’ed, And while one eats and drinks himself, it is his duty to neither virgins nor widows, and we may not perform feed the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and other poor levirate marriage, because it is joy for him … and unfortunate people, for he who locks the doors to his courtyard and eats and drinks with his wife and family, Gemara: And if it is joy for him, what of it? … Because we without giving to eat and drink to the poor and bitter in do not intermingle one joy with another joy. Rabba bar soul – his meal is not rejoicing in a divine commandment, Rav Huna said: Because [the groom] will put aside the joy but a rejoicing in his own stomach. It is of such persons of the festival, and involve himself with the joy of his wife. that Scripture says: “Their sacrifices shall be unto them (Mo’ed Katan 8b) 114 Why is marriage forbidden on the intermediate days of a festival? Rabba Rabbi Soloveitchik relates to this point as well. In this context, he refers bar Rav Huna’s explanation is easy to understand: we are concerned that to the well-known words of Ramban in his critique of Rambam’s Sefer Ha- the groom will neglect those actions that give expression to the rejoicing mitzvot: required by the festival. But what is the meaning of the first explanation offered by the Gemara, “because we do not intermingle one joy with an‐ For Moshe was commanded at Sinai that Israel should other joy”? Tosafot explain: recite a song [of praise] on their appointed days in honor of God who took them out of Egypt, split for them the sea, Because we do not intermingle one joy with another joy – and set them aside for His service. [Later,] David came this is a scriptural decree, as is explained below … it and instituted for them this Hallel for them to sing … And seems to be based on a small measure of reason, for just it appears from their words that [the obligation to recite as we must not perform the mitzvot in bundles – for a Hallel] is a Torah obligation, as I have explained. And it is person must direct his heart to a single mitzva, and not a halakha that was given to Moshe at Sinai, or else it is divert his attentions from it – so regarding [intermingling] included in the joy regarding which we have been one joy with another, a person must direct his heart to [a commanded, as the verse says: “Also in the day of your single cause for] joy. (Mo’ed Katan 8b, Tosafot, s.v., lefi) gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, you shall blow with the trumpets” … This Tosafot explain that a person must not mix other joys together with the joy being the case, we may interpret that on the festival days, required by a mitzva, not only on the practical level, but on the emotional when all types of rejoicing are commanded, singing level as well. This is an additional limitation: rejoicing on a festival must [God’s] praises is included among them. (Ramban, be prevented from turning into mundane joy, even in the case of legiti‐ critique of Rambam’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot, first principle) mate rejoicing, like the joy of marriage. The Torah is very strict in its in‐ sistence that the joy remain pure, for there is grave danger that the joy of According to Ramban, singing God’s praises is a fulfillment of the mitzva the mitzva will turn into empty joy. Hence, it is forbidden to intermingle of rejoicing on a festival. We see from this, as from the words of Rambam this rejoicing with other joys. cited above, that we are not dealing here with empty joy, but with joy that stems from spiritual aspirations, joy that expresses itself, among other Rambam adds another limitation, aimed at preserving the purity of rejoic‐ ways, through the singing of God’s praises. The Sha’agat Arye (no. 69) re‐ ing on a festival: jects Ramban’s position, but he argues that one of the fullest and most perfect expressions of the mitzva of rejoicing on a festival involves Torah When one eats and drinks and rejoices on a festival day, study, about which the verse states: “The statutes of the Lord are right, he should not overindulge in wine, merriment, and rejoicing the heart” (Tehillim 19:10). We see again that we are not dealing frivolity, in the belief that the more he does of this the here with empty joy, but with joy that is bound to a particular spiritual po‐ more he is fulfilling the commandment to rejoice. For sition. drunkenness, excessive merriment, and frivolity are not rejoicing but madness and folly, and we were commanded What is that spiritual position? In order to clarify the matter, Rabbi to indulge not in madness and folly but in the kind of Soloveitchik cites another halakha. The Gemara in tractate Mo’ed Katan rejoicing which partakes of the worship of the Creator of discusses whether or not a leper observes the special laws pertaining to all things. For Scripture says: “Because you did not serve him on a festival. The Gemara proves that he does from the fact that a the Lord your God with joy, and with gladness of heart, by High Priest who is a leper observes the special laws of leprosy all year reason of the abundance of all things” (Devarim 28:47), round, and all year round for the High Priest parallels a festival day for an showing that one should serve God with joy, whereas it is ordinary person: impossible to serve God in the mood created by merriment, frivolity, or drunkenness. (Hilkhot Yom Tov And surely the status of the High Priest all year is like 6:20) that of all other people on a festival. (Mo’ed Katan 14b)

When a person rejoices, he must conduct himself with restraint, because Tosafot Ha-Rosh explains the meaning of this passage: wild rejoicing and rowdiness have no part in the joy that is an element of the service of God, for “it is impossible to serve God in the mood created That which we compare the High Priest all year round to by merriment, frivolity, or drunkenness.” How important is it to repeat all other people on a festival, that is so as to prevent the and reiterate this bold assertion in our day! laws of mourning pertaining to a leper from applying to him, just as we see that the joy of his holiness prevents The Role of Joy in the Worship of God the laws of mourning over a deceased relative from applying to him. (ad loc.) The closing words of the passage cited from Rambam raise an additional point. Rambam notes that rejoicing partakes of the service of God. What According to most Rishonim (with the exception of Rambam), this Gemara does he mean by this? What is the role of joy in our worship of God? teaches us that the High Priest does not observe any of the laws of mourn‐ ing, because his status all year long is like that of all other people on a 115 festival. What is the meaning of this comparison? Rabbi Soloveitchik ex‐ on a festival is not merely an external decoration adorning the holiday; plains that joy stems from standing before God. On a festival day we are rather, it stems from the spiritual essence of the day. bound by the mitzva of rejoicing, because on a festival day we stand be‐ fore God. The source of the joy is spiritual. The High Priest stands before This essay was translated by Rav David Strauss. It God all year long. He is, therefore, in a state of joy the entire year, and as originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel a result he is automatically excluded from the laws of mourning. Rejoicing Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with permission.

Soloveichik, told me that he opposed this practice when Women Dancing With Torah questioned by synagogues in Brookline, Massachusetts, and New York City. The basis for this ruling, he told me, is Scrolls that the Talmud in Berakhot [63a] which says that just as there is an etiquette that regulates one’s behaviour when by R. Gil Student visiting someone else’s home, so too there is a tradition

I don’t like dancing, not on Simchas Torah nor at bar mitvahs nor even at that regulates behaviour in the synagogue. Thus, for my wedding. It’s a chore I’ve learned to deal with. Looking over the me‐ example, eating in the synagogue is not permitted. An chitzah on Simchas Torah, I am both troubled and envious. element of proper synagogue behaviour, such as the prohibition against eating in the synagogue, is explicated Many of the women I see look very bored. Why should they sit bored on in legal detail by the Talmud and by subsequent codes of this holiday? On the other hand, they do not have this communal, family Jewish law. The same applies to the introduction of and customary obligation to dance. They can sit in the women’s section innovations which our ancestors considered to be in and open a sefer and learn. I can’t do that without being reprimanded. In conﬂict with the feeling of respect and awe owed to the many synagogues, the women watch the men dance, some with great de‐ synagogue. Proper synagogue behaviour is determined by light, others bored and others just talking with each other and ignoring practice and tradition. Since it has been the age-old the dancing. To level the ﬁeld and give women more options, decades ago practice of synagogues that women do not dance with some synagogues began women dances and even introduced Torah scrolls Torah scrolls during hakafot, the introduction of this into the women’s dances. This was and remains controversial. practice would be a violation of synagogue etiquette.

The Beit Hillel organization in Israel recently published a responsum per‐ R. Menachem Schneerson, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, wrote a 1975 let‐ mitting women to dance with Torah scrolls on Simchas Torah. They base ter to R. Shlomo Riskin, voicing his opposition to women’s dancing with a their view on R. Nachum Rabinovich’s ruling in Si’ach Nachum (no. 40), Torah scroll on Simchas Torah. You can see the letter in Hebrew here: explicitly permitting this practice. Without detracting from R. Rabinovich link. He argues that: or the men and women of Beit Hillel, I cite here contrary opinions. 1. We may not create new synagogue customs Primary among them is that of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He is quoted by 2. We may not change existing synagogue customs his nephew, R. Moshe Meiselman, as deeming the practice impermissible 3. The Rema only permits menstruating women to attend synagogue (he does not say forbidden). While R. Meiselman’s assertions in the name and pray with the community–responding “Amen” and “Yehei she‐ of his uncle can sometimes be questioned, and in the next issue of Jewish meih rabbah“–because of “great sadness” if they are prevented Action I do just that on one specific point, readers should note that the fol‐ from attending synagogue. R. Schneerson infers that only attend‐ lowing quote appeared in a book published in 1978 as part of R. Norman ing synagogue is permitted and not other changes. Lamm’s Library of Jewish Law and Ethics. I am not suggesting that R. More recently, R. Yaakov Ariel opposes women dancing with a Torah scroll Lamm agrees with everything in this book (he indicates in his Foreword (link). He points out that celebrating the Torah does not require dancing that he does not). I am suggesting that if an explicit quote in this book in with a Torah scroll. Some communities have the tradition that even men R. Soloveitchik’s name was incorrect, in all likelihood he would have made do not dance with Torah scrolls. Women are right to want to celebrate the it known. I am not aware of any claim that this specific depiction of his Torah but they should do so creatively, finding their own way to do so view is inaccurate. rather than imitating how (some) men celebrate.

R. Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman in Jewish Law (New York, 1978), p. R. Dov Lior (link) writes that throughout the generations, women have not 146: danced with Torah scrolls. The diﬀerences between men and women are real, each with their own religious roles. When women act in ways that An associated issue, although technically totally diﬀerent, men traditionally have, they detract from the respect due their own roles. is the permissibility of women dancing in the synagogue Therefore, women certainly should not dance with Torah scrolls. with Torah scrolls during hakafot on Simhat Torah. This practice has been opposed by all contemporary rabbinic I don’t claim that this list is comprehensive. I appreciate if readers post in authorities. My revered teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. the response section what other halakhic authorities have said or written 116 on the subject. In the end, it is up to the synagogue rabbi to consult with his posek and decide what is permissible and appropriate.

Days of Awe we have nobody to rely on but ourselves, nowhere to look but The Sukkot Transition: From inwards.

Individual to Community In this sense the Days of Awe erect partitions between one man and his fellow. Each person has an individual purpose in life. Each possesses by R. Yehoshua Pfeﬀer unique character traits and dispositions, unique strengths and weak‐ nesses – and each must strive to make the most of what he has. As we en‐ The calendar transition from the gravity of the Days of Awe to the festive gage in self-analysis and reﬂection, the Days of Awe accentuate our indi‐ atmosphere of Sukkot involves a change of atmosphere laden with reli‐ viduality. gious meaning.

On Sukkot the reverse is true. Rather than an individualistic self-percep‐ According to one suggestion raised by the Midrash (Midrash Tanhuma, tion, we see ourselves as a people united by a single purpose. Emor 18), the change reflects two phases of a single process: Rosh Hashanah heralds the beginning of war, a ten-day struggle between life Leaving our homes on Sukkot, we set aside the conventional differences and death. Sukkot, as it were, represents the “victory parade” after com‐ of society and class, coming together in the uniformity of the Sukkah (be‐ ing back from war. fore the advent of the living-room Sukkah!). The lonely partitions of the Days of Awe melt away as we dwell as we celebrate, together, the festive Another explanation expounds on the closeness of Hashem to His people atmosphere of the time. during the Days of Awe. Of this time the Sages apply the verse “Seek out Hashem when He is present, call upon him when He is close” (Yeshayahu The Talmudic Sages note this concept of festive togetherness in the ex‐ 55:6; Rosh Hashanah 18a). On Sukkot we go a step further and experi‐ pression: “The entire nation of Israel can dwell in a single Sukkah” ence the elation of actually being together with Him, enveloped by the (Sukkah 27a). In contrast with other mitzvot, which are generally fulfilled Clouds of Glory (see Sukkah 11b). individually (I cannot eat your matzah), the mitzvah of Sukkah can be ful‐ filled communally. The entire Jewish People can dwell in a single Sukkah. In this sense the Vilna Gaon explains how the temporary dwellings imply ultimate closeness with Hashem: “The mitzvah of Sukkah indicates how Before reaching the exultation of communal celebration, we must pass Hashem took us from the direction of the constellations, and brought us through the phase of individual reckoning. For if we are not individuals, into the providence of Hashem and His guidance, without any intermedi‐ each with his special path and his own calling, we cannot be a community. ary. This is unlike the nations of the world, who dwell beneath the armies of the constellations…. Therefore, we are instructed in the shade of the A human grouping is worthy of its name only insofar as it binds together Sukkah” (Introduction to Oneg Yom Tov). individuals who are essentially different from one another. A group of clones is not a community but a herd. However, the two times also involve a social transition that should not be overlooked. Beyond the bein adam laMakom element of moving from Rosh A rainbow is only as beautiful as the variety of its colors, and by the same Hashanah to Sukkot, there is also a bein adam lechavero aspect that de‐ token a community as valuable as the diversity of its constituents. Absent serves attention. The Days of Awe with which Tishrei open are days of the individual diversity and you absent the entire concept of community. individual. Sukkot is a time of community. There is no human value in bonding together more of the same.

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, Orach Chaim 605) records an ancient cus‐ According to tradition, Rosh Hashanah is the day on which Adam was cre‐ tom of visiting graveyards during the period of the High Holidays. Beyond ated (Vayikra Rabbah 29:1). In contrast with every other form of life, the message of taking life seriously, if there is one emotion that graves Adam was created alone – to teach us that no two people are the same, awaken in us it is the feeling of loneliness. and that each is an entire world unto himself (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5).

The custom of visiting cemeteries reminds us that just as we die alone, so On Rosh Hashanah and during the days leading up to Yom Kippur we ac‐ we stand in judgment alone. centuate our uniqueness and our individuality. Only following this can we enter the national communion of Sukkot and experience the joy of a di‐ Rosh Hashanah as the Day of Judgment, and the days that follow up to verse and multicolored community. and including Yom Kippur, impel us to perceive ourselves as individuals. As the Mishnah writes (Rosh Hashanah 16a), all the people of the world Howard Thurman once said the following: “Don’t ask yourself what the are judged alone, passing by the Divine judge in single file. world needs; ask yourself what makes you come alive. And then go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who are alive.” Judgment is not passed in groups. We are not judged primarily as com‐ munes or as communities, but as individuals. The merit of one cannot On the Days of Awe we ask ourselves what makes us come alive. We deal avail another, and one person’s crimes will not indict his neighbor. On the with the ongoing and never-ending question of self-definition: Who are 117 we? What are our personal aims and goals and how do we plan to achieve On Sukkot, we discover that the answers each one of us gives are in fact them? Are our actions in line with our self-definition, and how can we en‐ individual pieces of a collective puzzle, components of a people with a hance them? shared purpose. Our colorful lives converge onto a single canvas – the Sukkah – to create a unified and harmonious picture. We give ourselves life with the answers we find for these questions. If we could really feel that, we would definitely be rejoicing.

Most other authorities, however, permit a woman who recited she‐ Yom Tov Candles: Women and hecheyanu at candle lighting to respond “amen” when hearing it again as part of Kiddush. They argue that the shehecheyanu recited as part of the Shehecheyanu Kiddush is an inherent and integral component of the Kiddush that a woman must hear before she is permitted to eat the Yom Tov meal. Rav by R. Ari Enkin Moshe Feinstein explains that just like the shehecheyanu blessing is not a

With the exception of the last day(s) of Pesach, the “shehecheyanu” bless‐ hefsek for the one making Kiddush, it is automatically not considered to ing is recited as part of the Yom Tov candle lighting and the evening Kid‐ be a hefsek for those listening to his Kiddush even if they already fulﬁlled dush. While most men generally fulﬁll their requirement to recite she‐ their shehecheyanu requirement when lighting the candles. According to 8 hecheyanu by reciting it (or hearing it) as part of the Kiddush, most this approach, answering amen is not considered to be a hefsek. women recite it as part of the Yom Tov candle lighting.1 It is important to point out that the concern that answering “amen” to the

Although there is an opinion that women should not recite the she‐ shehecheyanu blessing recited as part of kiddush might be a hefsek is hecheyanu blessing at candle lighting, but rather to wait to hear it as part only relevant for a woman who intends to drink from the Kiddush wine (or grape juice). A woman who does not have the custom to drink some of the of Kiddush,2 common custom is not like this view. Indeed, women whose wine upon which Kiddush was recited is completely permitted to answer family custom is to recite shehecheyanu at candle lighting should be sure ‘amen’ to shehecheyanu. This is because only the one who actually recited to do so regardless of all other considerations.3 It is interesting to note the Kiddush is required to drink any of the wine or grape juice. There is that if, for whatever reason, one did not recite or hear the shehecheyanu no true obligation for others present to drink any of the Kiddush wine blessing at the start of the holiday, one may recite it anytime one remem‐ even though widespread custom is to do so.9 bers throughout the duration of the holiday.4

Finally, some people have the custom to always recite their own borei pri There is much discussion as to whether a woman who recited she‐ hagafen blessing when drinking wine after hearing kiddush recited by hecheyanu as part of her candle lighting should answer “amen” when someone else.10 A woman whose custom it is to do so is permitted to an‐ hearing it recited later on at Kiddush. This is because, according to a swer “amen” to shehecheyanu, or to any other blessing for that matter, number of authorities, responding “amen” to the shehecheyanu of Kid‐ before drinking the wine. This too is consistent with all that has been ex‐ dush would be a hefsek, a forbidden interruption, between the Kiddush plained above. This is because any possible hefsek with a woman answer‐ and the drinking of the wine, if she already discharged her obligation to ing “amen” to the shehecheyanu at Kiddush can only affect the legitimacy recite the shehecheyanu blessing when she lit the candles earlier.5 In‐ of the “…borei pri hagafen” blessing and the permissibility of drinking the deed, a woman who recites Kiddush for herself on Yom Tov night does not kiddush wine. It has no bearing, however, on the legitimacy of the actual repeat shehecheyanu as part of her Kiddush if she recited it earlier at can‐ Kiddush, and the permissibility of beginning one’s Yom tov meal. dle lighting. According to this approach, a woman who recited “she‐ hecheyanu” at candle lighting does not respond “amen” to the “she‐ It is interesting to note that in most Yemenite communities, especially the hecheyanu” at Kiddush, “Baladi” and “Dardaim” ones, Yom Tov candles are not lit at all. And even those that do light Yom Tov candles generally do so without reciting the In a slightly different approach, some authorities rule that a woman accompanying blessing.11 This is because there is no mention of a re‐ should not answer “amen” to the shehecheyanu recited as part of Kid‐ 12 13 dush, with the exception of Pesach, at which time she should. The reason quirement to light Yom Tov candles in either the Gemara or Rambam for the difference is that the shehecheyanu recited as part of Kiddush on — the two, almost exclusive, sources of halacha for Yemenite Jewry. In‐ Pesach also serves to cover the other mitzvot of the evening, such as the deed, the primary reason we light Shabbat candles is due to the require‐ four cups of wine and the eating of the matza. As such, it would not be a ment of “shalom bayit”, namely, so that there should be light in the home 14 hefsek to respond amen to this specific shehecheyanu. Some also add the on Shabbat eve. On Yom Tov, however, one is permitted to light a fire Kiddush that is recited on Sukkot eve to this exception since the she‐ (from a pre-existing flame), and therefore, there is no true need for Yom hecheyanu recited at that time serves to cover the mitzvot of Sukkot.6 On Tov candles at all. a related note, even those who do not recite their own Kiddush on Pesach 1. Mateh Ephraim 581:54. ↩ night, but rather hear it from the head of the household, should raise their wine glass and hold it as if they were making Kiddush themselves.7 2. Leket Yosher p. 49; She’eilat Yaavetz 107; Mishna Berura 263:23; 118 Tzitz Eliezer 14:53; Yechave Daat 3:34. ↩ 11. Peulat Tzadik 3:270; Arichat Hashulchan 2:178. It is interesting to note that some Rishonim hold that no blessing is recited on Shab‐ 3. Ibid. ↩ bat candles either. See Tosafot, Shabbat 25a s.v. “chova” and Moshav Zkeinim Miba’alei Hatosafot, Vayikra 24:2. ↩ 4. Mishna Berura 473:1. ↩ 12. The sefarim do make mention of a Yerushalmi that requires the 5. Har Tzvi 154; Shevet Halevi 3:69. See also Shaarei Teshuva lighting of Yom Tov candles, however, no such passage exists in 167:3. ↩ the text of the Yerushalmi that we have today. It might just be that this reference to a “Yerushalmi” is not referring to the Talmud 6. Shevet Halevi 3:69. See also Kaf Hachaim, OC 473:6. ↩ Yerushalmi, but rather, to a book of customs from medieval Ger‐ many entitled “Yerushalmi”. ↩ 7. Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 47 note 26. ↩

13. The Rambam, in his Perush Hamishnayot to Shabbat 2:3, does 8. Aruch Hashulchan, OC 263:12; Zecher Simcha 34; Ein Eliezer 47; mention a requirement to light Yom Tov candles. As a general Be’er Moshe 8:215; Igrot Moshe, OC 4:101, 4:21:9; Rivevot rule, however, only what the Rambam wrote in his Mishna Torah Ephraim 1:182; Minchat Shlomo 2:58:2. See also Nitei Gavriel, is considered to be authoritative. It is also believed that the Ram‐ Erev Pesach Sh’chal B’erev Shabbat, Teshuva 1. ↩ bam held that the issue was a dispute between the Bavli and Yerushalmi, and therefore did not include it in his Mishna Torah. 9. For more on the issue of participants drink from the Kiddush ↩ wine, see: OC 271:14, Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 48:11, and Shulchan Aruch Harav, OC 190:5. ↩ 14. Shabbat 25b. ↩

10. Piskei Teshuvot 271:10. ↩

ﬀer weaknesses and at least one may have never been intended by its main Judaism and Industrial Food proponent. The discussion revolves around the Biblical commandment to send away a mother bird before taking its children (Deut. 22:6–7). The Production Mishnah (Berakhos 33b) states that anyone who prays to God that His mercy extends to a bird’s nest must be silenced. One explanation in the by R. Gil Student Gemara is that this prayer implies that the reason for the commandment

Keeping kosher has never been easier, both for the poor and the wealthy. is God’s mercy on animals when really it is an unfathomable divine de‐ The centralization of food production has allowed for scales of operation cree. that greatly reduce prices for consumers. It also enables kosher certiﬁca‐ Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 3:48) dismisses this attitude as a rejected tion for a wide variety of products that are prepared in industrial plants opinion and explains the commandment precisely in that way. God has rather than locally. Many people with only marginal interest in keeping mercy on animals and therefore commanded us to send away the mother kosher do so because so many options are readily available, even if they before taking her children. are somewhat more expensive than non-kosher food.

Ramban (Commentary to Deut. 22:6) accepts the Mishnah’s admonition However, the centralization has also led to signiﬁcantly worse treatment and Gemara’s explanation as authoritative, removing God’s mercy from of animals. I claim no expertise but the documentaries I have seen show consideration. He instead explains this mitzvah as a tool for character animals raised in incredibly tight quarters, fed unhealthy diets and growth, a method to avoid or even remove cruel traits. The focus is not on slaughtered in a production line process. Seeing this makes any normal the animals but on our own personalities. While God’s attributes are in‐ person queasy. Some people, after learning how animals are raised and scrutable, His plan for us can be understood. He does not want servants killed, abstain completely from meat consumption through vegetarian di‐ who will needlessly act cruelly. ets.

These are the two main theories, which we have discussed elsewhere. From a religious and ethical perspective, industrialized food production However, the Rambam’s approach is actually more complex. Elsewhere in has weights on both the positive and negative sides of the scale. However, Moreh Nevukhim (3:17), he writes that tza’ar ba’alei chaim, the prohibi‐ an argument can be made that from it is religiously preferable to localized tion against harming animals, is intended to improve our personalities. food production. One can argue counterintuitively that the treatment of This seems like the Ramban’s view. In Mishneh Torah (Hilkhos Teﬁllah animals is ethically better when it is centralized even if it is factually 9:4), the Rambam writes that the commandment to send away the mother worse. bird is a divine decree, not mercy. Because, he points out, if it were mercy

I. Sending Away the Mother on animals then God would not allow us to slaughter them at all. How do we make sense of the Rambam’s competing theories of animal ethics? Two main theories of Jewish animal ethics are widely discussed. Both suﬀ‐ 119 R. Yonasan Blass (Mi-Nofes Tzuf, vol. 2 pp. 851–853) sees three levels of Similarly, the Avodas Ha-Gershuni (13)1 rules that one may stab an animal meaning within the Rambam’s understanding of this commandment: rather than slaughter it less painfully in order to preserve the skin for us‐ age. We do not need to be concerned for causing necessary pain in killing 1. We must display mercy in our interactions with animals animals when it serves a constructive purpose. He notes that the Gemara 2. On a more abstract level, these merciful actions are supposed to (Chullin 28a), when discussing possible areas on animal in which God imbibe us, through training, with merciful personalities could have commanded us to slaughter animals rather than the neck, is 3. On an even more abstract level, we are expected to walk in God’s not concerned with the least painful method. The Shevus Ya’akov (3:71) path and follow His trait of mercy. While God’s essence is unfath‐ rules similarly regarding medical experimentation on animals, although omable, we relate to it through these types of actions. that topic is more complex and deserves its own treatment.

II. Animal Cruelty With a Purpose These rulings have broad significance. Pain inflicted as part of the slaugh‐ ter process, if it happens, does not fall under the prohibition of animal However, common halakhic rulings pose difficulties to these approaches. cruelty, although as we will see there might still be a concern. According Tosafos debate whether the prohibition against animal cruelty (tza’ar to the Rambam (broadly read) and Ramban, that God wishes to instill ba’alei chaim) is equal to that against wasting (bal tashchis) or stronger. If within us a merciful trait, why are we allowed to inflict pain as part of the these two laws are equally strong, then tza’ar ba’alei chaim would not ap‐ slaughter process?2 ply when there is a constructive purpose, like bal tashchis. If tza’ar ba’alei chaim is stronger, then even a constructive purpose would be insufficient IV. Ecology and Animals to permit animal cruelty. Tosafos in Bava Metzi’a (32b sv. mi-divrei) take the position that they are equal. However, Tosafos in Avodah Zarah (11a Abarbanel (Deut. 22:6) offers a different explanation for the mitzvah to sv. okerin) state that animal cruelty is stronger. According to this second send away the mother bird before taking her children, an approach that is Tosafos, human need does not override animal pain. However, this view is faithful to the Gemara and consistent with subsequent halakhic develop‐ not accepted by subsequent authorities. ment. While acknowledging that developing a merciful character is an ele‐ ment of this commandment, Abarbanel sees its primary purpose as pro‐ The Terumas Ha-Deshen (2:105) rules that animal cruelty is permissible tecting the environment. The world has a continuing need for an animal whenever there is a constructive purpose, albeit with an important caveat. population. If we deplete a species, we are causing the world and our‐ He discusses whether one may pull feathers off a live goose for human selves great harm. God placed us here to use the world, not destroy it. use. He points out that the Gemara (Kiddushin 82a) states that animals Therefore, we may take the children birds but must send away the mother were created to serve humanity. We eat animals and use them to carry our to have more children. Similarly, we are not allowed to slaughter a cow burdens and plow our fields. I understand this to mean that the animals’ and its calf on the same day in order to decrease the chances of depopula‐ lives and deaths in service of humanity enable them to join our worship of tion. Our stewardship of this world requires that we let one of them go God, providing them with meaning they cannot even understand. There‐ and continue the species.3 fore, the Terumas Ha-Deshen concludes, there is no technical prohibition to pull feathers off a goose because of the usage, but people still do not do I believe that this theory fits in better with the post-Talmudic halakhic de‐ it because it involves the character trait of cruelty. The Rema (Shulchan velopments discussed above. We must avoid unnecessary cruelty to ani‐ Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 5:14) rules like this Terumas Ha-Deshen, and it mals but only as a secondary concern. God created the world, including seems to be the accepted ruling. its animals, for our benefit. We may use it and them for our needs, even when some cruelty unavoidably happens. But we must minimize the ani‐ While a minority approach within Jewish law forbids animal cruelty even mal suffering and avoid developing negative character traits. when it benefits humanity, the consensus allows it. According to the Ram‐ bam (simply read), this ruling is difficult. If God has mercy on animals, The Mishnah (Kiddushin 82a) calls butchers “the partners of Amalek.” how can we ignore it just because people benefit? According to the Ram‐ Tosefos Yom Tov explains that some people are naturally inclined to shed‐ ban, how can adopting cruel character traits be an afterthought? Charac‐ ding blood. They can either utilize their talents for evil by killing people or ter development should be the primary concern. devote themselves to good by preparing animals for human consumption. Butchers are potentially evil but, in practice, earn an honest and praise‐ III. Cruel Endings worthy living by serving others. Yes, bloodshed is distasteful, even cruel.

The Gemara (Chullin 7b) records a discussion about what to do with dan‐ But when allowed, it is a mitzvah. gerous white mules. One suggestion is to maim them, which is rejected V. Animal Slaughter Today because of tza’ar ba’alei chaim, animal cruelty. Another suggestion is to destroy them, which is rejected because of bal tashchis, wasting the ani‐ My mother and mother-in-law tell their children and grandchildren how, in mals. R. Yechezkel Landau (Noda Bi-Yehudah 2:YD:10,13) infers from this their childhood, the animals their family kept were fed better than the passage that the prohibition of tza’ar ba’alei chaim does not apply to children. The children saw, fed and even played with the animals. Then killing animals. The Noda Ba-Yehudah is discussing hunting, which can of‐ the family would take the fattened animals to the butcher who would ten cause an animal painful death. While he denounces recreational hunt‐ slaughter them, and the family would eat the animals. My generation ben‐ ing as Esav’s occupation unbefitting Ya’akov’s descendants, he argues efited from centralized food production and never saw an animal slaugh‐ that tza’ar ba’alei chaim is inapplicable. 120 tered. We are much farther removed from the cruelty than any generation vironment. Is centralized food production good or bad for the environ‐ in history. ment? Will species disappear, will the world be permanently damaged, by centralized food production? A good argument can be made that indus‐ However, if the documentarians are to be believed, animals raised for trial food production, as it is currently practiced, is causing irreparable slaughter today are treated more cruelly than ever in history. Granted, as damage to the environment. However, every indication I have seen is that we have seen, this cruelty is permitted if it serves a purpose for humans, this is caused by the massive non-kosher producers. Kosher food produc‐ such as providing more and less expensive food. Even cruel and painful tion, particularly kosher animal slaughter, seems to have little to no per‐ slaughter, if it occurs, is technically allowed but should be avoided if pos‐ manent environmental footprint. Even if every kosher slaughterhouse shut sible. down, the rate of deforestation, species extinction and other similar mea‐ sures would not change at all. If this is true, then the question is whether the Torah prefers less animal cruelty that is closer to the communal experience or more animal cruelty We have not mentioned every possible concern, such as taste, health and that is farther from the community. Now, I am not suggesting that my the economic effect on local producers. This is a passionate political issue grandparents or grandparents-in-law were cruel people for having raised (albeit not my issue) and I distrust every statistic presented and every lob‐ animals and then taken them to slaughter. However, this is, to some de‐ byist and partisan advocate. Be that as it may, we should at least recog‐ gree, a cruel experience that must somehow desensitize people, even if nize both the positive and negative aspects of industrial food production, just a little, in a way that no longer occurs. Are we better off avoiding that and the light Jewish thought sheds on the various issues. experience if it means more animal cruelty somewhere in factory farms? 1. Quoted by Gilyon Maharsha, Avodah Zarah 13 and others ↩ According to the Rambam as simply read, that God is concerned for ani‐ mals’ pain, then perhaps we should revert to local slaughter. Less animal 2. Note that I am not suggesting that kosher slaughter causes pain. cruelty is better regardless of its impact on people. According to the Ram‐ But there are unusual circumstances in which pain can be in‐ ban and the more expansive reading of Rambam, centralized food produc‐ flicted, such as hunting or killing for the hide. ↩ tion is an improvement because it decreases the development of the char‐ acter trait of cruelty in the vast majority of people. 3. The Kol Bo (111) writes similarly that the reason for the mitzvah to send away the mother bird is to save the species and to prevent According to the Abarbanel, we must be concerned primarily with the en‐ us from becoming cruel. ↩

search. His student, R. Chaim Volozhiner, saw this subject slightly differ‐ Da’as Torah or Advice? ently. by R. Gil Student No human has the power to see into our souls or to predict the fu‐ ture Many religious Jews today ask rabbis life questions–whom to marry, where to live, what career path to follow–and take their answers as authoritative Hillel says (Avos 2:7): “The more counsel, the more understanding.” In his rulings. In one sense, the modern world is based on autonomy, indepen‐ commentary on this (Ruach Chaim, ad loc.), R. Chaim Volozhiner quotes a dent choice. Submission to a rabbi’s authority on these major decisions is common saying he endorses that you should seek advice but then do what a wholesale rejection of the modern enterprise. If this is what the Torah you think is best (she’al eitzah va-aseh ki-rtzonkha). Why, he asks, bother requires then so be it. However, according to the Vilna Gaon’s tradition, asking for advice? He answer that other people do not grasp all the fine 1 this is not the Torah approach for life choices. details of the issue. If you ask many people, each will see some of the de‐ tails. After listening to all the different perspectives, the individual will Every person has a different path in life but finding one’s direction is of‐ have the best idea of how to deal with the situation. ten difficult. The Vilna Gaon (Commentary to Mishlei 16:4) explains that in ancient times, Jews would ask prophets for guidance. With his access to The Vilna Gaon recommends waiting for divine inspiration based on Torah divine insight, the prophet would show each person where the nature of study and observance. In contrast, R. Chaim Volozhiner advises consulta‐ his soul and body direct him. But prophecy is long gone. tion with multiple people. Neither suggest going to a single Torah scholar and following his advice. In theory, we should each be able to utilize our own access to ruach ha- kodesh, the divine spirit, to discover our own paths but we face too many The Netziv, a grandson-in-law of and successor to R. Chaim Volozhiner, obstacles to successfully achieve that. Instead, the Vilna Gaon says, we takes a third approach. In his Torah commentary (Ha’amek Davar, Deut. must observe the commandments. God wants our Torah study and obser‐ 29:8), the Netziv states that one finds the right counsel in the merit of To‐ vance. In return, He will show us our paths in life. rah study. In this, he follows the Vilna Gaon. In his commentary to Koheles (Eccl. 8:1), the Netziv points out that a Torah scholar’s mood will affect Note the lack of a Torah scholar in this discussion. Apparently, the Vilna his advice. Additionally, not everyone can always predict the future. Gaon thought that Torah scholars play no unique role in each individual’s Therefore, a questioner has to use his own judgment to decide whether to 121 follow any advice he receives. According to the Netziv, you can ask a To‐ viding insight and not even advice. Even when the conclusion is obvious, rah scholar but then decide whether to follow his advice. they always leave it to me to reach the conclusion, to make the appropri‐ ate decision. I believe that this is the tradition of the Vilna Gaon, which is These three approaches are hardly contradictory. They all reflect the in‐ uniquely appropriate to the modern world where autonomy is so impor‐ herent human difficulty of seeing the future and even the innermost tant.3 present. No human has the power to see into our souls or to predict the future. At best, they can make educated guesses. Some people will try to 1. We are only discussing advice for life choices. Halakhah and fun‐ independently decide their own paths. Others will ask many for advice. damental beliefs are a separate discussion. ↩ And still others will seek guidance from a Torah scholar. No one will argue that a wise rabbi is somehow excluded as a source of wisdom for seekers 2. With two exceptions: 1) One rabbi told me not to send my chil‐ simply because he is a rabbi. However, because no one today can access dren to schools with religious outlooks that are very different the divine knowledge of inner truths, each individual has to use his own from my own, to avoid forcing my children to choose between best judgment in deciding his life path. Advice is just that, an input from a their teachers and their parents. 2) The same rabbi also told me (hopefully) wise person to be applied by the individual to his circum‐ to stay away from someone who seemed dishonest. He did not stances. merely discuss the issues but specifically said to do or not to do something. They stand out for me as understandable exceptions. I never had the merit of speaking with R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik because ↩ he was ill when I entered Yeshiva. However, in my many conversations with some of his students, I noted that they have (almost) never told me 3. All these sources are found in R. Moshe Zuriel, Otzeros Ha-Net‐ what to do.2 They consistently discuss the issues from various angles, pro‐ ziv, sv. eitzah. ↩

122 Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com Torah Musings Digest 24 October, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

Ran is bothered by the other view, that of R. Chanina, who says Overcoming Nature or Why astrology does affect the Jewish people. How could the Torah promise physical rewards for observing mitzvot, such as long life, health, and Bad Things Happen to Good wealth, if it is all guided by the stars?

People He digresses to point out that one can avoid looming danger by being somewhere else (running away to Samaria, for those who get the by R. Gidon Rothstein reference) or parrying that danger (wearing a bullet-proof vest). Ran With Moshe there for the rebuke of Aharon and Miriam, people might thinks even R. Chanina accepts that; the stars tell us what will think Moshe’s feelings had led to Miriam’s leprosy. Hashem has the happen, but we can avert those outcomes. Torah and mitzvot give us Torah speak of Moshe’s humility to make clear that’s not what ways that, by our actions, we will either be elsewhere when tragedy happened, but the possibility leads Ran to a discussion of what’s strikes, or will have made ourselves immune to those outcomes when inherent to us, such as the possibility of Moshe causing his sister’s they arrive (like avoiding certain disease-causing foods because the leprosy, even without intention. Torah prohibits them).

Does Our Fault Lie In Our Stars? Changing Fate

Prior essays in this series The debate with R. Yochanan was whether mitzvot could attack fate at its source, rendering it ineffective, such as Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah being immune to the fire into which Nevuchadnezzar , מאדים Ran points to Shabbat, which says that a person born in under Mars, will shed blood. He is bothered by the implication that threw them. R. Yochanan’s view was that proper observance of the we are fated to sin (in this example, to shed blood); fate precludes Torah could lead fire to be ineffective against them (R. Chanina would reward and punishment. say this took an active miracle, a violation of the natural order, where His first answer is that predetermination might be probabilistic, not R. Yochanan was saying Hashem made the world such that a person’s determinative. As we would say for genetics today, our makeup might spiritual profile can lead nature to treat him or her differently). lean us in a certain direction, but we can overcome it. Astrology or Ran finds support for that view in the conversation between Hashem genetics affect the body, but our soul can overcome that and push us and Avraham on that folio in Shabbat. R. Yehudah says in the name of in a different direction. A potential murderer can, by the discipline of Rav that when Avraham told Hashem he knew he could not have following what the soul says, stop him or herself from drawing blood. children(Bereshit 15:5), Hashem responded that He could change Secondly, the soul can channel the bodily tendencies in more that, moving the problematic star from east (where Avraham could productive directions. As R. Ashi said on that folio in Shabbat, a not have children) to west. murderer can become a ritual slaughterer, or one who circumcises Ran notes that the Gemara does not say Hashem told Avraham he babies. Genetics (and astrology) isn’t the whole story, even when we could ignore the star; He told him He would change its position and are following the path our stars or genes laid out. effect. For R. Yochanan, Ran says, mitzvot function the same way, Predispositions and What We Do with Them nullifying the power of the stars.

It is in that light that Ran reads Niddah 16b, which describes an angel Why Bad Things Happen to Good People consulting with Hashem before conception, asking whether the child Given the two ways we can avoid fate, Ran notes that some tragedies will be wise or stupid, rich or poor. might strike people who are good but not good enough to have Ran notes that the angel does not ask about righteousness. You can’t Hashem guide them to avoid the coming disaster. That, for Ran, is coach height, they say in basketball, and Ran is saying the same what R. Yosef means by saying (Baba Kamma 60a) that once about our lives. Our stars, as it were, might make us poor or rich, but destructive forces are unleashed into this world, they do not whether we are righteous or not is up to us, completely and totally. distinguish between righteous and wicked.

Ran applies that to the debate, also on Shabbat 156a, as to whether Once the determination has been made to launch a disaster, Ran says, the Jews are subject to astrology. He says that even R. Yochanan, who the world works in generalities. The plague that was going to hit the says we are not, means only that we have the power to change our first-born, for example, focused on some physical aspect of all first fates, by prayer, charity, and other good deeds (to translate into born (Ran pauses to claim that all first-born share a physical modern terms: genetics works, nature works, science works; but Jews similarity, based on being the first out of their mother’s womb; I make have the ability to change all that). Everyone agreed, Ran says, that no claim that scientists today would agree). Naturally, Jewish astrology never had a role in whether we observe mitzvot. first-born would have been affected as well, not because they deserved it, but because it was hitting all first-born, and they did not Avoiding Fate, Even If You Believe In It have the merits to avoid or nullify it.

When Hashem saved them by telling them to stay in their houses, contrast, Japheth was motivated by appearance and peer pressure. with the blood of the sacrifice on their door-posts, that was a special Japheth helped cover Noah only after Shem had taken the initiative, intervention, obligating them to become Hashem’s special servants, acting only because Shem would appreciate this help. As a result, later switched out for the Levi’im. Japheth’s reward was the burial of his progeny, as burial reflects the concept of kavod habriyos, human dignity, a religious category that A Brief Translation to Modern Terms dictates how one person should relate to another. (Nefesh Harav, p. Ran’s Medieval terminology translates easily. In brief, he was saying 272–3) that there are natural or genetic predispositions in the world. These determine some aspects of our lives, but not our choices of how to The Sin and Punishment of the respond, nor our religious decisions.

In acting religiously, we build our relationship with Hashem, but also Tower of Bavel find ourselves guarded against some tragedies. Either by being “And Man’s Loftiness Will be Bowed:”1 elsewhere (such as going to Yerushalayim for a major holiday, The Sin and Punishment of the Tower of Bavel avoiding an epidemic where we live), by protecting ourselves from a problem (by not eating animals prone to carrying disease), or by by Rav Elchanan Samet being so righteous that nature itself is ineffective (so that our body On the surface, the brief episode of the Tower of Bavel (Bereishit itself will resist the disease), our spiritual lives affect our physical 11:1–9) appears to be a story of sin and its punishment. However, fates. what is the nature of this sin, and where exactly is it described in the Any of that takes a certain level of greatness, and even seemingly narrative? These are not easy questions. Bereishit Rabba notes righteous people might not be at that level. When tragedy strikes (38:10), “The deed of the Generation of the Flood is explicated, but such people, it is a tragedy. But, Ran says, it’s a function of the world the deed of the Generation of the Dispersal is not.” Yet, their story is working in generalities. To avoid those generalities, we need to work clearly a seminal event in Bereishit and in the Torah’s view of history, harder to be the kinds of people for whom Torah and mitzvot offer all shifting the focus from a universal approach to the concept of the the necessary protection. Chosen People. How are we to understand this cryptic but momentous passage? The eighth Drasha started from Moshe and his siblings, took us on a tour of leadership and the value of its centralization, on how wisdom 1. The View Of The “Pashtanim” and prophecy are passed through the generations, and how A group of early commentators, termed by the Ramban “the pursuers predispositions affect us and do or do not determine our fate. Some of of peshat” (the literal meaning of the text), read our passage in light these, we can bet, will figure in the discussions we will see in the of God’s blessing to Adam (1:28) and Noach (9:1): “Be fruitful and Drashot to come. multiply and fill the land…” The following is Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Vort from the Rav: Noach verse 4 (emphasis mine): The verse reveals their desire and their ultimate intent: to build Genesis 9:2 a metropolis to inhabit, and to build a high tower to provide a symbol and fame and acclamation… Their reputation would outlast them, as long as the tower stood; this is what Scripture And Shem and means when it quotes their objective, “And we shall make for – וַ ִ ּי ַּקח ׁ ֵ שם וָיֶפֶ ת אֶ ת הַ � ׂשִמְ לָ ה ...וַיְכַ ּס ּו אֵת עֶרְ וַת אֲ בִיהֶ ם Japheth took the garment…and they covered their father’s ourselves a name…” nakedness. Do not be confused by the expression, “[A tower] with its top in the emphasizing that Shem heavens,” as Moshe used a similar expression (Devarim 1:28): “Great ּחַ ּקִ יַ ו Rashi explains the use of the singular initiated the activity of covering his father, with Japheth later joining cities, fortified to the heavens.” These builders attempted to prevent him. Our sages indicate that as a reward for covering their father’s their own dispersal; God did not desire this — BUT THEY DID NOT nakedness, Shem merited that his descendants would be given the KNOW. mitzvah of tzitzis, while the reward for Japheth was that his Similarly, in his explanation of verse 7, Ibn Ezra states: “God spread descendent Gog would merit burial (Ez. 39:11, Bereishis Rabbah 36:6). them out, FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, as it says, ‘Fill the land.’” Shem and Japheth had differing motivations for their action; Shem was motivated by ethics, while Japheth was motivated by etiquette. Ethics Apparently, based on his approach, the story is not one of sin and as a value obligates man to do what is proper, even when there is no punishment, but rather a story of human error and its divine repair. one to witness and appreciate his action. Upon seeing Noah’s The builders’ monomania contradicts the divine plan, and therefore nakedness, Shem immediately acted to save his father from God involves Himself — so that His design will be realized, for the embarrassment. His descendants were thus given the mitzvah of ultimate benefit of humanity. tzitzis, because according to the basic halacha, the talis katan should Yet it is difficult to accept that our passage is not one of sin and its be worn under ones clothing, with only the fringes exposed. The punishment. Verse 5 relates, “God descended to observe the city and mitzvah of donning a piece of clothing that is not readily visible is a reflection of Shem’s emphasis on ethics in the private domain. In the tower,” reminding us of a similar verse regarding another sinful

2 124 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com city, Sedom (18:21): “I will descend and observe if they have done as could climb to the heavens. They also were not afraid of the the cry which has come to Me [indicates].’” Both examples describe Flood, for Noach and his children, to whom God had sworn [not God’s descent to observe, akin to the judge’s survey of the scene of to bring another deluge], were still alive, and all listened to the crime before issuing a verdict (see Rashi’s commentary to these them, as all humanity was descended from them. two verses). It appears that the general ambiance of the story does The common point shared by all three of Rashi’s explanations, not agree with Ibn Ezra’s analysis. representing the Sages’ view of the Dispersal generation, is that they Consequently, Radak accepts the main thrust of Ibn Ezra’s regard this sin as a serious revolt against God.3 Thus, Rashi’s explanation, but sees in the actions of the architects of the city a exegetical approach intensifies their sin, to the same degree that the direct and willful rebellion against the divine plan. He explains (11:5): approach of the other commentators lightens it. The sin is severe, in theological terms, creating an expectation of a corresponding They are called ‘Children of Adam’ since they follow their heart’s punishment. However, in actuality, that generation’s punishment is a inclination, ignoring God’s actions; for He wanted the world, slap on the wrist: they are simply scattered linguistically and from east to west, to be settled, while they wanted to settle only geographically. Rashi (11:9) struggles with this question, once again one small location, AND THEY INTENDED BY THIS TO ANNUL following Bereishit Rabba: GOD’S WILL. Which sin was worse, that of the Flood generation or that of the Rashbam’s explanation (11:4) runs along the same lines. Dispersal generation? The former did not assault the Essential, Ramban, however, asks a common-sense question of these pursuers while the latter did assault the Essential (as if it were possible to of peshat (11:2): wage war on Him); yet those were drowned, while these were not utterly destroyed! Still, those of the Flood generation were If they are correct, [the builders of the city] would have to be thieves, and they had social strife, so they were destroyed; but fools. How could any one city or tower be sufficient to hold the these acted with love and fellowship, as it says, “one language entire world’s population? Or did they think that they would not and united ideas.” We thus see that contention is despicable, reproduce? while peace is great.

Indeed, it is difficult to see God’s blessing to Adam and Noach as the Ironically, the phrase that condemns the Dispersal generation, “one background of our narrative. There is a great conceptual difference language and united ideas,” also proves to be their salvation. Rashi’s between the two instances: there mankind is blessed to “fill the land” aim here, following the midrash, is clear: to teach us that human through normal population growth, while in our case God spreads the unity, even when used for evil and thus necessitating dissolution, is people all over the face of the land not in order to settle it, but to considered meritorious. disperse them. An analysis of the root of the Hebrew word for spreading, “hafatza,” in Scripture, reveals that, in the vast majority of 3. The Historical Background of the Narrative cases, it describes a negative scattering: usually, the losers in a One who reads the story of the Garden of Eden in the previous battle, the shepherdless sheep, and the far-flung exiles are the parasha does not ask questions concerning the realia of the story Scriptural “nefotzim.”2 (e.g., Where is Eden located? What species was the Tree of 2. The Midrashic Approach of Rashi Knowledge? How could the serpent speak? etc.), and rightly so, because that narrative (like many of the early episodes in Bereishit) In his commentary, Rashi pursues the path of derash, the non-literal, has a distinctly unreal quality. What about our narrative? aggadic approach. In accordance with Bereishit Rabba (38:6), he finds the allusion to sin already present in verse 1: “All of the land In its opening lines, the narrative describes a known geographic area: was of one language and united ideas” — “one language” refers to a “a valley in the land of Shinar,” or Mesopotamia, and at its close it shared tongue, while “united ideas” denotes a universal consensus. names the city of Bavel, one of the oldest and most famous in the (Radak echoes this.) Regarding what was their consensus? Rashi ancient Near East, mentioned repeatedly in Scripture, and site of the supplies three possibilities: earliest archeological excavations.

They came with one counsel and declared: “[God] is not the The city of Bavel was already very large in the earliest extant records, be-all and end-all, that He should select the upper regions for and its temple to Marduwas distinguished; its toweas well was the Himself. Let us ascend to the firmament and wage war on Him.” grandest in ancient Babylonia, earning it the appellation, “The House Alternatively, [“united ideas” (“devarim achadim”) means] of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth.” The ruins of this tower, concerning the Unique One (“Yachid”). which our episode deals with, are visible today (for those who have Alternatively, “united ideas” implies that they said: “Once every the opportunity to stroll through rural Iraq), and they were excavated 1656 years the firmament collapses, as it did in the time of the at the turn of the century. Flood; let us make supports for it!” We do not know exactly when the tower and temple of Bavel were

These explanations are derived by way of derash; the pashtanim, as is built – nor did the ancient inhabitants of the city. But we do know that their wont, deal with Rashi’s commentary only to question it. Without the ancient inhabitants of the city were quite proud of their edifices, mentioning by name Rashi or the midrashim, Ibn Ezra (11:4) states: attributing their construction to the gods themselves. The towers, or ziggurats, were meant to serve as a point of encounter between the These builders of the tower were not such fools as to think they gods (dwelling in the heavens) and man (dwelling on earth). A

3 125 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com stunning set of stairs surrounded the tower, allowing the priests to divine arena, force themselves on the supernal realm, and walk there ascend to its apex. At the tower’s top sat a temple, in which the priest as the equals of God. This is nothing but a ludicrous declaration of would “meet” the gods. war by humanity on the divine.

With this background in mind, it appears that the traditional exegetes The Sages were closer than the medieval pashtanim to the realia of erred in seeing the expression “with its top in the heavens” as the Tower of Bavel episode, both chronologically and geographically. hyperbole. The ziggurat’s architects and their followers truly intended They lived either in Israel or in Babylonia itself, at a time when the for the tower to reach the heavens, the residence of the gods. remains of Bavel’s towers, and of the city of Bavel itself, were still recognizable. In Bereishit Rabba (38:8), a number of sages describe Knowledge of these historical and archeological facts compelled their personal observations of the remnants of the Tower. In their era, Cassuto to explain our narrative as satire, intended to mock the the pagan myth still had followers, and the link between it and the pagan pride of Bavel. The city of Bavel, with its temple and tower, still-visible ancient ruins of Bavel, as well as the Torah’s response, was destroyed many times throughout the long march of history, and was natural and understood. there were long periods in which the entire city, and the tower in particular, were heaps of ruins. We cannot point out all the details in 5. The Literal Exegesis the story which Cassuto explains as satirical,4 but let us cite one According to this view of our episode, shared by both Chazal and example. contemporary commentators,6 our story deals with the most serious Verse 5 ties together the two halves of the story, serving as its central human sin imaginable: rebellion against God. Man is created to serve axis: “The Lord DESCENDED to observe the city and the tower which God, and if he rebels, his very existence is counterproductive. This the CHILDREN OF ADAM had made.” The first difficulty is revolt, with its basis in human arrogance, with its undermining of the theological: does God need to descend in order to observe the actions boundary between the human and the divine, finds its fruit in of the humans? Rashi replies by citing the Tanchuma’s words: “He did paganism.7 not need to do so, but He came to teach judges not to condemn the Thus, the sin of the Tower’s architects lies not in their desire to be accused until they would see and understand [the facts of the case].” united, but rather in their audacious attempt to darken heaven’s Cassuto adds, doorstep and to defy their human bounds. “And we shall make for There is a satirical allusion here: they thought their tower would ourselves a name” is the essence of their pretension. In the reach heaven, but in God’s eyes their edifice was not giant, but dedications of various kings discovered in excavations in rather the creation of puny creatures, a thing of earth and not of Mesopotamia (some of them in bricks sunk into the foundations of heaven. If God, the Dweller of the Heavens, wanted to see it up ziggurats), we repeatedly find the claim that their towers reach close, He had to come down from heaven to earth. heaven. These dedications claim, many times, that the kings who built (or restored) these towers “made a name” for them and their Similarly, the words “children of Adam” at the verse’s end, which are kingdoms — even to the extent of earning them a place among the strikingly extraneous, prompt Rashi to ask: “Rather than children of gods.8 whom? Perhaps children of donkeys or camels?” Cassuto attempts to see here as well satirical allusions: divine beings did not build the According to this explanation, we might say that the words “lest we tower, as the Babylonian myth claims, but rather children of Adam be scattered across the face of the whole land” do not indicate the built the city and its tower.5 objective of the construction of the city and the tower per se (as the pashtanim explained) — rather the aim is mentioned prior to this: to 4. The Exegesis of Chazal: A Reexamination reach the heavens at the tower’s apex, and thereby “we shall make This conception of the episode, as a satirical protest aimed at the for ourselves a name.” The end of the verse, “lest we be scattered,” pagan arrogance of the ancient inhabitants of Bavel, brings us back to expresses their anxiety; something might prevent the united Chazal’s explanation, cited by Rashi, of the Dispersal generation’s sin. community from making its name. Social unity creates the desire for Following are Midrash Rabba’s original words (38:6): immortality and provides the tools to realize the most grandiose construction project in human history. If this unity is compromised for Rabbi Yochanan says: ‘Devarim achadim’ — that they said harsh any reason whatsoever, this initiative cannot be realized, and things (devarim chadim) about ‘the Lord our God, the Lord is one therefore the construction of the city and the tower must be (echad)’… They said, ‘He is not the be-all and end-all, that He completed with all due haste. should select for Himself the upper regions and give us the lower regions! Rather, let us build for ourselves a tower, AND LET US 6. Bavel and Eden: The Tower and the Tree MAKE AN IDOL AT ITS TOP, and we will put a sword in its hand, In many ways, our story seems to be the continuation of the story of and it will appear as if IT WAGES WAR ON HIM. man’s sin in the Garden of Eden. Both narratives explain the reason

It becomes apparent that the midrash links the Tower of Bavel to the for basic problems affecting the human species. The story of the idol at its apex, which dovetails beautifully with our knowledge of the expulsion from Eden explains why man must struggle in the two most ancient conception of the ziggurat. However, the midrash tells us basic area of his existence: finding sustenance and begetting more: the basis of this paganism lies in typical human arrogance and children. (In both of these areas, man is at a distinct disadvantage as foolishness. Thanks to their technological know-how, with which they compared to the animals.) Adam and Eve desired to “be as gods” are blessed by their Creator, they suppose that they can invade the (3:5), and the perpetual existential struggles that they were punished

4 126 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com with serve to humble them. argument, since the events of chapter 10 are explicated in chapter 11. ↩ The Garden of Eden narrative gives a reason for man’s weakness as an individual. Our narrative, on the other hand, gives a reason for the 3. See Sanhedrin 109a; Bereishit Rabba para. 38; Tanchuma, end basic failing of mankind as a whole, namely its lack of unity. The of Parashat Noach (para. 16–19); and other midrashim. ↩ linguistic, cultural, and geographic divisions weaken mankind and lead to unending strife and warfare between different groups. This is 4. For the historical background of Bavel, see, e.g., Umberto a fitting punishment for humankind, which, when it was united, Cassuto, From Noach to Avraham,” Hebrew edition, pp. 155–58, dedicated its great power to overstepping its bounds and climbing and “Olam Ha-tanakh: Bereishit” (p. 83). For the satirical into the divine arena. Thus, two curses peculiar to man — labor for aspects of the Tower story, see Cassuto, esp. pp. 157–58. ↩ Adam and Chava, war for the Bavel architects — emerge from these twin sins of presumption. 5. As Cassuto notes (p. 155), this also explains why this episode, unlike that of creation, the Flood, etc., has no analogue among This commonality between the narratives is expressed in their shared pagan sources. A narrative devised as a satire of pagan syntactic structure. Compare “Behold, the man has been like one of arrogance would hardly have found a receptive audience among us to know good and evil” (3:22) with “Behold, one nation and one ancient Israel’s neighbors. ↩ language tthem all, and this is what they begin to do” (11:6). Si, “And now, lest he send his hand and take from the Tree of Life and eat and 6. By “contemporary commentators,” I mean Yechezkel Kaufmann live forever…” is mirrored by “And now, whatever they plot to do will in his work “Toldot Ha-emuna Ha-yisraeilit” (vol. 2, pp. 412–14), not be beyond them.” Therefore, the result is similar: expulsion from though he ignores the archeological background of the story, the Garden of Eden and dispersal from the focus of human strength, and, more recently, Nachum Sarna, in his work “Understanding Bavel, to the face of the entire earth. Man, in his wretchedness, as an Genesis” (New York 1970), pp. 63–80. individual struggling with the provision of the most basic needs, or as Cassuto, it should be noted, does not fully concur with this view. a member of a species sunk in internecine war, cannot reach In his introduction to his explanation of our episode (p. 154), he self-deification. The human race, in this environment, learns to writes that the Torah’s intent in this narrative is to endorse two swallow that bitterest of pills, humility. religio-moral principles: “1. THAT PRIDE AND 7. The Hope for the Future SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL STRENGTH is a sin in the eyes of God; 2. that ‘God’s counsel With the Dispersal, the pride of a humanity united for evil was stands forever,’ and any plan conceived by Him is necessarily broken, stripping the species of the ability to execute similar realized, despite all of man’s efforts and schemes to defeat it.” schemes. From that point forward, the nations were divided, He means by this the divine command to “fill the land,” and here separated in their language and their culture, doomed to wage war he follows the pashtanim mentioned above, totally disregarding with their neighbors — but not forever. When humankind once more the midrashim. ↩ comes together, not for self-deification, but for the greater glory of God, this unity will be restored in all spheres, as described by the 7. The Mesopotamian ziggurats appear to be the most ancient of prophets. “Then will I convert the nations to a pure language for all of the monumental edifices in human culture dedicated to pagan them to call in the name of God,” and to serve Him with one consent,” worship. The earliest known example, excavated at Tel Arakh declares Tzefania (3:9), foreseeing a return to a common tongue. The (approximately 200 kilometers southeast of the city of Bavel), is dream of the entire race finding that unity of purpose and place is attributed to the beginning of the Sumerian era at the latest. (By most elaborately described by Yeshayahu (2:2–4): contrast, the Egyptian pyramids come later, and they were not temples but rather royal tombs.) It should not be too surprising And it will be in the end of days, the mount of the House of God that the construction of the Tower of Bavel — the tallest ziggurat will be set right… and all the peoples will flow to it. Many ever — is seen by the Torah as the inception of human rebellion nations will go and say: ‘Let us go and ascend to the mountain of against God and the birth of paganism. ↩ God, to the house of the God of Yaakov, and He will teach us of His ways; and we will walk in His paths…’ And they shall beat 8. So claims Guda, king of Lagash (c. 2000 BCE), in one inscription. their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning ↩ hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall not learn war any more.

This essay was translated and adapted by Yoseif Bloch. It originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash and is republished here with permission.

1. Yeshayahu 2:17. ↩

2. The root appears twice in the preceding chapter: “From these the land spread out” (10:2) and “Afterward, the Canaanite families spread out” (10:18). This does not contradict our

5 127 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com The 9/11 Memorial and Jewish not the deceased.2 R. Yitzchak Ya’akov Weiss (Minchas Yitzchak 1:29) explains that a Law gravestone is not important in itself. It is secondary to the grave and therefore not comparable to an idolatrous monument. He was asked by R. Gil Student whether a community could erect a monument for Holocaust victims. He answered that this would be biblically forbidden according to the As a New York resident who worked in Manhattan on September 11, Rambam unless they include the remains of someone deceased, such 2001, I will forever be haunted by the tragic day and its aftermath. as ashes or soap made from humans, which would render the However, visitors and future generations, including my own children, monument a gravestone. need more than personal memories. The 9/11 memorial and museum are intended to provide that. A recent article in First Things by R. Weiss quotes two halakhic authorities who disagreed with him. R. Catesby Leigh, an architecture and art critic, excoriates the National Yehudah Leib Tzirilson (Ma’archei Lev, no. 42) and R. David Sperber September 11 Memorial & Museum. I am hardly an architecture or (oral communication to R. Weiss) argue that since monuments for the art critic and I have not even visited the memorial or museum. dead are never used for idolatry, they are not subject to the However, I would like to discuss the concepts involved and the light prohibition even according to the Rambam. R. Weiss was not 1 Jewish tradition can shed on them. convinced by this argument.

I. Monuments III. Gravestone Substitutes

The Torah (Deut. 16:22) explicitly forbids erecting monuments. After R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 4:57) implicitly the Holocaust, Jewish authorities grappled with the need to disagrees with R. Weiss. He was asked whether someone who does remember and the biblical prohibition forbidding monuments. not know where his parents are buried is still obligated to erect a Medieval authorities debate the nature of this prohibition. Rashi (ad gravestone, perhaps at an empty plot in a cemetery. After discussing loc.) states that the Torah forbids erecting (single stone) monuments and rejecting various prooftexts, R. Feinstein concludes that there is for sacrifices to God similar to those used by idolators. We may only no basis to obligate a child to erect a gravestone in such a situation. use altars (made of multiple stones) in our worship of God. Similarly, His discussion assumes that erecting a gravestone without a buried R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, prohibition 41) lists two requirements to body in the grave is permissible, implicitly ruling against the Rambam fall under the prohibition: the monument must be made of a single or interpreting his position differently. stone and used for sacrifices. R. Feinstein proceeds to deciding the most appropriate way to However, the Rambam (Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, prohibition 11; Mishneh memorialize a deceased relative whose burial site is unknown, Torah, Hilkhos Avodah Zarah 6:6) defines a forbidden monument as making a crucial distinction. A gravestone without a grave gives one where people gather. In order to fall under the biblical honor to no one. And if we cannot directly honor the deceased among prohibition, it need not be made of a single stone nor be used for the dead, we should honor him among the living. Therefore, R. sacrifice or any other form of worship. The Chinukh (403) explains Feinstein suggests, a child should erect in honor of the deceased a that since monuments were used for idolatry, we may not use them building–or donate partially to a building–that will be used for for anything, even the service of God. While only a minority view, the educational or charity purposes. Let his name be remembered as Rambam’s position cannot be easily dismissed. The codes and enhancing religious lives. responsa literature do not offer much guidance on this subject. IV. Museums and Monuments II. Gravestones We see three methods for memorializing the dead, each appropriate However, the Rambam himself (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Avel 4:4) in different circumstances: rules that we must erect gravestones for the deceased. Is this not a monument that should be biblically forbidden? The Rambam here 1. We place a monument, a gravestone, near the burial place for follows the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) and its accompanying Talmud the sake of the deceased’s soul Yerushalmi which states that a Torah scholar does not need a 2. For the righteous, we place a gravestone at the burial place for gravestone because his Torah insights serve as a memorial. However, the benefit of visitors everyone else requires a gravestone, which the Mishnah calls a “ nefesh,” a soul. 3. Elsewhere, a monument is either forbidden (R. Weiss) or inappropriate (R. Feinstein). Instead, we build educational or At the unveiling of R. Moshe Sofer’s (the Chasam Sofer) gravestone, charitable institutions. his son and successor, R. Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer, asked why we erect a monument for Torah scholars against the conclusion A 9/11 monument, listing the names of the deceased, is appropriate of the Yerushalmi and Rambam (Responsa Kesav Sofer, Yoreh De’ah for the site where some remains still rest. It is a burial site, a grave 178). He explains that for most people, we write their names on their for individuals and for the nation that mourns them. Some of the gravestones so their relatives and friends will pray for them. The buried may qualify as righteous, whether as victims of a vicious attack gravestone is intended to benefit the deceased’s soul (nefesh). or would-be saviors, rushing to assist the injured. The monument Righteous people do not need this help. Their gravestones are for the commemorates the fallen and allows us to pray for them and for visitors to pray in the merit of the righteous, a service to others and ourselves.

If a graveside monument is impossible, an educational scholars. However, the way to demonstrate this lack of pride is to see institution–including a museum–is a proper additional what happens in Bein Hazmanim (intersession), when yeshiva commemoration. It should not be a place to merely revisit the students pour back, from outside of town or from Israel, into their tragedy. As an educational institution, this museum must teach the respective communities. The shuls and batei midrash are more lessons of 9/11. To me, those lessons are about patriotism, bravery packed than usual, filled with a buzz of people returning, seeing and selflessness. When I think of 9/11, I think of firefighters rushing family and friends. Pizza shops fill with yeshiva students catching up to the scene to help. I see Abe Zelmanowitz, from my neighborhood, with each other. Shadchanim (and marriage age girls) go into a frenzy who stayed behind to help his quadriplegic colleague. And I think of of calls and arrangements. Yet amidst all the commotion and emotion, the remarkable national unity that followed the tragedy. Teaching one cannot really detect a sense of communal pride in the yeshiva those lessons to a future generation would be a fitting cohort. Whereas in the life of the shtetl, the Talmid Chacham was a commemoration of the martyrs of 9/11. source of pride, there is no real sense today of our yeshiva students as something we are proud of –“Wow, our community is full for a 1. I am certain some people will expect a discussion here of month with so many people who are studying Torah!” There is no whether kohanim may enter the memorial. I do not know and am sense that the people who have come back to town are the cream of not willing to rely on news reports. ↩ the crop, the pride of our community, a group we hold up high and proclaim, “Here are the finest our community can offer!” The month 2. See also Minchas Elazar 3:37. ↩ is passed with a lot of excitement and fun, but pride is not really in the cards.

A Matter of Pride I believe that two factors have caused this change in our relationship with yeshiva students. The first is the fact that the term “yeshiva by Aron White student” means something totally different now than it used to. In the Torah study has been a fundamental part of Judaism for a long time. past, yeshiva study was limited to an elite minority who dedicated However, there is one element of it which can be found throughout themselves whole-heartedly to their studies. Moreover, being a classical Jewish sources right up until the previous century, which I yeshiva student almost implied certain personality traits. The Talmid believe has eroded greatly in the past fifty years. This element is the Chacham in the shtetl is described as having distinctive way of idea of pride in Torah and Talmidei Chachamim. walking and talking; a certain refinement and fineness was built into what it meant to be a yeshiva student. Frequently in Chazal, and In order to explain any change in religious psyche, it is incumbent to Rambam’s Hilchos De’os, reference is made to the external behaviour provide the model against which I am comparing us. The Harvard of a Talmid Chacham as beautiful, fine, praiseworthy. Today, yeshivot sociologists Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog wrote a book, Life are open to everyone. Whilst this certainly has many benefits, one is With the People, which aimed to capture the worldview of the side effect is that being a yeshiva student no longer imposes any European shtetl. Quite a large part of it is devoted to the shtetl’s view requirements of personal development. There are many students in of Talmidei Chachamim, the scholars and Yeshiva students of the yeshivot who are not sophisticated or refined, but quite shallow, even village. Locals viewed the yeshiva students in the most glowing terms. boorish. Whereas once a yeshiva student could be discerned by his They were known as the “shayneh” people, the “good” people. They calm and dignified walk, yeshiva students who have returned to their were given pride of place in the synagogue, by being given the communities for Bein Hazmanim are often identifiable by less noble Eastern wall to sit at. Torah knowledge was the number one features. Hanging out on street corners, coming out of a late minyan, determinant of social status (though wealth was certainly a close smoking and bad driving are unfortunately all things that have second). A stellar yeshiva student was someone people wanted to become part of the cultural lexicon of yeshiva students. Such a group host, as well as the choice match for their daughters. In short, the is far less worthy of adoration and pride in the eyes of the community, Talmid Chacham was an object of much adoration and communal and justifiably so. pride. A second reason for a change in the Yeshivish community’s I believe that across the orthodox spectrum, from Yeshivish to relationship with its yeshiva students is actually due to the attitudes Modern Orthodox, this sense, at least regarding yeshiva students, has of the yeshiva students themselves. Because Yeshiva and Kollel have largely eroded. Rabbis maintain a certain amount of respect, as become parts of the fabric of life, one often finds people who are leaders, teachers and officiators of religious ceremonies. However, enveloped in learning for many years, yet without conveying any the relationship with the young scholars of the community, the great passion for what they are doing. Free time is a great barometer yeshiva students, has changed dramatically in the past half century. for this. There are many yeshiva students who learn for a large The reasons are different in each community, and I will analyse them numbers of years without ever considering to learn any time beyond separately. The analysis of this issue cuts to the core of some of the the yeshiva schedule. When I see a yeshiva student on a long distance major elements of each community, as well the future courses these flight without a sefer in his bag, or eat a Shabbat meal at the house of communities will take. a Kollel student where not a word of Torah is discussed (communal politics and housing costs instead), it makes me wonder how serious The Yeshivish Community his engagement with Torah really is. A good counterexample to this It may seem surprising to accuse the Yeshivish community, where phenomenon is the (theoretical) student from public school in the Talmud Torah is the primary value, of a lack of pride in Torah Midwest, studying in Israel for the year. The student becomes totally

7 129 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com engrossed in his studies, inspired by the beauty of living in the Jewish engaged with the world and values that their community is engaged land with the Jewish people, thirsty for knowledge. He is filled with a with. joy, a remarkable passion that places him on cloud nine for months, The second part of the relationship is as significant, if not more so. enthralled by the experience. Compared to the emotional experience Modern Orthodoxy’s relationship with yeshivot is governed by a fair many have when jumping into the world of Torah study, those for amount of fear, primarily parental, but also communal. The changes whom learning Torah is just what one does can sometimes seem that some students have undergone in yeshivot are well known. Many apathetic to, or simply uninspired by, the beauty of what they are become more religiously observant – no more touching girls, listening involved in. If the student himself does not see Torah as something to women sing, hugging family members of the other gender, eating wonderful, beautiful, and worth being proud of, it is no surprise the at their families favourite restaurant (“even the rabbi eats there!”) community does not have pride in him. due to new kashrut requirements. Some “shift to the right”– out go Thus, the fact that yeshiva students are no longer a refined elite, and the coloured clothes and Israeli flag, in comes the hat and jacket, and the fact that the routine of the yeshiva lifestyle has removed some of series of esoteric sefarim discussing “lomdus.” On the other end of the passion and beauty of Torah study, combine to make the Yeshivish the spectrum, some become more liberal – Rashi, Ramban and Netziv world’s relationship with its yeshiva students more ambivalent than in are all outside the confines of “Pshat” and thus irrelevant, whereas it past eras. is vitally important for one to be well versed in philosophy, comparative theology and Biblical criticism in order for Judaism to be The Modern Orthodox Community relevant and sophisticated. Others become more Zionist – they serve Modern Orthodoxy also has a difficult relationship with its budding in the Israeli army before going to live in some legally questionable scholars and yeshiva students. Here I will draw on an example from residence somewhere over the Green Line, Israelize their surname, Israel. The Modern Orthodox magazine Motzash (an acronym for and look pitifully on those unlucky Jews, still living in the Galut. Motza’ei Shabbat) ran a story a few months ago describing the 150 Each of these are not merely personal choices, but choices that bright young prospects (under age 36) in the National directly impact the student’s relationship with his parents – they are Religious/Modern Orthodox community in Israel. People from every no longer observant/”frum”/intellectual/Zionist enough for him. In the field were represented as the future and the pride of the community – Modern Orthodox community, yeshivot have become a place that lawyers, soldiers, professors, entrepreneurs and social activists. parents are sometimes a little bit scared of. As one woman put it to Amongst the 150, there was not one person listed as a leading Torah me, “guys stay in yeshiva for Shana Aleph [first year] and Shana Bet scholar or teacher. In my own personal experience, in many settings, [second year]. If they stay a third year, then the Gimmel stands for when I introduce myself by saying “I am in my fifth year in Yeshiva,” Gone.” This has also served to make it harder for communities to put there is a certain awkwardness created. Only when I say “I am also their yeshiva students on a pedestal, to be genuinely proud of the studying for a degree” is the atmosphere relaxed, and I am welcomed religious growth they undergo. as a social equal, to be valued and respected. For many people in the community, “religious growth” in yeshiva I believe that there are two factors that play into Modern Orthodoxy’s means students taking on stringencies that seem extreme or bizarre. relationship with its Torah students. First, the Modern Orthodox “Developing a connection with Eretz Yisrael” means viewing life in community has a multi-faceted value system. Whereas in the shtetl, the Diaspora as illegitimate, and thus losing respect for their Torah knowledge was the key to social standing, in the Modern community. The building blocks of religious growth have been turned Orthodox community, there are so many things that are central to into things to be feared, lest they go too far. The very institution of a Modern Orthodoxy’s worldview, that Torah knowledge is no longer yeshiva is viewed with suspicion. In such an atmosphere, Modern enough by itself to give one any social standing. Career, Orthodoxy is too focused on making sure religious growth does not qualifications, sophisticated views, breadth of knowledge, range of “go too far” to focus on the beauty of the religious growth itself. experiences – all are things that are vital to a good social standing in Modern Orthodoxy, most of which (experiences being the exception) The Modern Orthodox community’s multiple values, combined with are not provided by years learning in yeshivot. To many in Modern the drastic changes some students undergo in yeshivot and the Orthodoxy, the first thing they think about when they think of yeshiva ensuing suspicion of yeshivot, are the two major causes of a lack of students is, well, kids. It is simply harder for someone with a pride in yeshiva students in the Modern Orthodox community. successful career, experienced and nuanced political views and a The Path Forward complicated financial plan for his family to take an 18 year old kid seriously based on his greater Torah knowledge. When subjects such The question is, what is the path forward? None of the societal as Israeli politics, inter-denominational relations or LGBT issues are changes that I have mentioned seem poised for reversal, and many of raised, often yeshiva students’ opinions range from naivety to them are not necessarily changes that we want undone. I believe fundamentalism. No amount of Gemara and Tosafos is going to cut it healing will come about through gradual changes in all parties. for you if you cannot talk about the prospects of the Two State Yeshiva students must recognize that they are Torah ambassadors to Solution… or hold extreme views about the topic. The multi-faceted the world. They must model proper interpersonal behavior and show nature of the Modern Orthodox value system means that Torah care for mitzvah observance. They do better davening late in private knowledge alone is not going to cut it for anyone in this community as than assembling late-morning minyanim, sending the message that a symbol of social standing, and the “bubble/like” environment of yeshiva students have not a care in the world. Yeshiva students must yeshivot mean that, by definition, yeshiva students will be less be more conscious of the sensitivities of their parents, ensuring that

8 130 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com they are not treading on anyone’s toes in their religious growth. Life and exiting a bathhouse. The prayer recited on entering the becomes complicated as one’s financial, familial and communal bathhouse included asking God to prevent bad things from happening obligations grow. Yeshiva students must recognize their parents’ and also a request that if something bad should happen, it should sacrifices for religion as true Jewish worship, even if not codified in serve to atone for past sins. Again, Abaye objects based on Resh Shulchan Aruch. They must respect their parents as they develop Lakish’s saying that one should not open one’s mouth to Satan. This their own path. In turn, parents must reciprocate by allowing their prayer should not even mention the possibility that something bad children room to develop their own identity. may happen.

I will conclude by giving two reasons why it is so important for us to When did Resh Lakish say this? The Gemara (Kesubos 8b) tells us the take steps that will allow us–laypeople across the Orthodox circumstance. The tutor for Resh Lakish’s sons lost his own children. community–to regain a sense of pride in our yeshiva students. First, On paying a shivah call, Resh Lakish asked his translator to offer for one’s own individual religious life, it is correct and healthy to words of comfort. The translator said that death has been around maintain pride in those who are fully engrossed in religious study. since the six days of Creation; many have drunk of it and many will One should have a very positive relationship and feeling towards a drink of it. He then asked that God comfort these mourners. Resh central part of our religion. But more importantly, yeshiva students Lakish objected that the translator should not have said that many are an important resource for the Orthodox community, maybe one of will drink of it because this constitutes opening one’s mouth to Satan, the most important. Few things could be more important for the which once should not do. continuing vitality of the Orthodox community than education about What are we to make of this? On the face of it, this seems capricious. our religion and traditions. Looking at the broader Jewish community, Why should speech move the scales of divine justice? across all denominations there is anguish amongst Jewish leadership that so many Jews are ignorant of their rich heritage. The knowledge II. Mystical Approaches gained by thousands of students a year (and whatever we think of the breadth of the yeshiva curriculum, the amount students learn in a One possible approach is suggested by a literal view of the heavenly year of study, with 12 hour plus learning days, is incredible) is a vital retinue. R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explains (Ramchal, Derech Hashem resource for the community. Finding a way of being proud of these 2:6, Kaplan translation): students will help give them a platform to spread their knowledge, God arranged matters so that His direction of the world should and make no small contribution to the continuing vitality of the Jewish resemble that of an earthly government… The spiritual realm community. therefore contains courts of justice and deliberating bodies, with appropriate rules and procedures.

Speaking With Satan While Ramchal does not explicitly state it, I take this to mean that he believes there is a heavenly accuser, a prosecuting attorney, called by R. Gil Student Satan. This prosecutor looks for opportunities to press charges. If we God is just, merciful and fair. Why, then, are we told that saying antagonize him, we risk catching his attention and facing his wrath. something bad–opening our mouths to Satan–can cause bad things to The Rashba (Responsa 1:408) takes a different approach. He sees this happen? Why should a just God punish us for discussing a negative as a matter of the power of human speech. People have the ability to possibility? use their godly power of speech to curse and bless in supernatural The Talmud raises this issue in three places but does not explain the ways. Similarly, they can cause bad things to happen by opening their theological mechanisms by which it operates. I’d like to explore mouth to Satan. How this works is beyond our understanding, even a approaches from mystical, rationalist and moralistic perspectives. refutation of philosophy which cannot explain it. However, the lesson it teaches about the importance of controlling our words is certainly I. Don’t Say This comprehensible.

A mourner is required to justify God’s judgment, to say “tziduk ha-din III. Rationalist Approach .” The Talmud (Berakhos 19a) offers a formula for tziduk ha-din that begins: “Master of the worlds: I have sinned much before You but You R. Yitzchak Arieli (Einayim La-Mishpat, Berakhos 18a no. 10) points have only punished me one thousandth [of what I deserve].” Abaye out that the Rambam does not rule like the Gemara regarding objects that this formula violates Resh Lakish’s saying (and it is also refraining from saying bad things that might spur Satan. The taught in the name of R. Yossi) that a person should not open his Rambam includes this among other Talmud superstitions (or popular mouth to Satan (le-olam al yiftach adam piv le-Satan). By saying that beliefs) that he rejects. Rambam’s rationalist approach is to reject one deserves more punishment from God, one is asking for bad things this concept. to happen. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (Job 1:6) famously quotes R. Sa’adia Gaon as In ancient times, the bathhouse was apparently a dangerous place, explaining that the Satan mentioned in the book of Job is a person. perhaps due to the combination of germs and perverts. However, in Ibn Ezra rejects this and claims it is connected to the astrological the days before indoor plumbing, it was the only option for basic order of the universe, the planetary system we call nature. This is cleanliness where running water was unavailable or dangerous. The similar to Rambam’s (Moreh Nevukhim 3:22) explanation that Satan Talmud (Berakhos 60a) discusses prayers one should say on entering is the natural order of the universe that sometimes causes bad things

9 131 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly Digest from TorahMusings.com to happen. Ibn Ezra and Rambam would seem to leave no room for In addition to the above approaches, I see this as an optimistic our speech inadvertently influencing Satan.1 approach to life. Our speech should reflect hope, a bright future, trust in God. Avoiding verbalizing negative possibilities, even when this However, R. Menachem Meiri, in his commentary to Berakhos (19a), causes us to say things a little awkwardly, enforces an upbeat tone. quotes the bathhouse prayer in its emended fashion. He implicitly The Talmud (Shabbos 53a) says that we all know what a bride and accepts the criticism about opening one’s mouth to Satan. Meiri is groom do on their wedding night but we shouldn’t say it. Refraining well-known as a rationalist who explains the Talmud according to from doing so keeps our (and other people’s) minds on appropriate Rambam’s general principles. Yet here he accepts the idea of things. Similarly, we all know that bad things happen but refraining influencing Satan. I’m not sure how to explain this.2 from saying it explicitly helps us maintain an optimistic outlook. IV. Moralistic Approaches 1. Ibn Ezra mentions the possibility of speaking to Satan in his R. Avraham Kook (Ein Ayah, Berakhos 19a) offers an intriguing commentary to Ex. 1:10 but that is an explanation of what explanation. Opening one’s mouth to Satan, suggesting that Pharaoh may have been thinking, which Ibn Ezra rejects. ↩ something bad might occur to oneself, is a lack of proper faith. Self-awareness is a necessity for religious growth. But recognition of 2. See also Meiri to Gittin 36b. ↩ one’s behavioral flaws should not morph into a misunderstanding of God’s ways. One must believe that God rewards and punishes people 3. R. Kook’s writing is notoriously obscure. This is how I justly. understand his explanation. R. Ya’akov Ibn Chaviv (Ha-Kosev to Ein Ya’akov, Berakhos 19a) seems to say the exact opposite. He Someone who secretly believes that he deserves worse but that God is contends that if a person explains divine recompense based on mercifully saving him from his true recompense is suffering from a justice, then divine mercy can no longer be applied to him. ↩ dangerous misunderstanding. This reliance on divine mercy can easily deteriorate into further religious misbehavior. After all, if God doesn’t 4. Although R. Ya’akov Reischer (Iyun Ya’akov, Berakhos 19a) truly punish for sins, why be careful to behave properly? In the end, suggests that the rule of not opening one’s mouth to Satan only this statement about what one “truly” deserves becomes true. applies to a time of danger or judgment. ↩ Opening one’s mouth to Satan is a self-fulfilling prophecy.3

R. Eliyah Dessler (Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. 4 pp. 219–223) proposes a different moralistic explanation. Speech reflects our inner refinement. If we are truly horrified by profanity and violence then we will be unable to verbalize it. The fact that we can say something bad shows an inner lacking.

Judaism is an optimistic religion, which we must fully internalize. Judaism also values life, a concept with which R. Dessler takes specific aim at violent sports. People who are willing to endanger their lives for entertainment, and even call it bravery, suffer from a sad and empty life. We are not cowards for refusing to engage in violent sports. We love life for the religious opportunities it offers, refusing to endanger it without reason.

A refined person with proper priorities will be unable to say anything that implies he does not fully value life. Saying so, opening one’s mouth to Satan, displays a lack of sensitivity to Torah values. This, in turn, opens the possibility for negative repercussions. The mechanism by which these repercussions occur remains a mystical phenomenon. However, the underlying cause is moralistic.

V. Optimistic Judaism

However we explain it, halakhic authorities have generally accepted the concept of refraining from opening one’s mouth to Satan, Rambam notwithstanding. The Rema (Yoreh De’ah 376:2) rules that a person should not say that he has not been punished according to his deeds, a variation of the Talmud’s tziduk ha-din. The Magen Avraham (239:7) rules that one should not recite the deathbed confession every night (as some do) for the above reason. The Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (33:14) follows the Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav in ruling that one should never say that something bad will happen to another Jew.4

10 132 Copyright © 2014 Torah Musings, All rights reserved. Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& !Torah Musings Digest 31 October, 2014 | A Window into the Orthodox Jewish Intellectual’s World| Edited by: Rabbi Gil Student

different mitzvah. Why should an owner free his stake in a servant, The Super-Mitzvah to Have suffering a financial loss, to allow a half-servant to fulfill peru u-revu, a commandment in which he is not technically obligated? It is true Children that a half-servant is not obligated to be fruitful and multiple. However, he is still obligated to settle the world by having children. The Logical Imperative to Procreate Everyone, freeman and servant, man and woman, is obligated in by R. Gil Student sheves.

The “Shidduch Crisis,” the growing number of older singles in the II. Women and Procreation Orthodox community, is not a uniquely Jewish phenomenon, nor The other Talmudic reference to sheves limits the sale of a Torah should it be. Contemporary society is also undergoing a “Singles scroll. Normally, you may never sell a Torah scroll, perhaps the most Crisis.” This should give us pause when proposed solutions to the sacred possession an individual or community can acquire. The Shidduch Crisis, no matter how clever (and especially when too Talmud (Megillah 27a) allows for the sale of a Torah scroll in only two clever), only address concerns specific to our community. Can it circumstances: in order to study Torah or to pay for an orphan’s really be a coincidence that we are suffering from the same problem wedding expenses. The latter exemption is supported with the above as the culture around us? If not, we need to recognize this within our verse from Isaiah. Since sheves is so important, or so proposed course of action. all-encompassing, it overrides the sanctity of the Torah scroll in this Additionally, acknowledging this link to general society gives us respect. Commentaries to the Shulchan Arukh note that the Talmud opportunity to consider why this phenomenon is so troublesome as to uses the masculine form of the word for “orphan.” What about a be called a “crisis.” Yes, we see the very real human suffering, but we female orphan? have to look more deeply and ask: Why are these humans suffering? It is quite surprising that the Torah only obligates men to have I. The Half-Servant children (Yevamos 65b). Peru u-revu, childbirth and childraising, is a mitzvah placed only on males. Certainly, most people find this The first commandment in the Torah is to be fruitful and to multiply ( contrary to their biological, psychological and sociological instincts. peru u-revu), to have children. This was said first to Adam and The most popular explanation for this curious halakhic position was Chavah as a blessing, like that said to the other animals, and again to offered by R. Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk in his Meshekh Noach as a blessing and command (Gen 1:28, 9:1, 9:7). Since it was Chokhmah (Gen. 9:7). R. Meir Simcha argues that the Torah is not repeated after the Torah was given, this mitzvah only applies to merciful and does not obligate people in tasks that are necessarily Jews. Gentiles are not obligated to be fruitful and multiply. However, painful (see Yevamos 87b). The Torah exempts women from the we see a curious development twice in the Talmud. obligation because childbirth is extremely painful for them. Back when slavery was allowed, centuries before the Emancipation That exemption takes a surprising turn. We may sell a Torah scroll to Proclamation, the Talmud (Gittin 41a) discussed the case of a enable an orphan to fulfill the mitzvah of marrying. However, women half-servant. A servant is bought by two owners in a partnership and are not obligated in the mitzvah. Therefore, perhaps we may not sell a one owner sets him free. The half-servant is in a state of limbo–he Torah scroll to fund the wedding of a female orphan. Commentaries cannot marry a free woman because of his servant half and he cannot struggle with this surprising and counterintuitive conclusion. Chelkas marry a maidservant because of his free half. Therefore, the Sages Mechokek (Even Ha-Ezer 1:1) adopts it while Beis Shmuel (Even decreed, the other owner must set the man completely free. The Ha-Ezer 1:2) and Magen Avraham (153:9) dispute it (see also Ba’er prophet declares: “Lo sohu vera’ah, la-sheves yetzarah, [God] did not Heitev, Even Ha-Ezer 1:2; Otzar Ha-Poskim 1:11). Who needs create [the world] to be barren, He created it to be settled” (Isa. communal assistance more than a female orphan? One answer lies in 45:18). This teaches an overriding obligation to have children (a the debate between Ri and Rivam. mitzvah of sheves) that even applies to a servant. According to Ri, there is only one mitzvah to have children; sheves is Why did the Talmud quote a verse in Isaiah and not one of the three the same as peru u-revu, from which women are exempt. However, verses from Genesis about being fruitful and multiplying? Is not an Rivam sees these as two separate mitzvos. All people, men and explicit commandment in the Torah more compelling than a prophetic women, are obligated in sheves. Therefore, since the permission to passage? Two students of the great Tosafist, Rabbenu Tam, disagree sell a Torah scroll is based on the verse in Isaiah about sheves, this how to interpret this passage.1 R. Yitzchak of Dampierre (Ri) explains permission must include orphan women. Note that according to the that the prophet emphasizes the importance of this mitzvah (peru Ri, the discussion is not over. There might be other reasons to extend u-revu) to the divine plan. Even though a half-servant is not really the permission to orphan women, as discussed in Otzar Ha-Poskim obligated in this commandment, his master should still free him to 1:11. allow him to fulfill this great mitzvah. III. The Source for Sheves R. Yitzchak Ben Mordekhai of Regensburg (Rivam) sees in sheves a

1 133 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! The idea that sheves obligates everyone to procreate requires Lichtenstein takes a similar approach, albeit not within Rivam’s explanation. Where do we see women receiving such a command? view. See this Hebrew essay: link (RTF), section 2, fourth And why would the Torah mercifully exempt women from peru u-revu approach. ↩ and then turn around and re-obligate them in the very same thing via sheves? Vort from the Rav: Lech Lecha I suggest that sheves is not a direct command. The prophet is not telling us what to do but explaining to us God’s will, posing a simple Genesis 15:4 syllogism: כִּ י אִ ם אֲ ׁ ֶ שר יֵצֵ א מִמֵּעֶ �יך ּהוא יִירָ ׁ ֶ ש �ך 1. God put people on this big planet This one will not inherit you, but the one who will spring from your innards-he will inherit you. 2. God does not do things without a reason This promise is the culmination of a long and frustrating journey for 3. Therefore, God wants the world populated. Abraham. When Abraham received God’s command of lech lecha, he This is not an unassailable argument. Maybe God wants people to also received a promise that the Almighty would make him a great occupy only one place, even though the planet is large. Maybe He nation and he would be a blessing to all people on earth (Gen. only wanted us on this world for a short time. How are we expected to 12:1–3). Abraham interpreted this promise to mean that his mission fully grasp the divine will?2 In this case, prophecy does not command was to convert the nations of the world to monotheism, starting with us but educates us, informing us of God’s will. Sheves does not the inhabitants of the land he would be shown. Since he was command us but tell us what God wants. concerned with converting the people he would meet, on his journey he took not only Sarah, his wife, but also Lot and the converts that he Yet, we did not need this revelation. Merely observing the world and his wife had already made in Haran. We do not, however, hear teaches us that people were created with innate biological and another word about these converts; they apparently abandoned psychological desires to have children. God must have implanted Abraham the closer he came to Canaan. Abraham then “passed within creation the drive for procreation for a reason. The suffering of through the land” (Gen. 12: 6), directing his message to the singles in this “crisis” is a symptom of spiritual unfulfillment, a sign of Canaanites. Although God then appeared to Abraham and said, “to the divine plan of marriage and procreation. Genesis 1–2 is part of your own children will I give this land,” Abraham thought that the our inherent psychological makeup. message referred to spiritual children, so He built on that spot an altar to God in accordance with his interpretation of God’s message Once we know that God desires procreation, we are bidden, as His (Gen. 12: 7). It is noteworthy that the Torah never says that he created beings, to fulfill His will. He wants people in the world, a full sacrificed upon the altars he built, for apparently he built them to world, so we cannot allow humanity to dwindle. We must continue the attract a crowd so that he could address the people. human chain, implementing God’s will. Having children is one way in 3 which we can fulfill God’s desires. Abraham kept traveling further southward towards Egypt, which was then the center of civilization. Who better to heed his message than This is not a meta-mitzvah, an overarching command like “And you the Egyptians? Only when Abraham realized how immoral the shall do the right and the good” (Deut. 6:18). Rather, it is a logical Egyptians were, and that his message had no chance of catching on mandate supported by prophecy. It is founded in the fundamental there, did he leave. After the great disappointment of his encounter duty of every created being to fulfill his master’s will. As such, it with the highly civilized but grossly immoral Egyptians, Abraham presumably obligates all people, gentiles and Jews, every created 4 escapes Egypt, again unsuccessful in his mission. Yet he continues his being seeking to fulfill the will of its Creator. journey and goes back to the same places he had come to before, and If this is correct, then God, through His merciful Torah, does not finally to the very place where he had earlier pitched his tent, east of command women to have children. However, the continuation and Beth-El. He returns, indeed, to the very altar he built from which he growth of the human species is God’s will, which all people–men, preached to all, and again calls out in God’s Name (Gen. 13:3–4). women, Jew and gentile–must fulfill and through which they achieve And here began his second great disappointment. Among Abraham’s their highest purpose. Their suffering, the communal and societal entire coterie, his nephew Lot should have been most affected by his crises, demonstrates this need. message. Yet Lot and his shepherds forsook Abraham and his mission, 1. Tosafos, Gittin 41b sv. lo; Chagigah 2b sv. lo; Bava Basra 13a sv. and chose to dwell among the most wicked people of that time, the she-né’emar. ↩ people of Sodom. Abraham is not sure where to turn to continue his teachings. If Lot would not listen, then who else would? Yet Abraham 2. And does this make space travel, settling the vast universe, a is so imbued with belief in his message and his conviction that the religious obligation? ↩ people of the land, even of Sodom, would ultimately heed it, that he moves his tent to another location, Elonei Mamre, and again builds an 3. One can argue that we need not fulfill God’s will, only His altar (Gen. 13:18). His last hope is that the power is yet within him to command. See this post: link. ↩ convince the inhabitants of the land of Canaan (including Sodom and its wicked neighbors) of the error of their ways. There is a war of four 4. After writing this, I was gratified to see that R. Aharon kings against five; Lot and his family are taken prisoner together with

2 134 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! the King of Sodom and his followers. Abraham is forced to arm his purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his household and to rescue them. Abraham triumphs, saves Sodom’s body.” king and his followers as well as his nephew Lot and his family. Does Maimonides continues this thought by suggesting that the mikve is a the King of Sodom mend his ways, or even show gratitude? On the place where, with the right intention, we rid ourselves of impure contrary, he says Give me the souls, and the possessions take for thoughts that lead to bad behaviors: “Similarly one who focuses his yourself. “Abraham, your spiritual message is meaningless. We know heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are what really interests you. You take the booty.” For the first and only the wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when time in the Torah, Abraham displays fury. In the king of Sodom’s he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and cynical words, Abraham sees his perceived mission of influencing immerses his soul in the waters of knowledge, as Ezekiel states, ‘I mankind crumble before his eyes. shall sprinkle upon you water of purification, and you shall be So Abraham now answers God’s promise of reward with a desperate, purified. I will cleanse you from all impurities…’” It is almost as if the heartbreaking cry. In response, God assures him that Eliezer will not soul rather than the body was being dipped into ‘waters of be his heir; that actual children and not converts will carry on the knowledge’ and rinsing away the internal filth that builds up daily: message. With the Bris Bein Habesarim Abraham begins a new the arguments, the gossip, the grudges, the jealousies, the meanness. mission. (R. Nisson Shulman Notes, 1952) It sluices away when we enter the mikve, and we emerge re-born, in the mystics’ view, trying once again to get it right.

Healing Waters One person’s abuse of the mikve turned it, in some people’s minds, into the exact opposite of what the space is – safe, sacred and special. by Dr. Erica Brown It’s time to take the mikve back – for converts and regular users – by recommitting ourselves to its deepest meaning and purpose as a “I shall sprinkle upon you water of purification, and you shall be spiritual tool to achieve holiness and to encourage its use for those purified. I will cleanse you from all impurities…” who have never experienced the beauty of ritual immersion. Ezekiel 36:25 For converts and others who feel violated, perhaps – in the spirit of In the past few weeks, the mikve, a space of sacred purity and Maimonides – it is time to immerse in the mikve once again to rid privacy, has become a subject of scrutiny and suspicion. For those oneself of this impurity, the impurity of these past weeks. If it helps, who perform this mitzva regularly, an obligation of holiness suddenly before the immersion, you may want to recite on or both of these two provokes worry. Is someone watching me? For those who have never excerpts from prayers traditionally said before immersion: immersed in a ritual bath, the chances of ever going to the mikve have just gotten slimmer. It’s not hard to understand the anxiety. This “…Just as I am cleansing my body of spiritual impurity in this water, mitzva has been sheltered both in the placement of the building and so in Your great mercy and abundant kindness may You cleanse my the secrecy of the practice. Open conversations about mikve use are soul of all impurity and dross, so that we might experience fulfillment rare. of the verse ‘I shall sprinkle upon you water of purification, and you shall be purified,’ for as it is written, ‘God is the hope [mikve] of Immersion in the mikve is one of my very favorite mitzvot, and I hate Israel.’” This was written by the Ben Ish Chai (1832−1909). The full to see it belittled and diminished, particularly by those who have text appears in the Jewish Woman’s Prayer Book by Aliza Lavie. never seen its value or dipped into its waters. It’s time to strengthen its observance because, as Rahm Immanuel said, “Never let a good Devra Kay collected this prayer in Seder Tkhines: The Forgotten Book crisis go to waste.” of Common Prayer for Jewish Women, likely written by a woman in the 19th century: Maimonides references the biblical verse above in the very last law of his “Laws of Mikvaot” [11:12]. He acknowledges that this mitzva “God, my God, the time has come today would not have emerged from natural observance or logic; it demands For me to cleanse myself of my impurities. a suspension of logic because notions of purity rarely make sense. God, my God, “Impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water,” May it be Your will that my cleansing Maimonides writes. “Instead the immersion is a Scriptural decree and In the water of the mikve requires focusing one’s heart.” Be counted with the purification Of all pious women in Israel This led Maimonides to the conclusion that unlike other mitzvot Who go to the mikve at their time where action trumps intention, the mikve requires both action and To cleanse themselves. intention to be fulfilled optimally. If I sit in a sukka but am distracted God Almighty and not thinking about the mitzva at all as I perform it, I have still Accept my prayer…” satisfied the legal requirement of sitting in the sukka, even if it is sub-optimal. If I immersed in the mikve and was distracted, I have to immerse again because without intention, the mitzva has not been fulfilled at all. Maimonides, therefore, writes, “When one immersed but did not intend to purify himself, it is as if he did not immerse…One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes

3 135 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! Orchot Shabbat 15:59). We find this distinction in such cases as Diapers With Disappearing Ink cutting cake with writing or clear figures vs. nondescript shapes (Rama, OC 340:3). by R. Daniel Mann One may generally use diapers with disintegrating ink (Orchot Question: Is it permitted to use on Shabbat a diaper with forms on Shabbat 15:52). However, note that many of the reasons for leniency the outside that disintegrate when the diaper is soaked, alerting are based on the assumption that one does not have intention when parents to change the diaper? diapering for the erasure, which is a valid assumption when one did not intentionally buy diapers with this marginally useful feature. Answer: There is a Torah-level violation to erase (mochek)writing or, However, for one who values this function, use of such diapers on according to many, a picture or figure (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Shabbat may very well be forbidden and should be avoided. Chayim 340:3; Beur Halacha to 340:4). When the erasure does not (Regarding a slightly stricter case of a color-changing strip, see the serve a positive purpose such as enabling new writing, the violation is Star-K website, which has a similar ruling to the above.) only Rabbinic (Mishna Berura 340:17). Thus, the diapers in question would seem to have no more than a Rabbinic prohibition. Another possible reason for no Torah prohibition is that the erasure’s result Aveilut for Parents may be “destructive” (mekalkel). It is debated whether considering the side benefit, that the disintegration provides desirable Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik information, it is mekalkel (see Beur Halacha to 340:13). by R. Aharon Ziegler The main cause for leniency relates to who and how the erasing is Many people have wondered why aveilut for a parent is twelve done. Directly, it is the baby who erases by urinating, but he is almost months while for a child is only thirty days. After all, the loss of a dear always too young to require training in Shabbat prohibitions. and loving parent is a natural phenomenon of life, and it is Although one must not “feed” children prohibited matters, he may anticipated, yet here the Halacha requires twelve months of allow a situation in which a baby might choose to do a forbidden mourning. But one who is subjected to the loss of a child, which is action (see Yevamot 114a). Here it is even better, as the baby unnatural and extremely traumatic for the surviving parents, is told “violates” Shabbat without any knowledge of this consequence of his by Chazal that one month of aveilut is enough. How do we justify it? action, in which case it is not a fundamental Shabbat violation even for an adult (see Shut Rabbi Akiva Eiger I:8). Rav Pinchus Teitz from Elizabeth, New Jersey suggested that a parental loss is in a category of its own. Parents are unique. More Thus, the question is whether the adult violates Shabbat by creating a children and siblings may be acquired. But there is only one mother situation in which a future event will set off a melacha. Specifically, and one father. The added mourning is to manifest this uniqueness. putting the diaper on the baby creates a situation where erasure will occur. When the direct cause (urination) of the erasure has yet to According to Rav Soloveitchik, when parents become old a role occur at the time of the adult’s action (diapering), we say that the reversal takes place. The parent, who cared for and sustained the adult acted through gerama (indirect action). Violation of Shabbat child, is no longer physically capable of doing so. The parent now through gerama is a very low level violation of Shabbat, to the extent needs a support system. The child takes on the parental role of that it is permitted in certain cases of need (Rama, OC 334:22). caring, sustaining and protecting the parent. In the latter stages of illness the parent is cared for almost like a child. Chazal imposed a In this case, there are often additional points of leniency. For parents longer mourning process to overcome the image of the child-like who are not interested in the erasure, as they can easily determine invalid parent in order to remember and vividly recall the parent not the “old way” when the diaper is soaked, the erasure is permitted as a as viewed in the end of life but rather, as he/she appeared as a davar she’eino mitkaven (an unintentional forbidden result of one’s strong, vigorous caring parent. This process requires a considerable action) of the diapering. It is true that when the forbidden result is a longer period of time. definite outcome (psik reishei), the action is forbidden by Torah law (Ketubot 6b). However, when the result is arrived at through gerama, On a simpler level, the Rav commented, the aveilut for parents is many important poskim permit psik reishei (Shemirat Shabbat longer than for children because for parents it’s a mitzvah of Kibbud K’hilchata 12:18, based on Rav Auerbach; see discussion in Orchot Av and Kibbud Eim. Shabbat 29:(41)). Some say that gerama is permitted in cases where direct action is only Rabbinically forbidden. Other opinions disagree, and in any case the leniency likely does not apply to every Rabbinic prohibition (see Yabia Omer III, OC 17). Yet the above is probably not needed, as, in actuality, the erasure is not a psik reishei. For a variety of reasons, including the baby soiling with solids before the diaper is soaked, diapers do not always reach the point that forms are erased.

When there are not meaningful figures of letters but just a line or dots, there is even more room for leniency, as erasing such nondescript things is not a (full) violation of mochek unless the erasure uncovers or enables writing (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 340:3;

4 136 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! emphasis on army service, now serve for three years, and thus are The New Israeli Army able to take more senior positions in the army than previously possible. Additionally, these soldiers, who have spent a year by Aron White preparing emotionally, spiritually and physically for the army are far In a book released last year, Amos Harel, the army commentator for more prepared and motivated than their peers who are arriving Haaretz and the author of a number of books on the Israeli military, straight from high school – 80% of Mechina students go to combat describes how the Israeli army is changing. The changes are units, almost double the national average. With the large number of fascinating. Due to the internet, more information is available to new highly motivated religious soldiers serving for three years, the change soldiers about what to expect, removing the traditional element of in leadership of the Israeli army was almost inevitable. surprise. As the standard of life in Israel improves, soldiers expect The place of the National Religious in Israeli Politics better quality services on their army bases as well. The first implication of this shift is the way the National Religious One of the main changes that Harel documents is the army’s community is perceived in Israeli society. It is common to increased religiosity, both in terms of its soldiers and its leadership. characterise the pre-State years of Israel and its first three decades This drastic change impacts three major issues in Israeli society – the as the era of the secular, Kibbutz, socialist vision of Israel. In the place of the national religious community in Israeli politics, the early years of the State, continuing through the 80s and 90s, there Haredi draft and the relationship between religious and secular. was a tendency to say that secular socialists built the country. This The religious shift of the army was the state built by the “Tel Aviv” consensus, while Sephardim and religious minorities had not “earned their stripes” and were residents There has been a dramatic increase in the number of religious of a home built by someone else. The Israeli identity was formed by soldiers in the army, particularly in combat units and leadership the Ashkenazi secular consensus, and other groups were peripheral 1 positions. In the infantry division in the year 1990, 2.5% of to this group. commanders were graduates of religious high schools. By 2000, this figure had jumped to 15%. By 2007, the number had reached 31.4%. This culture has gradually broken down in a number of ways. First, of Within the infantry division, the Golani and Givati brigades have even course, was the shock of the 1977 election victory of the right wing higher percentages that are religious. In 2010, two thirds of the traditionalist Menachem Begin. Parts of “Tel Aviv” became commanders in Givati were religious. The Brigadier General of the embarrassed by the country and institutions they had once been entire Givati brigade, Ofer Vinter, is himself also religious. One piece proud of building, as peace with the Palestinians continued to remain of anecdotal evidence: The author of the study quoted in Harel’s book elusive. And minorities–Sephardi, religious, and then Russian–began served in the Shaldag unit in the mid 80s, when the unit had two to demand their place in the development of the State. religious soldiers, both of whom “removed their Kippa” by the time The National Religious are now a major, if not the primary, they left the army. When he returned to the unit 18 years later, 40% demographic force in the Israeli army. 36% of soldiers from Gush Dan of the junior commanders and 30% of the senior commanders were serve in combat units as opposed to the 62% of soldiers from Yehuda religious. A friend of mine in Golani said that if someone were to and Shomron, and 54% from Jerusalem (both National Religious never have seen Israel, and were to walk into his army base, he would strongholds). Efrat is the city in Israel with the highest percentage of believe that at least half the country is observant. The army is now its soldiers in leadership positions – fully 22% of its soldiers achieve full of religious soldiers and commanders. Ketzuna (middle level leadership). This has created a growing sense This change can be explained by looking at the internal organisation that the National Religious also built this country, and thus a growing of the National Religious (Dati Le’umi) community. The National confidence in the political sphere. Israel will be a state that was built Religious community places a strong emphasis on the land of Israel by Tel Aviv, but is currently being developed by Gush Etzion as well. and the Jewish people, and thus army service is a highly esteemed This development has significant implications for Israeli identity and value. This value was converted into its current position in the army politics. due to a watershed development in 1988. Until 25 years ago, there The Haredi Draft were two paths National Religious teenagers would take in army service. Yeshivot Hesder (such as Kerem B’Yavneh and Yeshivat Har The religious nature of the army also affects the Haredi draft. It has Etzion) provide a program whereby students would learn Torah for 3 become orthodoxy in the Haredi community that the army is a great and a half years, and serve in the army for a year and a half. Yeshivot threat to the religiosity of soldiers, and many outside the Haredi camp Gevohot (such as Merkaz Harav) provide a framework where one begrudgingly agreed that the army was inhospitable to a religious could learn for 5 or more years before serving in the army, often for person. Indeed, much of what the Haredim say about the army and half a year or so. Students in the Hesder or Yeshiva Gavoha programs the statistics quoted were quite accurate – but for the 80s and 90s. usually served in religious-only units, and most importantly, usually The recent major shift renders untrue the view of the army as an serve less than a full three years. In 1988, a new framework, that of anti-religious hotbed. The legendary encounter between the Yeshiva the Mechinot, was established. The Mechinot provide a year of student and the anti-religious commander is quickly disappearing. As religious study for students, who then go on to serve full three years mentioned above, in some brigades two-thirds of the commanders are in the army, usually in the same units as everyone else. This religious. (This is combined naturally with the existence of many framework has significant societal implications – these soldiers from religious-only units, but that has existed for decades.) religious communities, educated in an environment that puts great

5 137 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! Beyond the issue of the commander, the growth of religious personnel But the fear has not gone away, and the implication of this issue for also gives the army bases a more religious feel.2 During the operation the two-state solution could be far greater. In the event of a two-state in Gaza in 2009, the army newspaper BaMachane reported that solution, would the religious soldiers take part in a mass removal of soldiers from the Givati unit in the army queued up to receive a settlements in the West Bank – removing hundreds of thousands of personal blessing from the unit’s rabbi, who was holding a Sefer people from land, such as Shechem, Kever Rachel, Chevron and Shilo, Torah, before entering combat. The central defence building in Tel that is so central to religious people, ? Is it even possible that the Aviv, and the General’s headquarters have a sign at the entrance army could one day have so many religious soldiers and commanders explaining how to avoid activating the electronic sensor that will open that the viability of any such operation depends on the participation the door on Shabbat. On the training base for the Nachal, outside the of the religious soldiers? If it were known that all the religious bathroom, the wall which once contained a list of the types of soldiers and commanders will not participate in such an operation, weapons held by the Syrian army has been replaced by an “Asher could the army reach a certain point when a two state solution could Yatzar” card. At an army conference a few years ago, a senior actually not viably be pulled off? This situation seems very unlikely – commander caused surprise by talking about the soldiers who are there were numerous Rabbis who called on their students not to fighting “to protect the holy land of Gaza.” When the largely secular refuse orders in 2005, and if there was a threat to the political crowd responded angrily to this overt show of religiosity, he was viability of the country, many more would likely make similar calls. supported by another senior commander. Both commanders in However, the balance between listening to religious teachers and question are themselves not religious. army hierarchy is a crucial tension that must be worked out within the National Religious community. There are unquestionably issues that still arise, halachic dilemmas that crop up. Certain units may still have individual commanders who With its newfound hegemony in the army, the National Religious are not sensitive to the needs of the religious. But the idea that the community has many complex issues to discuss. Its relation to the army, as a general rule, is anti-religious is simply no longer true. The secular majority, both in day-to-day routine as well as in larger Haredi discourse must change to match this new situation, and we do political decisions, must be reanalysed and discussed. not need to accept the claims (which were a little ridiculous to begin Conclusion with) that service in the army threatens the perpetuation of Orthodox Judaism. As always, there are tracks in the army where one can serve The Israeli army is different than it once was ‚and the religious are entirely with religious soldiers. The recent development is that the now a significant feature of its makeup. Managed properly, this commanders of those units are predominantly not only sensitive to situation can allow for a more even spread of political power, a the needs of the religious, but religious themselves. The army has window to finally solve the issue of the Haredi draft, and a chance to become, and is continually becoming more, conducive to service for create a less suspicious relationship between the religious and the Haredi community. The Haredi community will find it more secular. There is a lot to discuss. difficult to excuse itself from service based on last generation’s reasons. 1. All statistics, unless otherwise mentioned, come from Harel’s book. ↩ The relationship between religious and secular

The tide has now turned and whereas previously the religious were 2. These anecdotes are from Harel’s book. ↩ worried about the army being to secular, the secular are now worried about the army being too religious. There have been instances were 3. http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/hiloni_dati/idf-missionary/idf-mi army events are perceived as being too religious. This summer, many ssionary.html ↩ were surprised when the brigadier general of Givati rallied his troops with the cry of “Shema Yisrael.” In his writing for Haaretz over the An Israeli in the Diaspora: years, Harel documented how the Army Rabbinate, under Chief Rabbi Rontzki, was very active in trying to bring secular soldiers closer to How Many Days of Yom Tov? religion.3 The important issue of how religious soldiers relate to their non religious comrades, and increasingly, juniors, requires by R. Ari Enkin clarification. I was excited to get my hands on R. Shlomo Brody’s new English But there is one concern that looms larger than these more localised halacha sefer, A Guide to the Complex – Contemporary Halachic issues. There has always been a fear in the army of religious soldiers Debates (Maggid), adapted largely from his regular Ask the Rabbi because religion provides them with another source of authority– to column in The Jerusalem Post Magazine. R. Brody treats us to well whom would they listen in a clash between their religion and an army over 100 different exciting and practical issues of the day, providing command? The major flashpoint for this was the removal of readers with the primary and prominent authorities to have dealt with settlements in Gaza in 2005. Would rabbis tell their students to refuse each issue. While every chapter has material worthy of comment, I orders to remove residents from Gaza? Would they listen? In 2005 found one item particularly attention catching, since I have not fully there was a huge discussion about this, but in the end, there were yet come out of Yom Tov mode. relatively few refusals to serve, mainly at junior levels of the army. In his chapter on whether visitors to Israel should observe one day of Many soldiers also came to individual agreements with their Yom Tov or two, he cites the celebrated view of the Chacham Tzvi commanders, thus averting head-on clashes.

6 138 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! that visitors to Israel need only observe one day of Yom Tov. R. Brody falls ill, he needs a zechus to recover.2 seems to then fall prey to the common misconception that the When a person falls ill, it is a mitzvah to visit him;3 this is known as Chacham Tzvi holds that “one’s current location determines his bikur cholim. festival observance.” According to this approach, visitors from Israel to the Diaspora would be required to keep two days of Yom Tov. Why the Mitzvah

The Chacham Tzvi, however, says no such thing, and there is little The Toras Hamincha4 gives the following reason for the mitzvah of basis to suggest that this is how he would rule. Indeed, Rav Tzvi bikur cholim: Hashem gives a person yesurim in order to atone for his Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi 3:78) argues that the Chacham Tzvi would or her sins. This will allow the person to receive the maximum award only require visitors from Israel to observe one day of Yom Tov in the in Olam Haba. When the visitor observes the patient’s suffering, he is Diaspora. Among his arguments for this position, is that the Chacham inspired to change his ways, and will not need any yesurim. Tzvi asserts that nowadays there is no true “doubt” as to when Yom 5 Tov should be observed as there was when the decree (or custom) to The Mitzvah observe two days of Yom Tov was instituted. Therefore, according to As mentioned above, there is a mitzvah to visit the sick.6 This mitzvah Rav Frank’s interpretation of the Chacham Tzvi, visitors from Israel to is for everyone (see below).7 There is a discussion in the poskim if this the Diaspora need only observe one day of Yom Tov. (The only place mitzvah is d’oraisa or rabbinic in nature.8 The overwhelming opinion that I ever saw this very reasonable interpretation of the Chacham is that this is a rabbinic mitzvah.9 The Gemorah10 says that we should Tzvi brought to the attention of English readers was is in R. David follow in the middos of Hashem, and one of those middos is to visit Brofsky’s Hilkhot Moadim – Understanding the Laws of the Festivals, the sick,11 as we find that Hashem visited Avraham Avinu after he had another Maggid gem.) a bris milah.12 According to some, the mitzvah of bikur cholim is 13 Rav Frank’s argument is especially noteworthy in the “Why can’t we included in the mitzvah of gemilas chasadim. No beracha is recited 14 just do away with Yom Tov Sheini nowadays?” era we live in — a cry I on this mitzvah. First, it is possible to nullify this mitzvah if the sick 15 neither endorse nor even sympathize with. That being said, however, person does not want visitors. Second, we do not recite a beracha 16 we see that there is some acknowledgment in the writings of the for an action that is also practiced by other nations. greatest poskim that nowadays there is no true doubt in our calendar, The Focus of Visiting the Sick and with that, there is value in observing Yom Tov as the Torah 17 instituted whenever additional considerations in halacha can combine A number of things are accomplished by visiting the sick. One of the 18 to make it possible. main purposes is to pray for the sick person; it is like giving him life. In addition, one should see to it that the sick person has all his needs Make no mistake, I’m not picking on R. Brody. It’s just that having taken care of (i.e. telling someone19 to fix his bed, cleaning around been a visitor from Israel to the Diaspora over Sukkot recently, this the room, etc.),20 and make sure he has all the necessary medical issue was especially relevant to me, and is one I wanted to share with supplies.21 This includes shopping for the person.22 Some opine that you. The timely release of R. Brody’s great sefer was a perfect this aspect of the mitzvah may not apply today, since hospitalized opportunity to do so. patients have medical staff that cares for all their needs.23 Making the sick person happy is also included in the focus of the mitzvah.24 The Mitzvah of Bikur Cholim – Hashem visited Avraham after the bris, but we do not find that He said anything to him. Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l25 proves from here Visiting the Sick Part 1 that one does not have to say anything to the sick person. One who visits a sick person has to daven for him,26 and one who fails Many times one hears that a person he knows is not well r”l and he to do so has not fulfilled the mitzvah of bikur cholim27 in its entirety.28 wishes to go visit him in the hospital or at home. There is a mitzvah to Based on this, some explain that the term bikur cholim signifies that visit a sick person, but the rules are not well known. What is this the point of the mitzvah is to ask what he needs. It is nice to send mitzvah? When should one visit? Whom should you visit? What should other visitors to see how a sick person is doing, but the main mitzvah be said? What should not be said? How should he visit the sick is to go himself and daven for the recovery of the patient.29 person? Can one visit a sick person on Shabbos? Is calling, writing or emailing a sick person a fulfillment of the mitzvah? In the next two Who is Considered a Sick Person Regarding This Mitzvah issues we will deal with the halachos of bikur cholim in depth.1 The mitzvah of bikur cholim certainly applies to anyone who is Halachically Speaking dangerously ill.30 It also applies to a sick person who is not in danger. 31 Volume 10 Issue 9 However, it does not apply to someone who has a minor headache Authored by Moishe Dovid Lebovits or a slight ailment. Some are of the opinion that it applies to someone Reviewed by Rabbi Ben-zion Schiffenbauer Shlit”a who is bedridden and cannot fend for himself and needs people to 32 33 Piskei Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlit”a help him/her. The Maharal of Prague asks why Hashem didn’t visit Reviewed by Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlit”a Avraham until the third day. He answers that until then the operation only affected one organ of Avraham’s body, while his entire body was Davening Not to Get Sick affected on the third day. According to this opinion, one who broke 34 One should always daven that he should not get sick, because once he his foot and is not bedridden would not be considered a sick person. Others maintain that if the illness has not lasted for three days there

7 139 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! is no need to visit him or daven for him.35 Prepare a joke, or simply have a mental list of neutral topics. Obviously, the content of the conversation must match the personality It should be noted that the mitzvah of bikur cholim also applies to of the patient. A talmid chacham will appreciate a devar torah, while woman on bed rest36 or other people who are home bound.37 There is a simple person might discuss the weather. One should use his a discussion in the poskim if the mitzvah applies to one who is intellect when conversing. One should not discuss the sickness unless mentally ill.38 the patient brings up the topic and wishes to discuss it.65 Reward Helping the Sick Person With Your Visit66 Bikur cholim is one of the mitzvos which gives a reward this world The visit removes one sixtieth of the disease.67 Some say that only and retains the main reward for the next world.39 The Aruch applies if the visitor was born in the same time68 (under the same Hashulchan40 calls it one of the greater mitzvos.41 The Gemorah42 constellation)69 as the patient (ben gilo)70 or young or old).71 Why says one who visits a sick person is saved from the din of gehonim.43 don’t many people line up to visit a sick person and cure the sickness In addition, Hashem saves you from yesurim, from the yetzer hara, completely?72 The Meiri73 explains that the concept of removing a and it makes the sick person live.44 Some explain the power of this sixtieth of the sickness is that the visitor talks to the patient and particular mitzvah is that one merits exposure to the Shechina, which strengthens him, thus minimizing the impact of the disease. However, is on top of the sick person. when the visitor leaves the sickness returns in force. Others explain Being Lax With This Mitzvah that the disease is only diminished if one really loves the sick person. 74 The Ben Yehoyada75 explains that the visitor does not adopt one It is unfortunate that today people are lax with the mitzvah of bikur sixtieth of the sickness, for there is no reason that he should suffer cholim. This is especially true if the patient is a poor person.45 Many any ill effects.76 Rather, a sixtieth of the pain is removed from times the poor person will not have money to buy medicine, and shomayim when he relates to the suffering of the patient. The Keren coming to his aid will bring you great reward.46 This is also included Orah77 explains that he removes some of the sickness from the in the mitzvah of bikur cholim.47 patient, since he gives him strength.

How Many Times One who does not visit the sick is like he kills him.78

The mitzvah of bikur cholim has no set limit,48 and one can go even Taking Children one hundred times.49 (This is also applies to how much time is spent The posuk says that when Yaakov was ill, Yosef came to visit with his visiting the sick person, as long as it is not a bother to the sick two children Ephraim and Menashe.79 Based on this, some opine that person).50 The more one goes, the better it is.51 This is true even if the one should take his child along to be mechanech him.80 If he will medical staff takes care of the sick person, as it is still a mitzvah to disturb the sick person then the child should not go.81 daven for him.52 Nonetheless, one should be careful to avoid 53 antagonizing the staff by visting too many times. It is better to visit Man Visiting a Woman and Vice Versa two sick people for a small time than to visit one sick person for a long time.54 A man may visit a sick woman and a woman may visit a sick man. However, one should be careful of the issur of yichud.82 Others are At Night concerned about a lack of tznius (other than relatives for whom yichud is permitted).83 Hospital gowns often do not provide adequate It is good to visit frequently even at night (as long as it is during coverage, and one should not visit a woman if there is a breach of visiting hours and the sick person is awake or willing to accept tznius.84 visitors).55 Visiting a Wicked Person Going Alone – Many People One should visit a wicked person, since he may be inspired to do The Shiltas56 says that one should visit a sick person alone.57 teshuva and become a better person.85 However, this is not the overwhelming custom.58 In any case, if one wishes to go with a lot of people he should ask the doctor first if this Chosson and Kallah Visiting the Sick During Sheva Berachos is beneficial for the sick person.59 Although a chosson and kallah are supposed to be happy during sheva What to Say berachos, they are permitted to visit a sick person.86

One should be prepared with the right words to say, if the sick person Where to Sit wants to converse. If one goes without a plan on how to make him feel 87 60 (some say this means better he is not fulfilling the mitzvah completely. As mentioned The Shechina hovers over a sick person 88 before one should daven for the sick person, and tell him that through davening). Therefore, when the practice was that the sick everything will be ok.61 One should not show the sick person a sad person lay on the floor, then the visitor should not sit on a chair or 89 face or an expression of worry.62 One should come with a happy face bench, since he is higher than the sick person. However, when the 90 and say words which will ease his pain.63 sick person is on a bed then the visitor may sit on a chair or bench if it is not much higher than the bed.91 The Meiri92 explains that the sick Certainly, one should not say that so and so died because of this person is doing teshuva and asking for mercy. When he sees the 64 sickness. Part of your visit should be to cheer up the sick person. visitor sitting on a higher level he despairs of davening. According to

8 140 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! the writings of the Zohar, if the patient is an average person then the might interfere with the attendants. The Aruch Hashulchan120 says visitor should not sit at the sick person’s feet, because the angel of that this is good advice, but it is not forbidden to visit then. Others death is there, and he should not sit at the head because the Shechina maintain that it is forbidden by halacha.121 Even according to this is present. If the sick person is a tzadik gamur then one should only view, if there is no other time available, one may visit then.122 sit at the sick person’s feet since the Shechina is all around except his There are a few differences between the Rambam’s reason and the feet.93 If the sick person asks you to sit near his head or feet you first reason.123 If it is a minor illness that does not progress in stages, should do so.94 If he is wicked, then danger can be found all around the first reason would not offer any restrictions, while the Rambam the body. would. Similarly, if the visitor commits himself to daven for the sick One is allowed to stand95 or pace back and forth when visiting.96 person no matter what, then the first reason would permit the visit, but the Rambam would not.124 What to Wear It would seem that calling on the phone (see part 2) during these The visitor should dress in presentable clothing97 that he would wear hours would be permitted according to all opinions, since one does when he goes to shul to daven98 since the Shechina hovers over the not daven then, and the call will not interfere with the medical staff. head of a sick person.99 Therefore, one should do so out of fear for However, each situation should be assessed beforehand.125 Hashem and be humble.100 It is the opinion of some that those who wear a hat and jacket when they go to shul to daven should wear The Aruch Hashulchan126 (and others)127 says that today we are not them when visiting a sick person. Those who do not should wear what concerned with the above restrictions. According to the Rambam, if they would wear when visiting an important person.101Harav Yisroel we know that the attendants are not busy with the needs of the sick Belsky Shlita maintains that since the Shechina is above the head of a person at those times,128 or if they are not bothered by the presence sick person one should make sure his thoughts are pure when of visitors, there is no restriction.129 Therefore, if there are specific visiting. visiting hours in a hospital, the patient and medical staff are prepared to work around the presence of visitors, and there is no need to When to Visit – Days – Relatives Friends and Everyone Else refrain from visiting. Relatives and friends (some say this means even a talmid chacham)102 Asking for Mercy for the Sick Person of the sick person can visit him/her right away, while others should wait three days before visiting. One reason is to make sure not to One who is asking for mercy from Hashem for the sick person in his spoil the mazal103 of the patient by letting everyone know he is sick.104 presence can daven in any language.130 The reason is that the The Meiri105 explains that we do not want to frighten him into Shechina rests above the head of a sick person131 and Hashem knows thinking that he is in worse condition than he actually is. If the any language.132 However, if the patient is not present, then one situation deteriorates, then anyone can enter right away. ((Rambam should only say it in lashon kodesh.133 If ten people are present, one Hilchos Ovel 14:5, Shulchan Aruch YD. 335:1, Chochmas Adom 151:1, can daven in any language since Hashem is present134 (even if the Aruch Hashulchan 5.)) The Levush106says that relatives and friends sick person is not there.)135 When one asks for mercy he should say may enter right away because the patient knows them and their that, “Hashem should have mercy on you and other sick people in Klal presence will comfort him and help him feel at ease. Yisroel,”136 since tefillos have a better chance to be heard when they include other members of klal yisroel.137 The opinion of Harav Shlomo There is an opinion that this only applies for the first two complete Zalman Aurbach zt”l138 is that wishing a refuah sheleima is also days, and all friends can visit at the beginning of the third day.107 considered davening for the sick person. Others permit a phone call right away.108 If the sick person needs people to tend to him, then anyone may visit right away.109 One who is davening in front of the sick person does not mention the person’s name.139 This is how Moshe Rabbeinu acted when davening Older Person Visiting Younger Person in front of Miriam on her behalf.140 Based on kabbalah, the reason is 141 An older or wiser person should go to visit,110 and should not consider that mentioning the name awakens the middas hadin. it degrading.111 This is clear from the fact that Hashem Himself went If one will not daven with kavana for a sick person, it is better that he to visit Avraham.112 This applies even to a talmid chacham visiting does not go.142 one who is less learned.113 When a talmid chacham goes to visit he should bring people along so that they can take care of any menial If one cannot visit, then davening for him is a fulfillment of the tasks.114 mitzvah of bikur cholim.143

When to Visit – Which Hours Settling Accounts With Others and Doing Teshuva

It is not advisable to visit a sick person the first three hours of the day As mentioned above, one has to be very careful about what he says to (shaos zemanios – not regular sixty minute hour)115 because then the a sick person. Halacha states that one should ask him144 if he in sickness eases then, and the visitor will not be concerned enough to possession of someone else’s belongings, or if his items are held by daven for him.116 One should not visit the last three hours of the day others, or what he wishes to tell his children. This is by no way a (also shaos zemanios)117 because then the sickness is strong and the means of scaring the sick person that he will die,145 since even a visitor will despair of davening for him.118 The Rambam119 explains healthy person should have his life organized. In the merit of that the sick person is usually tended to at those times, and the visit discussing this Hashem will send the sick person a refuah sheleima. 146 This should be done once the illness lasts three days.147

9 141 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! One should discuss teshuva as well.148 This may be a touchy topic if mareches Bais 116 (1:pages 150–151), Ze Hashulchan 335:1, you are not too friendly with the patient. Teshuvos V’hanhugos 2:592, Yabea Omer Y.D. 3:22:23, Halichos (journal) 118–120 pages 37–38. ↩ When the Visitor Does Not Know You Visited Him

As mentioned above, one of the main points of visiting the sick is to 9. Kol Bo 112, Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:1, Meiri Meseches daven for him. Accordingly, one could visit a total stranger, or Nedarim 39b, Tur 335, Levush 1, Beer Moshe 2:104. Refer to someone who is unaware of the visit. The same is true for visiting a Maharitz Chiyas Meseches Nedarim 39b who says it is a halacha young baby149 (i.e. just after his bris milah).150 Obviously, the other Moshe M’Sinai. See Rambam sefer hamitzvahs shoresh 1 and 2. aspects of bikur cholim such as cheering him up would not be fulfilled ↩ in this situation.151 10. Meseches Sotah 14a. Refer to Meseches Bava Metziah 30a. ↩ Asleep 11. Refer to Toras Haodom shar hameicosh 1, Tur 335, Bais Yosef, If the sick person is asleep one has still fulfilled the mitzvah since he Bach, Levush 1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:1, Torah Temimah can daven for him and speak to people to make sure his needs are Bereishis 18:1, Aruch Hashulchan 2. See Beer Mayim Chaim taken care of.152 This is proved from the fact that Hashem came to Vayeira 18:1. ↩ visit Avraham but did not speak or do anything.153

Giving Blood 12. Vayeira 18:1. Refer to Meseches Bava Metziah 86b, see Meseches Tanchuma Vayeira 1. Refer to Baal Haturim Vayeira Since bikur cholim involves making sure that the sick person has 18:1. ↩ what he needs, some poskim maintain that one can fulfill part of the mitzvah of bikur cholim by giving blood to a sick person, even though 13. Maharsha Meseches Nedarim 39b “bikur,” Seder Hayom page 154 he does not visit him. 90, Yosef Ometz perek bikur cholim page 323, Ahavas Chesed 3:3. For more on this issue see Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 2. 1. The Taamei Haminhagim page 425 says the reason why it is Refer to Meseches Bava Metziah 30b. Others say it is included in called “bikur” cholim and not reih (seeing) or halicha (going) is V’ohavta L’reiacha K’mocha (Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:1). Since because one is supposed to teach the sick person to look into his bikur cholim is part of gemilas chasadim we have the following ways. Also see Medrash Seichel Tov Bereishis 19:34, Mavar question: Why in the first Mishnah in Meseches Peah does it list Yabak page 219 (new), Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 353–357. ↩ gemilas chasadim and bikur cholim if it is the same? The answer is that there are two kinds of gemilas chasadim. One is with ones 2. Meseches Sotah 14a, Levush Y.D. 335:1, Yaavetz 2:page 588:1. money, like lending people money feeding people, and clothing Refer to Meseches Shabbos 32a, Bava Metziah 30a, Bava Kama people. The other kindness is with one’s body – going to visit a 100a. ↩ sick person and consoling the bereaved. ↩

3. Levush 1. ↩ 14. Refer to Miyum Hahalacha 4:56, Yalkut Yosef 7:page 23. ↩

4. Parshas Vayeira. ↩ 15. Refer to Rashba 1:18. ↩

5. The Chazzon Ish zt”l said that the mitzvah of bikur cholim 16. Binyomin Zev 1:169. ↩ applies to a sick person as well on himself, to make sure he is taking care of himself (Massei Ish 2:page 162). However, some 17. Refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 111–120. ↩ opine that this is not exactly doing bikur cholim to a sick person. The reason why it is considered bikur cholim on some level is 18. Toras Haodom shar hameichosh 1, Kol Bo 112, Bais Yosef, because when one davens for himself he is making the sickness Levush 1, 4, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:3, Chochmas Adom lighter on him (Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 244). In regard to 151:3, Yaavetz 2:page 589:15, Aruch Hashulchan 3, Pela Yoetz whether there is a mitzvah to visit the sick in place of learning Choleh page 232, Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:51, Yechaveh Daas 3:83. ↩ Torah refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 418–429 in depth. ↩ 19. There is no need for the one visited to fix or clean himself 6. Meseches Nedarim 39b, Bava Metziah 30b, Rambam Hilchos (Prisha 335:4, see Meiri Meseches Nedarim 40a). ↩ Avel 14:4, Shulchan Aruch 335:1, Chochmas Adom 151:1. Refer to Medrash Tanchuma Toldos 12. ↩ 20. Meseches Nedarim 40a, Bais Yosef 335, Prisha 4, Levush 1, Tocheches Chaim Parshas Vayichei, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 7. Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:4, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:1. This is 193:3, Chorev page 408, Aruch Hashulchan 2, Kaf Hachaim O.C. for simple people even if one is unsure if their tefillos will be 287:6, Minchas Yitzchok 2:84:6, see Gesher Hachaim 1:1:2. This accepted for the sick person to get better. In addition, it applies is even in a hospital where they clean, it can happen that a bed to those who sin. ↩ needs to be changed or a room is dirty. The Chazzon Ish zt”l brought food to a sick person (Massei Ish 2:page 133). ↩ 8. Refer to Ran Meseches Berochos 3 who says it is a d’oriasa, Rabbeinu Yonah Meseches Berochos 11b, see Sdei Chemed

10 142 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! 21. Refer to Pela Yoetz Refuah page 540. One is not allowed to give a sick person something which is not good for him even if it will 38. Refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 117–118. ↩ make him happy (Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 274, see Yehuda Yaleh O.C. 160, Pnei Boruch – Bikur Cholim K’hilchoso 1:32). ↩ 39. Mishnah Meseches Peah 1:1, Meseches Shabbos 127a (it is included in gemilas chasadim). Refer to Rambam Peirush 22. Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 223. ↩ Hamishnayos Peah 1:1. ↩

23. Tzitz Eliezer 5:ramat Rochel 3. Refer to Tzohar 5:pages 345–348 40. 335:2. ↩ who says based on this people do not go visit if all the needs are taken care of since one can daven for them even when one is not 41. Refer to Levush 1, Menoras Hameor 7:page 550, Tocheches in front of them (Tzohar ibid). ↩ Chaim Parshas Vayichei. ↩

24. Rambam Toras Haodom shar hameichosh, Bais Yosef 335. Refer 42. Meseches Nedarim 40a. ↩ to Avnei Yushfei 1:230. See Michtav M’Eliyahu 4:page 296, Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 268–277 in great depth. ↩ 43. Refer to Ahavas Chesed 3:3. See Maharal Nesivos Olom page 160 who explains the reason why one is saved from gehonim is 25. Dorosh Moshe Parshas Vayeira beginning. Refer to Maharsha because when one visits a sick person he wishes to save him Meseches Bava Metziah 30b. ↩ from death so one is spared gehonim which is death of the soul. Also see Maharal Nedarim 39b, 40a and Tocheches Chaim 26. Rambam Hilchos Ovel 14:6, Shulchan Aruch 4. ↩ Parshas Vayichei. ↩

27. Bais Yosef 335, Shulchan Aruch ibid, Levush 4, Yosef Ometz 44. Meseches Nedarim ibid, Meiri Meseches Nedarim ibid, see perek bikur cholim page 323, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:3, Aruch Hashulchan 3. Refer to Maharsha Meseches Nedarim 40a Chochmas Adom 151:3, Aruch Hashulchan 8. ↩ ‘ma.” Because of this some say one should even travel to another city for this mitzvah (Derech Sicha 2:page 25). ↩ 28. However, one has fulfilled some part of the mitzvah (see Ahavas Chesed 3:3, Avnei Yushfei 1:230, V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:page 45. Ahavas Chesed 3:3, see Sefer Chassidim 361. Refer to Tzitz 219:footnote 2). Refer to Pnei Boruch – Bikur Cholim K’hilchoso Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 6. ↩ haskama from Harav Fisher zt”l 1. See Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 121–133 in great depth. ↩ 46. Ahavas Chesed Ibid, Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:223. ↩

29. Be’er Mayim Chaim Bereishis 18:page:134. ↩ 47. Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:223. ↩

30. Refer to Meseches Nedarim 40a. Also refer to Mitzvahs Bikur 48. For an in depth discussion on this refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim Cholim pages 186–192. ↩ pages 142–150. ↩

31. Refer to Meseches Nedarim 41a, Meseches Shabbos 12a, Igros 49. Meseches Nedarim 39b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 335:2, Chochmas Moshe Y.D. 1:263. ↩ Adom 151:1, Aruch Hashulchan 5, Ahavas Chesed 3:3. ↩

32. V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:pages 2215-216. Refer to Birchei Yosef 50. Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 8. ↩ 335:2 who is lenient that it can apply to any weakness. It does not only apply to a sick person who is in danger (Shevet 51. Kol Bo 112, Meiri Meseches Nedarim 39b “mitzvahs,” Rambam Hakehusi 6:394). See Ohr Hachaim on Vayeira 18:1. Also refer to Hilchos Avel 14:4, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 335:2, Chochmas Adom Asya 67–68:pages 80–92 in great depth. See Meseches Nedarim 151:1, Aruch Hashulchan 5. Refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim 41a. ↩ pages 134–141 in great depth. Based on this some say this is why you do not generally see people visiting a sick person at 33. Bereishis 18:page 50-50b. See Piskei Teshuva 242. ↩ home since it is a bother to them (Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 140:9, 225:6). However, in this situation one should call 34. Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 331. ↩ (Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 225). ↩

35. Refer to Biur Halacha O.C. 219 “kegon.” Also see Mitzvahs Bikur 52. Refer to V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:pages 214–215. Yalkut Yosef Cholim oages 333–335. ↩ Y.D. 335:2, Divrei Sofrim page 3. ↩

36. Regarding visiting a woman who just gave birth see Bikur 53. Divrei Sofrim 335:footnote 9. ↩ Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 26:footnote 21. ↩ 54. Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 54:19:footnote 30. ↩ 37. Visiting the Sick page 22 (Glatt). Refer to Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’Bagadah page 28:footnote 18 quoting the opinion of 55. Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 52:12:footnote 20, Harav Chaim Kanievesky Shlita. ↩ Divrei Sofrim 335:11. Refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page

11 143 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! 132:12. ↩ 76. Some do say that the visitor takes it and it is not an issue since it 56. 93:page 86. See Tzafnas Paneach Vayechei 48:1, Ze Hashulchan is such a small amount it is botel b’shishim and has no effect on 335:1. Refer to Meseches Berochos 28b, 54b, Nedarim 40a. ↩ the visitors (Toras Chaim Meseches Bava Metziah 30a). ↩

57. But one does not have to (Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 338). ↩ 77. Meseches Nedarim 40a (page 445 new). ↩

58. Haemek Sheilah 93:7, Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:51, Yalkut Yosef 78. Meseches Nedarim 40a, Kol Bo 112, Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:2, 7:page 125. Refer to Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 64. Aruch Hashulchan 3. Refer to Maharal Meseches Bava Metziah ↩ 40a. ↩

59. Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:51. ↩ 79. Bereishis 42:1. ↩

60. Gesher Hachaim 1:1:3. ↩ 80. Maver Yabak page 254 (new), Ze Hashulchan 335:1, V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:page 215. Refer to Reishis Chuchma shar gidol 61. Pela Yoetz Rofeh page 542. ↩ bonim 3:page 1003. ↩

62. Gesher Hachaim 1:1:3. ↩ 81. Ze Hashulchan 335:1. ↩

63. Tocheches Chaim Parshas Vayichei. ↩ 82. Aruch Hashulchan 11, see Beer Moshe 2:107. This is the opinion of Harav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt”l as quoted in Nishmas 64. Refer to Mavar Yabak page 62 (new). ↩ Avraham Y.D. page 258 (English), and in Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 70. However, one should not stay too long to talk (ibid). 65. Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim page 273. ↩ Refer to Sdei Tzofim Meseches Nedarim 39b. ↩

66. For a detailed explanation of this issue see Mitzvahs Bikur 83. Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Roche Cholim pages 151–167. ↩ 5:16. Refer to Miyum Hahalacha 2:27–28. ↩

67. Medrash Rabbah Vayikra 34:1 (only if he loves the sick person), 84. Beer Moshe 2:107. ↩ Meseches Nedarim 39b, Bava Metziah 30a, Kol Bo 112, Tur 335, Levush 2, Shach 335:1, Chochmas Adom 151:1, Aruch 85. Beer Moshe 5:151. Refer to Miyum Hahalacha 4:56. On the topic Hashulchan 5. Refer to Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:4. See Maharal of davening for a wicked person see Meseches Berochos 10a, Nedarim 39b. See Rivevos Ephraim 4:page 355:8. The visitor Sefer Chassidim 688, Ahavas Chesed 3:8, Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim takes it but since it is such a small amount it is botel b’shishim pages 315–318. ↩ and has no effect on the visitor (Toras Chaim Meseches Bava Metziah 30a). Some say just going to visit a sick person without 86. Opinion of Harav Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha th saying or doing anything is a mitzvah since one takes 1/60 of U’bagadah page 119, see Betzel Hachochma 2:44. ↩ his sickness (Refer to Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 39:footnote 28). ↩ 87. Meseches Nedarim 40a, Levush 3, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:2, Chochmas Adom 151:2. See Aruch Hashulchan 7. Refer to 68. Chochmas Adom 151:1. ↩ Vayikra Rabbah 34:1. ↩

69. Ran Meseches Nedarim 39b “v’ben,” Ben Yehoyada Meseches 88. Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 10. ↩ Nedarim 39b:page 6. Refer to Chelkes Yaakov Y.D. 147:2. ↩ 89. Meseches Shabbos 12b, Nedarim 40a, Rosh Meseches Shabbos 70. Today this can be done by anyone who visits a sick person 1:30, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 335:3 Levush 3, Kitzur Shulchan (Shevet Yehuda 335:2, Chasam Sofer Meseches Nedarim 39b). ↩ Aruch 193:2. Refer to Meseches Nedarim 40a “lo.”See Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 11. Some say one should not sit at his 71. Rashi Meseches Nedarim 39b “v’ben gilo.” ↩ head (Shiurei Beracha 335:1). ↩

72. Refer to Meseches Nedarim 39b. See Chasam Sofer Meseches 90. Tosfas Meseches Shabbos 12b “lo,” Meiri Meseches Shabbos Nedarim 39b. ↩ 12b, Rama 335:3, Levush 3, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:2, Chochmas Adom 151:2, Aruch Hashulchan 7. Refer to Bais 73. Meseches Nedarim 39b ‘mitzvahs.” Refer to Chofetz Chaim on Lechem Yehuda 335. See Minhagei Yisroel 6:pages 74–80, Ze Meseches Nedarim 41. ↩ Hashulchan 335:3. ↩

74. Divrei Sofrim 335:10. ↩ 91. Opinion of Harav Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 75:footnote 5. ↩ 75. Meseches Nedarim 39b:page 6. ↩

12 144 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! 92. Meseches Nedarim 40a “v’mekul mokom.” ↩ 151:1, Aruch Hashulchan 5. Refer to V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:pages 207–208 if this applies to a talmid chacham visiting a 93. Aruch Hashulchan 7. ↩ simple person. See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:222. For a reason why this is not an issue of a lowering of honor to the greater person 94. Gesher Hachaim 1:1:5. ↩ see Shalmei Nedarim 39b:page 33. ↩

95. Tosfas Meseches Nedarim 39a “efsher,” Ran, Chelkes Yaakov 111. Ahavas Chesed 3:3 in footnote, Beer Moshe 2:106, Tzitz Eliezer Y.D. 188. ↩ 5:Ramat Rochel 8. See Rashi Meseches Nedarim 39b “v’afilu,” Shita Mekubetzes Meseches Nedarim 39b. ↩ 96. Tzitz Eliezer 17:20. Refer to Pnei Boruch – Bikur Cholim K’hilchoso haskama from Harav Fisher zt”l 2. ↩ 112. Shevet Yehuda 335:2. ↩

97. Refer to Rambam Hilchos Ovel 14:6, opinion of Harav Korelitz 113. Opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievesky Shlita quoted in Bikur Shlita quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 48:footnote 4. ↩ 77:footnote 9. ↩ 114. Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:222, opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievesky 98. Shevet Yehuda 335:3. ↩ Shlita quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 124:7. ↩ 99. Meseches Shabbos 12b, Rashi “m’sateif,” Tur 335, see Bach. Boruch – Bikur Cholim K’hilchoso haskama from Harav Fisher 115. Ahavas Chesed 3:3:page 262. There is an uncertainty if these zt”l 2. hours start from alos hashachar or netz hachama (Ze Hashulchan 335:4, Al Pi Hatorah Shemos page 375). Refer to [1] Refer to Rambam Hilchos Ovel 14:6, opinion of Harav Divrei Sofrim 335:footnote 36. ↩ Korelitz Shlita quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 77:footnote 9. See Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 10. ↩ 116. Shulchan Aruch 4, Levush 4, Chochmas Adom 151:3, Aruch Hashulchan 8. ↩ 100. Meiri Meseches Shabbos 12b. Refer to opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievesky Shlita (who says the custom is to be lenient) in Bikur 117. Ahavas Chesed 3:3:page 262. ↩ Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah pages 124–125:8. However, on ibid:page 130:22 he says the custom is to wear a jacket to visit 118. Meseches Nedarim 40a, Tosfas “b’tlas,” Shita Mekubetzes the sick. ↩ Meseches Nedarim 39b, Tur 335, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 335:4, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:3. Refer to Rambam Hilchos Avel 101. Opinion of Harav Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha 14:5, and Bais Yosef 335. In regard to whether to tell a sick U’bagadah page 77:footnote 9. ↩ person how severe his sickness is see Miyum Hahalacha 2:26, Betzel Hachochma 2:55. ↩ 102. Opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievesky Shlita quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 62:footnote 12 and page 119. Hilchos Avel 14:5. See Bach who questions why the Rambam 127:15. Refer to Ruach Chaim 335:1 in depth. ↩ mentions a different reason then the Gemorah. The Meiri in Meseches Nedarim 40a quotes same reason as the Rambam. 103. Refer to Maharsha Meseches Nedarim 40a this is the same idea Refer to Ze Hashulchan 335:4. ↩ as “not to open ones mouth to the sotton” and say he is sick. ↩

120. 335:8. Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita holds that if one is not a 104. Yerushalmi Meseches Peah 3:9, Tur 335, Shulchan Aruch 335:1, relative he should not visit within the first or last three hours of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:1, Chochmas Adom 151:1, Aruch the day. ↩ Hashulchan 5. Refer to Taz 1, Biur Halacha O.C. 219 “kegon.” ↩

121. Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 12. ↩ 105. Meseches Nedarim 40a “v’mekul mokom.” ↩

122. Ahavas Chesed 3:3. ↩ 106. 335:1. ↩

123. Refer to Shevet Yehuda 335:4. ↩ 107. Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 7. ↩

124. Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah pages 65–66. ↩ 108. Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 43:footnote 13. ↩ 125. Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 65:footnote 13. ↩

109. Divrei Sofrim 335:5. ↩ 126. Aruch Hashulchan 8. Refer to opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievesky Shlita quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah 110. Meseches Nedarim 39b, Kol Bo 112, Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:4, page 125:10. ↩ Tur 335, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 335:2, Levush 2, Chochmas Adom

13 145 © Weekly&Digest&from&TorahMusings.com& ! 127. Ze Hashulchan 335:4. Refer to Salmas Chaim 661 (old). ↩ 148. Yosef Ometz perek bikur cholim page 323, Keren Orah Meseches 128. Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 12. ↩ Nedarim 40a, Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 27. ↩

129. Birchei Yosef 335:2. ↩ 149. Avnei Yushfei 1:230, Derech Sicha 1:page 65.Refer to Rivevos Ephraim 8:291:1, V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:pages 211–212. If one 130. Toras Haodom shar hameicosh 1, Tur 335, Shulchan Aruch 5, visits a child who is sick just to make the parents feel good he Levush 5, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:4, Chochmas Adom 151:3, has not fulfilled the mitzvah of bikur cholim (opinion of Harav Aruch Hashulchan 9, Mishnah Berurah O.C. 101:16. Refer to Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page Shulchan Aruch O.C. 101:4. ↩ 46:footnote 1). ↩

131. Meseches Shabbos 12b, Bach, Shach 3, Taz 3. ↩ 150. Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 184–185:15. ↩

132. Rashi Meseches Shabbos 12b “d’Shechina,” Bach, Levush 5, 151. Opinion of Harav Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha Shach 3, Taz 3, Prisha 10. Refer to Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel U’bagadah page 38:footnote 26. ↩ 13. Refer to Maharil Diskin (Kuntres Achron) 182:page 162 who says to daven in loshon kodesh even in fron of the sick person. ↩ 152. Rosh on Parshas Vayeira 18:1. ↩

133. Shulchan Aruch 5. Refer to Taz 4. See Ahavas Chesed 3:3. ↩ 153. Refer to Derech Sicha 1:pages 65–66. ↩

134. Meseches Sanhedrin 39a. ↩ 154. Opinion of Harav Ephraim Greenblatt zt”l quoted in Bikur Cholim B’halacha U’bagadah page 31:footnote 5. See ibid:pages 135. Shevet Yehuda 335:5, V’ein Lamo Michshal 6:page 247. ↩ 130– 131:23:footnote 27 and page 131:23. ↩

136. Tur 335, Shulchan Aruch 6, Levush 6. ↩

137. Shach 4. Rashi Meseches Rosh Hashanah 16a “keman”. ↩

138. Halichos Shlomo Tefillah 8:footntoe 63, Shevet HaLevi 5:184. Refer to Toraso Yeheigei 12:3:footnote 11 who quotes poskim who disagree. ↩

139. Meseches Berochos 34a, Magen Avraham O.C. 119:1, Mishnah Berurah 2, Rivevos Ephraim 7:335. Refer to Chasam Sofer Meseches Nedarim 39b, Pri Temarim 7:pages 73–74:3. Refer to Pri Chadash O.C. 119 who says one can say the name of the sick person in front of him as well. ↩

140. Bamidbar 12:13. ↩

141. Chasam Sofer Meseches Nedarim 40a. Refer to Ben Yehoyada Meseches Berochos 34a. See Yalkut Revuenei Parshas Vayeira 18:1. ↩

142. Toras Hamincha parshas vayeira 9:page 50. ↩

143. Refer to Mitzvahs Bikur Cholim pages 230–243 in great depth. ↩

144. The opinion of some poskim is that this should be done right when the person gets sick and it should not wait until the situation is serious (Shevet Yehuda 335:7). ↩

145. Shulchan Aruch 7, Levush 7, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:5, Chochmas Adom 151:5, Aruch Hashulchan 10. ↩

146. Aruch Hashulchan 10. ↩

147. Refer to Chuchmas Adom 151:11, Ahavas Chesed 3:3, Tzitz Eliezer 5:Ramat Rochel 15. ↩