The Rebbetzin's Husband

40: The Age of Limits

2012-01-29T01:01:00.004-05:00

[This month's Kosher Cooking Carnival is here; enjoy]

40 is coming, in just a few weeks.

This development brings with it many different emotions, on many different levels, but one stands out for me: A sense of limits. Not depressingly, just realistically.

All of us have limits, of course, from the start of our lives, but as we get older and hit certain stages, key limitations become obvious and cannot be ignored. This birthday is drawing my attention to them.

Limits in terms of mortality. I've had a little gray for a couple of years, but now I'm sensing that reading glasses are not far off. Thank Gd, my back is good and I can still run around with my kids, but I can't pretend that my body will last forever.

Limits in terms of career. I'm not going to be a 50-years-in-one-pulpit rabbi, as I had once hoped. I'm never going to take the time and sweat to re-work old manuscripts into publishable novels, let alone write new ones. I'm not going to become an intelligence agent. There just isn't time for that to happen.

Limits in terms of growth. I'm not going to get around to learning Mandarin, or getting a really good handle on materials sciences. Not because I can't do it, but because I can see the way I use my time, and what my choices are, and I can't justify overturning my obligations to cater to these whims.

And so on.

The gemara (Avodah Zarah 19b) identifies the age of 40 as the minimum age for offering serious psak [legal rulings], or, as the Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 242) renders it, the deadline past which a capable person may not stall offering serious psak. What is so special about 40? Why isn't it a matter of what you have learned, as opposed to the years you have lived?

I posed the question in a recent class, and one person said it's because people will listen to you at 40. Another suggested this is an age when one has had life experiences which prepare him to handle a situation properly. Another suggested that people are more stable and responsible at this stage in life.

These are all valid answers. I wonder, though, if it isn't also that by the age of 40 one is forced to accept a certain humility, in the awareness of his limitations.

Interesting.

Burning your sink?

2012-01-26T08:01:00.000-05:00

Last night, during a shiur on common Kashering questions, I was asked about a unique method of kashering a sink. My sense is that this approach does NOT work... but it does sound entertaining.

Normally, we kasher a sink by heating water to a high boil, and then pouring it all over the surfaces of the sink. Some authorities also place a heated stone on surfaces of the sink while pouring the water, because the water cools off between the time it leaves the pot or kettle and the time it strikes the sink's surface. The process is tedious and messy.

So the new method (new to me, anyway) is this: Spread brandy or whiskey over the surfaces of the sink, and light it on fire. Essentially, flambe the sink.

Definitely a guy's way to kasher.

Again, my impression is that this does NOT work, from a kashrut perspective; as I understand it, the heat from this fire is directed outward, and the material beneath the alcohol layer is not heated. [Watch the video I linked on "flambe" above; the crepe certainly doesn't show any sign of singeing. On the other hand, perhaps it does get hot enough to reach the level needed for kashering.]

Have you heard of this? From a reputable source?

Moshe's death begins again

2012-01-24T08:01:00.002-05:00

I write the post below 4 years ago, as a reaction to Parhas Shmos. It still rings true for me, on many levels.

I cannot stand Parshat Shmot. I fear reading it. It drives me berserk – and especially this year.

Call this hubris, but I overly identify with Moshe Rabbeinu. It’s because of my field of work, it’s because I love his “I can’t stands no more!” declaration to Gd in Bamidbar (Numbers) 11:11-15, it’s because I was born on his birthday (the 7th of Adar)… his struggle just resonates with me.

In particular, I am struck by the way Moshe is stopped at the goal line, blocked from entering Israel after putting himself through 41 years of absolute Gehennom to get there. This man exposed himself to hatred and ridicule, slaved day and night for a nation that often rebelled against his leadership, separated himself from his family, braved the mighty Pharoah and defeated Amalek and fought wars against Emorite kings, you name it – and G-d would not allow him to enter Israel. Sorry, no entry.

Of course, Moshe didn’t complain; after his appeal was rejected, he still did everything he was told to do, up to and including dying. What an outsized tzaddik we’re looking at here.

It all starts in Parshat Shmot, at a time when Moshe would give anything not to have to take this job. He doesn’t want the power, he doesn’t want to lead, he doesn’t want anything other than to be a simple Jew, but Gd won’t take no for an answer.

“They won’t believe me.” No. “Send someone else.” No. “Pharoah won’t listen.” No. “I don’t speak well.” No. You’re taking this job, Moshe, end of discussion.

And he takes the job. And Gd tells him Aharon will help him out, and Gd gives him a staff to use to engineer miracles, and Gd tells him, “Don’t worry, Moshele, it’ll be all right.”

And so the clock starts on Moshe's death.

“MOSHE, IT’S A FRAUD!” I want to yell at him as I read the parshah. "It’s not true, Moshe, run the other way! You’re going to spend the next forty-one years doing this, only to be prevented from reaching your goal! Turn around while there’s still time!"

But he doesn’t. He picks up the staff and heads to Egypt, expecting that Gd will be there with him every step of the way. Which Gd will be – until the cruel end of the story, when Moshe will be given one last order: Sure, you can go up the mountain and see Israel. Then Die.

This has been the story for so many Jewish leaders; so many well-meaning, committed rabbis and community leaders have given their lives for this stubborn nation, only to perish short of the mark. I know; I’ve buried some of them.

And this year, the story has special resonance for me. As I think about taking a new job, in a new community, where I am told by so many people that I could lead and accomplish great things, I wonder: How far short of my own mark will I die and be buried?

[Note, as I said at the start: I wrote this post 4 years ago, at a time when it became clear I was going to be taking a new position. This is not relevant now!]

But I am comforted by two points:
1. True, Moshe dies short of the mark – but he has a great ride along the way. He speaks to Gd. He rescues the Jews from Egypt. He wins wars. He teaches a nation the way of Gd.

2. And, of course, Moshe must die short of the mark, and this is perhaps his greatest lesson for leaders. Moshe must die short of the mark because the sign of a great leader is that he always has a ‘mark’ in front of him: When he achieves one goal, he sets the next.
Moshe takes the Jews out of Egypt; time to go to Sinai. He reaches Sinai, time to get the Jews on the road to Israel. He gets the Jews on the road, time to teach them the Torah. His life is one long string of Dayyenus, and it never ends because it never can end.
The true Moshe will always die short of the mark, because there will always be another mark, drawing him forward.

The danger of talking to ourselves

2012-01-22T00:01:00.001-05:00

Tonight, CNN.com carries headlines about the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, writing an editorial suggesting ways in which Israel might move ahead with its defense against a nuclear Iran. Apparently (the piece is no longer on-line, so verification is not possible), one of his theoretical scenarios was that the Mossad assassinate the President of the United States, since he is perceived as an obstacle to moving against Iran.

The idea of such an assassination is as morally abhorrent as it is fundamentally ludicrous... so how does someone publish this?

I think it's a symptom of one of the great problems that many groups face: We spend too much time talking to ourselves.

"Iran is dangerous!"
"Even the IAEA said Iran is creating nuclear weapons."
"Someone has to stop them!"
"Israel will stop them."
"But Obama is blocking them!"
"They can't let Obama stop them - it's about Israel's survival!"
"How long do you think they have before Iran has a weapon?"
"I read it's just a few months."
"I think they have a bomb already."
"Israel needs to do something now. Ahmedinajad has said he wants to wipe them off the map - he just needs the bomb, and then he can do it."
"They need to act now, but Obama is holding them back!"
"Well, Israel can take care of that..."

Talking to people who disagree with us is important, if only so that someone takes the rhetorical wind out of our sails with challenging questions. Spend enough time in dialogue with people who believe the same thing, and we end pushing each other to greater extremes, as we convince each other of our correctness and the importance of our mission.

Andrew Adler, Exhibit A.

Synagogue members: Supporters and Directors

2012-01-19T12:01:00.001-05:00

Regarding my "Owning the Rabbi" post, an anonymous commenter wrote:
One also finds the opposite situation: Rabbis "owning" the shul. That is, Board members voting against their true wishes for the shul policy position the Rabbi publicy supports.

I agree that this happens, but I'm not sure it's about rabbinic ownership of the shul. I suspect it's about two different kinds of membership: Supporters and Directors.

As a general rule, both Supporters and Directors want to have:
- a shul with a certain kind of davening and learning, and an approach to halachah that resonates with them;
- a shul community with programs they like and members whose company they enjoy;
- a Rabbi whose Torah and personality and leadership will guide/inspire/support them.

But Supporters and Directors seek to achieve their goals in different ways.

Supporters believe in hiring or appointing good personnel – Rabbi, office manager, president, etc – and empowering them to do their job as they see fit. Supporters help them carry out their initiatives. They take a Platonic, "The Republic" view of government; we elected these people because we believe they know what they are doing. And barring something egregious, the next time the Supporter will weigh in with an imperative is at contract time for paid employees, or election time for shul officers.

Directors, on the other hand, believe in guiding the shul's good personnel in their tasks, to ensure that their day-to-day performance is in-line with Director expectations. Directors weigh initiatives in terms of their own preferences and vision, and assist only if they approve; employees and officers are meant to carry out the Director's will, and imperatives can come at any time.

I'm not contending that either model is 'better' for an organization, just observing that both exist. I believe each has merits.

This dichotomy among members is not just about shuls, of course; this happens in families and schools and businesses, too. It happens in philanthropy; Supporter donors write a check because they believe the organization knows what to do with it, and Director donors write a check and tell the organization what to do with it.

Coming back to that anonymous comment, then: Supporter board members do exactly what the commenter noted, trusting the Rabbi to know what he is doing. Director board members, on the other hand, are more likely to write the letter that triggered my "Owning the Rabbi" post in the first place.

Class: Taking Call on Shabbat

2012-01-18T12:01:00.001-05:00

This class addresses one of the questions I hear most frequently from physicians: May I take call on Shabbat?
And its corollary: May I switch with a non-observant Jewish physician?
And then the inevitable follow-up: May I drive home from the hospital after working there on Shabbat?

The class is next Monday, after which I hope to post a link to the audio on-line. I already have an audio and source sheet on-line from a version of this I delivered two years ago, but that was more textual; this will be more practical.

Here is the source sheet:

Vignette 1: Am I obligated to avoid violating Shabbat in advance?

1. Talmud, Shabbat 19a

תנו רבנן: אין מפליגין בספינה פחות משלשה ימים קודם לשבת. במה דברים אמורים - לדבר הרשות, אבל לדבר מצוה - שפיר דמי. ופוסק עמו על מנת לשבות, ואינו שובת, דברי רבי. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אינו צריך. ומצור לצידן, אפילו בערב שבת מותר.

תנו רבנן: אין צרין על עיירות של נכרים פחות משלשה ימים קודם לשבת, ואם התחילו - אין מפסיקין.

One may not embark on a boat for an optional trip within three days of Shabbat, but one may do so for a mitzvah purpose. Rebbe said: One must arrange with the boat to halt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: This is not necessary. One may travel from Tyre to Cidon even on Friday.

One may not lay siege within three days of Shabbat, but one need not halt a siege which already began.

2. R' Yitzchak Alfasi (11^th century Morocco) to Shabbat, 7b

יש מי שאומר... משום גזירת תחומין גזרו בה... והאי טעמא פריכא הוא... מאי איריא ג' ימים אפי' טפי נמי ועוד לדבר מצוה אמאי שרי... אלא היינו טעמא דאין מפליגין בספינה פחות מג' ימים קודם השבת משום בטול מצות עונג שבת דכל ג' ימים הויא להו שינוי וסת משום נענוע הספינה... והיינו טעמא דלדבר מצוה שרי משום דפטירי ממצות עונג דאמר מר העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה

Some say that they decreed [regarding ships] because of violation of Shabbat by crossing the techum… but this is questionable… For then why would they mention three days? Even more would be prohibited! Further, why would travel be permitted for a mitzvah?...

Rather, we don't embark on a boat within three days of Shabbat because it would undermine the mitzvah of enjoying Shabbat; one suffers the effects of change due to the shifting of the boat, for three days… But one may embark for a mitzvah, because then one is exempt from the enjoyment of Shabbat; one who is involved in one mitzvah is exempt from a competing mitzvah.

3. R' Zerachyah haLevi (12^th century Spain), Baal haMaor to Shabbat, 7a

כל שלשה ימים קודם לשבת קמי שבתא מקרי ונראה כמתנה לדחות את השבת מפני שאין דבר שעומד בפני פקוח נפש והוא הדין להפריש במדברות וכל מקום סכנה שאדם עתיד לחלל בו את השבת

All three days preceding Shabbat are called "before Shabbat" and one who embarks appears to have decided to violate Shabbat, for nothing stands before saving a life. The same would apply to embarking into the wilderness or some other dangerous place, such that one is destined to violate Shabbat.

4. Talmud, Gittin 77a

ת"ר: לאחר שבוע - שנה, לאחר שנה - חדש, לאחר חדש - שבת. לאחר שבת, מאי? יתיב ר' זירא קמיה דרבי אסי, ואמרי לה רבי אסי קמיה דרבי יוחנן וקאמר: חד בשבא, ותרי, ותלתא - בתר שבתא, ארבעה, וחמשה ומעלי שבתא - קמי שבתא.

One who says "[I will return] after the Sabbatical cycle" means within a year afterward. "After a year" means within a month afterward. "After a month" means within a week afterward. What about "after a week"? R' Zeira said before R' Asi, or R' Asi said before R' Yochanan: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday are "after Shabbat", and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are "before Shabbat".

5. Code of Jewish Law (16^th century Israel and Poland), Orach Chaim 248:2, 4

סעיף ב: הא דאין מפליגין בספינה פחות משלשה ימים קודם השבת הטעם משום עונג שבת, שכל שלשה ימים הראשונים יש להם צער ובלבול; ודוקא למפליגים בימים המלוחים, אבל בנהרות אין שום צער למפליגים בהם...

סעיף ד: היוצאים בשיירא במדבר, והכל יודעים שהם צריכים לחלל שבת כי מפני הסכנה לא יוכלו לעכב במדבר בשבת לבדם, ג' ימים קודם שבת אסורים לצאת, וביום ראשון ובשני ובשלישי מותר לצאת, ואם אחר כך יארע לו סכנה ויצטרך לחלל שבת מפני פיקוח נפש, מותר, ואין כאן חילול; והעולה לארץ ישראל, אם נזדמנה לו שיירא אפילו בערב שבת, כיון דדבר מצוה הוא, יכול לפרוש; ופוסק עמהם לשבות, ואם אחר שיהיו במדבר לא ירצו לשבות עמו, יכול ללכת עמהם חוץ לתחום, מפני פיקוח נפש...

הגה: יש אומרים כל מקום שאדם הולך לסחורה או לראות פני חבירו חשוב הכל דבר מצוה ואינו חשוב דבר הרשות, רק כשהולך לטייל...

248:2 – We don’t embark on a boat within three days of Shabbat due to enjoyment of Shabbat, for people are pained and confused during the first three days. This is specifically when travelling on salty seas, but there is no pain in travelling on rivers…

248:4 – We may not embark on a caravan within three days of Shabbat, if it is well-known that we will need to violate Shabbat due to the danger of halting there alone on Shabbat. We may embark on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, and if danger occurs afterward and we need to violate Shabbat to save lives, it is permitted and that is not termed 'desecration.'

We may embark to ascend to Israel even if we only find a caravan on Friday, for this is a mitzvah. We must arrange with them to halt, and then we may travel beyond the techum with them to save our lives, if they refuse to halt with us.

Rama: Some say that anywhere a person travels for business or greeting a friend is considered a mitzvah; 'optional' refers only to touring…

6. R' Moshe Feinstein (20^th century USA), Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 1:131

כשיודע הרופא מזה ערב שבת מחוייב הרופא להשאר ללון באיזה בית הסמוך לבית החולים שודאי אפשר להשיג מקום ללון ואף אם יצטרך לשלם דמי שכירות בעד הלינה אין להתיר לו לבא לביתו שיביאנו זה לחלל שבת למחר ליסע לבית החולים. ואף אם אין מקום סביבות בית החולים ללון שם הרי יכול ללון בבית החולים גופיה ואף שלא יהיה לו שם יין לקדוש וסעודה חשובה לכבוד השבת נמי היה צריך להשאר שם דמצות סעודת שבת וקדוש לא תדחה איסור מלאכה דשבת

When the physician knows this on Friday, he is obligated to stay in a house close to the hospital; certainly, he will be able to acquire a place to stay, even if he must pay rent to stay there. One may not permit him to go home, for this would bring him to violate Shabbat the next day, to travel to the hospital. Even if there is no place to stay near the hospital, he can stay in the hospital itself – even if he will not have wine for kiddush and a good meal in honour of Shabbat, he must remain there; the mitzvot of Shabbat meals and kiddush do not override the prohibition against melachah on Shabbat.

Vignette 2: Switching with a doctor who is not observant

7. Talmud, Niddah 61b

ת"ר: בגד שאבד בו כלאים - הרי זה לא ימכרנו לעובד כוכבים

If a garment has unrecognizable wool and linen blended into it, a Jew may not sell it to a non-Jew.

8. Talmud, Avodah Zarah 13b, 14a

מתני'. אלו דברים אסורים למכור לעובד כוכבים: אצטרובלין, ובנות שוח, ופטוטרות, ולבונה, ותרנגול הלבן;

גמ'. ומכולן מוכרין להן חבילה... וליחוש דלמא אזיל ומזבין לאחריני ומקטרי! אמר אביי: אלפני מפקדינן, אלפני דלפני לא מפקדינן.

One may not sell the following items to idolaters [because they are likely to be used for pagan offerings]…

One may sell it in bulk… But why are we not concerned lest he sell it to someone who will burn it for incense? Abbaye explained: We are instructed not to place a stumbling block before him, but we are not instructed about 'before before' him.

9. R' Moshe Feinstein (20^th century America), Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:79

ויש גם טעם גדול להתיר אף עם יהודים שאינם שומרי תורה שגם שכשישארו בביתם יחללו שבת במזיד בכל מלאכות שיזדמן לא פחות מהמלאכות שיעשה בבית החולים באיסור שא"כ אין בזה לפ"ע בזה שהוחלפו להו מלאכות במלאכות, ויותר נוטה שהופחתו כי יש הרבה חולים שמותר וגם הרבה הוא רק מדרבנן ומה שעושה בביתו רובן הם מדאורייתא.

We have great reason to permit switching with non-observant Jews, for they would violate Shabbat intentionally in their homes with any melachot which came to hand, no less than they would in the hospital. There is no lifnei iver; they exchange some melachot for others. Further, the violation is reduced in a hospital; these acts are permitted on behalf of many patients, and many of these acts are only rabbinically prohibited, while much of what he would do at home is biblically prohibited.

10. R' Yosef Dov Soloveichik (19^th century Poland), Beit haLevi to Shemot

והנה טענת אונס לא שייך רק היכא דאם לא היה האונס לא היה עושה אותו דבר והאונס הביאו לעשות

The claim of 'compulsion' is only relevant if he would not have committed the act absent the compulsion.

11. Talmud, Kiddushin 32a

רב הונא קרע שיראי באנפי רבה בריה, אמר: איזול איחזי אי רתח אי לא רתח. ודלמא רתח, וקעבר +ויקרא יט+ אלפני עור לא תתן מכשול! דמחיל ליה ליקריה

Rav Huna tore silks before his son Rabbah, saying, "I will see if he gets angry at not." But would he not be in violation of "Do not put a stumbling block before the blind"? Rav Huna forgave his honour [in advance].

12. Tosafot (13^th century France / Germany), Kiddushin 32a

וצריך לומר שהודיעו קודם לכן שלא יהא כמו נתכוין לאכול [בשר] חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה דאמר לקמן שצריך מחילה וכפרה.

One must say that he informed his son of this beforehand, lest his son be like someone who intended to eat pork and accidentally ate lamb, such that we believe forgiveness and atonement are required.

Vignette 3: Leaving the hospital on Shabbat

13. Talmud, Eruvin 44b, 45a

מש' מי שיצא ברשות ואמרו לו כבר נעשה מעשה יש לו אלפים אמה לכל רוח... כל היוצאים להציל חוזרין למקומן.

גמרא. "וכל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן" - ואפילו טובא? והא אמרת רישא אלפים אמה ותו לא!

1 - אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שחוזרין בכלי זיין למקומן...

2 - רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לא קשיא, כאן שנצחו ישראל את אומות העולם כאן שנצחו אומות העולם {את עצמן}

Mishnah: One who leaves with permission and then is told, "The deed is complete," may travel 2000 cubits in any direction… All who leave to save lives may return home.

Gemara: " All who leave to save lives may return home" – no matter how far? But the first part said "2000 cubits" and no more!

1 - Rav Yehudah said, citing Rav: The first part was referring to bringing their weapons home…

2 - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: This is not a problem; the 2000 cubit limit is where the Jews defeated the nations, the unlimited return is where the nations were victorious {over themselves}.

14. Talmud, Rosh haShanah 21b

מעשה שעברו יותר מארבעים זוג ועיכבם רבי עקיבא בלוד שלח לו רבן גמליאל אם מעכב אתה את הרבים נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא

Once more than forty pairs of witnesses came, and R' Akiva halted them in Lod. Rabban Gamliel sent a message to him, "If you will halt the masses now, you will cause them to stumble in the future!"

15. Talmud, Yoma 85b

רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר +שמות לא+ ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת אמרה תורה חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה

R' Shimon ben Menasya said: The Torah says, "The children of Israel will guard Shabbat." Violate one Shabbat in order that he guard many Shabbatot.

16. R' Eliezer Waldenberg (20^th century Israel), Tzitz Eliezer 11:39:1

והגרש"ק ז"ל בספרו שם מסביר זאת ביותר למאי דקיי"ל דשבת דחויה היא אצל החולה, ועל כן איסור דרבנן כיון דהותרו בתחילתן והוי היתר ממש דהם אמרו והם אמרו, שייך לומר התירו סופן משום תחילתן

R' Shlomo Kluger explained this further. We believe that Shabbat is overridden, rather than permitted, for a patient. Rabbinic prohibitions are entirely permitted, though, for the sages prohibited and the sages permitted, and we can say that they permitted [to return home at] the end in order to ensure people would go at the beginning.

17. R' Dr. Avraham S. Avraham (21^st century Israel), Nishmat Avraham Orach Chaim 329:7

ואמנם לא הגרש״ז אויערבאך זצ״ל ולא הציץ אליעזר מתירים לחלל שבת דאורייתא עבור סופו משום תחילתו, אך סומכים על החת״ס שמותר לחלל שבת באיסורי דרבנן, וכפי שכתב הגרש״ז אויערבאך זצ״ל ״שכבר הורה זקן״. ואם כן כפי שמסיק הציץ אליעזר, ה״ה גם לגבי רופא... שיהיה מותר לו לחזור הביתה ברכב של עכו״ם.

Neither R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach nor the Tzitz Eliezer permit violation of biblical Shabbat law under the principle of 'permit the end for the sake of the beginning'. They depend on the Chatam Sofer to permit violating rabbinical Shabbat law; as R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote, "The elder has already ruled." If so, then as the Tzitz Eliezer concluded, a Jew [who has travelled to save lives] may return home in a non-Jew's vehicle.

Owning the Rabbi

2012-01-16T12:01:00.003-05:00

A friend of mine, a Rabbi, once received an anonymous letter complaining about an element of his wardrobe. Other Rabbis have other stories of such communications. I presented my view on anonymous letters a while back, but I'd like to discuss the content of such letters, instead.

Rabbis are under observation all of the time, on anything and everything, but that's not unique to clergy. Having people notice your style of dress – or diet, or exercise, or sense of humor – is normal for human beings. Clergy are not the only ones who live in a fishbowl; all of us are constantly under observation by the people around us. The difference is that many people – not one, but many - often feel free to comment aloud, and rudely, when it comes to the Rabbi.

If I go to a restaurant and sit beside a loud talker, I might move to another table. If I sit next to a person with bad body odor on a train, I might change seats. If I see someone wearing a hideous tie, I may make a mental note to check my own ties for such a lack of taste. And then I move on. Only if something is particularly egregious, and apparently intentional, will a normal human being engage the offender – and then politely and positively, not with an anonymous screed.

But if it’s the Rabbi, then plenty of polite and positive people will tell the Rabbi – nicely or otherwise - that he should really keep his voice down, or that his tie is a problem. They might even find a way to hint at the body odor. And that's in the best circumstance; in another universe they might resign from the shul, and/or broadcast their complaint to their 100 closest friends.

That's what creates the fishbowl – not the fact that a few people are looking, but the fact that everyone is looking, everyone is commenting, and often without sensitivity.

I believe that many people genuinely intend to be helpful, and their comments can be very beneficial. But for a dangerous minority, it comes from a sense of ownership, as though my dues, or even my presence at minyan, means that I have a form of baalus [gemara terminology, translating roughly and inaccurately to 'mastery'] over the Rabbi. There's a sign across his back, "Property of Congregation _____________". [Shades of Rav Yaakov Emden and שלא עשני עבד-אב"ד.] To me, this is not healthy.

We want members to feel invested in the institution, and we want the Rabbi to be sensitive to their needs and wants, so I can't say that members should ignore the Rabbi's conduct. It's also true – as explained in various gemara passages – that the Rabbi should make sure his clothing is clean, his manner reputable and his comport respectable, so I can't say that the Rabbi should do as he pleases.

But maybe we shouldn't comment for every thing; there should be a threshold of significance.
And maybe it shouldn't be all of us making these comments.
And maybe it shouldn't be an anonymous letter.

What do you think?

Class: The Kohen as Physician

2012-01-14T22:39:00.004-05:00

On Sunday morning I'll be teaching a Medical Halachah class on "The Kohen as Physician". Here are the vignettes and sources I expect to use. [Update: The audio is now on-line here.]

Aharon is a kohen, and he has a lifelong dream of attending medical school. Based on his grades and personal desires, he would seem to be a good candidate for medicine. May he attend medical school? Alternatively, could he become an EMT?

Sam, 86, is hospitalized with sepsis and resultant multiple organ failure. He codes with cardiac arrest, and his physician, a kohen, is notified. May the physician come to attempt resuscitation?

Ronald, a kohen, is chief neurologist at a hospital when he begins to learn about his Jewish heritage. He is not ready to stop working at the hospital; is there anything he can do to mitigate his halachic situation?

Mitch is a kohen and heart surgeon, and during surgery a patient passes away. Is Mitch eligible to duchen [bless the nation]?

1. Talmud, Kiddushin 35b

בל תטמא למתים דכתיב +ויקרא כא+ אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן

The prohibition against becoming impure for the dead [doesn't apply to women] because the Torah says, 'Speak to the kohanim, sons of Aaron' – sons of Aaron, not daughters of Aaron.

Central Issue 1 – May a kohen become tamei today?
2. Semachot 4:10

היה עומד וקובר את מתו, עד שהוא עומד בתוך הקבר מקבל מאחרים וקובר, פירש הרי זה לא יטמא. נטמא בו ביום, רבי טרפון אומר חייב ורבי עקיבא אומר פטור. נטמא לאחר אותו יום, הכל מודים שהוא חייב, מפני שהוא סותר יום אחד.

If he was burying his deceased relative, and while he was standing in the grave he received another body and buried it, then once he had left [his relative] he may not become impure.
If he becomes impure on the same day, R' Tarfon says he is liable, but R' Akiva says he is exempt. If he becomes impure on another day, all agree that he is liable; he has ruined a day [of his purification count].

3. Talmud, Nazir 42b

איתמר אמר רבה אמר רב הונא מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב +במדבר ו+ לא יטמא כשהוא אומר +במדבר ו+ לא יבא להזהירו על הטומאה להזהירו על הביאה אבל טומאה וטומאה לא
ורב יוסף אמר האלקים אמר רב הונא אפילו טומאה וטומאה, דאמר רב הונא נזיר שהיה עומד בבית הקברות והושיטו לו מתו ומת אחר ונגע בו חייב אמאי הא מיטמא וקאים! אלא לאו ש"מ אמר רב הונא אפילו טומאה וטומאה.
איתיביה אביי [לרב יוסף] כהן שהיה לו מת מונח על כתיפו והושיטו לו מתו ומת אחר ונגע בו יכול יהא חייב ת"ל ולא יחלל במי שאינו מחולל יצא זה שהוא מחולל ועומד!
א"ל [רב יוסף] ותיקשי לך מתני' דתנן היה מיטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת - ואמאי הא מיטמא וקאים! אלא קשיא אהדדי? לא קשיא - כאן בחיבורין [שהיה נוגע בא' כשהוא נגע בב'] כאן שלא בחיבורין.

Rabbah cited Rav Huna: The Torah states explicitly, "He shall not become impure," so "He shall not enter" adds that he should neither become impure nor enter [the room], but adding to existing impurity is not prohibited.
Rav Yosef declared: By Gd! Rav Huna prohibited adding to existing impurity, as he said, "If a nazir is standing in a cemetery and they give him his deceased relative and another body and he touches it, he is liable" – even though he is already impure! We see that Rav Huna even prohibits adding to existing impurity.
Abbaye challenged Rav Yosef: We learned, "If a kohen has a body on his shoulder and they give him his relative and another body and he teaches it, he is exempt, for the Torah says, 'He shall not desecrate', excluding one who is already desecrated"!
Rav Yosef replied: Then you will have trouble with our mishnah, which says, "One who becomes impure to the dead all day is only liable once, but if they warn him repeatedly then he is liable each time" – Here, too, he is already impure! Are these sources then contradictory? No: One is where he remains in contact, one is where he is no longer in contact.

4. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 5:16-17

נטמא למת פעמים הרבה... אם התרו בו על כל פעם ופעם והוא מטמא לוקה [על] כל אחת ואחת. במה דברים אמורים בשנטמא ופירש וחזר ונגע או נשא או האהיל, אבל אם היה נוגע במת ועדיין המת בידו ונגע במת אחר אינו חייב אלא אחת אע"פ שהתרו בו על כל נגיעה ונגיעה שהרי מחולל ועומד.

One who becomes tamei for the dead many times… is liable for lashes each time, with multiple warnings. This is if he became impure and then separated and re-contacted impurity, but if he touched a body and then touched another body while still in contact with the first, he is only liable once, even with warnings for each contact. He is already desecrated.

5. Raavad to Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 5:15

עיינתי בשמועה במס' נזיר וראיתי דלדעת רב יוסף טומאה וטומאה בחיבורין של אדם במת אפילו התרו בו על כל אחת ואחת אינו חייב אלא אחת... ורבה פליג עליה בכל טומאה וטומאה אפילו שלא בחיבורין אינו חייב אלא אחת הואיל וטמא הוא... וכיון דקיי"ל רבה ורב יוסף הלכתא כרבה מעתה טומאה וטומאה אפילו פירש וחזר ונגע פטור והכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומאה והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה.

I examined the discussion in Nazir and I saw that according to Rav Yosef one is liable only once for repeated impurity, even with multiple warnings, so long as he remains in contact with impurity… and Rabbah disagrees and says one is liable once even if he is no longer in contact… And since we follow Rabbah over Rav Yosef, one is exempt even if he already separated from impurity. Today, kohanim are impure from contact with the dead, and they no longer have liability for impurity, and once who would hold them liable must bring proof.

6. R' Yosef Caro, Kesef Mishneh, Hilchot Nezirut 5:17

וי"ל שדעת רבינו דכי אמרי' רבה ורב יוסף הלכה כרבה ה"מ כי איפליגו אליבא אליבא דנפשייהו אבל היכא דאיפליגו במילתא דאחריני לא והכא איפליגו במאי דאמר רב הונא וכיון דרב יוסף אמר האלהים משמע דדקדק בשמועתו יפה ונקיטינן כוותיה

7. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avel 3:7

נטמא מקודם ואחר כך נכנס לאהל אם התרו בו לוקה אף על הביאה.

8. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avel 3:7

והא לא מיחוור דסוגיא דשמעתא כרבה דטומאה וטומאה שלא בחבורין נמי לא מחייב וכ"ש בחבורין

9. R' Jaffe & R' Shabbtai, It is upon him to bring proof, www.scribd.com/doc/48498760/Untitled

10. Mishnah, Makkot 3:8

היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והיה מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת

11. R' Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe 1:230:2

והחת"ס סימן של"ח הביא מראב"ד עצמו בספר תמים דעים שיש איסור דאורייתא. ותמה אני טובא וכי שייך מלקות בכהנים בזה"ז, ובע"כ כוונתו אף שכתב בסוף השגתו בפ"ה מנזירות הי"ז והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה, כוונתו להאוסר אותם דחיוב מלקות הא ליכא בזה"ז

Central Issue 2 – What sort of טומאה is communicated by an עכו"מ?
12. Talmud, Yevamot 60b-61a

תניא וכן היה ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל... רבינא אמר נהי דמעטינהו קרא מאטמויי באהל דכתיב +במדבר י"ט+ אדם כי ימות באהל ממגע ומשא מי מעטינהו קרא?

13. Mishnah Oholot 18:9

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר עיר עובדי כוכבים שחרבה אין בה משום מדור עובדי כוכבים [כיון שחיות הוציאו המתים]

14. Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 372:2

קברי עובדי כוכבים, נכון ליזהר הכהן מלילך עליהם
רמ"א: אע"פ שיש מקילין (רמב"ם והגמי"י בשם ס' יראים). ונכון להחמיר.

15. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:12

אחד המת מישראל או מן העכו"ם מטמא במגע ובמשא.

Central Issue 3 – Are today's Kohanim certified?
16. Aruch haShulchan Yoreh Deah 305:55

ראיתי מי שכתב דבזמה"ז כיון שאין לנו יחוסי כהונה ראוי לכל כהן לחוש שמא אינו כהן ויחזיר המעות וכן הוא חייב בפדיון ויפריש לעצמו ולדעתי אסור לשמוע דברים כאלו להקטין עתה מעלת הכהונה ואתי לזלזולי וח"ו לומר כן והרי אפילו כשעלה עזרא מבבל שלכל הכהנים היה כתב יחוס ולמקצתם לא נמצא דריע חזקת כהונה שלהם ועכ"ז אמר להם נחמיה הרי אתם בחזקתכם כמו שאכלתם בגולה בתרומה כן תאכלו גם עתה... כ"ש עתה שאין לכהנים כלל כתב יחוס וכיון שלכולם אין כתב יחוס אין כאן ריעותא כלל כמבואר שם מדברי התוס' לא כ"ש שהם בחזקת קדושתם וחלילה חלילה לעשות בזה איזה ספק או ספק ספיקא או לצרף זה אפילו לצירוף כל שהוא

17. Midrash, Sifri Devarim 188:15

לא יקום עד אחד באיש, אין לי אלא לדיני נפשות לדיני ממונות מנין תלמוד לומר לכל עון, לקרבנות מנין תלמוד לומר ולכל חטאת למכות מנין תלמוד לומר בכל חטא אשר יחטא, להעלות לכהונה ולהוריד מן הכהונה מנין תלמוד לומר לכל עון ולכל חטאת

Application 1 – Medical school studies / EMT
18. R' Adin Steinsaltz - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39A2EKtSv4c

19. R' Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:155

עיינתי בהקונטרס שהוא עצמו ג"כ מסיק שאין להתיר לכהן אף בזמן הזה ליטמא למתים, אבל מתיר מצד אחר דפקוח נפש וזהו שטות והבל שלא ניתן לבר דעת לומר כלל, שאף אם לא היה שום רופא בעולם ליכא חיוב מצד פקוח נפשות ללמוד חכמת הרפואה דהחיוב דפקוח נפש איכא לכל אדם שיציל חברו במה שיכול שאם הוא רופא מחויב להציל חולה מחליו אבל ליכא חיוב שילמוד חכמת הרפואה כדי להציל חולה מחליו, וכמו בצדקה שאם יש לו לאדם ממון מחויב ליתן צדקה אבל ליכא חיוב על האדם לעשות מסחרים ולהתעשר כדי ליתן צדקה, אבל לבד זה וכי חסרים רופאים בעולם

20. R' Yitzchak haLevi Herzog, Psakim uKtavim 5:145

והנה אין אני מורה היתר לכהנים, אכן כוונתי להגיד מה שיש לצדד בזכותו של הבחור ההוא שלפי דברי כבוד תורתו הוא מאמין בתורה וחז"ל ושומר תורה ומצוה שלא להחתימו בחותמת של עבריין

21. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Yoreh Deah 369:1

מותר לכהן לעבוד בצוות מגן דוד אדום (מד״א) או הצלה אך רק בתנאי שלא יצטרך להיטמא למת אלא אם כן באותה זמן גם מטפל בחולה שיש בו סכנה או ספק סכנה הנמצא באותו אהל.

Application 2 – Treating a patient who is a גוסס
22. Tosafot Niddah 44b איהו

מכל מקום משום פקוח נפש מחללין עליו את השבת אף ע"ג דמותר להרגו [לעובר הרודף לאמו] דהא גוסס בידי אדם ההורגו פטור כדאמר פרק הנשרפין (סנהדרין עח.) דרוב גוססים למיתה ומחללין את השבת עליו כדאמר פרק בתרא דיומא (ד' פד:) דאין מהלכין בפקוח נפש אחר הרוב

23. R' Shmuel Wosner, Shevet haLevi Yoreh Deah 3:164

א', לענין שיתחבר לאותה חבורת הצלה מחשש שמא יבא במשך הזמן לאיסור טומאת כהנים אין שום איסור כמש"כ מרן הח"ס שם דמותר לכהן ללמוד מלאכת הרפואה אף שבזמן מן הזמנים יבא עי"כ לידי דחיית קדושת כהונתו. ב', באם יש מצילים אחרים עלינו להחמיר כח"ס הנ"ל ובפרט לענין נתינת אוקסיגען שקרוב לשמוע דלא שייך כלל גדר לא מכל אדם זוכה שהוא מלאכת הצלה ואינו חכמה. ג', וכ"ז אם בקיאים כמו הכהן, אבל אם יש אפילו ספק שהכהן בקי קצת יותר והוא אומן יד במלאכת הצלה יותר משאר חביריו פשיטא ופשיטא דיכול ליכנס להחולה מסוכן ומצוה נמי איכא

Application 3 – Mitigating the situation
24. Shach to Yoreh Deah 372:2

נראה דוקא נקט באוהל המת אבל אם בבתים הסמוכים לבית שהמת בתוכו אע"פ שהן ג"כ טמאים כדלעיל סימן שע"א ס"ד מ"מ י"ל דאינו אלא טומאה דרבנן כדאיתא בטור סי' זה

25. Magen Avraham 343:2

וכמדומה שלא עיין יפה דהטור מיירי בהולך ע"ג ארון ע"פ השדה דכשיש שם פותח טפח לא הוי כקבר סתום אבל אוהל טפח הוי דאורייתא

Application 4 – Duchening
26. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 128:35-36

לה: כהן שהרג את הנפש, אפילו בשוגג, לא ישא את כפיו אפילו עשה תשובה.
רמ"א: וי"א דאם עשה תשובה, נושא כפיו ויש להקל על בעלי תשובה, שלא לנעול דלת בפניהם, והכי נהוג
לו: מל תינוק ומת, נושא את כפיו; ואם העם מרננים אחריו שהוא שופך דמים, כיון שלא נתברר הדבר, ישא את כפיו.

For anyone interested, here is a series of links on the issue of kohanim and tumah today; there is much more to see, but it's definitely a great set of articles:
http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/Assia69-70/Assia69-70.03.asp
http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/Assia69-70/Assia69-70.04.asp
http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/Assia69-70/Assia69-70.05.asp
http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/Assia69-70/Assia69-70.06.asp

Also very worthwhile:
Halachah uRefuah 3 - Articles by R' Levi Yitzchak Halperin and R' J David Bleich
Nishmas Avraham to Yoreh Deah 335, 369, 370 and 372
Rav Yitzchak haLevi Herzog, Psakim uKsavim 5 145

Talmud in South Korea, Re-visited

2012-01-14T18:55:00.001-05:00

For anyone who was skeptical about last year's reports on Talmud study in South Korea - take a look at this...

So you want to be a Rebbetzin?

2012-01-11T01:01:00.000-05:00

When a certain well-known rabbi heard I wanted to enter the rabbinate, he put his hands on my head, gave the top of my skull a long look, and said something along the lines of, “That’s strange; I don’t see anything wrong.”

Personally, I think he had the wrong party; I think he should have done that to my wife. To be a Rebbetzin you have to be, well, I don't know what . You must have a generosity gland that runs in twenty-four hour overdrive. You must have the patience of not just one saint, but several thousand of them. And you must lack any sense of self-preservation.

Think I’m exaggerating? Consider these points:

1. The rabbi will work 24/7 looking after the needs of people in the community, but will also receive Thank You and “Job well done” comments (yes, along with doses of righteous criticism…). The Rebbetzin will not have the rabbi’s help at home and will not have the rabbi’s companionship throughout that 24/7, and will receive far fewer Thank You and “Job well done” comments, if any.

2. People in the community will doubtless comment that they wish the Rebbetzin would teach more classes, attend more committee meetings, host more people and be involved in more projects. But because the Rebbetzin doesn’t function in an official capacity, she won’t have the opportunity to face those people and rebut them. The rabbi, at least, can attend a board meeting or speak from the pulpit; where is the Rebbetzin’s public forum?

3. The rabbi will certainly love his Rebbetzin, but he will equally certainly spend time talking to female committee members, counseling women, and so on. It’s all part of the job, the rabbi will say. And this will be the truth … but still…

4. The rabbi will wail and cry on his Rebbetzin's shoulder when things go wrong, when people get sick and die, when life in general becomes tough. The Rebbetzin, on the other hand, will generally not have the option of doing the same to him, because he will be out of the house taking care of other people who are wailing and crying on his shoulder.

I suppose it’s one thing for a woman to marry a man who then goes into the rabbinate, but I cannot fathom why a woman would actually marry a rabbi.

Of course, my rebbetzin did exactly that; go figure. I can’t understand women.

(originally written in honor of my wife and Rebbetzin's birthday several years ago...)

The Rabbi as Leader and Manager

2012-01-09T01:01:00.001-05:00

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here]

While taking care of administrative tasks on Motzaei Shabbos, I listened to the opening salvos of the Republican debate. [Don't ask me why; I still live in the fantasy that somehow, magically, one of these anurans is going to metamorphose into a prince. Not a chance.] At one point, Rick Santorum declared that the President of the United States is supposed to be a Leader, rather than a Manager.

That set me thinking – What is a shul Rabbi? Leader or Manager?

For the sake of the discussion, we'll define "Leader" as someone who sets an example, acting and doing and modeling and inspiring others to do likewise. "Manager", on the other hand, is someone who enables others to use their talents, pairing people together and assigning tasks and motivating and critiquing and facilitating.

I tend to think that a shul rabbi needs to be both of these.

The rabbi is a Leader. Think of Moshe Rabbeinu, the ultimate leader - he acts, and others follow. He davens, and hopefully his davening inspires others. He reaches out to people within the community to assist them, and others see this and are motivated to follow his lead. He is a model of studiousness and scholarship.

On the other hand, the rabbi is also a Manager, like Betzalel organizing the various artisans to build the mishkan. He initiates projects, convening people to harness their talents, moving them forward, coordinating their work. The rabbi is a Manager in constructing community, creating connections between individuals and groups in order to tighten the bonds of chevra.

Unfortunately, rabbinic training, as it existed 15-20 years ago, didn't include sessions on Leadership or Management, and I think the latter role suffers for it. I sense that rabbis do succeed as leaders even without training, but I don't think management works the same way.

First, management is very challenging, a balance of צמצום (self-constriction) and direction, of praise and careful counsel and veiled criticism and unveiled respect.

Second, management requires consciousness, an awareness of what one is doing and what one is expected to do, in a way that leadership does not. I find it hard to think that a newly minted rabbi, not knowing there is a management role to play, could succeed in that capacity.

What do you think? Leader, Manager, both or neither? And need these roles be taught?

Morality from Eight Hugs a Day?

2012-01-06T01:01:00.001-05:00

Per economist Paul Zak, the human brain generates oxytocin in response to experiences in which we feel close to others - weddings, hugs, receiving a gift - and this oxytocin helps us to feel greater empathy in return, and to act more generously toward others in general. He calls oxytocin "the moral molecule", because oxytocin-induced empathy will cause people to act more positively toward others around them.

You can watch his TED presentation on the topic here; his eight-hugs-per-day prescription comes at the end:

This research leads to obvious questions about moral liability for people whose oxytocin-generating mechanisms are defective, and about the ethical use of oxytocin, or oxytocin-generating actions, in order to influence the behavior of others.

It also leads me to think about the methods of successful politicians and fundraisers - the ones who hug, maintain contact, ask how you are doing, try to help you, and so on. Capitalizing on an empathy-building bond is nothing new, but providing a chemical basis for it is interesting.

The big question in my mind, though: What is it about these empathy-triggering interactions that makes our brain perceive them as worthy of oxytocin? What teaches the brain to view these as bonding experiences?

The Jew and the Greek

2012-01-03T20:49:00.003-05:00

I was in New York today to interview avreichim for next year, and while en route I completed a source sheet for this coming Sunday's shiur, "Why was the Torah translated into Greek?" Here are the sources, in case you find the topic interesting.

1. Baal Halachot Gedolot #18

בשמונה בטבת נכתבה התורה יונית בימי תלמי המלך ובא חשך לעולם שלשה ימים, בתשעה בו לא כתבו רבותינו על מה הוא, ובו ביום מת עזרא הכהן ונחמיה בן חכליה, בעשרה בו סמך מלך בבל על ירושלים להחריבה,

On the eighth of Tevet the Torah was written in Greek, in the days of King Ptolemy, and darkness came to the world for three days. Our sages did not say what happened on the ninth, but on that day Ezra and Nechemiah died. On the tenth, the king of Babylon neared Jerusalem to destroy her.

Questions:

What can we learn from the variations in the account of the translation of Torah into Greek?
Why did we ultimately accept Greek as a language of Torah?
What happpened to turn things around, causing a ban on "Greek wisdom"?

Variations in the account

2. Talmud, Megilah 9a

אמר רבי יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו +בראשית א'+ אלקים ברא בראשית

R' Yehudah said: Even when our sages permitted Greek, it was only for a Sefer Torah [and not the Prophets], because of the event with King Ptolemy, as we have learned in a braita: King Ptolemy once gathered 72 elders and brought them into 72 houses without revealing why he was gathering them. He went to each one and told him, 'Write the Torah of Moshe, your master, for me." Gd placed counsel into each one's heart, and all of them came to the same idea, writing, "Elokim created in the beginning"…

3. Masechet Sofrim 1:7-8

אין כותבין [ספר תורה] לא עברית, ולא ארמית, ולא מדית, ולא יוונית, כתב בכל לשונות, בכל כתבים, לא יקרא בה, עד שתהא כתובה אשורית. מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יוונית, והיה אותו היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל, שלא הייתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה. שוב מעשה בתלמי המלך, שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים, והושיבם בשבעים ושנים בתים, ולא גלה להם על מה כינסם, נכנס אחר כל אחד ואחד מהם, אמר להם, כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם, נתן המקום עצה בלב כל אחד ואחד, והסכימה דעתן לדעת אחת, וכתבו לו תורה בפני עצמה, ושלשה עשר דבר שינו בה, אלקים ברא בראשית...

A Torah scroll may not be written in ivrit, Aramaic, Mede or Greek; in any language, in any script, one may not read it. It must be recorded in Assyrian. Once five elders wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy, and that day was as harsh for Israel as the day the Calf was created, because the Torah could not be properly translated.

Another time, King Ptolemy gathered 72 elders and put them in 72 houses without revealing why he had gathered them. He went to each one and told them, "Write the Torah of Moshe, your master, for me." Gd placed counsel into each one's heart, and each of them wrote an independent Torah. They changed thirteen things: "Elokim created in the beginning"…

4. Masechet Sefer Torah 1:8-9

אין כותבין לא עברית ולא עילמית, לא מדית ולא יונית. שבעים זקנים כתבו כל התורה לתלמי המלך לשון יונית, והיה אותו היום קשה לישראל כיום שעשו בו את העגל, שלא היתה תורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה. שלשה עשר דברים שינו בה, אלקים ברא בראשית...

One may not write [a Sefer Torah] in ivrit or ilmit, Mede or Greek. 70 elders wrote the entire Torah for King Ptolemy in Greek, and that day was as harsh for Israel as the day they created the Calf, for Torah could not be properly translated. They changed thirteen things: "Elokim created in the beginning"…

5. Rav Shlomo Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo to Bava Kama 4:9

התם מן שמיא הוא דאסכימו בהדייהו, וכעין רוח הקודש היה. וכן איתא התם, נתן הקב"ה [בלב] כל אחד כו', והוה על פי הדיבור. ועוד, התם לא שינו שום דבר ממשמעותו, אלא שינו הלשון, דלא יהפכו למינות. וכמו ששינו כך הוא כוונת המקרא כפשוטו

In that case Heaven agreed with them, and it was a sort of Divine inspiration. And so it says there, "Gd placed counsel into each one's heart", so it was at Divine instruction. Further, they did not change the meaning of anything; rather, they changed the language to keep it from being used for heresy.

6. Author unknown, The Letter of Aristaeas (2^nd century BCE, Alexandria)

7. Philo, The Life of Moses (1^st century BCE)

Were the Sages comfortable with the concept of translating Torah?

8. Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah 1:9

תני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית בדקו ומצאו שאין התורה יכולה להיתרגם כל צורכה אלא יוונית

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even sefarim [Tanach] may only be written in Greek; they checked and found that the Torah can be translated properly only in Greek.

9. Midrash Tanchuma Vayyera 6

אמר ר' יהודה הלוי ב"ר שלום בקש משה שתהא אף המשנה בכתב, וצפה הקב"ה על שעתידין אומות העולם לתרגם את התורה ולקרות אותה יונית, והן אומרין אף אנו ישראל, א"ל הקב"ה אכתוב לך רובי תורתי (הושע ח יב) ואם כן כמו זר נחשבו (שם /הושע ח י"ב/),

R' Yehudah haLevi b'R' Shalom said: Moshe requested that mishnah be put in writing as well, but Gd saw that the nations would translate the Torah and read it in Greek and say, "We are Israel, too," and so Gd said, "I will write [only] the majority of My Torah [and so] they will be considered as foreigners." (Hosheia 8:12)

Was the translation an honour or an assault? Or did we do it ourselves?

10. Mishnah Shekalim 3:2

בשלש קופות של שלש שלש סאין תורמין את הלשכה וכתוב בהן א' ב' ג' רבי ישמעאל אומר יונית כתוב בהן אלפ"א בית"א גמל"א

They tithed [the shekalim from] the office in three boxes, each of three se'ah; they were marked א ב ג. R' Yishmael said: The boxes were marked in Greek: alpha, beta, gamma.

11. Mishnah Yadayim 4:6

אומרים צדוקים קובלין אנו עליכ' פרושים שאתם אומרים כתבי הקודש מטמאין את הידים וספרי הומריס אינו מטמא את הידים... אמר להם אף כתבי הקדש לפי חבתן היא טומאתן וספרי הומריס שאינן חביבין אינן מטמאין את הידים:

The Sadducees said: We complain against you, Pharisees! You say that holy writings communicate tumah to hands, but the books of Homerus do not!... He replied: Regarding holy writings, our love for them creates their tumah; the books of Homerus are not beloved, and so they do not communicate tumah to hands.

12. Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah 7:1

ר' לוי בר חיתה אזל לקיסרין שמע קלון קריין שמע אלוניסתין בעא מעכבתון שמע רבי יוסי ואיקפד אמר כך אומר אני מי שאינו יודע לקרות אשורית לא יקרינה כל עיקר אלא יוצא בכל לשון שהוא יודע

R' Levi bar Chayta went to Caesaria and heard people reciting "Shema" elonistin. He wanted to stop them, but R' Yosi heard and objected, saying, "Should I say that one who does not know how to read in Assyrian should not recite Shema at all? Rather, he fulfills his obligation in any language he knows."

13. Talmud, Megilah 9b

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יונית אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמר קרא +בראשית ט'+ יפת אלקים ליפת וישכן באהלי שם דבריו של יפת יהיו באהלי שם ואימא גומר ומגוג אמר רבי חייא בר אבא היינו טעמא דכתיב יפת אלקים ליפת יפיותו של יפת יהא באהלי שם

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even other books may only be recorded in Greek. R' Avahu said, citing R' Yochanan: The law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. R' Yochanan said, "What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason? The Torah says, 'May Gd beautify Yefet, and he should dwell in the tent of Shem.' The words of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem."

Perhaps that should be the language of Gomer and Magog? R' Chiyya bar Abba said: It is because the text says, "May Gd beautify Yefet" – the [greatest] beauty of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem.

14. Talmud, Bava Kama 82b-83a

תנו רבנן כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבפנים ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ ובכל יום היו משלשים להם בקופה דינרין והיו מעלים להם תמידין היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית אמר להם כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה אין נמסרים בידכם למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה נעץ צפרניו בחומה ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה באותה שעה אמרו ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית... וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והתניא אמר רבי בארץ ישראל לשון סורסי למה או לשון הקדש או לשון יונית... אמרי לשון יוני לחוד חכמת יונית לחוד וחכמת יונית מי אסירא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רשב"ג +איכה ג'+ עיני עוללה לנפשי מכל בנות עירי אלף ילדים היו בבית אבא חמש מאות מהם למדו תורה חמש מאות למדו חכמת יונית ולא נשתייר מהם אלא אני כאן ובן אחי אבא בעסיא אמרי שאני בית רבן גמליאל שהיו קרובים למלכות

The sages taught: When the members of the Hasmonean house besieged each other, Hurkinus was inside [Jerusalem] and Aristobulus was outside, and the people inside would lower a box of dinarim out each day, and those outside would send up the daily offerings. An elder there, who knew Greek wisdom, said: As long as they are involved in the service, they will not be given into your hands. The next day, the people inside lowered a box of dinarim and those outside sent up a pig [Maharsha: Rome]. When it reached the midpoint of the wall, it stabbed its nails into the wall and Israel shook 400 parsah by 400 parsah. At that time they declared a curse against those who raise pigs and who teach their children Greek wisdom…

But is Greek wisdom prohibited? Rebbe said, "In Israel, why speak Sursi? Either the holy tongue, or Greek!"… The Greek language and Greek wisdom are separate entities.

But is Greek wisdom prohibited? Rav Yehudah cited Shemuel citing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, "It is written, 'My eye mourns for my spirit from all of the daughters of my city' – My father's household had 1000 children, 500 of whom learned Torah and 500 of whom learned Greek wisdom, and of them all only I remain here, and my first cousin remains in Asia!" Rabban Gamliel's household was different; they were close to the throne.

15. Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah 1:9

אמר רבי יונתן דבית גוברין ארבעה לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואילו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסי לאילייא עברי לדיבור ויש אומרים אף אשורי לכתב

R' Yonatan of Beit Guvrin said: There are four beautiful languages for the world to use: Greek for song, Latin for krav [battle or persuasion], Aramaic for wailing, Hebrew for speech. Some say: Assyrian for writing.

16. Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah 9:15

ר' אבהו בשם ר' יוחנן מותר לאדם ללמד את בתו יוונית מפני שהיא תכשיט לה שמע שמעון בר בא ואמ' בגין דר' אבהו בעי מילף ברתיה הוא תלי לה בר' יוחנן יבוא עליו אם שמעתיה מר' יוחנן

R' Avahu cited R' Yochanan: One may teach his daughter Greek, for it is an ornament for her. Shimon bar Abba heard this and said, "R' Avahu wishes to teach his daughter, and he hangs it on R' Yochanan! May this happen to me if he heard it from R' Yochanan!"

17. Rambam to Mishnah Megilah 2:1

עברי שקראה תרגום בכל לשון לא יצא חוץ מלשון יוני, אבל קוראין אותה ללעוזות בלעז, והוא שכתובה בלעז כדי שלא תהיה הקריאה על פה. ומה שייחד לשון יוני משאר לשונות לפי שהיה ידוע אצלם, הלא תראה אמרו לעיל בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יונית, והטעם לכך לפי שהם תרגמו את התורה בלשון יון לתלמי המלך ונתפרסם אצלם אותו התרגום עד שנעשה אצלם אותו הלשון כלשונם וכאלו הוא אשורית, וכך אמרו לשון יוני לכל כשר. ונוסף לכך היתה לשון זו חשובה בעיניהם, רבינו הקדוש אמר מה לי ללשון טרסי אי לשון עברי או לשון יוני.

A Hebrew-speaker who reads [Megilat Esther] in any translation, other than Greek, does not fulfill his obligation. However, one may read it for speakers of foreign languages in foreign languages, assuming it is written in that foreign language so it is not read by heart. Greek is singled out from other languages because it was known to them; note that we only permitted Torah scrolls to be written in Greek. This is because they translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy, and so that translation was publicized to them until it became like their language, like Assyrian, and so they said that Greek may be used for everything. Further, this language was significant in their eyes; Rebbe said, "Why speak Aramaic? Either Hebrew or Greek."

Postscript: The later ban on "Greek Wisdom"

18. Talmud, Sotah 49a

בפולמוס של טיטוס גזרו על עטרות כלות ושלא ילמד אדם את בנו יוונית

In the invasion of Titus they decreed against bridal crowns and they decreed that one should not teach his son Greek.

19. Talmud, Chagigah 15b

אחר מאי זמר יווני לא פסק מפומיה אמרו עליו על אחר בשעה שהיה עומד מבית המדרש הרבה ספרי מינין נושרין מחיקו

What happened with Acher? Greek song did not leave his mouth. They say that when he stood from the study hall, many books of heretics fell from his lap.

20. Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 9:15

שאלו רבי יהוש' מהו שילמד אדם את בנו יוונית אמר להן ילמדינו בשעה שאינה לא יום ולא לילה דכתיב והגית בו יומם ולילה מעתה אסור לאדם ללמד את בנו אומנות בגין דכתיב והגית בו יומם ולילה והתני רבי ישמעאל ובחרת בחיים זו אומנות רבי בא בריה דרבי חייה בר בא בשם ר' יוחנן מפני המסורות

They asked R' Yehoshua: May one teach his son Greek? He replied: Teach him when it is neither day nor night, as it is written, 'And you shall study it [Torah] day and night.'

But then one may not teach his son a trade [either], for it is written, 'And you shall study it [Torah] day and night!' Didn't R' Yishmael teach, "'And you shall choose life' refers to a trade!"

R' Abba, son of R' Chiyya bar Abba, cited R' Yochanan: The concern is for traitors.

21. Tosafot, Bava Kama 82b ואסור

וי"ל דמעיקרא גזרו ולא קבלו מינייהו א"נ אי הוה בעי למיקם בארור לא היה מיקרי עבריין אבל לבסוף איכא גזירה דרבנן

One could say that they decreed it at first and people did not accept it. Alternatively, [at first] one who wished to be cursed would still not be called a sinner, but in the end there was a rabbinic decree.

22. Rashi, Sotah 49a בפולמוס

בפולמוס של טיטוס - שהביא הורקנוס אאריסתובלוס אחיו ובין זה לזה היו חמשים ושתים שנה כדאמר בסדר עולם

In the invasion of Titus – which was caused by Hurkinus and his brother Aristobulus. Per Seder Olam, there were 52 years between these events.

What's wrong with the Sikrikim?

2012-01-01T12:01:00.005-05:00

One of the several reasons why religious fanaticism so easily leads to violence is that religion - and Judaism is no exception - provides sources and precedents which can be used to justify violence in any forum. People who are pathologically greedy or arrogant, and who are restrained only by religious principle, can find justification within that religion for acting on their desires. Mohammed violated a treaty and massacred Jews at Khaibar, so today's Muslim can do the same. Popes sanctioned and promoted any number of Crusades, so today's Christian can do the same.

As much as I loathe any comparison between my religious heritage and these others, extremist Jews can point to biblical examples like Shimon and Levi's massacre of the city of Shechem after the rape of their sister Dinah, to justify smashing store windows in Meah She'arim and threatening children in Beit Shemesh. The sikrikim are not murdering, of course - but they are using abuse and violence in the name of their outrage and 'righteous' indignation, and they point to religious precedent. [Although I do find it odd that they use the Sicarii of two thousand years ago as a model; per the Talmud, such as Gittin 56a-b, the leading rabbis of the day opposed the Sicarii?]

Generally, moderates wave away examples of biblical violence by saying "That was different" and not expanding, but I believe this is a mistake, leaving room for extremists to say, "My case is not different." Often moderates deny the validity of violence altogether, which comes across as inauthentic/dishonest and unconvincing in light of Torah.

We who generally accept biblical practice as model are obligated to examine those biblical precedents, understand where those sources do sanction violence, and explain why we believe those are not models for action today.

To address the above-cited example of Shimon and Levi, here are the comments of Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, the Netziv (Hebrew original at the end), from his commentary to the Torah. He does not deny biblical sanction for zealotry, and even violence - but he highlights Yaakov's rejection of this approach as it was used in Shechem:

Comment to Bereishit 34:25, the attack on the city of Shechem
Biblical text - "The two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi [attacked the city of Shechem]"

The word "two" is extra; in the story of Nadav and Avihu it only says, "And the sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, took." This [word] comes to teach us that even though they were unified in their great anger to destroy a city and its entire contents, and they were also unified to enter into great danger, they were still "two". This means that they were different in their intent to kindle this fire.

One came with human intent, outrage for the honor of his family, which induces a "foreign fire", as is known. The other came from outraged intent for Gd, without any personal bias or desire, "the flame of Gd." One must also be very careful of this fire, to choose the right time and place; otherwise, it will destroy much. Yaakov specifed both of these approaches in his rebuke, and did not agree with the elevated fire either.

Comment to Bereishit 49:5-6, Yaakov's curse of Shimon and Levi
Biblical text: "Shimon and Levi are brothers; they have tools of violence in mecheiroteihem. In their secret let my spirit not come, and in their gathering let my honor not be united."

We should not think that Shimon and Levi were identical in everything; it is not so. They were identical in that tools of violence were mecheiroteihem, meaning their kinyan; tools of violence were what they used to bring their thoughts and desires to action.

He did not say that they were identical in their thoughts and desires, for in this they certainly were not identical. In the events of Shechem they were not identical in the intent which brought them to that deed, as we wrote earlier (34:25) based on the specifications of the text. One of them came to right the outrage against Gd, and he entered into danger as Pinchas did in the incident with Zimri. The other came out of outrage for his family's honor.

Therefore Yaakov specified as well, "In their secret [let my spirit not enter]" – When they stand in the 'secret of Gd', to be outraged for His honor. Even though our patriarch Yaakov would not have said regarding this, 'Let not my honor be united [with them],' for it certainly would be honorable for one such as him to be united with them [in the service of Gd], but, still, 'Let my spirit not enter' in this manner.

This is like the Talmudic passage (Taanit 4a), "When a Torah scholar boils, it is Torah that is boiling within him… and yet he is obligated to conduct himself gently, as it is written (Kohelet 11:10), 'And remove anger from your heart.'" Due to rage, foreign deeds, beyond any proportion to the matter at hand, are performed, and this corrupts more than in it mends.

"And in their gathering" – When they gather for a personal purpose, out of outrage for honor, it is entirely prohibited for them to enter a dangerous situation for this, and they are called 'a gathering of evil-doers'. In this, "let my honor not be united." There is no honor for me in being united with them.

The Netziv highlights a few points to consider, when weighing such actions:
1. To choose a path which does not destroy more than it mends;
2. To choose a path which is not one of anger, and is gentle;
3. To choose a path which is truly proportional.

Worth considering. Here is the Netziv's Hebrew:

העמק דבר, בראשית לד:כה
שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי: תיבת שני מיותר ובנדב ואביהוא כתיב "ויקחו בני אהרן נדב וגו'". ובא ללמדנו דאף על גב שנתאחדו בכעס גדול להחריב עיר ומלואה, וגם התאחדו להביא עצמם לידי סכנה עצומה, מכל מקום היו שנים, היינו ששונים היו בדעת המבעיר את האש הזה, אחד בא בדעת אנושי המקנא לכבוד בית אביו, המביא לאש כזה והוא אש זרה כידוע, ואחד בא בדעת קנאת ד' בלי שום פניה ורצון היא אש שלהבת י-ה, ומכל מקום מאש כזה גם כן יש להיזהר הרבה לכוין המקום והזמן, ובלא זה היא מקלקלת הרבה, ויעקב אבינו פירש בתוכחתו שתי הדעות שהיה בזה, ולא הסכים גם לאש המעולה

העמק דבר, בראשית מט:ה
כלי חמס מכרתיהם: שלא נחשוב שנשתוו שמעון ולוי בכל דבר לא כן אלא בזה נשתוו שכלי חמס מכרתיהם היינו קניינם במה שמוציאים ורצונם לפועל הוא בכלי חמס. אמנם לא אמר שנשתוו במחשבותיהם ורצונם דבזה ודאי לא נשתוו דבמעשה שכם עצמו לא נשתוו בדעות על מה הגיעו לאותו מעשה וכמ"ש לעיל לד:כה מדיוק המקרא דאחד מהם בא לקנא קנאת ד' צבקות ונכנס בסכנה כמו פינחס במעשה זמרי וזה בא לקנא כבוד בית אביו. על כן פירש יעקב גם הוא: 'בסֹדם' - בשעה שעומדים בסוד ד' לקנא על כבודו, ואע"ג שבזה לא היה יעקב אבינו אומר אל תחד כבודי, דודאי כבוד לאיש כמוהו להתאחד אתם, אבל מכל מקום 'אל תבא נפשי' באופן כזה; וכדאיתא בתענית (דף ד, א) 'האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח, אורייתא הוא דרתחא ביה כו', אפילו הכי מיבעי למילף נפשיה בניחותא, שנאמר: 'והסר כעס מלבך'. שעל ידי כעס נעשה דברים זרים יותר מהנדרש לצורך הענין, ובזה יהיה קלקולו יותר מתיקונו. 'ובקהלם' - בשעה שנקהלים על דבר הרשות לקנא על כבוד - וזהו איסור גמור להכנס בסכנה בשביל זה ונקרא קהל מרעים - 'אל תחד כבודי'. זה אין כבוד לפנַי כלל להיות מתאחד עמהם.

Ending and then Beginning

2011-12-31T18:27:00.004-05:00

I don't celebrate New Year's Day as a religious holiday, but something in me registers a substantive, positive change when the year flips over and we start writing 12 instead of 11. It's not that different from the feeling that comes with a birthday, just another day and yet so loaded with meaning. It's the end of the old immediately followed by the start of the new.

Starting anew immediately reminds me of a practice of my second grade ("grade two" in Canadian) rebbe, Rabbi Hyman ז"ל. Thanks to him, I am allergic to finishing a parshah, a perek of gemara, a sefer, without starting a new one. Whenever we made one of those siyyumim (celebrations of completion) that second graders perform from time to time, he had us read the first line from whatever book we were starting next. It made enough of an impression that I still do it, 30 years later.

I used to annoy my Daf Yomi crew with the practice, too; we would finish a masechta, and they wouldn't have the new volume with them and the day's Daf was concluded, but I would insist on starting the first mishnah in the new volume.

Theoretically, there is no reason to do this for the end of some specific section; we could add another line at every pause from our learning, whether at the end of a book or mid-page. One could even argue that it's a negative practice, keeping us from spending time thinking about what we have just completed. But from a psychological standpoint, it's important to do this specifically when we complete something, so that we don’t see our study as complete, but as leading to something new.

The same could be said for starting new ventures in life whenever an old one is complete, having nothing to do with study. [This has particular value when the 'completion of the old' is associated with grief and loss, but that's a discussion for another time.]

The model for Rabbi Hyman's practice might be Simchas Torah, when we start the Torah with Bereishis immediately after we finish the Torah with v'Zos haBerachah, but just the other day I came across another, earlier basis for the practice:

The gemara (Avodah Zarah 19a) records a story involving two sages, Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbe and Levi, who were studying from the same scroll. They finished learning one book, and then they wished to start a new one. The story is only recorded in the Talmud because of their debate as to what they should learn next; the fact that they had just finished a text is not directly relevant and doesn't seem to belong, and so Rav Shmuel Eideles (Maharsha) comments:

מדנקט לה בכי האי גוונא דסליק ספרא נראה דאשמעינן שבשעה שמסיימין ספר אחד יש להתחיל ספר האחר

From the fact that it brought the story in this manner, mentioning that they had just finished a book, it appears that they were teaching us that when we conclude one book we should begin another book.

So there's a solid source. May your every completion – secular year or individual day or study session – lead directly into a new beginning.

PS - The Maharsha adds a note:

כמו שאנו עושים בשמחת תורה ע"פ המדרש מפני קטרוג השטן

This is like our practice on Simchas Torah, based on a midrash of preventing the Satan's accusation.

I don't know where this midrash cited by the Maharsha appears, but Rav Ovadia does quote it to explain why there is no kaddish between completion of the Torah and the start of Bereishis on Simchas Torah (Yabia Omer 4:Orach Chaim 22).

Beit Shemesh: Of Sikrikim and Givonim

2011-12-29T12:01:00.005-05:00

[I received what could be a critical alert this morning from the ADL, regarding a man named Danny Lee Warner. It is most unusual for them to send an alert specifying a name and a location, as they did with this one. The JCRC of New York has put the alert on-line; click here to see it.]

In the Bible: The Givoni tribe tricked Joshua into a pact of non-aggression when the Jews first entered Canaan. Despite the fraud, the Jews committed to honor their agreement, and supported the Givonim by giving them a role within the Jewish community.

The book of Shemuel I (chapter 21) records that Gd punished the Jews with a famine because King Shaul later attacked the tribe of Givonim. [The commentators are perplexed, for such an attack does not appear in Tanach; some suggest this refers to his eradication of the city of Nov, which eliminated their livelihood.] The Givonim demanded a horrific price for their satisfaction: The death of seven members of King Shaul's family.

As explained in Yevamot 79a, King David reacted by declaring that no Jew could marry a member of this Givoni tribe; they could not possibly be Jewish, because they lacked the traits of bashfulness, mercy and kindness. Expanding upon this, the Rambam wrote in his work of law, Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Issurei Biah 19:17):

כל מי שיש בו עזות פנים או אכזריות ושונא את הבריות ואינו גומל להם חסד חוששין לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא, שסימני ישראל האומה הקדושה ביישנין רחמנים וגומלי חסדים, ובגבעונים הוא אומר והגבעונים לא מבני ישראל המה לפי שהעיזו פניהם ולא נתפייסו ולא רחמו על בני שאול ולא גמלו לישראל חסד למחול לבני מלכם והם עשו עמהם חסד והחיום בתחלה

Regarding anyone who is boldfaced or cruel or who hates Gd's creatures and does not perform kindness to them: We are exceptionally concerned that this person might be a Givoni, for the signs of Israel, the holy nation, is that they are bashful, merciful and providers of kindness. Regarding the Givonim it is written, 'The Givonim were not of the children of Israel,' because they were boldfaced, and they were not appeased, and they did not have mercy upon Shaul's family, and they did not perform kindness to Israel to forgive their royal family even though the Jews had [earlier] performed kindness for them, giving them life.

The Shulchan Aruch quotes this as law in Even haEzer 2:2-

מי שיש בו עזות פנים ואכזריות ושונא את הבריות ואינו גומל להם חסד, חוששים לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא.

Regarding anyone who is boldfaced and cruel and who hates Gd's creatures and does not perform kindness to them: We are exceptionally concerned that this person might be a Givoni.

Given the above, I have to wonder: How could anyone marry one of Beit Shemesh's self-styled Sikrikim, who - in an organized, premeditated fashion - brutalize children verbally and physically in an attempt to intimidate them and drive them out?

I know their justifications, but the Givonim had a justification, too, and it was a lot stronger than that of the Sikrikim. Claiming the banner of Torah does not hide עזות פנים (boldfaced conduct), does not mitigate אכזריות (cruelty) and does not substitute for חסד (kindness). It appears to me that we have here a modern version of חוששין לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא.

Mayor Corey Booker on Jewish Education

2011-12-27T12:01:00.005-05:00

First, an interesting question from this morning: On Monday, I went to shul with one of my children. Davening was long (Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah, after all!) and I surprised him afterward with a trip to a local bakery for a jelly doughnut.

This morning - again Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh - I found all of my children dressed and ready to go to shul, bright and early. [Today is Boxing Day nidcheh, so davening wasn't that early] Obviously, a repeat trip to the bakery was expected.

So - Go or No Go? Confirm them in the idea that service of Gd brings quick earthly rewards? Or show them that a mitzvah has value in itself?

I needed about 3 seconds to debate that one; I took them to the bakery. What would you do?

But on to the main subject of this post:

I received a link yesterday to video of Newark's Mayor Corey Booker, speaking at a fundraiser for the Jewish Day School of the Lehigh Valley, the community day school in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The school educates, and draws support from, the gamut of the Jewish spectrum, with a message that tries to reach everyone.

Mayor Booker's speech was perfect; watch it below. [Note: Part II is even better than Part I; that's where he gets into his 'dvar torah'.] I wish every Jewish parent could watch it. He laid out simple but compelling reasons why a Jewish community must support its Jewish school.

Often, Jews draw inspiration from praise that comes from outside the Jewish community; we love to cite Mark Twain on the Eternal Jew, for example. Having a non-Jew recognize value in our community and ideals offers validation. Certainly, that's part of what I value in Mayor Booker's words - but I am more impressed by the Torah content itself.

Part I:

Part II:

Hiddur vs. Kallos

2011-12-26T01:01:00.001-05:00

I published the following column in the Canadian Jewish News last week, but since they don't run it on-line, I'm including it here. Some of the ideas I used in a Chanukah article in YU's To Go from 5771 are involved here, but this is more sophisticated. Neal Stephenson fans (Anathem, specifically) may particularly like it:

My elementary school teachers explained Hellenic culture by telling our class that Greeks worshipped the beautiful body. Underscoring this point by noting that ancient Olympic competitors performed without clothing, these teachers succeeded in conveying an indelible image, but they oversimplified the role of Beauty in the original Chanukah and its celebrations today.

Greek culture honoured the body's physical beauty, but their emphasis was upon a broader conception of Beauty, or Kallos. Plato envisioned an abstract universe in which the characteristics we express as adjectives exist as nouns – a perfect Triangle, a perfect Blue, and a perfect Beauty, as independent entities.

Within that abstract Platonic universe, Kallos occupies a place of honour, and so every beautiful thing in our world is automatically admired as a reflection of that higher Kallos, even in the absence of any other redeeming characteristic. To cite from Plato's Phaedrus (Jowett translation), the most elevated person who observes beauty in our world "is transported with the recollection of the true beauty… he is like a bird fluttering and looking upward and careless of the world below; and he is therefore thought to be mad." And as Plato wrote in his Symposium (Nehamas translation), "Only in the contemplation of beauty is human life worth living."

This ideal was rejected by the Maccabees, for Jewish tradition spurns the idea that Beauty has inherent value. Beauty is neither good nor evil; it is only a characteristic of a good or evil entity. As Proverbs 31:30 states, "Charm is false and beauty is empty"; we don't admire Beauty for its own value.

However, Jewish tradition does teach that the act of Beautification, Hiddur in Hebrew, demonstrates devotion; as the Sages translated the Jews' song of praise at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:2), "This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him." Therefore, the same Maccabees who rejected Kallos pursued Hiddur in establishing the restored Temple's Menorah. The Talmud (Menachot 28b) teaches, "The branches of their Menorah were iron rods, and the Hasmoneans coated them with tin. When they became wealthier, they made the branches of silver. When they became still wealthier, they made the branches of gold."

We follow in the footsteps of the Maccabees and employ Hiddur on Chanukah, too. The Talmud records a baseline practice of lighting one flame per household on each night of Chanukah, but Jews all over the world follow the Talmud's highest "mehadrin" practice of lighting multiple flames, based on the number of Chanukah nights that have passed. As the 13th century commentary Tosafot explains, this practice is called mehadrin from the word Hiddur, signifying that it beautifies the mitzvah; we practice Hiddur in order to glorify our Judaism.

Beyond the religious message, Hiddur of a mitzvah also offers great practical value. I wish for my children to value the religious decisions I have made, but if my child sees rote observance, begrudging fulfillment of obligations and bottom-line satisfaction of expectations, she may find that model less than compelling. On the other hand, if our children will see that a mitzvah is a thing worthy of Hiddur, then perhaps they will desire to own it themselves. With their beautified Menorah, the Maccabees encouraged us to demonstrate, for ourselves and for our children, that mitzvot are worthy of Hiddur.

Class: Laws of Comedy

2011-12-24T18:01:00.003-05:00

In our Shabbos afternoon class in Gemara Avodah Zarah, we've spent a few weeks discussing Avodah Zarah 18's focus on ליצנות, leitzanut. This term is often rendered as 'scorning' or 'mocking', but the gemara also uses it to refer to attending theatres and circuses and comedy performances and gladiator matches, and perhaps even to hunting for sport. All along, the commentators emphasize the frivolous character of the activity.

Whatever the term means, the gemara makes clear that leitzanut is very, very bad - the Divine punishments include physical suffering, Gehennom, and global destruction.

So what, exactly, is leitzanut, and why is it so bad? After all, the gemara is filled with humor - from puns to slapstick - and it recommends opening a shiur with humor! In today's class we developed two interlocking ideas:
(1) Arrogantly mocking others' ideas or personalities, and
(2) Pursuing empty activities.

We talked about what concerned the sages, and its application to our forms of entertainment.

Here's the source sheet we used; credit goes to this page for leading me to some of these sources:
Key sources from Mishlei
1. Mishlei 9:8

אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

Do not rebuke a letz, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise person and he will love you.

2. Mishlei 9:12

אם חכמת חכמת לך ואם לצת לבדך תשא

If you gained wisdom, you gained wisdom for yourself. If latzta, you bear that alone.

3. Mishlei 21:24

זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון

The zeid, arrogant man is named Letz, the one who acts with the anger of zadon.

Putting down others
4. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 174

מבלי היות לו תועלת בדבר הוא גורם נזק עצום לחבריו אשר יבאיש את ריחם בעיני האדם, וזה תכלית הזדון יותר מן הגוזל והחומס שעושה להרבות לו ממון, וגם הוא יהיר כי השפל והנכנע כאשר יכיר מגרעת עצמו ומומיו לא יתלוצץ על בני אדם.

Without any personal gain in the matter, he causes great harm to people by denigrating them before others' eyes. This is what makes zadon worse than theft or banditry, which is done to increase one's wealth. Such a person is also arrogant, for one who is humble and recognizes his own deficiencies and blemishes and does not mock other people.

5. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 176

מי שלועג תמיד לדברים ולפעולות... הביאוהו למדתו הרעה היותו חכם בעיניו... וכל כך משלה בו המדה הזאת עד שיתלוצץ לדעת זולתו, והיא המדה שאין לה תקוה

One who perpetually mocks things and activities… is brought to this bad trait by being wise in his own eyes… And this trait so rules over him that he mocks the views of others. This is a hopeless trait.

6. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 177*

המתלוצץ בדבר שפתים על המעשים והדברים, לא שיבוז להם בלבו אך מדרך השמחים ללא דבר וחק השחוק, ופעמים שגורם לזה משתה היין והשכרות

One who verbally mocks deeds or things, not because he personally scorns them but because this is the way of people who are happy for no reason, and it is a joking practice. Sometimes wine and intoxication causes this.

7. R' Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Mesilat Yesharim Perek 5

כמו המגן המשוח בשמן אשר ישמיט ויפיל מעליו החצים ומשליכם לארץ ולא יניח אותם שיגיעו אל גוף האדם כן הלצון בפני התוכחה...

Like a shield anointed with oil, which shunts and staves off arrows, casting them to the ground, so they don't reach the person's body. So is latzon before rebuke…

8. Malbim to Mishlei 21:24

הזד הוא החולק על חקי החכמה בזדון, ומתוכח נגד חקי החכמה והאמונה, מכחיש בהשגחה ובשכר ועונש ועושה עבירות ביד רמה, וכ"ז שאינו יהיר אינו לץ עדיין, כי מתוכח בטענות וראיות לא בליצנות, ואם ינצחוהו ישתוק, אבל אם הוא יהיר אז לא יחוש לטעמים וראיות כלל, רק מתלוצץ על החכמים והמאמינים

The zeid contradicts the laws of wisdom with zadon, battling the laws of wisdom and faith, denying Divine supervision and reward and punishment, and transgressing with an upraised arm, but as long as he is not arrogant he is not a letz, for he battles with claims and proofs rather than leitzanut. If he is defeated, he is silent. One who is arrogant, though, is not concerned for reasons and proofs at all; he only scorns sages and believers.

9. R' Yitzchak Hutner, Pachad Yitzchak Purim, ענין א'

שמו של הכוח הזה המתפרץ בחזקה להפקיע את עצמו מידיה של החשיבות הוא "ליצנות". מדת הליצנות העצמית, כפי שהיא נמצאת בנפש בשרשה, ענינה הוא למצוא את הפרצה בכל בנין של חשיבות על מנת לסתור את הבנין מתוכה של פרצה זו.

The name of this force which bursts forth with strength to free itself from the hands of Importance is leitzanut. The essence of leitzanut, as it is found in the root of a soul, is to find the weakness in any structure of Importance in order to use it to demolish the structure.

Pursuing empty matters
10. Maharal, Netivot Olam, Netiv ha'Emet 2

הליצנות הם דברי הבאי שעושה מעשים שאין בהם ממש כלל כמו שהוא כל ליצנות, ולפיכך אין רואה פני שכינה... כי הוא יתב׳ ברא כל העולם ואין בעולם דבר אחד של ריקן והבל ושל בטלה. רק כל הבריאה הוא לצורך, אף שרואה האדם ויחשוב כי דבר זה הוא לבטלה אבל אין הדבר כך רק הכל לצורך, לכך אין רואה פני שכינה הלץ שהולך אחר דברי הבאי ודברי בטלה

Leitzanut is empty matters, performing deeds which have no substance at all, as in all leitzanut, and so one cannot be before the Shechinah… for He created the world, and nothing in the world is empty and in vain and worthless. All of Creation has a purpose, even if a person thinks something is worthless. It is not so – all is necessary. Therefore, a letz cannot be before the Shechinah, for he pursues emptiness and worthless things.

11. Maharal, Netivot Olam, Netiv haLeitzanut 1

האדם תחלת בריאה שלו בחסרון, ותמיד הוא יוצא לפעל לקבל, ואם האדם בשמחה כאילו כבר הוא בשלימות בלא חסרון , ודבר זה מביא אליו חסרון כי כאשר הוא בשלימות דבק בזה ההעדר והחסרון... רמזו ז"ל דבר זה , אמרו בפרק חלק אימתי יצר הרע ניתן באדם משעה שיוצא לאויר העולם שנאמר לפתח חטאת רובץ, והיצר הרע הוא ההעדר שהוא דבק באדם... וכל זמן שהוא בבטן אמו שיוצא הוויתו אל השלימות ואל הפעל אין דבק בו ההעדר, אבל כשנשלם הוייתו יוצא אל הפעל אז דבק בו ההעדר

Man is created lacking from the start, and he is perpetually becoming, to receive [growth]. One who is joyous is as though he has achieved completeness, without flaw, and this itself causes him a flaw. When he feels complete he is vulnerable to deficiency and to flaws… The Sages hinted at this when they said, "When is the yetzer hara put into a person? When he enters the world…" The yetzer hara is the deficiency which sticks to a person… As long as he is the womb, so that he is developing toward completeness and he is becoming, deficiency cannot affect him. But when he becomes complete then he is, and deficiency affects him.

12. Talmud, Berachot 30b

אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזייה דהוה קא בדח טובא אמר וגילו ברעדה כתיב אמר ליה אנא תפילין מנחנא רבי ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דרבי זירא חזייה דהוה קא בדח טובא אמר ליה +משלי י"ד+ בכל עצב יהיה מותר כתיב אמר ליה אנא תפילין מנחנא

Abbaye was sitting before Rabbah, who saw that he was very happy. He said, "Is it not written, 'Rejoice in trembling!'" Abbaye replied: I am wearing tefillin.
R' Yirmiyah was sitting before R' Zeira, who saw that he was very happy. He said, "Is it not written, 'In all sadness there is advantage!'" R' Yirmiyah replied: I am wearing tefillin.

They really are watching

2011-12-21T12:01:00.002-05:00

While out shopping a couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman walking down an aisle with her daughter; the daughter looked to be about 10 years old, and she was holding a container of blackberries. Suddenly, the container top opened, and the berries fell all around her. I was taken aback when the mother took a quick look around, then told her daughter to keep on walking.

The following relevant video isn't terribly artistic, and it goes for the easy lines and Hallmark images, but that's okay; the message is gold. (h/t Modern Uberdox)

This also surfaces in my mind around Chanukah, when we light the menorah. How do parents light the menorah - Is it an obligation? A tense time because so much needs to get done? Or a celebration, eagerly anticipated and given real honour?

They're watching us.

Christopher Hitchens' lessons on writing a derashah

2011-12-19T12:01:00.001-05:00

[Not sure how I feel about this: Bringing the Kotel to You at Life in Israel]

I saw the following in Christopher Hitchens' 2004 bashing of Michael Moore on Slate. It's an attack on Moore's style of documentary, but it's also a very good point regarding the way a rabbi sermonizes:

I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised.

Two points here:
1. Certainly, a derashah must have a point of view. However, a derashah which only presents that view and fails to point out and address opposition is simplistic and dishonest.

2. Sources must be cited honestly. Quoting half of a midrash or a commentary because that supports your contention, but omitting the rest without so much as pointing out the problem, is, indeed, dishonest.

A good derashah, in my point of view, acknowledges complexity and addresses it with nuance, and uses sources without abusing them. Writing a good derashah is hard work. No wonder my Thursdays were such nightmares when I was in the rabbinate...

Rabbi Akiva's lesson for Gap Year students

2011-12-18T01:01:00.002-05:00

When I was in yeshiva in Israel (Kerem b'Yavneh, 20 years ago), mid-December was the time when hundreds of young men spending their "gap year" learning in Israel toppled over the edge of burnout.

Sometime around November, a combination of 1) studying mussar, 2) experiencing peer pressure 3) sensing they had a rare opportunity to learn and 4) escaping home supervision reached a tipping point and students began learning until 1 AM or later, taking few breaks other than to collapse into bed. Calls home were reduced, the "Out Shabbos" or Shabbaton was a nuisance, showering became a special pre-Shabbos experience, and relatives' visits certainly did not warrant leaving the yeshiva campus.

I don't know that things are still so, but in those days this phase would last for weeks, and then burnout would set in. The pace would prove too much, and most guys would drop into bed for a few days before coming to some sort of equilibrium. I have fond memories of that time.

One of the main drivers of the whole experience was the mussar I mentioned above – messages focussed on convincing us to take advantage of every moment. One of my favorites was the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Goldvicht zt"l's answer for a question raised in Tosafos Kesuvos 17a מבטלין:

The gemara there seems to conflict with a story involving Rabbi Akiva. The gemara says that one who is learning Torah should cease his study to take care of a funeral. On the other hand, a story (recorded in Masechet Derech Eretz) presents Rabbi Akiva saying, "Once, early in my time serving the sages, I was walking along the road and I found a meit mitzvah [a corpse without anyone to take care of it]. I took care of it, transporting it 4 kilometers until I reached a cemetery and buried it. When I reported this to [my mentors] Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, they told me, 'Each step you took was like spilling innocent blood.'"

What was wrong with Rabbi Akiva's actions? Don't funeral needs override Torah study?

Tosafot there asks the question and offers two explanations, but I recall the Rosh Yeshiva zt"l explaining it in his own way: Rabbi Akiva was 100% right for taking care of the meit mitzvah. However, being right doesn't change the fact that he had lost many hours from study, and he would never be able to re-coup those hours. Even were he to add hours from other activities, those would be hours which he could always have added. The Rabbi Akiva he could have become would never exist; he had murdered his potential self.

That sort of thinking can drive you crazy, I know that, but it's so blunt, black-and-white, unvarnished and unapologetic, that I find it compelling. It's true – being "right" doesn't mean you get what you want – and it's demanding. I loved, and still love, lessons like that.

Blogoversary

2011-12-15T01:01:00.000-05:00

Four years ago I decided to start this blog, with the post that appears below. This followed a stretch of a little over a year in which I had blogged anonymously.

My anonymous blog was fun, and it allowed me an outlet I never could have had when publishing under my own name - but it felt wrong to publish without the responsibility that comes when you attach your name to something. Also, the longer I went with it, the more I felt that I wanted to take credit for that writing. So I went nonymous, and I began with the post below, which explains part of why I wanted to blog:

-
Why a blog?

A few reasons:

Reason 1. Part of being a rabbi is being an educator. In that role, I want to teach, to inform, to challenge, to inspire, to lead, to convey a new point of view, to wrestle with ideas and perhaps - but not necessarily - reach a new conclusion. I want to offer depth and nuance, and participate in dynamic interaction.
The standard methods - speeches/classes/articles - just don't provide that venue.

Speeches - There is little room for serious challenge in a forum that must entertain as well as inspire. The davening and kiddush that follow guarantee that the inspiration, for most listeners, will quickly fade. There is little room for nuance in a presentation that does not allow for note-taking and requires that the rabbi address too broad a semi-listening audience.

Classes - Classes allow for nuance, but because of the large groups involved, timid (and even not-so-timid) voices are drowned out, and ideas that should be explored to a greater extent are instead reduced to a few moments and a "let's move on."

Articles - Articles in shul bulletins as well as newspapers are a stronger candidate, but those lack the capacity for dynamic interaction, for feedback and discussion and debate.

Reason 2. Oh, and I want to be able to be funny, too, or at least spontaneous, and in speeches you have to worry about breaking the flow of the speech, in classes there's never enough time, and in articles there's never enough space. So, perhaps the blog will provide a venue for that.

Reason 3. And, while I'm at it, another reason - I don't see why an idea, once expressed in a derashah, should vanish into thin air.

Reason 4. And, all right, another reason - to avoid the temptation of recycling my own material.

So here I am, proud owner of a new blog, which I have named Rechovot: A Place to Expand. My goal is to post some of my derashot, class-themes or general musings here, to continue the conversation.

And with that... here goes.

-

And here it has gone, for four years now.

Just a joke

2011-12-13T01:01:00.005-05:00

[First, and most apropos: Straight from the laugh factory in Vilna, from Modern Uberdox]

I needed to write a column for Toronto Torah and wanted to build off the following joke, but I couldn't come up with a dvar torah that would fit the column and I was up against a deadline, so I went in a different direction. Rather than waste the joke, though, here it is:

Jonathan travelled from Vancouver to England for a business trip, via a series of connections. He failed to sleep on the flight from Vancouver to Winnipeg, enjoyed no success dozing off on the trip from Winnipeg to Toronto, and then found himself next to screaming twin toddlers on the flight from Toronto to London. By the time Jonathan exited Heathrow Airport in London he was desperate, so he rented a car and and parked along a side street to get a little rest.

As luck would have it, though. the quiet place Jonathan selected was on one of the city's major jogging routes. No sooner had he settled back to snooze when there was a knock at his window. He looked out and saw a jogger.

"Yes?"

"Excuse me, sir," the jogger said, "do you have the time?" Jonathan looked at the car clock and answered, "8:15". The jogger thanked him and left. Jonathan settled back again, and was just dozing off when there was another knock on the window and another jogger.

"Excuse me, sir, do you have the time?"

"8:20!"

The jogger thanked him with a smile, and left. Now Jonathan could see other joggers passing by and he knew it was only a matter of time before another one disturbed him. To avoid the problem, he put pen to paper and placed a sign in his window saying, "I do not know the time!"

Once again, Jonathan settled back to sleep. He was just dozing off when there was another knock on the window.

"Sir? Sir? It's 8:45!"

[If you feel like writing a dvar torah that uses this joke, feel free to put it in the Comments.]

And while we're at it, here's a video from a friend of mine from Allentown, whose son is one of the violinists [the one wearing glasses]. I love this - and make sure to wait for 3:23.

Is it Jewish to Occupy Wall Street?

2011-12-11T01:01:00.004-05:00

As part of our kollel's "Occupy Wall Street" shabbaton, we provided the derashah. We were charged by the Rabbi to make it something "creative", though, rather than the standard speech or shiur. So we came up with a skit, which we presented after davening. The text is below; we ad-libbed somewhat, but we basically stuck to the script:

Abraham Schapiro III enters from left, wearing a nice suit and a yarmulka and carrying a briefcase. Neatly opens briefcase and withdraws container with sandwich. Play-acts reciting berachah and beginning to eat, while looking at a smartphone.

-15 seconds pass-

Jonathan Goldberg comes in from the right, in an untucked flannel shirt open over a T-shirt, yarmulka, jeans and hiking boots. Puts down a protest sign ("Down with Wall Street") and opens a brown paper bag. Play-acts reciting berachah and beginning to eat, while looking at a smartphone.

-10 seconds pass-

Abraham Schapiro III looks over at Jonathan Goldberg with a degree of annoyance, then goes back to his phone. 10 more seconds, another annoyed look. 10 more seconds, and he addresses Jonathan:

Abraham Schapiro III (AS): Some Jew you are!

Jonathan Goldberg (JG): [surprised, puts down the phone] What's that supposed to mean?

AS: Look at you – protesting in the middle of some park alongside Anti-Semites and Communists. Is that what they are teaching in yeshiva these days?

JG: I haven't met any Anti-Semites there, and last time I looked in the Torah I saw plenty of support for what I'm doing.

AS: And what exactly are you doing? What are you protesting?

JG: I'm protesting wealth.

AS: What does that mean, "protesting wealth"? Isn't that like "protesting sunshine"? Wealth just is¸wealth isn't something to protest.

JG: I'm protesting wealth held by individuals. By 1% of society. By big banks that get bailed out.

AS: We need banks, you know. Without banks, society would fall apart. That's the way the world works.

JG: The world doesn't have to be that way – wealth could be shared, people giving to each other!

AS: And what makes you think the Torah supports that?

JG: Gd brought a flood because people were taking property from others. Sounds to me like Gd is on my side!

AS: A flood, and suddently you think Gd is a Marxist? You amateur Bible-thumper, you've got to be kidding me. Those people broke the laws – the laws that Gd set to encourage and promote and protect wealth. If Gd doesn't want people to make money, why does He protect property rights with laws against stealing, against desiring others' property, against invading their estates?

JG: Because Marxism isn't the same as anarchy; Gd wants wealth to be shared, but He provided rules for how the sharing is done. Look, doesn't the Torah require lending, saying that someone who refuses to lend is בליעל, a wicked, worthless person? Doesn't the Torah prohibit charging interest when you lend to your brother? Doesn't Gd wipe out Sdom because they don't give to others? Seems to me, Gd wants us to share what we have.

AS: Sure – and when Gd handed Avraham and Sarah lots of wealth, and when He multiplied the crops Yitzchak planted, and when He transferred to Yaakov all of Lavan's cattle, they all gave it away right? And why did Yaakov drive such a hard bargain with Lavan for his salary, for that matter? And Joseph, the capitalist who made Pharaoh a fortune – was he some kind of anti-Gd renegade? Why didn't all of them renounce their wealth?

JG: Maybe because they were busy using their money to invite in guests and take care of others. Look, the Talmud says it, too. Pesachim 54b says, "Gd wants wealth and food to be spread around, which is why He has currencies circulate and why He makes produce rot." Gd is angered – angered, I tell you – by people like you, gambling in the stock market with other people's money to generate fortunes for your cronies while other people suffer.

AS: Don't go quoting me Talmud all self-righteously – That same Talmud, Yoma 19a, says that the Kohen Gadol is supposed to be wealthier than all of the other kohanim. And judges on the Sanhedrin, the High Court, are supposed to be wealthy. Are they all evil too? And what about us, you and me, when we say Birkas haChodesh, praying for a good month, and we ask Gd for a life of עושר וכבוד, wealth and honour – what do you make of that? Your definition of a good month includes making money, don't kid yourself.

JG: Yeah, but-

Abraham Schapiro III's phone vibrates; he excuses himself and takes the call. Jonathan Goldberg contemplates the sky, thinking up his next line. Abraham Schapiro III puts his phone away.

JG: Look – I'll grant you that Gd's record is ambiguous enough that you can find different ways to read it, but look at the record of Jewish communities. Maimonides wrote (Hilchos Matnos Aniyyim 9:3), " We have never seen or heard of a Jewish community which did not have a Kupah of Tzedakah." Every community looked after its needy citizens. Even the kings did it - Maimonides (Hilchos Melachim 2:6) wrote about the king's job description, "He must be generous and merciful for small and great, he must exit and enter at their desire and for their good, and he must care for the honor of the smallest of the small." A Jewish state is a welfare state, taking care of everyone's needs out of the collective property.

AS (waving a hand): Stuff and nonsense! Sure there was tzedakah, sure we have an obligation to aid others, that was never in question. But don't tell me Jewish communities were anti-business, they were pro-business. Bava Basra says that Jewish communities in Talmudic times had councils who implemented all sorts of rules to support business. Bava Metzia 60a prohibits renegade merchants from creating unfair incentives to lure consumers, and it talks about protecting the market price from individual merchants who undercut it. Pro-Business, Pro-Wealth, that's the track record, and you anarchists-

JG: Marxists!

AG: Whatever you call yourselves, you are defying the weight of Torah.

JG: Wait just a minute – all of those rules you mentioned support what I'm saying, not what you're saying! The gemara is supporting creation of a system that controls wealth creation, as well as a government that makes all sorts of rules defining when one may, and when one may not, make money! Gd is a big-government progressive! Long live the NDP!

AS: Total nonsense. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said, in Shabbat 151a, עשה עד שאתה מוצא ומצוי לך ועודו בידך, Make money while you have the means to do so. Make money, that's his instruction. Gd loves Stephen Harper for his support of Israel, but He also loves the Conservative drive to get government out of regulating business.

Jonathan Goldberg starts to reply, but is interrupted by his own phone. Abraham Schapiro III puts away his lunch and phone, looks at his watch, and gets up to walk away. Jonathan Goldberg cuts off his phone conversation and jumps up.

JG: Where do you think you're going?

AS: To catch minchah. Sorry, I'm not convinced, and I'm not joining your protest.

JG: Maybe you should ask the rabbi at minchah; rabbis have always taken the side of sharing the wealth.

AS: You've got to be kidding me – how are synagogues going to survive on that kind of preaching? Rabbis know how their bread is buttered.

JG: Really? Tell that to the Tzemach Tzedek, who banned the purchase of fish for Shabbos back in 17th century Poland in order to shut down merchants who were overcharging! Apparently he wasn't concerned about dues from the fish merchants, huh?

AS: That's one iconoclast, it hardly makes for a movement.

JG: Yeah? The Magen Avraham quoted it in 242:1 as a halachic recommendation. And Tzemach Tzedek wasn't the first – the practice of protesting high prices goes back to the times of the mishnah, when none other than Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel threatened to shut down bird merchants by changing his ruling on korbanot, because the prices were too high!

AS: Yeah, well he was a Nasi, he was independently wealthy.

JG: Then how about the rabbis' limitations on ona'ah, against profiteering (Bava Metzia 49b-50a)? A cap on profits - If you think the free market should determine prices, how do you deal with the way the sages put limits on profits?

AS: At least that's better than your silly Flood argument – but it's still wrong. First, the laws about ona'ah don't apply to all products. Second, I have more rabbis on my side – look at the way the rabbis promoted open credit for lending.

JG: Why does that support you? That supports my side! Do you realize how often the rabbis changed the rules of finance שלא תנעול דלת לפני לווין, to ensure there would be credit for borrowers? Didn't Hillel create the Prozbul, requiring that people extend loans?

AS: Sure, but look how they did it.

JG: What do you mean?

AS: Look: If a Liberal government wants to encourage lending, what does it do?

JG: It makes lending a requirement, and punishes those who don't lend, like through taxes.

AS: Exactly. And when a Conservative government wants to encourage lending, what does it do?

JG (with distaste): It makes borrowers reward lenders for lending.

AS: And what do you think the rabbis did שלא תנעול דלת, to encourage lending?

JG (resigned): I hear.

AS: I'll spell it out anyway, for fun: They made the borrowers pay. They required better-quality payment, and lowered the bar on evidence and collection methods, to create incentives for lending.

JG: But they did want to expand credit, still.

AS: Yes - All in the name of business. And that prozbul Hillel created to ensure that people would lend? It got rid of the shemitah nullification of loans. He encouraged lending by punishing the borrower and helping the lender.

JG folds his arms, pouting.

AS: Listen – You made a good case with those points about the Flood, and Sdom, and sharing wealth. And you're right about tzedakah, of course, and about the way the rabbis worked against price gouging.

JG: And you're right about the way they encouraged lending, I suppose. And about the Torah's protection of property rights.

AS: And don't forget R' Shimon ben Elazar's encouragement to make money while you have the chance.

JG: Yes, that too. So what do we end up with – some kind of wishy-washy, "To each his own?"

AS: Basically.

JG: Bummer.

AS: Glad you've seen the light.

Abraham Schapiro III gets up to leave. After a beat, Jonathan Goldberg follows him.

AS: Where do you think you're going?

JG: Coming with you to minchah - and then it's back to the protest.

The two exit stage left.

Jews and Civil Rights Activism

2011-12-08T12:01:00.001-05:00

This Shabbos our beit midrash will be holding an "Is it Jewish to Occupy Wall Street" Shabbaton at a local shul. On Friday night we're having a Civil Rights dinner program, and we'll discuss a pair of scenarios. Each table will have a set of sources to use in preparing their responses to the scenarios. Here's the material we plan to distribute [each table will have a sub-set of these sources]; I'd love to hear your thoughts:

Scenario #1: Police officers are indicted for harrassing members of a local minority, and a protest rally is held to challenge these practices. Should Jews participate in the protest? Why, and why not?

Devarim 10:19
And you shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Rambam, 12th century Egypt, Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 10:12
It appears to me that we act with resident strangers [who have renounced idolatry] in the manner of the land and with acts of kindness as we do to Jews, for we are instructed to keep them alive, as it is written, 'You shall give it to the stranger in your gates, and he will eat it.' When the Sages said, 'We do not offer them greetings twice,' that was regarding idolaters, not resident strangers. Even regarding idolaters, the Sages instructed us to visit their sick, to bury their dead as we bury Jewish dead, and to support their indigent along with Jewish indigent, to promote peaceful paths, as it is written, 'Gd is good to all, and His mercy is upon all of His creations,' and 'Her paths are pleasant paths, and all of her ways are peace.'

Bereishit 33:12-17
And Esav said, "We will travel and go, and I will go with you." And Yaakov said to him, "My master knows that the children are weak and the nursing cattle are upon me, and they will be pushed for a day and all of the sheep will die. Let my master go before his servant. I will lead slowly, per the work before me and per the children, until I will come to my master, to Se'ir." And Esav said, "I will leave here with you, abandoning the nation that is with me." And Yaakov said, "Why should this find favour in the eyes of my master?"
And Esav returned to his path to Seir that day. And Yaakov travelled to Succot, where he built a house…

R' Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 19th century Russia, Haameik Davar to Bereishit 33:1
[Yaakov said] "Why would travelling together find favor in the eyes of my master? Do not send me any of your men, for their company would be a burden for me." Esav understood from this that Yaakov's loving company with him was only due to temporary need, and that the idea of companionship with him and his men in general was not pleasing to him, and that Yaakov's eye was really toward dwelling securely, alone.

R' William Malev, Congregation Beth Yeshurun (Conservative), Houston, Texas, 1958; (The Temple Bombing, Melissa Fay Greene, pg. 183)
I certainly agree that martyrdom is perhaps the noblest service which anyone can render to a great cause. My only contention is that no one has the right to martyr somebody else for the cause he believes in. Certainly, the Jews of the South have the sovereign and unalienable right to become martyrs in the cause of desegregation if they so wish. I reject however any claim on the part of the national 'defense' organizations to impose martyrdom on the unwilling Jews of the South and to bask in their reflected glory of their self-sacrifice. It would seem to me that if they think so much of martyrdom, they ought to come down South and try it for themselves.

R' Yosef Dov Soloveichik, Confrontation, 1967
We cooperate with the members of other faith communities in all fields of constructive human endeavor, but, simultaneously with our integration into the general social framework, we engage in a movement of recoil and retrace our steps. In a word, we belong to the human society and, at the same time, we feel as strangers and outsiders.

Scenario #2: A fire destroys a community centre in a low-income section of town. Should the Jewish community rally funds to help rebuild the centre? Why, and why not?

Vayyikra 25:14
And when you sell to your friend or purchase from your friend, one shall not oppress his brother.

Midrash, Sifra Behar 3
How do we know that when you sell you should only sell to your friend? 'When you sell to your friend.' And how do we know that when you purchase you should only purchase from your friend? 'Or purchase from your friend.'

Vayyikra 25:35
And if your brother becomes needy and his hand descends with you, you shall grab hold of it, the stranger and resident, and he shall live with you.

Midrash, Sifra Behar 5
'Stranger' – This is a righteous stranger. 'Resident' – This is a stranger who eats neveilot [non-kosher]. 'And he shall live with you' – Your life precedes his.

Talmud, Gittin 61a
We support needy non-Jews along with needy Jews, we visit ill non-Jews along with ill Jews, we bury deceased non-Jews along with deceased Jews, in pursuit of peaceful paths.

Rambam, 12th century Egypt, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Zechiyyah uMatanah 3:11
A Jew may not give an idolater a free gift, but he may give it to a resident stranger [who has renounced idolatry], as it is written, 'You shall give it [neveilah] to the stranger in your gates and he shall eat it, or you shall sell it to a non-Jew.' To a non-Jew you sell it, but do not give it. To a resident stranger you may sell it or give it, for you are instructed to keep him alive, as it is written, 'the stranger and resident, and he shall live with you.'

R' Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Confrontation, 1967
Jacob continued, my brother Esau will also ask a third question: "And whose are these before thee?" Are you ready to contribute your talents, capabilities and efforts toward the material and cultural welfare of general society? Are you ready to present me with gifts, oxen, goats, camels and bulls? Are you willing to pay taxes, to develop and industrialize the country? This third inquiry is focused on temporal aspects of life. As regards the third question, Jacob told his agents to answer in the positive. "It is a present unto my lord, even unto Esau." Yes, we are determined to participate in every civic, scientific, and political enterprise. We feel obligated to enrich society with our creative talents and to be constructive and useful citizens.

More on "Dress-Up Judaism"

2011-12-07T01:01:00.002-05:00

Time is very short this week, so here's an article I've written for the coming week's Toronto Torah. It's on a theme we've discussed before, such as here: Dress-Up Judaism.

Why dress up for davening?

A young man proposed to his inamorata while unshaven and wearing dirty jeans and a T-shirt, and he was stunned when she rejected his offer. He asked her, "Didn't you say you would take me as I am?"
She replied sadly, "Yes, but I didn't think that you would."

We intuit that G-d will "take us as we are", that prayer should require a proper heart rather than proper garb. The Creator who formed us knows our most intimate thoughts, and from a timeless perch outside of our reality He has already witnessed our weakest moments as well as the fulfillment of our greatest potential, so what would be the purpose of artifice? How could dressing up disguise our failings?

The case of the rejected suitor demonstrates the value of dressing up: Donning special clothing, like the uniform the kohen wore for his service in the Beit haMikdash, is an act of respect. Dressing up shows that we value our meeting with G-d.

Our parshah (Bereishit 33:18) mentions that Yaakov arrived in Shechem shalem – intact, whole, complete. According to Rav Meir Simchah haKohen of Dvinsk, the Torah emphasizes Yaakov's complete state in order to explain a nuance in his conduct.

During Yaakov's travels, he brought a korban nearly every time he arrived in a new location; see Bereishit 28:18, 31:54, 35:1, 35:14, 35:19 and 46:1. However, Yaakov did not bring a korban when he arrived in Succot, despite having just survived his midnight battle with a malach and his meeting with Esav. Why was this trip different?

Rav Meir Simchah explains that Yaakov had not healed fully from his fight when he arrived in Succot. Our patriarch considered himself blemished due to his physical wounds, and unworthy to bring a korban for his Creator. It was only when he arrived in Shechem - the stop after Succot - that he was shalem, and ready to bring a korban.

Certainly, we should never feel that G-d is unapproachable; we are taught that HaShem's mercy is universal, regardless of our material or spiritual wounds and deficiencies. Nonetheless, our goal should be to emulate Yaakov and approach G-d in a state of shleimut, wholeness. G-d may take us as we are, but we should aim to become greater.

The lost art of bold ideas?

2011-12-05T01:01:00.002-05:00

I've read and re-read Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo's pair of essays on The Art of Bold Ideas (part 1 and part 2), but I must admit that the author's thinking is beyond me.

Two thoughts:
1. It seems to me that the author inappropriately conflates a range of frustrations (intellectual laziness, foolish certitude, addiction to information as opposed to knowledge, religious defensiveness, poor teaching, etc) under one heading (lack of bold ideas).

2. In writing off the many foibles of our generation as a "lack of bold ideas", R' Cardozo not only does his many causes a disservice, but he also ignores reality.

Sectors within 'Orthodoxy' of the past two generations have seen several major changes; some of these have affected only some of Orthodoxy, and some of them have affected the whole:

* An embrace of the State of Israel and Zionism on practical and philosophical levels

* Social engagement with secular Jewry - a marked change from much of European Orthodox culture in the 19th century

* Acceptance of a liberal arts education in Orthodox circles

* Political engagement with the non-Jewish world on a level not seen for many centuries

* Development of women's religious education and secular education, including the achievement of advanced certification in both areas

* Shift of the center of halachic authority from Europe to North America to Israel

* Funding of Orthodox institutions by non-Orthodox Jewish institutions

* Translation of Torah - both verbal translation and philosophical translation - to appeal to the masses

And more; this is just a quick list.

In fact, it might be argued that we need a generation of consolidation, for that which changes too quickly loses its center of gravity. This would no doubt frustrate those who champion change and call for revolution, but it may be a necessity nonetheless.

Putting the kibosh on "dynamic"

2011-12-04T00:18:00.004-05:00

Click here for "Rav Kingfish", an excellent piece by Jonathan Mark at The Jewish Week on the flaws of the "dynamic" rabbi.

Some of the article's key points match my own misgivings in many ways, including -
* the emphasis that 'dynamic' places on parts of the rabbinate at the expense of others;
* the problem of perpetually needing to 'top' dynamism;
* the way that "dynamic" can go to a rabbi's head.

And it reminds me of a piece I wrote in December 2008: Young and Dynamic and 124/78.

Here's something odd: Among the finds I reported in that piece was that a Google search for rabbi and “young and dynamic” yielded 604 results. Tonight it resulted in 501,000. The phrase "dynamic young rabbi" had 206, but tonight it registers 1,900. What do you make of that? Google's expanded reach, or something else?

Eleven years later

2011-12-01T12:01:00.003-05:00

I came across the following old letter on my computer recently, and it reminded me of a time long gone, the year 2000, when my Rebbetzin and I were moving from our first shul.

We had been solicited to apply for a shul in a large American city [henceforth known as "BigCity"], we had visited for Shabbos, we had been very impressed by the reception there and they seemed to like us quite a bit, but we knew there were other candidates. On the advice of the Rabbinic Placement Office at YU, we interviewed in Allentown, Pennsylvania, as a "just in case". It was Parshat Vayyetze; this Shabbos is our 11th anniversary of that proba Shabbos in Allentown.

We fell in love with Allentown that weekend; it was just what we wanted: Great people, a warm, united and learning community, institutions to build, an attractive place.

We compared this with BigCity. The membership size was comparable, but BigCity had dozens of Orthodox shuls, a vaad hakashrus large enough that community members didn't know the names of any mashgichim, an eruv run so remotely that we didn't meet anyone involved with it, and so on. We were somewhat intimidated by the scale, I think, but our visit to Allentown also crystallized the more fundamental realization that the large, schismed community wasn't what we really wanted.

Two days later, we called the chair of the search committee from BigCity and told him we were withdrawing our names. Here's the text of our follow-up letter to the committee; the details of the community are excised:

December 12, 2000
15 Kislev 5761

Dear Members of the Search Committee,

As I am sure [Search Committee Chair] has informed you by this time, Caren and I have decided to withdraw our names from consideration for [Shul name].

In visiting BigCity, we were very impressed by the strength and breadth of your Jewish community. We found institutions which serve the people well, both on the level of physical needs (i.e. Kashrut, Eruv, Mikveh) and on the level of spiritual needs (i.e. [local Torah institutions and schools]). We also found the people very welcoming and friendly.

Our decision to withdraw is linked to that strength which we found in BigCity. After serious introspection, we believe that we are best-suited for building a community on a fundamental level – creating and strengthening those very institutions which make BigCity a thriving Jewish enviroment.

Thank you very much for all of the time and effort you invested in this process, and for introducing us to your wonderful community. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at ...

Sincerely yours,

I am still kind of stunned that we did this. Getting the position in Allentown was far from a foregone conclusion; in the end there was a run-off, such that we had to go back for a second visit, as did our rival candidates, and the final vote was a close call. But we had the sense that this was what we wanted.

Thank Gd, we are very happy with the decision we made. I'm amazed at the Divine aid we received then, particularly in deciding to go to Allentown for that "just in case" visit at all, and then through the rest of the way. הרואה את בנולד is an unusual gift; who ever knows where their decisions will lead?

Class: Physicians and Intimate Care of Patients

2011-11-29T12:01:00.002-05:00

I expect to give a class next week on physicians and intimate examinations. I hope to cover the following vignettes, and I'd appreciate feedback on them:

A. Charles, a medical student, wishes to become an OB/GYN, but he knows that halachah severely restricts men from seeing female genitalia or touching the female body. May he train as an OB/GYN, or need he change medical tracks?

B. Sally is a physical therapist, and her job requires her to manipulate the limbs of patients, both male and female, but halachah prohibits physical contact between women and men who are not their husbands and this is not a life-saving treatment. May Sally treat male patients?

C. Jason, a resident doing an OB/GYN rotation, is on rounds when his group enters the room of an unconscious female patient. The physician leading rounds instructs Jason to perform a pelvic exam, but permission has not been requested from the patient. May Jason conduct the exam?

D. Jonathan, a psychologist, conducts therapy sessions for men and women in the privacy of his office. Halachah prohibits men from being secluded with women who are not their wives. How may he treat female patients?

[Regarding case C, I was floored to be shown articles here, here and here. Granted that the stories are not as simple as presented, it still shocks me. Gd bless the litigious American society, in which there would be strong repercussions for that sort of thing.]

Do you run your synagogue "like a business"?

2011-11-28T01:01:00.001-05:00

[The Kosher Cooking Carnival for Kislev is now on-line here]

Over the years, I've heard people say, from time to time, "We should run our synagogue like a business." This sentiment generally arises when discussing budget deficits, charging for shul programs, and raising dues.

I understand what they mean to suggest. They mean, "We should not give aliyot / classes / the rabbi's time away for free," "We should charge people based on the cost of our programs / staff time / facility maintenance."

What they don't really mean to suggest is, "We should run our synagogue like a business." Indeed, one board member of mine once commented that this sort of suggestion is rarely heard from people who have actually run businesses.

To me, running a shul like a business means studying the potential consumer base, broadening and deepening the product line, lowering the cost of entry, investing serious time and money in advertising, and building a community of committed consumers who will network with their friends to promote your product.

Businesses certainly do give things away for free. Businesses do not charge for their products/services based on their real costs. Businesses provide loss leaders and other incentives to get people in the door – just as synagogues do, actually.

I know of synagogues which think it "business-like" to charge people to be on the shul mailing list. But what business would do that? Businesses would gladly pay you for permission to send you information – and they do, regularly, in the form of raffles and the like which are created solely in order to harvest names and contact information.

I know of synagogues which think it "business-like" to publicize their programs only to their members. Is that "running the synagogue like a business"? What business would do that? Is this an attempt to squelch growth?

The truth is that synagogues have a hard time developing a good business model, because much of their product is generally available for free. It's hard to come up with a system by which the synagogue can provide a full range of services and survive economically. But if we think the answer is to run the synagogue "like a business", then let's do it for real – studying the market, designing a great product, reaching out, making sure our services are priced right, and welcoming in the masses of people we will doubtless attract.

Better to Give?

2011-11-25T06:36:00.003-05:00

A quick thought that came to me as I woke up this morning:

Do we gauge the value of tzedakah based on what the recipient gets, or based on what the donor provides?

From a utilitarian ["Did the indigent receive help"] perspective, we would look at the benefit to the recipient – if I give him something he can’t use, there’s no mitzvah. If someone is starving and I give him a roll of gift wrap, I have not fulfilled my obligation. After all, the biblical mandate of די מחסורו, “Give whatever he lacks,” dictates that I base my gift on his needs.

On the other hand, from a mitzvah ["Did you fulfill your obligation"] perspective we do calculate based on what I give. Case: If I give an indigent person a ride to his relatives for Yom Tov, and it’s a 200 mile trip so that I saved him a great deal of money, that’s a tzedakah contribution. However, if I was going in that direction anyway then I can’t count that toward my maaser kesafim, my 10% tithe, because I didn’t actually give away anything.

Perhaps it’s a difference between the mitzvah of tzedakah and the practice of maaser kesafim, of tithing my income. For tzedakah purposes, we gauge by the recipient. For maaser, we gauge based on what I gave?

I think there’s a lot more to say here, but it’s time to go. Perhaps I'll add more later.

Class: How to write in your siddur

2011-11-22T12:01:00.004-05:00

On Wednesday night I'm delivering a shiur for women on "How to write in your siddur", a development based on the blog posts that appear here and here.

Here is the majority of my source sheet, excluding passages which I'll use for a "Writing Workshop". [UPDATE: The audio of the session is now available here.]:

Why use a siddur
1. Talmud Yerushalmi, Berachot 2:4

נתפלל ומצא עצמו בשומע תפילה חזקה כוין... א"ר חייא רובא אנא מן יומיי לא כיונית אלא חד זמן בעי מכוונה והרהרית בלבי ואמרית מאן עליל קומי מלכא קדמי ארקבסה אי ריש גלותא שמואל אמר אנא מנית אפרוחיא רבי בון בר חייא אמר אנא מנית דימוסיא א"ר מתניה אנא מחזק טיבו לראשי דכד הוה מטי מודים הוא כרע מגרמיה

One who prays and finds himself at 'shomeia tefillah' may assume he had proper intent… R' Chiyya the Great said: I never concentrated properly; once I tried to concentrate, and then I began to wonder who goes before the king first, the officer or the exilarch. Shemuel said: I count clouds (other editions: birds). R' Bun bar Chiyya said: I could bricks. R' Matniyah said: I am grateful to my head, for when I reach Modim it bows on its own!

2. Tosefta Shabbat 13:4

הברכות אע"פ שיש בהן מאותות השם ומענינות הרבה שבתורה אין מצילין אותן אבל נשרפין במקומן מכן אמרו כותבי ברכות כשורפי תורה

Even though blessings contain the letters of the Name and many matters of Torah, one may not save them; they are burned where they are. Therefore they said: Those who write blessings are as those who burn Torah.

3. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefilah 4:19

תפלות הפרקים כגון תפלת מוסף ראש חדש ותפלת מועדות צריך להסדיר תפלתו ואחר כך עומד ומתפלל כדי שלא יכשל בה

One must arrange his prayer for special occasions, such as musaf for Rosh Chodesh and prayers of holidays, and then stand and pray, so that he will not stumble.

4. Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim 53 Mishbetzot Zahav 15

ויש קהלות כותבין על קלף סידור מיוחד לש"ץ להתפלל מתוכו ונכון הוא, וראוי אף ליחיד להתפלל מתוך הסידור...

In some communities they write a special siddur for the chazan to use, and this is appropriate; it is appropriate even for individuals to pray from a siddur…

5. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 96:2

מותר לאחוז מחזור תפלות בידו בשעה שמתפלל הואיל ותופס לצורך תפלה עצמה לא טריד...

One may hold a book of prayers in his hand when praying; he will not be distracted since he holds it for prayer…

Our problems: Fixed text; Blob of text; Familiarity
6. Mishnah Berachot 4:4

רבי אליעזר אומר העושה תפלתו קבע אין תפלתו תחנונים

R' Eliezer said: One who makes his prayer 'fixed' – his prayer is not a proper plea.

7. Talmud, Bava Batra 164b-165a

שלש עבירות אין אדם ניצול מהן בכל יום הרהור עבירה ועיון תפלה ולשון הרע לשון הרע סלקא דעתך אלא אבק לשון הרע

One is not saved from three sins daily: Thoughts of immorality, examination of prayer, and [almost] harmful speech.

8. Rambam, Moreh haNevuchim 3:51

אם תתפלל בהנעת שפתיך ופניך אל הכותל ואתה חושב במקחך וממכרך... תהיה אז קרוב ממי שנאמר בהם, קרוב אתה בפיהם ורחוק מכליותיהם.

Should you pray with movement of your lips and your face to the wall but think about your commerce… you will be close to those regarding whom it is written, 'You are close to their mouths, but far from their innards.'

Writing in a siddur?
9. Mishneh Berurah 96:9

ונמצא באחרונים שאף בחזרת הש"ץ נכון הוא שיהיה הסידור פתוח לפניו להיות אזניו פקוחות על מה שאומר הש"ץ

The acharonim wrote that it is also appropriate to hold an open siddur during repetition of the amidah, so that one's ears will be open to that which the chazan says.

10. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 90:23

הבגדים המצויירים.. אין נכון להתפלל כנגדם, ואם יקרה לו להתפלל כנגד בגד או כותל מצויר, יעלים עיניו. הגה: ולכן אסור ג"כ לצייר ציורים בספרים שמתפללין בהן, שלא תתבטל הכוונה

One should not pray opposite clothes with designs… and if one happens to pray opposite a garment or wall with a picture, he should close his eyes.
Rama: Therefore, one may not draw pictures in the books from which we pray, lest that prevent concentration.

11. Alternatives: http://lauramiller.typepad.com/lauramiller/2009/03/how-to-write-in-a-book.html

Practical tips
1. Mark phrases for special concentration
2. Mark structural/poetic elements that provide greater meaning
3. Add wake-up calls
4. Mark lines requiring explanation
5. Write in food for thought

Writing notes
1. Pencil, small marks, change them regularly
2. Spread marks throughout the various prayers
3. Be ready to replace your siddur
4. Don't distract from the davening

In lieu of the Workshop, here are some examples of items I have marked in my current siddur:
* Words and phrases for special concentration - ואהבת, באהבה, והשב את העבודה לדביר ביתך, ולעבדו בלבב שלם

* Poetic/structural elements - The imperatives in Mizmor l'Todah; The 3 types of Divine action requested in Al haTzaddikim; the theme-aligned sets of lines in Avinu Malkeinu; the two halves of Emes v'Emunah (across time / Yetzias Mitzrayim)

* Wake-up calls - Alerts for Shma, Morid haGeshem, Refa'einu

* Lines that require explanation - והושיענו למען שמך, שיבנה בית המקדש במהרה בימינו ותן חלקנו בתורתך

* Food for thought - Rav Kook's explanation of בעל מלחמות זורע צדקות, the two roles of Avinu and Malkeinu, the difference between a shofar and a nes in T'ka b'shofar.

Buying the nicest menorah for myself

2011-11-21T01:01:00.002-05:00

After the Jews cross through Yam Suf they sing, זה קלי ואנוהו, which the gemara (Shabbos 133b) renders as 'I will glorify Him'. We are to use a beautiful succah, lulav, shofar and so on; this is the concept called 'hiddur mitzvah'.

But here is my question: Is hiddur mitzvah supposed to be a selfish value? Or are we meant to take it less literally, as an imperative to beautify mitzvos in general, including those performed by others? In other words: Have I fulfilled 'hiddur mitzvah' by purchasing a nice mitzvah item for someone else?

In my years as a shul rabbi in charge of distributing the shul's lulav and esrog sets, I never looked in the esrog boxes before selecting my own. I always paid for an esrog of a certain level, and took one of the boxes marked at that level without opening various boxes to compare the products within. [Other than the embarrassing year when a vendor specifically gave me a 'special' esrog – which raised serious questions of bribery in my mind.]

My logic was simple: If I take the nicest esrog, then I will have the most beautiful esrog and someone else will be forced to settle for less. I shouldn't have a beautiful mitzvah at the expense of someone else. Just last week I heard about a rosh yeshiva in Israel (I forget whom) who has the same practice – he takes a less-beautiful esrog, and leaves the nicest one for someone else. So I'm not the only one doing this.

In support of this approach, one could argue that 'beautiful' has multiple meanings: Holding an aesthetically appealing esrog is one type of beauty, but another, deeper beauty is found in offering aesthetically appealing esrogim to others. Perhaps if I enable someone else to perform a mitzvah beautifully, I can claim 'credit' for hiddur mitzvah.

But is that really a correct application of hiddur mitzvah? Perhaps we are meant to feel a degree of selfishness regarding our personal relationship with Gd.

Let's turn the question to Chanukah, since that's coming up: Is it better for me to buy a beautiful menorah for myself and let others use their less-nice models, or for me to give a less-fortunate person money so that he will be able to use a beautiful menorah, and I'll make do with an older, cheaper menorah? Or: In a family with multiple menorot, should I take a less-nice menorah, to permit another to use a better one? [Yes, I know it's actually a chanukiah. No, I'm not about to start calling it that.]

We might draw on the Mishneh Berurah's comments (694:3) regarding the Purim Seudah, when he says it would be better for a person to enjoy a basic meal and use the rest of his funds to increase his gifts to the needy for their Purim meals – but that's a Purim-related halachah, and not really about hiddur mitzvah.

I'm not sure.

We don't do Worship

2011-11-17T17:30:00.003-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, on a Sunday morning, I turned on the car radio and scanned for a station when a sentence from Yeshayah (40:12) caught my ear – as JPS renders it, "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?"

The speaker, a minister I assume, charged his audience: Gd is so great that He can hold the mountains in His hand! We can't even lift a heavy rock, and He can pick up all of the mountains and put them on a scale! How amazing He is! How mighty He is! We should all worship Him! How can we do anything but worship Him?!

I was left absolutely cold, and I wondered how anyone living in North America today could be left anything but cold by this call. Because Gd is big and strong, therefore we should worship Him?

First, the logic itself is poor. By this argument, should I also worship some person who is stronger than me? What about a person with a bigger gun than me? True, Judaism's classic approach is to be wowed by Divine might. We praise Gd for His might. But we don't use it as a reason for worship (I think, although I am not certain).

But beyond the logical argument, I see a cultural problem which might be endemic to North America but which poses a challenge to all Gd-centered religion: The whole idea of Worship is passe. Unmitigated devotion and respect and awe, dedicating myself to the service of another, is weird and out of place in our society. Even as our religious identity is informed by Psalms and framed by prayer, our cultural identity finds Psalms curious and prayer uncomfortable. Even were we to accept the minister's "Might makes right" philosophy, we could not easily go from "Right" to "Serve the One who is Right".

What happens when people read Psalm 150 in translation: "Praise Him with the shofar blast, Praise Him with the lyre and the harp, Praise Him with drum and dance, Praise Him with…"? I wonder how many people, particularly those unfamiliar with the synagogue and new to Jewish prayer, have trouble relating to those sentences.

To me, this discomfort is a product of our individualistic culture. Our cultural icons of the past 60-70 years have made much of their rebellious streaks; would James Dean worship? Elvis? How about Brando? Wayne? Bronson? De Niro? Pacino? Eastwood? Stallone? Clooney? Crowe? Jackman? 1940's Captain America would worship - but modern Batman? Never. [For some reason, I could imagine some of the parallel females being worshipful; the tough-guy character is not always seen in them. And, I'm not as familiar with them.]

Many of us find our way to Worship despite this problem, but I sense it is more an exercise of free will and choice than a sense of obligation, along the lines of gratitude and recognition of Goodness. I'm not entirely convinced this is ideal, though.

What do you think? Am I off-base? What is the driver for your worship?

And it was, in the middle of the night

2011-11-16T01:01:00.002-05:00

As Douglas Adams wrote of his protagonist, Arthur Dent, in Chapter 8 of So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:
He almost danced to the fridge, found the three least hairy things in it, put them on a plate and watched them intently for two minutes. Since they made no attempt to move within that time he called them breakfast and ate them. Between them they killed a virulent space disease he'd picked up without knowing it in the Flargathon Gas Swamps a few days earlier, which otherwise would have killed off half the population of the Western Hemisphere, blinded the other half, and driven everyone else psychotic and sterile, so the Earth was lucky there.

I like that passage because it reminds me of strange hypotheses I had occasionally as a child, wondering if I had been immortal until I had eaten celery, or if turning right instead of left had saved me from some hideous disaster. I've always been addicted to the idea that a given moment, action or day might have unusual significance, which I could know if only I were a little wiser or more perceptive.

This idea survived my childhood; I still attach significance to the memories of nights preceding significant changes in my life: The night before I married the esteemed Rebbetzin, the night before I began as Rabbi in Rhode Island, the night before my job interview in Allentown (ah, the Ramada at the Malls in Whitehall – definitely not recommended, at least as it was in late 2000). Those were times of real change.

And then, of course, there were "nights before" when I thought something might occur, but that foreshadowed nothing at all – nights before plane flights when I wondered whether something might happen en route, moments during birkas hachodesh (the synagogue blessing of the new lunar month) when I thought this might be the month when I sold a manuscript, times when I bought a Powerball ticket and considered what would happen if this really was it.

This post is more than just a personal musing, though, because it strikes me that this idea of significant "nights before" is a central message in "ויהי בחצי הלילה, And it was, in the middle of the night," the Pesach Seder song which recounts watershed events from Tanach which occurred in the middle of the night. Rescues and vengeances and messages of portent for individuals and nations impact with shattering force at the apex of darkness, the moment when the balance tilts toward dawn.

I believe one of the themes conveyed in "And it was, in the middle of the night," is that every night has a middle of the night, every night is a potential "night before", every night can usher in salvation. ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, there is evening and then there is morning, and a new phase of Creation is struck.

To the Jew, every night can be more than just a joining of days, can in fact be a bridge between the mundane past and a glorious future. What remains is for us to capitalize on the opportunity… or to eat the three least hairy things in the fridge, anyway.

A different view of Shabbos

2011-11-14T12:01:00.005-05:00

["Wow, now that's going to cause trouble" post of the day, at Life in Israel]

Jewish literature is replete with diverse praises of Shabbos for its regenerative and social elements:
• It's a day of rest from creativity, time to curl up with a good book, time to recharge.
• It's an opportunity to connect with spouses and children and siblings and friends.
• It's a chance to gather as a religious community, for study and prayer and – of course – kiddush.

Just look at the song מה ידידות, an educational poem traced to 11th century Germany, which describes the day as a time for eating, singing, learning with children, sleeping and enjoying.

But here's a description that doesn't get much airtime: Shabbos is a day to retreat from everything and everyone, and communicate with Gd. No family, no friends, no books, no garrulous kiddush.

Witness:

Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbos 15:3

אמר רבי חנינא מדוחק התירו לשאול שלום בשבת אמר רבי חייא בר בא רבי שמעון בן יוחי כד הוה חמי לאימיה משתעיא סגין הוה אמר לה אימא שובתא היא

Rabbi Chanina said: It was only with difficulty that they permitted greeting people on Shabbat. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said: When Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai saw his mother speaking a great deal, he would say, 'Mother, it's Shabbos!'

Maimonides, Commentary to Mishnah, Shabbos 23:2

הטעם שאסרו למנותם מן הכתב שמא יקרא אגרות בשבת, וזה אסור, שכל זולת ספרי הנבואה ופירושיהם אסור לקרותו לא בשבת ולא ביום טוב, ואפילו היה בו דברי חכמה ומדע.

One may read nothing on Shabbat or Yom Tov, beyond the books of the Prophets and their explanations. This even applies to works of wisdom and knowledge.

Lest one think these represent extreme views of pietists, the former is codified in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 307:1, the latter in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 307:17. [The latter source does add the caveat that some disagree and permit reading 'books of wisdom'.]

On one hand, I like this; I need to spend more time thinking about Gd. If Gd created me, and the purpose of my existence is to satisfy Divine expectations [in social relations as well as spiritual development, of course], shouldn't I set aside a regular time to contemplate that relationship? And might that go some way toward helping me feel Gd's presence on an on-going basis?

On the other hand: If I were to dedicate my weekly Shabbos 'time-out' for this sort of monkhood, when would I spend time on all of those other necessities – recharging, family, community?

But that other hand may not be a legitimate point. A person who doesn't have a knife can't decide that his fork is a knife – it's a fork. A person who doesn't have money can't decide to use someone else's funds as his own. And a person who hasn’t set aside time for recharging, family and community can't decide to use Gd's time for those purposes.

And it may not be the point at all; does my concern for recharging, family and community simply mask a fear that I couldn't spend an entire day contemplating my relationship with Gd?

Something to think about.

Class: Attending conferences on Shabbos

2011-11-12T19:32:00.004-05:00

I'm working on a shiur on "Attending conferences on Shabbos" at the moment. It's primarily intended for medical professionals, but it will have applications for others.

Because I've never attended a non-rabbinic conference, I'm relying on friends for input on the challenges involved, aside from the basic challenge of whether one may spend Shabbos in a professional milieu. I'd be glad to hear from readers: What issues are involved?

Here are the issues I am currently addressing:

Overarching Issues
* Is one permitted to study professional subjects on Shabbos?
* Is one permitted to put himself in a professional milieu for Shabbos?
* Is there a maris ayin issue involved in attending such a conference, even without violating any laws?

Positive Mitzvos
* How should one handle Shabbos and Havdalah candles in a hotel?
* Missing minyan for medical knowledge, or for parnassah
* Missing Krias haTorah for medical knowledge, or for parnassah

Prohibitions
* Attaching nametag stickers
* Wearing a nametag in walking to a convention center
* Carrying in a hallway between a hotel and a convention center
* Entering a room which is unlocked via electronic key
* Entering a session, when an attendant will check off your name
* Use of elevators
* Use of escalators
* Use of doors which open via sensors

What am I missing? (Oy - This session is supposed to be one hour...!)

Update: The shiur audio is now on-line here.

Jews and Politics

2011-11-10T01:01:00.000-05:00

[The following is my article for this week's Toronto Torah; note the ubiquitous Canadian 'u' and the gratuitous injection of French!]

The sage Shemayah was a leading scholar of the first century BCE, and mentor of the great Hillel, but his words in Pirkei Avot have gained little traction with Jews over the centuries. Shemayah advised (Avot 1:10), "Love labour, hate positions of authority and do not make yourself known to the government." Ignoring this judicious counsel, we strive for early retirement, we clamour for authority, and we have a long, colourful history of cultivating relationships with the government du jour.

Shemayah's own flouting of his first two pearls of wisdom is fascinating; he held the sinecure of President of the Sanhedrin, so that his advice amounts to, "Do as I say, not as I do." But to focus on his third recommendation, that we not make ourselves known to government, why did so many giants of our past – Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, Mar Shemuel, Shemuel haNagid, Don Isaac Abarbanel, Sir Moses Montefiore, to name a few – cultivate relationships with the governments of their day?

On one level, our government alliances are simply a product of Pragmatism. We would like certain things from society: the right to practice our religion without being harrassed, the option of sending our children to Jewish schools, the freedom to take Shabbat and Yom Tov off of work without penalty. We would like certain ideals reflected in municipal and federal policy. A pragmatist says that if we want to achieve, we must involve ourselves, express our opinions, and contribute to the public good.

We find this point of view expressed by Rabbi Yissachar Techtel, author of the Em haBanim Smeichah, regarding Israel and the involvement of Torah-observant Jews in birthing the nascent state. Writing in 1942, Rav Techtel berated those who complained about the secular character of the Zionist leadership. He asked, “Were you involved when they started? Did you build their towns with them? Did you move to the land and help build it up?” We must be willing to be involved.

A second reason for investment is Gratitude. We receive food through society's system of highways, profit from its stable commercial environment, and live safely thanks to its police and courts. We enjoy parks in which to play, and roads on which to drive. Our taxes fund these services, but society provides the oversight, design and maintainenance of this grand system. Gratitude dictates that we pay for this service, and playing a role in government is part of that payment.

Gratitude is the model taken by Rav Moshe Feinstein, in a letter encouraging voter registration. He wrote: "A fundamental principle of Judaism is hakaras hatov – recognizing benefits afforded us and giving expression to our appreciation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each Jewish citizen to participate in the democratic system which affords us the freedoms we enjoy. The most fundamental responsibility incumbent upon each individual is to register to vote."

Beyond pragmatism and gratitude, though, we have a tradition of flouting Shemayah's advice because we are taught to invest in Community. We are a Jewish community, but we are also part of a larger community, and we are responsible to that larger community.

As the gemara (Shabbat 33b) explains, Yaakov pioneered this community approach. When Yaakov moved his family to Shechem, he contributed to the infrastructure of the land; Rav said that Yaakov established a currency, Shemuel said that Yaakov founded a marketplace, and R’ Yochanan said that he constructed bathhouses for the population. Rashi explains that Yaakov did this when he purchased land in the area; upon becoming landed, he made an investment in the public good.

The same message may be seen in our ancestor Avraham's plea on behalf of the hypothetical righteous population of Sodom. Avraham contended, “Perhaps there are righteous people b'toch ha'ir, in the midst of the city,” emphasizing that the individuals who could forestall catastrophe would be people who functioned as part of the citizenry, not as an isolated enclave. The work Panim laTorah cites the Vilna Gaon as highlighting this language, and both Ibn Ezra and Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch did likewise in their commentaries to the Torah. The worth of the righteous stems from their involvement with the greater populace.

Given these three elements – Pragmatism, Gratitude and Community – why did Shemayah take a stand against making ourselves known to the government? Perhaps Shemayah's words were formed in response to the Sanhedrin he personally led, a group of sages who cowered before the murderous King Herod (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14:9; see a variant edition in Sanhedrin 19a). Shemayah was justly concerned that a nation which consorted closely with corrupt kings could be intimidated or bought. Nonetheless, the weight of Jewish tradition is with the Abarbanels and Montefiores; for reasons both selfish and selfless, we seek the good of the land we inhabit – investing, building, and governing as well.

Rabbinics 101: How to teach a class

2011-11-08T12:01:00.002-05:00

[I can sympathize with this: Too Cool for Shul at Modern Uberdox]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on teaching, but I have 15 years of experience in adult education across a pretty broad range of subjects and audiences at this point, and I do think I've absorbed some good lessons along the way. Here are four items, about presentation rather than content; feel free to add, or challenge, in the comments:

Make sure your enthusiasm is visible I learned this one when teaching a challenging, iyun series; after one class, one of the participants commented that I had clearly enjoyed that one. I realized then that I had not been very enthusiastic in presenting previous classes; I had been too caught up in the difficulty, and in insecurity about possibly making a mistake.

כמים הפנים אל הפנים, feelings are contagious. Human beings like to interact with human beings who are having a good time; people who seem stressed, tired or anxious make us feel likewise. Make sure people can see that you are having a good time.

And if you aren't having a good time, it's time to find out why and do something about it.

Over-prepare, but don't over-invest I am a strong believer in over-preparing, coming to class ready for tangents and questions that may never materialize; it's best to know the topic well, and have much more to say than you will ever get to voice. However, this comes with a risk – that we become attached to our content, on which we have worked so hard, and so we end up trying to cram in far more than we should. Our explanations lose clarity and our ideas are not expressed in a compelling way, and the result is a negative class experience. A rabbi should not become so invested in his material that he loses sight of the basic goal: Education.

And as anyone who has ever been in a class of mine knows, I violate this rule regularly.

I don't know, I'll check Never feel forced to answer a question on site; it's okay to do research and then get back to people, whether in matters of halachah, text, history or philosophy. This is also good because it generates post-class communication, which I find enhances the entire experience and helps create lasting relationships. It also demonstrates tangibly that the class is more than an intellectual exercise or fulfillment of a job responsibility; it matters.

Interactive! The people who come to classes may be doctors or lawyers or plumbers, teachers or mechanics or psychologists or accountants or businesspeople or middle managers or taxi drivers. Whoever they are, their lives are interactive – they are used to talking and listening and analyzing and responding and questioning and advising.

People may be accustomed to sitting in a movie for two hours or in front of a television for an hour, but human beings don't listen to other human beings talk at them for 45 minutes or an hour. Interactive is the key – icebreakers, questions, invitations to analyze.

What would you add?

To Educate or to Inspire?

2011-11-07T01:01:00.001-05:00

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here!]

Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was at our shul in Toronto this Shabbos, and one of his themes was the use of music to reach our souls.

At one point, the Chief Rabbi commented that Orthodoxy had made a critical mistake for decades, trying to reach people on the cognitive level – and, as he put it, "Cognitive is the English word for dull."

I don't think it's a mistake to reach out intellectually, framing Judaism's teachings in academic terms and attempting to teach text. For that matter, I don't think the Chief Rabbi believes that, either. To inspire the soul without informing the intellect would be to forsake the substance which anchors us as Jews, to abandon the eternal message of Sinai in favor of its ephemeral firework accompaniment, and to veer dangerously into cult territory.

But I do believe that reaching someone on an emotional level generally has a greater and more desirable impact than reaching him on an intellectual level.

Teaching a text can educate, but reaching a soul can awaken.

Teaching a text can inform practice, but reaching a soul can inspire it.

Teaching a text can reduce doubts, but reaching a soul can enable a person to live beyond them.

And while text might be a means of reaching some souls, I don't believe it is the means to reach most.

So why do rabbis traditionally spend so much time teaching text, and comparatively little time singing?

One reason is that inspiration doesn't require a rabbi; it can come from a garden or a song or a meditation or a prayer. Knowledge often requires specialized instruction, but inspiration may be found everywhere.

Another reason is that - in some ways - it's easier to teach text; read a book, explain it, rinse and repeat. It doesn't involve the deep personal relationship, and the associated investment of energy and passionate caring, needed to learn a soul and speak its language and embrace it and understand what moves it. But the results of speaking honestly to a soul are so much more significant – and, personally, I find the experience much more rewarding.

No surprise conclusion here – the two approaches go hand in hand. One who would impart Judaism must succeed at both. But I am with Rabbi Sacks: Shifting some focus from cognition to inspiration would do our Jewish world good.

Class: Medical Data Entry on Shabbat

2011-11-04T08:21:00.007-04:00

Herewith the vignettes for a class this Sunday, geared toward medical professionals (and with CME credit available) but not limited to them. How would you answer these questions?

Category 1
Jim, a medical resident, is doing rounds in a neurology unit on Shabbat morning, and he notices that a recovering stroke victim is less responsive than he had been on the previous day. How should he record this information, or arrange for its recording?

or

Sam, 40 year old male normally in good health, presents to the doctor's house with fever and cough, and on auscultation has a pneumonia which does not require hospitalization, but does require antibiotics. May a prescription be written, and how?

Category 2
In a hospital's stepdown ICU unit, vital signs are checked every four hours. Sarah, a nurse, is charged with doing this on her Shabbat shift and recording the results, even if the signs are unchanged from the previous recording. How should she record this information, or arrange for its recording?

Category 3
Chaim is an ER nurse working in the hospital on Shabbat. A patient's wife needs to leave for several hours, and she wants to give Chaim her phone number as an emergency contact. In what way may Chaim record the information, or arrange for its recording?

Update: The shiur is now available on-line here.

Improving our yeshiva day school system

2011-11-02T01:01:00.005-04:00

Much has been said, and much continues to be said, and much more needs to be said, about improving the economics of our yeshiva day schools. But what about improving the education, particularly in limudei kodesh [Judaic studies] - what would you do?

Of course, I always have ideas - Sunday School in limudei kodesh for girls, Judaic enrichment programs - but this is going to be an open thread: What would you suggest for our schools?

In order to provide something related to the conversation, though, here's a piece of an article slated to appear in this week's Toronto Torah, a translation of a segment of Rav Yair Bachrach's Chavos Yair Responsum 124. Rabbi Bachrach pessimistically answers a man who wants to know how to guide the education of his 13 year old son [translaton by Rabbi Ezra Goldschmiedt, one of our avreichim]:

Since you've made known to me that [your son] spoke beautifully at his Bar Mitzvah, I assume he's already learned matters of aggada such as Midrash Rabbah and Ein Yaakov that, in truth, are good for young men, like appetizers before the main course. They will also be glorious and beautiful in the ears of those who hear [from him] a particular peshat or derash, or when he hears a talk from a great [scholar] he will loudly interject and make known his knowledge and grasp [of the subject], by which he [himself] will become known as a distinguished scholar. After all that, perhaps he will find a wife and find goodness, wealth and riches.

However, this would be neither the proper path nor the proper city, nor is it the definition of a true scholar who has acquired wisdom, and grown to the point that we would hope he would be able to render good and just rulings in Israel, who is filled with the meat and wine of the [more] substantial matters of Torah.

Concerning the [management of the] stages [of your son's learning], this is a difficult matter for an individual – even one who is wealthy and distinguished – to manage for his son. [And this would be the case as well] even if one were to find a distinguished scholar who would teach for the sake of heaven, without deception and for whom personal gain and reward is not all they have in mind. This already is uncommon, and it may not even exist, but even if you were to look and find [such a person, you would have another difficulty].

All who have children who go to school adopt a manner of learning that is not proper – so what could one local [teacher] do, to go against his colleagues and change [this system] and adopt a proper approach against his peers? And even if one's father would hire a teacher for him [alone], is not the greatest need in study the bond with friends, as it is written (Taanit 7a) “[I have learned] more from my friends than my teachers”? There is no solution for this, unless one were to gather together five or six heads of household and hire a teacher for their sons, on condition that none could be added. They would provide [for the teacher] as befits him, as though he had double the students. Then, Divine counsel will be effective through this system of learning.

Still think you can trust the fish counter?

2011-10-31T12:01:00.000-04:00

In my days as a Rav haMachshir [head of a kosher supervision agency], I heard quite a few people say they could buy filleted, skinned fish at the fish counter at their local supermarket, trusting the store management to be honest because of the risk they would run in playing games.

Of course, even if the fish is the right fish, there still are problems from non-kosher fish residue on the equipment, and from the common practice of leaving all of the fish in buckets overnight, leaking brine on each other.

But trusting the fish counter is, itself, problematic. This in from ABC News this past week:

Investigation Uncovers Rampant Fish Fraud

A new investigation provides fresh evidence that restaurants and markets continue to dupe seafood lovers into paying top dollar for low-grade fish.

As part of a special “Fishy Business” series, the Boston Globe spent five months buying fish from dozens of establishments throughout Massachusetts and sending the samples off to a lab in Canada. DNA tests found 48 percent of the fish had been mislabeled as a more expensive type of fish.

Fish samples were gathered from 134 restaurants, grocery stores and seafood markets, and the results were staggering. Every one of 23 white tuna samples tested turned out to be something other than tuna. In most cases the fish labeled tuna was escolar, which the Globe said was “nicknamed the Ex-Lax of fish by some in the industry for the digestion problems it can cause.”

Milk remains unique in its acceptability without kosher supervision in North America, because there is no incentive for milk producers and distributors to cheat - it would be ridiculously counterproductive for them to raise pigs and milk them. But many other products, including products people take for granted, are often adulterated or outright switched with inexpensive substitutes. Hence the need for hashgachah.

Patriotism

2011-10-30T01:01:00.001-04:00

This past summer, I had the opportunity to sit on a Toronto panel of chaplains and religious figures addressing a range of legal/ethical questions – organ transplant, contraception, battlefield ethics and more.

When the discussion turned to the death penalty, another panelist criticized the American use of capital punishment. An Anglican priest took the opportunuty to mock the American practice of giving medical treatment to prisoners on Death Row.

Part of me was upset because her point was morally repugnant – to suggest that prisoners should be allowed to suffer because they are going to be executed anyway is absurd, and would amount to legalized prison cruelty.

But part of me was upset as an American, taking her knock on the government and criminal justice system personally. The setting was wrong for calling her on it [the context was a talk with a group of Canadian, Israeli and Arab medical students – not the time/place to discuss America-bashing], so I had to let it go. But I stewed after that one for a long time.

I'm still surprised by how strongly I reacted. I am proud of much of America, but as someone who has wanted to make aliyah for the past 20 years, and as someone who has a decent degree of cynicism about American government and its system of justice, I would not have expected to take her comment so personally. Go figure.

A sound rebuke from the Chafetz Chaim

2011-10-27T12:01:00.002-04:00

I remember one of my rebbeim, Rav Yitzchak Cohen, noting the hypocrisy of saying about the words of Torah "כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו ובהם נהגה יומם ולילה (These are our life and the length of our days, and we will speak them day and night)" in the daily Maariv prayer, and then not living them and committing serious time to learn Torah. How can we call these "our life", and not treat them that way?

Rav Cohen had similar feelings about the line at the end of the amidah, "יהיו לרצון אמרי פי והגיון לבי לפניך (May the declarations of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart be desirable before You)," a declaration that often comes right after 3-4 minutes of meandering thoughts. Am I asking for my thoughts about exams, sports, and who knows what else to be desirable to Gd?

I was reminded of that the other day, when I read the Chafetz Chaim's words in Shem Olam, Volume 2, Chapter 11:

One comes to shul and stands and declares before Gd that he will sanctify His Name in the world as do the celestial hosts of Heaven. In the course of this he departs the Beit Midrash and someone offends his honor, and fire comes from his mouth and he removes his mind entirely from serving Gd, and he dirties his soul with various prohibitions, harmful speech, gossip, strife, mockery, sometimes also theft and taking by force.

Within some hours he returns to the Beit Midrash to daven minchah with the community before Gd, and he returns and cloaks himself in the sanctity of an angel, saying, 'We will sanctify Your Name in the world, as they sanctify it in the Heavens!'

'Nuff said.

Happy Rabbis!

2011-10-26T01:01:00.003-04:00

Several years back I kept an anonyblog for a while, and every once in a while I enjoy looking at those old articles. Here's a fun one from mid-2007, mildly edited. Keep in mind that I wrote it with Pesach's stress fresh in my mind:

I know it's hard to believe, but the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago says it, and they have a long name with catchy initials and lots of researchers researching the opinions of lots of centers, so they must be right.

So stop the presses, print banner headlines, notify the long-lost Renegade Rebbetzin and shout it from the rooftops: The happiest profession is CLERGY!

I feel like emailing Dave Barry, the idea is so ridiculous.

Maybe they polled a bunch of rabbis, asking "How do you feel," and the rabbis all said "Thank G-d," which the researchers took to mean they were actually happy.

Happy? As in waking up smiling in the morning, nodding in a friendly way at joggers, drinking the morning coffee with a grin? As in whistling a peppy tune while waiting for the elevator, throwing caution to the wind and going for a walk without a coat, feeling generally satisfied with the way life is going?

What rabbi planet do you live on?

I suppose it could be the priests are really happy, and they just outnumbered the rabbis in the survey... cuz I'm pretty sure it's not the imams saying "I rate my personal happiness, on the scale of 1 to 10, as an 11!"

Roofers, apparently, are not happy at all; they're the absolute bottom of the list. This is interesting; there must be a connection between the dissatisfaction of workers who sit on rooves, and the satisfaction of rabbis who feel like jumping off rooves. Is jumping off a high structure the key to happiness? Or just dreaming of it? Or is it that roofers have the same dream, and are frustrated by living so close to the fantasy and not fulfilling it?

One final note: You know who was Number 2? Firefighters. This actually made a lot of sense to me. Because the next-happiest people, after rabbis, are totally people who run into burning buildings for a living.

Sufi Marriage Counseling

2011-10-24T12:01:00.001-04:00

I was privileged to hear an interesting dvar torah over Yom Tov on the meaning of "havdalah [separation]" in biblical Creation, and the application of this "havdalah" to marriage and divorce. One of the speaker's core ideas was that humans who wed become one, and should not, under normal circumstances, be divided.

Then today, in reading a presentation on Public Health planning, I came across the following Sufi saying:

You think that if you understand one, you understand two, because one and one are two. But you must also understand 'and'.

The point regarding Public Health planning related to the way that scale changes our treatment recommendations – we cannot recommend for millions what we would recommend for a single patient in a clinic. One patient plus one patient does not yield multiple patients with a multiple of the same recommendation.

However, I also see applications for marriage counseling. One and One make two, so I might assume that if I know the husband and I know the wife then I know the couple. But we must also understand the "and", the way in which they combine, in order to truly comprehend what this couple becomes when they are together.

Hmm….

Haveil Havalim #335 - The Gilad is Free! edition

2011-10-23T00:49:00.004-04:00

Welcome to Haveil Havalim #335, the Gilad is Free edition!

But first, the boilerplate:
Founded by Soccer Dad, Haveil Havalim is a carnival of Jewish blogs -- a weekly collection of Jewish and Israeli blog highlights, tidbits and points of interest collected from blogs all around the world. It's hosted by different bloggers each week and coordinated by the formidable Jack. And as usual, I include all posts submitted, regardless of my personal opinion on their contents, and I added some from my own browsing.

First, and definitely foremost: Gilad Shalit's release
Batya presents her opinions in Not To Rain on The Shalit "Parade", comparing the deal to a flimsy succah, as well as Gilad Shalit versus Natan Sharansky and Next Time Will Be Worse.

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver has a lot to say in The Shalit deal—disgraceful and deadly, and Cosmic-X calls it A Criminal Mistake. The Muqata shows why, with a Freed Terrorist's vow, and Yisrael Medad (who did not submit anything this week?) may have a report of the first victim of the released terrorists.

Sharon A offers a series of photographs of the Shalit tent, and related scenes, in Gilad Shalit Home.

Frume Sarah will exhale, while Esser Agaroth presents Welcome Home, Gilad Shalit!

Mrs. S. presents PM Netanyahu's speech in “And the sons will return to their border”.

Leah-Perl Shollar writes about pregnancy, the Hoshanos prayers and Gilad Shalit's time as a hostage, in "Deliver Us!"

Simply Jews offers us Understanding the Swap, and Treppenwitz offers us Perspective, while Life In Israel presents the view of Rabbi Nir ben Artzi.

As for the media, rickismom doesn't see coverage of the deal for Gilad's release in the international media, in The World Ignores; We Are “Sweet and Sour”. While Jewlicious says the New York Times gets it wrong on Israel yet again.

And who's about to forget that it's been Yom Tov for the past three-plus ~~months~~ weeks?
Susan Barnes talks Community and High Holidays in Were High Holy Day Services Boring? Next Year, Try This.

Want some great Succos pictures? Check out Sharon A's unique 'Occupy' demonstration in Occupied on Sukkot, and then see My Shtub's A Simple Sukkah in the Fall.

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver presents The four kinds: Individuality, complementarity, and unity and Sukkah: Unity through transcending all divisions.

Mrs. S. suggests The latest hiddur for preserving your arba minim, while Adventures in Mama-Land takes the kids on a Chol haMoed trip.

Rivkah Lambert Adler discusses, describes and dissects her Simchat Torah in Simchat Torah Redux.

Jacob Richman presents Good News from Israel: New Video: The Jerusalem Sukkot March and Photos of Second Hakafot.

Next, here are some personal posts
Ki Yachol Nuchal offers some great photos and a chain of reminiscences in 4 years. 22 years. 1941 days.

Chaviva mourns Professor Gerald Shapiro.

The estimable Jack has musings on fatherhood and the dad blogosphere in The Media Does Not Define Me, while Crazy Jewish Convert reflects on One Year of Blogging.

Ima Bima (and David) review The Princess and the Peanut, while Elle muses on the passing of a year, and the changes it brings.

And some Israel News, beyond Gilad
Bibi has a meme! See it in The First Israeli Meme.

Joel Katz presents Religion and State in Israel - October 17, 2011 (Section 1) and Religion and State in Israel - October 17, 2011 (Section 2).

Fun Joel is starting a series with Top 10 Things to Do in Jerusalem – Part 1.

Food!
Steve Ornstein offers Israel's BIRA 2011 – Beer Festival, while Kosher Beers reviews New Belgium Belgo.

Yosef gives us a pareve dessert recipe in Chocolate Avocado Mousse with Fresh Raspberries (Dairy Free).

Okay, not really under "Food", but Modern Uberdox has an observation on the relative kashrut of Starbucks and Hulu.

And to close this issue, let's have some Judaism, please
R' Gil Student has an interesting bit of history in The Chazon Ish vs. Rav Soloveitchik.

Harry Maryles discusses Gadol criteria in A Gadol in Name Only?

Susan Barnes talks about a key mitzvah in Visiting the Sick: Lesser Standing and Greater Stature.

Esser Agaroth is none too happy in Rashi's Daughters. [For my own critique of the scholarship in the Rashi's Daughters series, click here and here.]

And in reading Baruch she'Amar closely, I realize that Life is a Verb.

And that’s it for this week; the next hosted listed is for two weeks hence, at The Velveteen Rabbi! Submit your posts here.

Life is a Verb

2011-10-19T10:56:00.004-04:00

No, this isn't a self-help column or a motivational speech; it's just a brief note on "Baruch she'Amar", the opening blessing of the "psukei d'zimra" collection of psalms and passages from Tanach recited each morning.

The blessing's first half reads:
Blessed is the One who spoke and the world existed
Blessed is He.
Blessed is the One who performs "In the beginning"
Blessed is the One who speaks and performs
Blessed is the One who decrees and fulfills
Blessed is the One who acts with mercy upon the land
Blessed is the One who acts with mercy upon the creatures
Blessed is the One who pays good reward to those who are in awe of Him
Blessed is the One who lives forever and exists eternally
Blessed is the One who redeems and rescues
Blessed is His Name.

As is true for much of psukei d'zimra, I find it easy to become numb to the meaning of each individual line – but picking out a line and focussing on it can help me find new meaning each day. Some time back, the 9th line, "Blessed is the One who lives forever and exists eternally", caught my eye, because it doesn’t fit the overall structure.

I have two questions:
1. The rest of the lines describe Divine actions; is "lives" really an action?
2. The rest of the lines describe things Gd does on behalf of the universe; how is Divine existence an action taken on behalf of the universe?

Here's what I have come up with (and, of course, a note in my siddur hints to this, as a reminder when I say Baruch she'Amar each day):

Life implies action. To live is not merely to exist, to inhale and exhale (for us air-breathers, anyway). To live is to act. So, for example, Torah is described as עץ חיים, a Tree of Life, not in that it provides continued existence but in the sense that it fuels (positive) action. This answers the first question.

And then answering the second question: For Gd to live means for Gd to act – on our behalf, in all of the ways listed here, creating life and decreeing and acting with mercy and rewarding. And the emphasis is upon the eternity of it because this immortality guarantees that all of these actions will persist in the future, throughout human existence.

Blessed is the One who lives forever and exists eternally – who acts, and will continue to act, for us all.

And the take-away beyond davening, for me, goes into traditional "self-help" territory but it still worthwhile – Is my life a verb? Am I cycling air, or am I doing?...

Yom Tov: When Family and Religion Clash

2011-10-18T01:01:00.007-04:00

Yom Tov [the 'holiday' season] brings family reunions, and along with family reunions can come strife of all kinds, including religious strife. What shul rabbi or yeshiva rebbe hasn't heard these questions:

"My parents' succah isn't really kosher. How can I get them to change it?"

"Our son came home from college for Yom Tov, but he doesn't want to go to shul with us; he'd prefer to lie in bed all morning. What are we supposed to do with him?"

"My family doesn't understand that a Yom Tov meal should be all about Torah. How am I supposed to maintain my intensity around them?"

The problem is complex, of course; it combines personality, stress, insecurity and history with the personal and deep nature of religious conviction, and the resulting clashes can be disastrous.

The best overarching advice I've heard is really just common sense; I wouldn't post it at all, except that sometimes we benefit even from the obvious:

1. Ask: Are you obligated to say anything?
Does the issue affect your own observance, or only theirs?
Do you think the obligation of 'tochachah' [educating others] requires you to speak up? Have you clarified that with a halachic authority?

2. Do your homework
If you are about to ask someone to change his time-honored tradition ("You must stop using horseradish for marror!"), make sure you know what you're talking about.
Prepare the source material, so you can explain the issue well.
And give plenty of notice in advance of the situation.

3. Always tell the truth... although not necessarily all of it
Using mis-direction in explaining yourself ("I don't feel like eating" in a kashrus situation) is a poor strategy, and quite likely to lead to disaster in the long term. Better to speak truthfully.
On the other hand, one doesn't need to say everything that's on his mind ("You will burn in Gehennom for skipping Shalom Aleichem on Friday night after a Yom Tov"); a gentle explanation of the problem, worded in a positive way, can go far.

4. Remember: People are fundamentally good
For the most part, when parents welcome home a child whose religious observance has changed, angst is present on both sides. The less stringent one wants the more stringent one to be comfortable. The more stringent one is nervous about imposing on the less stringent one.
Everyone means well, and no one is trying to make someone else look bad or feel bad – and keeping that in mind, and using it as a basis for approaching situations, can soften disagreements.

Disagree? Or do you have other tips?

On studying History: Rav Hirsch and the Netziv

2011-10-16T07:36:00.005-04:00

I used the following two sources in a recent class on History and Memory.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, early 19th century Germany, The Relevance of Secular Studies, Collected Writings 7:97 (From an essay available on-line at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/relevance_secular_studies_jewish_education.pdf)

Here, then, we have a people that emerged from the course of world history, that was placed into the midst of the nations to advance the goals of world history, and that was endowed with historical vision. Should not the sons of such a people understand that historical studies of the development of nations are truly not superfluous, but that they are, in fact, virtually indispensable? Will the sons of the Jewish people even begin to understand that ancient vision defining the missions of the three basic national prototypes of mankind if they know nothing about the influence of the Yaphetic-Hellenic spirit on the civilization of other nations, an influence that endures to this day?

And then here is Rabbi Chaim Berlin, late 19th century Russia, writing in the foreword to his father the Netziv's Meromei Sadeh regarding his father's approach to biography (not the same as history, perhaps, but I think close enough for our purposes):

באזני שמעתי מפיו הקדוש, בעת שהגיע לעיניו תולדות רע״א ז״ל... שנדפס בברלין בשנת תרכ״ב, לא רצה להביט עליו אף במעוף קל, ואמר שכל זה בכלל האמור בירושלמי אין עושין נפשות לצדיקים שדבריהם הן זכרונם, ומה מני יהלוך לדעת יום הולדתו או יום פטירתו, או תואר פרצוף תמונתו אם כה היה או כה, והעיקר לשום עין ולב על דברי תורתו

With my own ears I heard from his holy mouth, when the biography of Rabbi Akiva Eiger was brought before his eyes, published for the first time in Berlin in 1862: He did not want to look at it for so much as an instant, saying, "All of this is within the Jerusalem Talmud's statement, 'We do not construct monuments for the righteous; their words are their memorial.' What will come of my knowing the day of his birth or death, or whether his face looked thus or thus? The essence is to put our eye and heart to the words of his teachings."

I think Rav Hirsch (source 1) views the study of world history as important to the fulfillment of the Jew's mission as Jew. But what do you make of the Netziv's view (source 2) - Is it a rejection of the study of history, or is it simply a different derech in studying history? And is it depersonalizing, or more personalizing?

Of Wikileaks and Gilad Schalit

2011-10-12T08:43:00.006-04:00

Two brief thoughts this morning:

Wikileaks: An Arm of US government policy?
That's a little sensationalist, but here's my point: The US government has a new pretext for measures against Iran, because Iranian agents sought to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US, and Saudi royal advisor, Adel al-Jubeir.

One logical explanation for the Iranian move: The fact that Adel al-Jubeir is on record telling US government officials, "He [the king of Saudi Arabia] told you to cut off the head of the snake," and more. Those statements only became public because Wikileaks disclosed it - triggering Iranian outrage and, quite plausibly, the botched assassination attempt.

And now the US and the Saudis are contemplating action...

The release of Gilad Schalit
We've been praying for Gilad Schalit's continued health, and ultimate release, for five years, and it looks like our prayers for his health have been answered, and our prayers for his ultimate release are about to come to fruition as well, thank Gd.

Of course, much human effort went into both of those - but the fact that we pray for these results is evidence of our belief that all comes from Gd.

If so: Perhaps our shuls, schools and community organizations should plan "thanksgiving" events of some kind, sort of a "birkat hagomeil", in honor of Gilad Schalit's release? If we ask, do not also say Thank You?

Write in your siddur

2011-10-11T01:01:00.001-04:00

I always write in my sefarim, all of them. I recently suggested to a class that they write in their Tanach's, and was rewarded with expressions of shock – but I believe that most of us need to write in order to remember, and what better place than in the sefer from which we learn?

But that's not the subject of this post. Here, I'm expanding on a suggestion I made in the derashah here, that we should write in our siddurim, to help ourselves focus.

It's a way to corral ourselves during our distracted moments, and draw ourselves back.
It's a way to personalize our davening, by highlighting elements that matter to us.
It's a way to remember the items that catch our eye or ear and inspire us once, for the next time we daven.

So here's what I do:

I underline key words and phrases that I want to have special meaning, to ensure that I think when I get there.
Example: The word ואהבת ("And you shall love HaShem your Gd") in Shma. בכל יום אברכך ("I will praise You daily") in Ashrei. והשב את העבודה לדביר ביתך ("Return the service to Your home") in the amidah. The verbs in Psalm 100 (Mizmor l'Todah).

I make notations to call attention to interesting structural/poetic elements.
Examples: The Heaven/Earth contrast in Psalm 148 (aka "the third Hallelukah"), the thematic sets of lines in Avinu Malkeinu, and the Personal/Communal/Global sets in Ashrei.

I add reminders.
Examples: "מצות עשה (This fulfills a commandment)" before Shma, or circling רפאנו (the first word of the blessing for healing in the amidah).

I write in food for thought.
Examples: In תקע בשופר (the blessing for redemption in the Amidah) I have a question mark which reminds me to think about the difference between the roles of a שופר and a נס. In the first pre-Shma blessing in Shacharit, I note Rav Kook's thought from Orot on the link between Gd as "master of wars" and "seeder of justice".

I'm sure there's a lot more people could do with this. What would you add? Or are you horrified by the whole concept?

The Taking Shul: The Challenge of Shul Fundraising

2011-10-09T01:01:00.006-04:00

Yom Kippur ended a few hours ago, and I'm giddy. This is no surprise – I'm always giddy after Yom Kippur. Sugar and forgiveness are a potent combination.

But I've been mulling a serious topic for a while now, and I want to put some preliminary thoughts down on 'paper'. The topic is Shuls: Giving and Taking.

Story #1 – At one point early in my rabbinate, I needed to raise funds for a community project. I approached someone for help, and was surprised to be turned down flat. Why? As he explained it, he was saving up for a particularly large expense – but, more, he had never been in my office before. He had learned at dozens of classes, davened at plenty of minyanim, but he had never been in my office, and so he didn't feel our relationship was at a point at which I could ask him for help. [Yes, I learned a lot from this encounter.]

Story #2 – A woman in our shul received a tzedakah box from Chabad, to be used for any tzedakah she chose. She commented to me something along the lines of, "See, they aren't always taking. Why can't our shul also give sometimes?" [Of course, we regularly raised funds for ARMDI and other Israeli causes, as well as our local Federation campaigns, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Day School, and Benevolent Fund... sigh.]

The parties involved were regular recipients of the shul's "giving" through davening and classes and aliyos and shul-sponsored kiddushes, but they saw the shul as a Taker rather than a Giver. This makes life difficult for synagogue fundraisers, since one of the most basic rules of fundraising is to make even the Taking feel like Giving [as in "We're giving you an opportunity to do something great"]. Instead, even the shul's Giving doesn't feel like Giving!

Why?

1. One part of the problem is that the synagogue does spend so much time Taking: Taking the time, effort and stress of volunteers, in addition to the money required to run a shul.

2. Another part of the problem is that people view the shul's Giving as automatic, since anyone can enjoy the benefits without paying for them.

3. Another part of the problem is that even when a shul Gives, it does it in the form of Taking. Shuls recruit would-be recipients, advertising their 'gifts' and campaigning to get people to take advantage of these wonderful opportunities. "Please come to minyan!" "Come to a shiur!" "Participate in our youth programs!" "Hear this speaker!"

Tell me this: If you need to sell me on your gifts, are they really gifts? The result is that people feel the shul is Taking even when it's Giving.

4. Yet another part of the problem is that when the shul rewards a member's Giving, as in a Thank You call/note/meeting by the Rabbi and/or Synagogue President, it's more likely to be seen as an individual doing the the thanking, rather than the shul as an institution. The result is that the institution Takes, while individuals offer reward.

5. And yet another part of the problem is that shuls don't have products to sell for fundraising, so that fundraising often involves selling what should be their gifts. Schools are forever generating projects to endow. Various types of tzedakah-based organizations perpetually acquire and dedicate new equipment in honor of donors. Shuls, on the other hand, can only raise dues, or charge for their 'gifts' – aliyos, classes and programs. [Cookbook fundraisers and the like don't count; they raise a tiny percentage of the funds a shul needs.]

The upshot: The shul is not seen as a giver, because 1) It takes so much, 2) Its gifts are taken for granted, 3) Its gifts are seen as just another way the shul takes, 4) The institution takes, while its individual leaders are the ones who give back, and 5) it ends up selling its gifts, instead of giving them away.

This is the problem. Solutions will need to wait for another post…

In memory of Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T17:16:00.008-04:00

[This week's Haveil Havalim is up early, here]

This came to me from a friend and chavrusa, Craig Guttmann; reprinted here with permission:

This is what Steve Jobs meant to me. I can’t even believe that I feel the urge to write this, so it gives you an idea of how profound an impact Steve had on my life.

Just before we had moved to Israel for the year in August of 2002, Apple had released its second generation of the iPod. In October 2003, Apple launched iTunes for Windows which essentially married the iPod for Windows based users. I will never forget the day that my tekki showed me the release on my trip back to Canada. I ran downtown and bought my first iPod. I figured I would have music in my ears for those 10 and 13 hours journeys to China and Israel, and many in between. (In August of 2011, Air Canada sent me a welcome letter into their “Million Mile Club”) How wonderful is that?

On a flight in December, 2002 from Toronto to Israel, I bumped into a friend who had discovered the iPod too. Except, he had figured out, that not only could you load music on your iPod, but you could load comedy! Brilliant! So I began loading some of my most cherished comedians. Bob Newhart, Eddie Murphy, George Carlin. Now flying was funny! Have you ever heard Carlin’s piece about flying and stewardesses (that’s what they were called in the old days) while flying?

Living in Israel and having time on my hands in the morning in particular because of the time difference with my office in Toronto, allowed me to surf the internet. And one day, I happened across the site dafyomi.org. The daf yomi shiurim were posted and free to download. If I could load music and comedy, how cool would it be to be able to travel the world and have my maggid shir with me at all times. I would never have an excuse to not be able to do Daf Yomi. I downloaded the mesachet of the day, Horayos. Not the easiest gemara to start out with, and I quickly realized that I needed the Artscroll Gemara. So, I ran into town and picked up the Gemara and eagerly whisked home to try learning Daf Yomi. The rest is history.

I have learned Daf Yomi all over the world the first time around.

Thornhill • Jerusalem • Ramot • New York • Los Angeles • Rochester • St.Maarten • Pittsburgh • Miami • Boca Raton • St.Thomas • Vancouver • Cincinnati • Boston • San Francisco • Cabo San Lucas • Mazatlan • Honolulu • Maui • Frankfurt • Munich • Venice • Bellagio • Freeport • Puerto Plata • San Jose • Aruba • Puerta Vallarta • Englewood • Mumbai • Delhi • Ludhiana • Qingdao • Guangzhou • Seoul • Taipei • Hong Kong • Shenzhen • Shanghai • Beijing • Tokyo • Pusan • Incheon • Taichung • Paris • Honfleur • Bordeaux • Uzes • Tainan • Koahsiung • Jiagmin • Shanghai • Bangkok

11.3 GB • 5,406 Files • 97,308 Minutes • 1,621 Hours • 3 iPods • 1 iPad • 1 iPhone
May 29, 2003-October 29, 2010 • 2,716 Days

Seven and half years later, on October 29, 2010, I completed my first cycle of Shas!

I firmly believe that the iPod was created for me to learn Daf Yomi. That’s what so special about Steve Jobs. Every product that he has developed, feels like it was made for them.

With much gratitude Steve Jobs! Thank You and Yishar Koach!
Craig Guttmann
Thornhill, ON, CA

P.S. Yes, I’m on my second cycle!

Take a tank to the mikvah

2011-10-06T12:01:00.003-04:00

First, to follow up on my Rosh HaShanah derashah about paying attention, a suggestion: Take your Yom Kippur machzor now, and write in it. An asterisk next to an important line. A note reminding you that saying מקדש השבת וישראל ויום הכיפורים counts as Kiddush. An underline of a sentence so that it will catch your eye when your concentration flags. A quick commentary on something you've noticed in the davening.

I want to put up a post, How to Write in a Siddur, but I haven't made the time yet; let this suffice for now.

I'm always unsure how to approach speaking at Kol Nidrei, a time when people are so tense and tired and exhausted and full of food. This year I'm going to center my remarks on a story which I heard in the name of Rav Simcha haKohen Kook several years ago. Here's the story; I'll save the remarks for Kol Nidrei night itself.

My basic theme: When was the last time I took a tank to the mikvah, moving heaven and earth for a mitzvah?

A young soldier, an American named Motti, called me from a town in Aza called Netzarim… At first I questioned the soldier. "You don't mean you are in Netzarim, you mean you are in an army base near Netzarim."

"No," came the reply, “I am in Netzarim.”

I knew that there were only two ways to reach Netzarim: By tank, or by helicopter at night. So I asked him: "How did you get there?"

"I told my commander that it was my custom to go to the Mikvah before Yom Kippur, and the only Mikvah around was in the Jewish community of Netzarim. So he let me use a tank."

Now came the reason for the young soldier's call: "I am borrowing a Torah scroll from the community synagogue to take back to the base. The Jews of Netzarim have donated enough Tzitziot for my whole platoon. My question is, what kind of Yom Kippur Tefillah can I conduct. Besides myself there is only one other observant soldier on the base. Most of the other soldiers have, believe it or not, never attended a Yom Kippur service in their lives."

"Don't worry," I assured him. "You just conduct the service and you instruct them to say "Amen" to your blessing and it will be as if they were praying themselves."

That night, Rav Simcha Kook got up in shul before Kol Nidrei and said:
“Dear Gd, there are many countries in this great world of yours who have armies. And many of these armies have tanks. Some have many tanks and some have fewer tanks. But Gd, is there another country in this world that used a tank to help someone go to the Mikvah before Yom Kippur? Is there another country that used a tank to bring a Torah to an army base so they could have a Minyan for Yom Kippur? Gd, only in Israel are tanks used this way so you must protect your country Israel.”

Working hard doesn't mean you're doing a good job

2011-10-05T00:01:00.005-04:00

Our culture emphasizes effort, and the Torah does likewise. We are taught in the Talmud, "Whether you do a lot or a little, the key is that your heart should be for heaven," "Gd desires the heart," and so on.

This is religious truth, certainly. We would never want to reward laziness, and we believe in the value of the heart. Nonetheless, a culture that honors effort runs the risk of accidentally encouraging mediocrity.

Case in point: Some time back, I had my WebShas website critiqued by someone who told me, "The front end stinks." It stung - getting slapped in the face hurts - but he was right. (And he remains right; I don't have the time to work on improving it.)

More recently, I had another on-line project of mine ridiculed by an observer. Granted, the observer didn’t really understand the goal and emphasis of the project, and his version of mussar was so vintage technogeek kaltkeit that I couldn't take it seriously, but his remarks, combined with the remarks about WebShas, reminded me of a basic principle: The fact that you worked hard on something doesn't mean you did a good job.

Another example of this lesson: I loaded my schedule with shiurim and programs during Elul, including a five-day stretch from September 20-24 when I completely overloaded. I worked hard and made it through - but to be frank, by the end the shiurim were not my best, and I felt terrible for letting people down.

The fact that you worked hard on something doesn't mean you did a good job.

I'm reminded of that now as I work through my pre-Yom Kippur cheshbon hanefesh, my accounting of what I have done and what I have not done, of what I have accomplished and what I have failed to accomplish. I work hard. By the standards of effort, I'm doing all right. But effort is not the same as achievement.

Take the slap in the face. The fact that you worked hard on something doesn't mean you did a good job.