Drinking on Purim

I know I have readers who dislike the annual post on the theme of Drinking on Purim. Sorry.

Not.

On Purim we celebrate the ultimate joy of a sudden national rescue, and our sages have taught that we should imbibe alcohol at the Purim Seudah as part of this celebration. Just as we abstain from various foods and from drink at certain times of the year to induce sadness, so we indulge in various foods and in drink at other times of the year, to induce joy. The gemara’s standard for imbibing is to drink until we cannot tell the difference between “Cursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai” (Megilah 7b).

Authorities differ on how much to drink, but the following is clear: An adult who is medically, psychologically and emotionally able to drink, and who has a designated driver, should drink some amount of alcohol - preferably enough that he will feel lightheaded (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 695:2). One should enjoy his Purim meal relatively early in the afternoon, drink a little, and then sleep off the effects of the alcohol.

Many people, and I include myself in this number, have embraced the practice of drinking minimally at the Purim Seudah and then fulfilling the state of intoxication by taking a nap after the meal. This approach is sanctioned by the Rama (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:2). One might consider doing the eating/drinking/nap before participating in a communal seudah.

I know the following is obvious, and I apologize for taking your time with it, but if my blog has any reach at all then I feel an obligation to state this obvious point. Please:

1) There is no reason to give alcohol to minors who are pre-bar mitzvah to drink on Purim. It is not necessary for their fulfillment of any mitzvah. The practice might be secularly legal as sacramental wine - consult an attorney - but it is a foolish and dangerous ritual and therefore prohibited as endangering our children as well as violating our obligation of chinuch for our children.

I do believe there is a difference between giving children under the age of obligation in mitzvot a taste of wine from the formal Shabbat Kiddush (not the one in shul; I mean the one at dinner/lunch!) and engaging them in Purim drinking. The former is a formal setting, and no one (I hope) is drinking to get a buzz. On Purim, though, because the general drinking is more loose and more geared toward celebration, I believe that the rule should be that children drink no alcohol at all.

2) If your own child is a minor, but older than bar mitzvah, and able to handle a small amount of wine, then it makes sense to help your child fulfill the mitzvah with a small amount, in a supervised setting, assuming this is legal in your jurisdiction.

3) I believe adults should not drink on Purim in the presence of young children, beyond what would normally be consumed at a meal on Shabbat. As I see it, immature children cannot tell when we are in control and when we are not, cannot comprehend the dangers associated with alcohol, cannot accept the idea that adults can do what children are not permitted to do, and cannot understand the difference between Purim and the rest of the year.

As the Rambam writes (Hilchot Megilah 2:17), the finest joy is a celebration which centers around a mitzvah. This is the essence of Purim – the four mitzvot (Megilah, Sending Gifts of Food, Giving to the Poor and having a Feast) which are about experiencing joy and spreading joy to others and thanking HaShem for saving us from destruction.

I apologize for wasting anyone’s time by stating the obvious, but as I said above, I feel the responsibility of stating this in any forum I have available.

And not to be a party-pooper at all, but those who want to know more about this theme should see Shaarei Teshuvah of Rav Chaim Margaliyot (printed with a standard Mishneh Berurah), in his final comment on Orach Chaim:

ויותר יש לזרז עצמו בד"ת במקום שיש שם איזה שמחה אף אם היא שמחה של מצוה ועיין בסוף סוכה בענין שמחת בית השואבה וכן מבואר לעיל סימן תקכ"ט אדם אוכל ושותה ושמח ברגל ולא ימשוך בבשר ויין ובשחוק וקלות ראש לפי שאין השחוק וקלות ראש שמחה אלא הוללות וסכלות ולא נצטוינו על הוללות וסכלות אלא על שמחה שיש בה עבודת היוצר עכ"ל והוא לשון רבינו הרמב"ם ז"ל והמפרשים ז"ל פירשו לשחוק אמרתי מהולל ר"ל שיהיה באיזה ענין שיהיה השחוק הוא הוללות עבט"ז לעיל
אך לשמחה מה זו עושה ר"ל שלענין שמחה אין להחליט שאינה יפה שבאמ' יש שמחה של מצוה ולכן יש ליתן לב לדעת מה זו עושה ר"ל מה טובה אם הוא שמחה של מצוה או לא אך הואיל ואפשר כי מתוך אכילה ושתיה והוללת יתמשך לשחוק וקלות ראש לכן יקח תבלין לבסם השמחה בד"ת וחדוות ה' יהיה מעוזו ויטב לבו בד"ת וז"ש וטוב לב משתה תמיד

It is even more necessary to energize one’s self with words of Torah in a place where there is joy, even if it is joy associated with a mitzvah. See the end of Succah regarding simchas beis hashoevah. And so is explained in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 529, “One should eat, drink and be happy on the holiday, but not draw himself after meat and wine and laughter and lightheadedness, for laughter and lightheadedness are not joy, but empty celebration and foolishness. We are not instructed in empty celebration and foolishness, but in joy which includes service of the Creator.” This is a citation from the Rambam.
The sages explained the verse (Kohelet 2:2), “I have called laughter ‘empty celebration’” to mean that in any form, laughter is empty celebration. See the Taz earlier. [I don’t know which comment from the Taz he means.]
But “What does joy accomplish (Kohelet 2:2)” means that regarding joy, one should not conclude that it is not good. In truth, there is joy associated with mitzvot! Therefore, one should set his heart to know what joy can accomplish, meaning, what is its nature – is it joy associated with a mitzvah, or not. But since it is possible that one will be drawn to laughter and lightheadedness as a result of eating, drinking and empty celebration, therefor, one should take spices to sweeten the joy with words of Torah, and his strength will be in the joy of Gd, and his heart will be good with words of Torah. This is the meaning of ‘One of good heart is always at a feast.’

May we have wonderful and safe Purim - ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר!

7 Adar, once again

And here we are again at the 7th of Adar, Moshe Rabbeinu's birthday and yahrtzeit. Like every year, I found myself thinking a lot about Moshe in the leadup to this day.

I've thought about Moshe in different ways over the years (see here and here and here, for example), but here's a new angle, tied to Herman Wouk's The Caine Mutiny. When, at the end of the book, Willie Keith assumes command of the Caine, Wouk describes it thus:

Even at anchor, on an idle, forgotten old ship, Willie experienced the strange sensations of the first days of a new captain: a shrinking of his personal identity, and a stretching out of his nerve ends to all the spaces and machinery of his ship. He was less free than before. He developed the apprehensive listening ears of a young mother; the ears listened on in his sleep; he never quite slept, not the way he had before. He had the sense of having been reduced from an individual to a sort of brain of a composite animal, the crew and ship combined. (pg. 520, 2003 paperback edition)

The description resonates, from my shul rabbi days. Back then, I lived as part of the community, feeling that kind of responsibility for each individual, each family, each of the community's institutions. [It is, probably, the element of the rabbinate I miss most; as I have said on other occasions, leaving the shul rabbinate narrowed me as a person, painfully. But I digress.]

In thinking about Wouk's words, I wonder what it was like for Moshe when he took command of the Jewish people. Not when he first approached Pharaoh in Egypt, when the Jews' day-to-day existence was governed by Egyptian society. Not when he summoned the plagues, when the Jews still received food and water via Egyptian mechanisms, living in Egyptian homes, using Egyptian public facilities. But when the Jews finally broke away from the Egyptian infrastructure, and Moshe became fully responsible for their well-being. What was that like?

It occurs to me that Moshe's initial moments of solo leadership came when the Jews made their three-day journey to the Sea, and his first crisis was when they found the Sea in their way, and the Egyptians coming up behind them. This was the moment when Moshe became the leader of the Jews.

At that juncture (Shemot 14:15), HaShem turned to Moshe and said, "מה תצעק אלי? Why call out to Me?" And, of course, we wonder: The text does not mention Moshe calling out to Gd; only the people called out to Gd. Why does Gd address this to Moshe?

I've addressed this problem before (here, for example), but here is a new thought: Perhaps Moshe did not call out, but Moshe did as he had always done before – he waited for Gd to lead. Gd was the commanding officer, and Moshe was the exec who would carry out the Divine order. And so HaShem said to Moshe, "Why are you waiting for Me? It's your ship now, you are the commander. Time for you to take charge."

In which case the next words that Gd speaks, "Speak to the Children of Israel, and they will travel," are not so much a command, as a laying out of the facts: When you tell them, the Jews will travel. You are now in charge."

What did that moment feel like for Moshe? How frightening was it, even with Divine miracles, to become the human being upon whom millions relied? How broadening, how enervating, how invigorating, how terrifying, how empowering and how crushing... How large and how small do you feel, Moshe, standing between the Sea and such an overwhelmingly large mass of needy human beings? Twelve tribes of people who were third-generation slaves but who yet retained a memory of their saintly ancestors, Avraham and Sarah? People who had suffered bitterly, who had been whipped and tortured and murdered? What is the experience of connecting to all of those people, at once?

Did you know beforehand that this was coming, that there would be a moment when you would be handed the keys and told to drive the bus? And once it did happen, how did you not feel overwhelmed by the sheer numbers, and by the needs that persist even in a world where bread comes from the skies and water from a stone?

Did it become easier when you added elders, or did that just add another layer of responsibility? Or did it all become "normal" at some point? Did that "normal" perhaps become shaken when you faced leadership crises, as in Korach's rebellion?

Are all of these questions meaningless, when you had Gd with you? Or did the Eye looking over your shoulder make the challenge even greater?

So many questions; Moshe remains unfathomable to me.

יהי זכרו ברוך.

Warning: "Death Notification" phishing email

I just received a new variation on the standard phishing email, and it's sophisticated enough that I'm posting this warning about it. Here's what the email looks like [adjusted to fit the blog's space], although I have disabled the link:

Hubbell      Simply Compassionate
Death notification
		We would like to express our deepest sorrow for the untimely death of your beloved friend and inform you about the life service celebration that will take place at Hubbell Funeral Home on March 7, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Please follow this link to get funeral invitation. Please be there to honor the memory of your friend with her closest people. Our best wishes and prayers, Benjamin Booker, Funeral home assistant
99 North Indian Rocks Road | Belleair Bluffs, Florida 33770 Phone 727-584-7671 | Fax 727-584-1073

The subject line says "Death Notification" and the sender, in my case, was "Hubbell Funeral Home", info@williamsfoundation.info.

A few things flag this as phony - the language is a bit stilted, and the timing of the email is odd, and the lack of the loved one's name - but I could easily see this one fooling people into clicking the link.

A time to be silent, and a time to speak up

A thought on Parshat Vayikra:

Our parshah takes a strong stand in favour of confidentiality. The opening verses relate, “And G-d called to Moshe, and G-d spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to go tell. Speak to the Children of Israel, and tell them…” Troubled by the doubled “go tell,” our sages explained that the duplication teaches us, “that one may not repeat something told to him, unless he is told, ‘Go tell.’“ (Talmud, Yoma 4b)

Certainly, the need for confidentiality is clear; as Sefer haChinuch (mitzvah 236) notes, gossip causes quarreling and strife. However, we might be forgiven for wondering why G-d personally violated this principle. When three visitors informed Avraham that his wife Sarah would birth a baby, Sarah overheard, and laughed. She said, “After I have been worn out, will I be rejuvenated? And my master is old!” G-d then asked Avraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Can it be that I will give birth? And I am old!’ Is anything beyond G-d?... “ (Bereishit 18:12-14) Why did G-d fail to honour His principle of confidentiality?

We might gain some understanding by studying a conflict between a halachic obligation and the Rules of Professional Conduct (2000) of the Law Society of Upper Canada, regarding permission to break confidentiality.

According to the Law Society’s Rule 2.03(3), “Where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological harm that substantially interferes with health or well-being, the lawyer may disclose, pursuant to judicial order where practicable, confidential information where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm, but shall not disclose more information than is required.” Two points are worth noting here: (1) The lawyer may break confidentiality to  prevent serious harm to health, but not to prevent financial loss; (2) Even regarding saving a life, the lawyer may inform, but is not required to do so.

Contrast this with the Rambam’s position (Sefer haMitzvot, Lo Taaseh 297); he warns against “weakness” in rescuing from “danger of death or financial loss.” Based on the Talmud (Sanhedrin 73a), Rambam includes financial loss as grounds for action, and views intervention as a requirement. Therefore, modern halachic authorities rule that one must break confidentiality in order to save a person from physical or financial harm. [See Chafetz Chaim, Rechilut 9. Note: A discussion of endangering a career to avert another person’s financial or physical harm is beyond the scope of this article.]

The Law Society honours confidentiality over rescue because Ontario law does not require any individual to save any other individual from harm, unless a special relationship of caring for the victim already exists. In contrast, as explained by Rambam, halachah does require that we rescue others. Therefore, our responsibility to look after each other overrides our great respect for privacy and confidentiality.

This duty to rescue may explain why G-d spoke with Avraham about Sarah’s laughter: G-d broke confidentiality to rescue Sarah from denial of Divine omnipotence. As we see in numerous mitzvot, such as tochachah and lifnei iver, the Torah requires intervention to save a person from spiritual harm. Therefore, G-d spoke with Avraham. Avraham was already well-established as the Divine messenger; from the moment when Avraham and Sarah journeyed to Canaan (Bereishit 12:1), to their move to Chevron (ibid. 13:14), to the re-naming of Sarah (ibid. 17:15),    G-d issued each instruction to Avraham,  and Avraham relayed it to Sarah. Admittedly, the choice of Avraham as prophet is confusing, given that G-d told Avraham that Sarah possessed greater insight and he was to follow her word. (ibid. 21:12) Nonetheless, Avraham is the prophet, and G-d breaks confidentiality in order to have His prophet educate His people.

The combination of our parshah’s imperative for confidentiality, and our duty to rescue, precipitates a difficult decision: Do we err on the side of confidentiality, or on the side of rescue? Even if we conceal the worst, as G-d did in relaying Sarah’s speech, how do we decide whether it is a time to be silent, or a time to speak? (Kohelet 3:7)

We might apply five rules offered by the Chafetz Chaim (Rechilut 9:2):

• Make certain that the danger you wish to avert is real and substantive;

• Do not exaggerate;

• Act to help the victim, not to harm the other;

• Seek other methods of rescue first;

• Avoid language which could cause collateral damage to the subject.

May we always honour our duty to rescue, but with a firm commitment to our parshah’s value of confidentiality.

Chillul HaShem on the road

Judgmental rant coming, I apologize.

I know that people are in a rush, and therefore they allow themselves, at times, a bit of sloppiness on the road. A slow roll through a Stop sign; going through a light on the yellow-turning-red; pretending you arrived at the four-way stop before another car that's waiting at the intersection. I've done some of that too, unfortunately. But if you are going to do it, let it be rare, and not a policy, for the sake of everyone's safety.

And if you are going to brand your car as Jewish-owned by posting a magnet proclaiming that your child attends a Jewish school, then you really might think twice before driving this way.

Driving home behind you the other day as you rolled right through three Stop signs, and took a light that was red before you entered the intersection, and chattered away on your cell phone the entire time, I could only wonder what other drivers were thinking. Even if you really can do all of this without endangering anyone, and even if you think that the halachic recognition of dina d'malchuta [the law of the land] doesn't apply to traffic laws, surely you will admit the chillul HaShem [desecration of Gd's Name] involved?

Not to mention - what sort of general manners, and driving manners, do you think that this child, student at a Jewish school, is learning from you?

Jewish Leader: It's not about you

What does it take to be a Jewish leader? I've recorded different ideas on the topic over the years, including this blog post (Rabbinic Leadership), this one (Rabbi as Leader and Manager) and this one (You can be right and dead at the same time). But in a discussion at a Yehoshua class yesterday, I was reminded of another facet of Jewish leadership.

In the first chapter of Yehoshua (1:2), G-d tells Yehoshua that He is going to give the land of Israel "to them, to the Children of Israel". There is a redundancy here. What is added by saying both, "to them"; and "to the Children of Israel"? Don Isaac Abarbanel explains that G-d is telling Yehoshua that He is giving Israel to the nation, not its leader. Leaders come and leaders go, and the nation is the essential thing.

In the same chapter (1:17), the tribes of Reuven, Gad and Menasheh pledge loyalty to Yehoshua, but they warn him that they will listen, "only as long as G-d is with you, as He was with Moshe." In other words: We will follow you not because of your personality and identity, but because G-d is with you.

G-d supports the leader only for the sake of the nation. The nation supports the leader only for the sake of G-d. Yehoshua, and any Jewish leader, must understand this key point: It's not about you. The task of the Jewish leader is to enable the Divine summons to inspire each individual Jew, and to enable each individual Jew to respond, to rise, and to shine. The leader who accomplishes both of these things - neither of which is simple! - is a success.

The Ethics of Palliative Sedation

Recently, I was asked about the ethics of palliative sedation (also known as "terminal sedation").

This is separate from palliative care, and the problems of hospice. For the purpose of this question, we are talking about sedating someone to the point of unconsciousness for the duration of their lives, because of great pain. Death is still weeks away, but doctors are not able to alleviate suffering without inducing unconsciousness.

On the one hand, one is fulfilling the mandate of relieving a person's pain; for more on that mandate, see Rabbi J. David Bleich's 2002 Tradition article, Palliation of Pain. 

On the other hand, the idea of putting someone into a permanent unconscious state seems a lot like killing them.

I haven't been able to find much in halachic literature, but I did find an interesting response from Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Halperin, one of the leading authorities in Medical Halachah in Israel. The original Hebrew is here; my translation is below:

Greetings,

I wish to receive counsel and guidance regarding my 91-year old mother, who has fractures all along her spine due to osteoporosis. Recently she fell and was bounced around, and since then she has experienced great pains.

The advice of the doctors is to sedate her, to prevent pain. According to the doctors she will not return to walking, or to moving her lower body. She can move her arms lightly. However, she is still lucid.

The question: May one go along with the doctor's advice and introduce her into sedation to prevent pain? I understand that this sedation would become a permanent state for the rest of her life.

I would appreciate it if you could respond by telephone. Thank you in advance.

Response:

The discussion is of a lucid woman. Therefore, this depends exclusively upon her desire, and one should ask her directly.

What do you think? And can you provide supporting sources?

Why the Bar Ilan Responsa Project can be bad for the Jews

In his recent article on the decision by certain rabbis to rule on complex issues rather than consult senior scholars, Rabbi Hershel Schachter condemned those who use searchable databases like Otzar haChochmah and the Bar Ilan Responsa Project in order to research topics and then think themselves experts.

To this some have responded that these searchable databases constitute a democratization of information which elevates more people to the level of being able to decide halachic matters.

The response is flawed by a fundamental error: mistaking learning-via-search for true knowledge handicaps the learning process and produces inferior results both in the particular researched topic and in one's broader Torah learning.

Full disclosure: I believe I was the first person, back in 1995, to create a free Internet-based tool which would enable people to search and find Torah sources they wanted – that was my WebShas (which I still hope to return to, and complete, someday...) I strongly believe it is important to create such tools and raise the general level of Torah learning. However, those who learn with such tools should never delude themselves into thinking that they are accomplishing true scholarship.

The scholarship needed to decide serious halachic matters requires that one find the sources not by searching for keywords (or by reading summaries in publications like the Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society or Techumin, a practice which presents a related problem), but by learning, analyzing, absorbing and memorizing large amounts of primary text, and then bringing it to bear on these halachic matters as they come up.

Here are just a few reasons why searching Torah databases produces only the illusion of scholarship, and an inferior halachic analysis of any given topic:

Inferior Breadth of Knowledge

You only find what you set out to find. Rav Amital z"l of Gush Etzion is reported to have said that he learned the most from the pages before and after that which he sought when he opened a given text. I can say the same from my own narrow experience. If all you want is to read a responsum that mentions nashim and tefillin within 20 words of each other, then you will not see the preceding responsum - and if it lacks interesting keywords then it will be forever missing from your repertoire.

This is a particular problem when approaching meta-issues in psak. Many of the most pressing halachic issues of today require an understanding of themes like hefsed merubeh (great loss), she'at hadchak and broader klalei hapsak. But the major sources addressing these themes don't necessarily make reference to popular cases with attractive keywords; some of the best sources on hefsed merubeh deal with arcane matters of purity and impurity. And don't tell me you will search for the words hefsed merubeh - someone who is relying on search for his knowledge isn't going to read through the thousands of results he will find. (More on that under "Inferior Drive" below.)

Further: Reliance on searchable databases encourages people to study by topic, and so they rarely learn an entire sefer. Instead, they search for items related to the topics they want, and just study those. The result is a terrible poverty of true knowledge, and an inadequate basis for approaching new subjects.

And one more note in this category: Those who learn by search are at the mercy of the publishers. Of course, all of us are at the mercy of publishers; I am more apt to use a source on a source sheet if I can find it in a cut-and-paste text on hebrewbooks.org. And I learn Tosafos before I learn Rosh, because printers put that collection of Tosafos on the page of gemara. But if you rely on search not just for crafting a source sheet, but for your primary research, then all you have is whatever the publisher had on hand.

Inferior Comprehension

When I read a responsum from a writer whose broader work I do not know, I miss out on the meaning invested in the writer's choice of words and selection of sources. I can only compensate for this by learning more of the writer's work, to gain a greater familiarity and therefore a greater understanding. If all I know is the one piece that showed up in my search, then I really don't understand what the writer was getting at, and how it fits into a greater worldview.

Inferior Memory/Retention

Doing a search to find phrases involves less struggle. As scientists have been saying for years, information is retained better if it is processed in multiple ways; without struggle, little processing is needed. And if it's not retained, then you don't have a broad range of information in your head with which to make associations (see "Inferior Depth" below), or catch your own mistakes.

Further: When you find items by database search, you don't need to memorize them, because you can just find them again by searching; it's like GPS vs. directions, or Speed Dial vs. a phone book.

Inferior Drive

In an ideal world, everyone would have sufficient time to research topics in great depth, and to work at the text for however long was necessary in order to gain full understanding. Unfortunately, few of us set aside the time we really need to do things well, for we are greedy in our ambition to forever accomplish "more", and so we give on accomplishing "well". The result is that we take short cuts – and the searchable database is the shortest cut of all, and it is habit-forming. Once people become accustomed to relying on searches, they find it very difficult to do things right, from the ground up.

Inferior Depth

Using database searches means you don't need to analyze and study with depth and creativity in order to find new ideas and make new analogies. You may become an artificial Sinai, but you will lack the depth of understanding to make novel and necessary associations between sources that don't lend themselves to keyword searches.

This is the oker harim phenomenon which I have seen some mis-translate as being about "explaining sources and logic". A true oker harim finds the analogies that help us deal with new issues when they emerge – and this is the mark of a true posek. People whose knowledge of a subject comes from superficial searching will never have it.

There is more to be said, but I'll stop here for now.

YU made me who I am today

The other day, I had a conversation with someone about all of the great Torah options available in Toronto for university students. That person wasn't wrong; our own Beit Midrash offers a very flexible "Chaverim" opportunity for students to fit in learning around their university studies, and other, more structured options are available around Toronto as well. More than a dozen university students spend significant hours in our Beit Midrash each week, and I am regularly impressed by the way they make time and design their schedules around learning.

Nonetheless, no part-time program built around a university schedule can compare with the Torah opportunities at Yeshiva University in New York – and while that sentence won't surprise anyone who went to YU, I want to take a minute to spell it out further, because I don't know that I have ever thought through fully the ways in which YU is responsible for the Torah I learn and teach today.

First, in terms of the educational experience:

• The Mazer Yeshiva Program required a daily morning seder of study from 9 AM to 12 PM, followed by shiur from 12:45 PM to 2:30 PM. Having this schedule, every day, regardless of midterms and papers, trumps any part-time learning program I can imagine – and that's before the night seder which was voluntary, but which was taken as normal.
• I studied under true talmidei chachamim every day, so that I had the opportunity to learn their Torah as well as see how they conducted themselves.
• The Beis Medrash, augmented by the Gottesman Library, has a collection of sefarim superior in scope and depth to most batei medrash.

Second, in terms of the community of learning:

• There were hundreds upon hundreds of us. People point out that in such a large group of students it's easy to become lost, but it is also true that in such a large group you are apt to find some truly outstanding minds, who can help you learn and who can serve as role models. I was fortunate to find excellent role models.
• The sheer number of people learning creates an atmosphere which is inspirational, motivating greater diligence.

Third, in terms of the future it gave me:

• Being in YU, I was able to build connections with rebbeim I would feel comfortable contacting years later when I had questions.
• I was not a social person, at all; I am hard-pressed to remember more than a dozen or so names from my shiur. And yet, somehow, wherever I go, I meet people who were classmates of mine, or who knew me, and I have an instant YU network.

But perhaps most of all, the advantage I gained at YU was in the expectations that I came to set for myself:

• Because of the tools: When your rebbeim are top of the line, and your beis medrash is top of the line, and you have all of this time given to you, then you expect yourself to truly accomplish.
• Because of the community: When you are one of several hundred who are learning for five hours each morning/afternoon, as well as night seder, then your expectations are high, because they are calibrated based on the people around you.

When I was in college, I was not terribly self-aware, so that I didn't consciously set expectations of look for role models. Nonetheless, I somehow found them without knowing it, and long after I left YU they stayed with me, demanding that I do more.

I know well that enrolling at YU doesn't mean that all of these benefits will accrue automatically; you do need to be self-motivated in order to really take advantage of the opportunities that YU offers. And in truth, my experience in Kerem b'Yavneh was at least as strong an influence for me; I was in YU for a year before I went to Kerem b'Yavneh, and there is no comparison between what I did before and what I did after.

But having said that, I still conclude this: I could have gone to another university and made time for Torah when I wasn't in class, and I wouldn't have done half-badly. But there isn't a chance that I would have had the life I've had since then. In a very real sense, YU made me who I am today.

Happy Birthday, Chief Rabbinate!

The 93rd anniversary of the establishment of the modern Israeli Chief Rabbinate is this coming Sunday, the 16th of Adar Rishon.

Long before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish community in then-Palestine was represented before the Ottoman Empire by the Chacham Bashi at first, and then later by the Rishon l'Tzion, Sephardic rabbis. When the British Mandate began, High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel faced complaints by Ashkenazi Jews who wanted each community to have its own leadership and representation. Samuel's response [at the suggestion of Yehuda Leib Maimon, and working with Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook and British Mandate Secretary of Justice Norman Bentwich] was to create a Chief Rabbinate comprised of an Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi and a Sephardic Chief Rabbi, who headed a rabbinic council with an adjunct lay council. Further, some communities opted out, because they did not accept the religious leadership of the Chief Rabbinate. That system, with some changes, was grandfathered into the State of Israel under Prime Minister Ben-Gurion.

I think about this history when I hear the complaints voiced regarding Israel's current Chief Rabbinate, over issues from conversion to heter mechirah to certifying Jewishness to customer service to representation of different parts of the religious community. The institution was not created as an ideal government for a nation's religious needs; it was a band-aid barely covering serious community fractures.

It's just a dream, but wouldn't it be wonderful if there could be a re-imagining of the position, to strip away the elements that came from Jew vs. Jew strife and replace them with the elements needed to inspire a nation

They stab their rabbis

[I've been blogging, first on another blog and then here, since 2006. Between the two blogs, that's over 1500 posts. I can't remember ever calling out a particular person before. But I'm just too upset to let this one go.]

As we've already discussed here, a couple of Orthodox high schools now permit their female students to wear tefillin at school services. Last week, Rabbi Hershel Schachter published an article which focussed on the fact that the leaders of the school chose to address the relevant halachic questions themselves, rather than consult the halachic authorities they usually ask about weighty matters. Rabbi Schacter wrote sharply about the importance of consulting those who have greater knowledge.

I'd like to discuss the content of the matter eventually, but right now I am taken aback by a Twitter response by an Orthodox synagogue rabbi. He tweeted:

The shorter version of R. Herschel Schacter's missive (it's not a 'teshuvah') is that the greatest sin a Jew can do is disagree with him.

After this blatant mischaracterization of Rabbi Schacter's article, the tweeter did follow up with a post on his blog explaining his disagreement with the content of Rabbi Schachter's piece. But my point isn't to discuss his disagreement. My point is to discuss the way he launched it.

What's eyebrow-raising to me is the cavalier treatment of a leader, whether you agree with him or not. There is no sobriety, no maturity, no sense of respect at all.

I am reminded of a talmudic passage (Gittin 56a)  recording an event from the Roman siege of Jerusalem, leading up to the destruction of the second Beit haMikdash. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai wished to surrender to Rome, and others disagreed powerfully enough that they were willing to burn down Jerusalem's storehouses of food, to compel militant revolt. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai conspired with an insider to have himself transported out of Jerusalem, under the pretense that he was dead:

עביד הכי, נכנס בו רבי אליעזר מצד אחד ורבי יהושע מצד אחר, כי מטו לפיתחא בעו למדקריה, אמר להו: יאמרו רבן דקרו! בעו למדחפיה, אמר להו: יאמרו רבן דחפו! פתחו ליה בבא, נפק.

He did this, and Rabbi Eliezer escorted him on one side, and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. When they reached the city gate, the zealots wished to stab him [to ensure that he was dead, and not conspiring with the Romans]. The escort said to them, "They will say that the Jews stab their rabbis!" They wished to shove his body. The escort said to them, "They will say that the Jews shove their rabbis!" They opened the gate for him, and he escaped.

The zealots had a murderous hatred for Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and all he represented, but the zealots understood something that this tweeter misses. You can disagree with someone, but if thousands of Jews follow him, then he has status, whether you like it or not. And to stab him or shove him says a great deal about how you view not just the leader, but your fellow Jews. That's what the zealots didn't want the Romans to see.

My point is not to say that this rabbinic tweeter should agree with Rabbi Schacter; if he has an opinion and he can cite halachic sources to support it, let him do so. But let him do so in a way that doesn't demonstrate such disrespect toward the Rabbi, and toward the thousands who do agree with him.

It's too bad that this tweeter doesn't get it; his followers now know that he will stab a Jewish leader, just because he disagrees with him.

It's a bird!

Last week I received one of the best birthday presents of my life: My Rebbetzin bought me a bird!

I grew up with a cockatiel; it's still alive after more than 30 years, believe it or not, although not in my family anymore:

Our family also had many tanks of fish, as well as lizards and turtles and guinea pigs and a boa constrictor. But our Thornhill rental doesn't have a lot of space for creatures beyond us six homo sapiens, and I was sure I wasn't going to be able to have another pet. And then, out of nowhere, my Rebbetzin surprised me with this cute yellow budgie. Unbelievable. She knows me so well.

I was going to solicit names here, but then one came to mind: Zimmer, for the brilliant Jewish composer of the music for the Dark Knight trilogy. And, of course, Zimmer-זמר-song, so it all makes sense.

I have a bird!

A Rambam Paradox: The Woman's Role

Disclaimers:
1. I don't like the whole "woman's role" or "women in Judaism" terminology, for reasons that should become clear below. I'm just using it for convenience, because people know what it means.
2. The following is not a true paradox; like "woman's role", "paradox" is just a convenient term.

So here's my "paradox": The Rambam opened the door for the whole idea of a "woman's role", but I think he didn't believe that there was such a thing.

One hand:
The Rambam is famous for promoting the idea of taamei hamitzvos, that we are meant to decipher a Divine Will behind the instructions Gd gave us. True, we won't comprehend everything, and failure to comprehend should not translate into failure to observe [see Hilchos Meilah 8:8], but we are meant to investigate mitzvos and discover Divine intent and philosophy behind them.

So it is that Kashrut may not be a set of disparate dietary laws, but a guide to healthy eating, or a unique diet setting us apart from the nations.

So it is that the laws of male haircuts may not be a set of grooming rules, but a way to distinguish ourselves from Egyptian priests.

And so it is that we look at a woman's exemption/exclusion from various duties, and deduce a greater philosophical picture of "How the Torah views women". It's an extension of the Rambam's approach to divining taamei hamitzvos.

The other hand:
The Talmud (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7) declares that women are exempt from time-bound duties, unless we have an opposing lesson for a particular duty. Most authorities seem to view this as a prescriptive rule; when considering a woman's obligation in particular mitzvah, I can ask, "Is this time-bound?" And if the answer is Yes, then I can assume that women are exempt.

This rule leads to a taamei hamitzvos-style question: Why is the woman exempt from time-bound duties? Is it because the Torah's view of women is that they are dedicated to family and therefore they need their time free? Is it because they don't need the rigorous scheduling and structure that men need? And so we craft ideas of a "woman's role".

But the Rambam discounted the whole idea that this is a prescriptive rule. As he explained in his commentary to this mishnah, there are many exceptions to this "rule", and it is actually not a rule at all, but only a convenient-but-incomplete way to describe a set of duties from which women are exempt. The Rambam rejects the whole idea that we are meant to connect women and time in some philosophical way – undermining the "woman's role" that others have described.


This is probably wishful thinking, but I'd like to believe that when the Rambam dynamited the "time-bound duties" concept, he was really dynamiting the idea of a "woman's role" altogether. I find the concept of "woman's role" to be of the unhealthiest breed of taamei hamitzvos, placing a false face on the Torah's laws based on whatever fad is current, and so demanding that people come up with new roles that fit better with our zeitgeist, regardless of how well or poorly those new roles fit actual Torah, or actual women.

Sometimes a mitzvah is just a mitzvah, an exemption or exclusion is just an exemption or exclusion, and there are no roles involved.

[And speaking of role-busting, I made this three-cheese baked ziti with spinach for the kids the other night, and it was very good. I recommend the recipe.]

Of Daughters and Tefillin

Each week, my Beit Midrash sends out an email advertising upcoming programs, and I generally include a note about something that's on my mind. This past week's note was on the "Women and Tefillin" conversation catalyzed by announcements about Orthodox schools Ramaz and SAR permitting female students to wear tefillin at school.

The gist of my note (full text here) was this: I don't believe women should wear tefillin, but I wonder what I would do if my daughter came to me, as a teenager, and said she intended to put on tefillin. The question is not whether she should wear tefillin, but whether I should try to stop her from wearing tefillin.

I asked the following questions, which relate to the parenting issue in different ways:

• How much emphasis should religion place upon personal meaning, and how much upon prescribed ritual?
• How do we preserve the holiness of our sacred objects?
• Where does this fit into my relationship with my daughter?
• If spirituality is "that which I find meaningful", is it still spirituality?
• How important is it that we conform, if the price is religious meaning?
• Might we gain by letting teenagers try outlying behaviour in a safe environment?
• If I raise a child who practices halachah but without a personal connection to Torah, have I fulfilled my mission or committed a crime?

I heard from a few parents who said they would prohibit their daughters from wearing tefillin, and I thought this was remarkable.

There are so many areas in which parents of high schoolers say nothing: 

• Boys on school vacation oversleep and miss minyan as well as zman krias shema [the latest time for Shema], a biblical commandment, and their parents say nothing. 
• Boys go to movies and see unclothed women, violating a biblical prohibition [ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, per Igros Moshe Even haEzer 1:56], and their parents say nothing. 
• Boys and girls hang out together and can be seen on their Facebook pages and Instagram accounts in each other's arms, violation of a biblical prohibition as well, and their parents say nothing.

Now a girl wants to put on tefillin, and the parents wake up?

Where do we draw our lines, as parents, in deciding when to speak up regarding our children's conduct? And why?

What's cooking, Rebbetzin's Husband?

[This post is for my friend from Chicago.]

I read a piece the other day on cnn.com, "Why are some lawyers killing themselves?" Scary stuff. This passage, in particular, resonated:

Instead of eight hours of sleep a night I was able to get by on six hours and finally four hours. The next things to go were my hobbies. I didn't have time for reading, so I stopped reading for fun. I didn't have time to take off from work so I stopped taking vacations. Then I stopped socializing because I didn't have time to waste away from work.

I am prone to that sort of thing, so I try to make sure to maintain some non-Rosh Kollel activities, but there really is no time for it. For the past couple of years, one of my only non-"Rosh Kollel" activities has been to cook dinner for my kids once a week.

I've enjoyed cooking since college; when we were first married and my Rebbetzin was in law school, I did a significant portion of the Shabbos cooking. It isn't that I was a homebody - I was holding down 5 jobs, including a part-time shul rabbinate – but I get satisfaction from doing it. Of course, part of that is likely because I don't do it every night, but I think part of it is the opportunity to invest myself entirely in something that isn't routine, that is new every week, that has an opportunity for creativity, and that offers immediate results.

Here are some of the recent recipes, with added notes:

Lemon Basil Lasagna Rolls

I found this by searching for lemon basil recipes, because we had some growing in our yard. It was great, except for kids who weren't as into the heavy tomato sauce presence.

Eggs and Hash Browns

Good, but too much work – I only have an hour to work with.

Swiss Chard Omelette

I love chard – and surprisingly, so did the kids.

Lentil and Swiss Chard Soup

With our newfound love of chard, we went Martha Stewart – and it was a hit!

And another chard recipe – Teriyaki Vegetables. Also well-received!

And again – chard and cheese omelette, and again it went over well.

Shifted gears for a potato and scallion omelette (we do lots of omelettes, although usually winging it).

I tried this twice and I couldn't get it right – there was far too much potato, in proportion to the eggs. I think "boiling potatoes" might mean the small round ones.

This focaccia was very easy to make – and possibly my greatest hit with the kids. I highly recommend it.

Sauteed cabbage as a side dish. I liked it; the kids weren't as into it. But then I started adding cabbage to every soup I made, and they are very into that.

Capellini Pomodoro – now, this was very good. But see above re: kids who don't like a lot of tomato sauce.

Pollo en Salsa, made when our vegetarian child was away. I took the easy route, baking it in the sauce instead of doing all of the time-consuming steps, but it was good enough to make again for Shabbos.

Pasta e fagioli! This went over very well.

Celery soup. Frankly, a dud. Needs way more salt, and the rice turns to mush too quickly, and absorbs the insufficient liquid. Oh, well.

And then there was this beer chulent I made up on the fly, when my Rebbetzin was away. It was based on an internet recipe, but I can't remember where I saw it. The goal was to minimize the starch, to avoid having to spend a lot of time cleaning the crock pot:
Flanken
3 bottles Guiness Stout
2 onions, quartered
1 potato, cut in thick slices
1 clove garlic
A little soy sauce (I didn't measure, sorry)
Salt and pepper sprinkled on
1/6 cup brown sugar
2 tbsp mustard

Feel free to send more ideas my way…

Two reflections from a wonderful Shabbos

I had the pleasure of hearing Rabbi Dr. Avraham Steinberg speak three times this past Shabbos, on issues related to advances in reproductive medicine and the question of how we define (1) human being, (2) mother, and (3) father. I've read him and many others on these topics before, but live is different, particularly when you are hearing from a person who has discussed these questions with many of the leading halachic authorities of the past forty years.

Listening to the shiurim brought home a couple of key points I have thought about before, but perhaps not as clearly:

1. The hierarchy of halachic authority when dealing with cutting-edge questions

There are people like me, who read as widely as possible and disseminate the information in classes. Our contribution is in making the information accessible, and perhaps, occasionally, raising a question for those higher up to discuss.

On the next rung up are the people who deal with these issues regularly, perhaps professionally, and not only when preparing a shiur. They are fluent in the relevant Torah and technical sources, and they converse with the major halachic authorities of the day. They raise the questions, provide information on the technical issues, study the work of the major halachic authorities and discuss and challenge and debate with them.

On the highest rung are the top halachic authorities. They have achieved this role by dint of their breadth and brilliance, demonstrated in their publications. They possess the creativity and diversity of knowledge to find precedents for dealing with new issues, and the depth of analytical skill to either pick apart those precedents or defend them against challenge.

This is important for someone in my position to remember; there is a real difference between the levels, and it should not be blurred.

2. The centrality of Israel

To the best of my recollection, the only non-Israeli halachic authority from the past 100 years to be mentioned in any of the three presentations was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein – and then only briefly. To my mind, this was not because Rabbi Dr. Steinberg was biased against any of the great halachic authorities of the Diaspora, but because the ones who are dealing with these issues, and publishing articles and teshuvot on them, tend to be in Israel. 

Depressingly, most of the names cited were of authorities who have left this world – Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, Rav Shaul Yisraeli, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Unterman, Rav Neuwirth… but the point remains strong: This is yet another example of the fact that Jewish life in Israel is strong, and Jewish life outside of Israel is only, as it should be, a satellite.

Yet another reason for aliyah.

Professional Confidentiality: Jewish Law and Ontario's Law Society

I am scheduled to offer a session on Professional Confidentiality, comparing and contrasting halachah and the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada, this Sunday. Here are the source sheets, for anyone interested; recordings should end up on YUTorah.org and KosherTube.

The Principle of Confidentiality

1.         LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Rule 2.03(1)

A lawyer at all times shall hold in strict confidence all information concerning the business and affairs of the client acquired in the course of the professional relationship and shall not divulge any such information unless expressly or impliedly authorized by the client or required by law to do so.

2.         LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Commentary to Rule 2.03(3)

Although the Rules of Professional Conduct make it clear that the lawyer shall not knowingly assist or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct (rule 2.02 (5)) and provide a rule for how a lawyer should respond to conduct by an organization that was, is or may be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal (rules 2.02 (5.1) and (5.2)), it does not follow that the lawyer should disclose to the appropriate authorities an employer’s or client’s proposed misconduct. Rather, the general rule, as set out above, is that the lawyer shall hold the client’s information in strict confidence, and this general rule is subject to only a few exceptions.

3.         LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Rule 2.03(2)

When required by law or by order of a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, a lawyer shall disclose confidential information, but the lawyer shall not disclose more information than is required.

4.         LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Rule 2.02(5.1)

When a lawyer is employed or retained by an organization to act in a matter and the lawyer knows that the organization has acted or is acting dishonestly, fraudulently, criminally, or illegally with respect to that matter, then in addition to his or her obligations under subrule (5), the lawyer for the organization shall

(a)    advise the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions and the chief legal officer, or both the chief legal officer and the chief executive officer, that the conduct was or is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal and should be stopped,

(b)   if necessary because the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions, the chief legal officer, or the chief executive officer refuses to cause the wrongful conduct to be stopped, advise progressively the next highest persons or groups, including ultimately, the board of directors...

5.         Talmud, Yoma 4b

מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר עד שיאמר לו לך אמור שנאמר "וידבר ד' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר"

How do we know that one may not repeat something told to him until he is told, "Go tell it"? It is written: "And Gd spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to go tell."

6.         Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Oaths 5:15

הנשבע לחבירו שלא אעיד לך עדות זו שאני יודעה או שלא אעיד לך אם אדע לך עדות הרי זה לוקה משום שבועת שוא מפני שהוא מצווה להעיד.

One who swears to another, "I won't offer regarding you the testimony I possess," or, "I won't testify regarding you if I do know testimony," he is lashed for a vain oath, for he is commanded to testify.

7.         Jared A. Mackey, Privacy and the Canadian Media, Western Journal of Legal Studies 2:1 (2012) http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=uwojls

With the recent recognition of the new tort of "intrusion upon seclusion", Canadian privacy law has experienced a fundamental and modernizing shift. In Jones v Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a person is liable for an invasion of privacy, if "he or she intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns [...] if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

8.         Rabbi Yehoshua Falk (16^th century Poland), Sefer Meirat Einayim 378:4

משום דשם (בסי' קנד) הראיה מצד עצמה אין עושה בהן היזק אלא שגורמת היזק, כגון שחבירו לא יעשה עסקיו בחצר מכח הבושה ממנו...

In 154:3 sight [of the property] itself does not harm, but it causes harm, as the other cannot go about his business in his yard due to embarrassment.

9.         Rabbi Aharon haLevi (13^th century Spain), Sefer haChinuch 236

משרשי המצוה, כי ד' חפץ בטובת הבריות אשר ברא, וצונו בזה כדי להיות שלום בינינו, כי הרכילות סיבה לריב ומצה.

Among the roots of this command is that Gd desires the good of His creations, and He instructed us in this so that there should be peace among us, as gossip is cause for quarreling and strife.

10.      Michah 6:8

הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה־טּוֹב וּמָה־ד' דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם־עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם־אֱלֹקֶיךָ:

He has told you, Man, what is good: What does Gd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk privately with your Gd?

11.       Law Society of Upper Canada, Confidentiality versus Privilege http://www.lsuc.on.ca/ConfidentialityVsPriviledge/

Though the term "privilege" is often used to refer to a lawyer's duty of confidentiality, the duty of confidentiality must be distinguished from solicitor-client privilege. Privilege is an evidentiary rule of law that refers to the legal right of an individual to withhold information from an opposing party, a court, a tribunal, and investigations, including law enforcement officials.

The Special Roots of Confidentiality in the Solicitor-Client Relationship

12.      LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Commentary to Rule 2.03(1)

A lawyer cannot render effective professional service to the client unless there is full and unreserved communication between them. At the same time, the client must feel completely secure and entitled to proceed on the basis that, without any express request or stipulation on the client's part, matters disclosed to or discussed with the lawyer will be held in strict confidence.

13.      Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Needy 8:12

אין פודין את השבויים ביתר על דמיהן מפני תקון העולם, שלא יהיו האויבים רודפין אחריהם לשבותם,

We do not redeem captives for more than their value, for society's sake, lest the enemy pursue them to capture them.

The Duty to Rescue

14.      Midrash, Sifra Kedoshim 2

ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול לפני סומא בדבר... היה נוטל ממך עצה, אל תתן לו עצה שאינה הוגנת לו

"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind." This means: Before someone who is blind in a given matter… If someone asks your advice, do not give him improper advice.

15.      Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a

מניין לרואה את חבירו שהוא טובע בנהר או חיה גוררתו או לסטין באין עליו שהוא חייב להצילו תלמוד לומר לא תעמד על דם רעך

How do we know that one who sees another drowning in a river or being dragged by a beast or being beset by bandits must act to save him? The Torah says: You shall not stand by the blood of your peer.

16.      Talmud, Avodah Zarah 6b

אמר רבי נתן: מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס של יין לנזיר, ואבר מן החי לבני נח? ת"ל: ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול

Rabbi Natan said: How do we know that one may not extend a cup of wine to a nazir, or a part from a live animal to a Noachide? "Do not put a stumbling block before the blind."

Case 1: Potential Physical Injury

I am counsel for an individual who has been found guilty of molesting a child on three separate occasions. My client moves across the province, applies for a position as a nanny, and is accepted. Am I prohibited from, permitted to, or obligated to, inform the prospective employer of her past?

17.      LSUC, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), Rule 2.03(3)

Where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological harm that substantially interferes with health or well-being, the lawyer may disclose, pursuant to judicial order where practicable, confidential information where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm, but shall not disclose more information than is required.

18.      Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (20^th century Israel), Tzitz Eliezer 13:81:2

ובודאי הברור שמותר וגם חייב למסור על מחלתו לשלטונות

It is of the greatest certainty, one is permitted and also obligated to inform the authorities of this person's illness!

Case 2: Potential Financial Injury

As counsel for a public corporation, I become aware that they are moving rapidly toward filing for bankruptcy. A neighbour of mine has invested her retirement funds in corporate stock. May I inform her of the danger?

19. Proposed Rule 2.03(5), Special Convocation, May 2000 http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/specialconvocation.pdf

Where a lawyer has reasonable grounds for believing that there is imminent risk that a fraud that may cause substantial financial injury to another is likely to be committed, the lawyer may disclose confidential information to prevent the fraud, but shall not disclose more information than is required.

20.      Why not?

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=30&number=14&article=1

http://www.slaw.ca/2012/03/30/dont-shoot-the-messenger-solicitor-client-privilege-vs-fraud-prevention/

21.      Talmud, Bava Metzia 33a

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: אמר קרא אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון - שלך קודם לשל כל אדם.

Rav Yehudah cited Rav: The text say, "But there shall be no pauper among you" – Yours precedes that of all others.

Case 3: Jewish Law vs. the LSUC

As counsel in a case of medical malpractice, I become aware that a certain cardiac surgical team has a poor track record. A neighbour is planning on using them for her heart bypass surgery. I confer with my own counsel and learn that this does not rise to the level of risk permitting disclosure. However, I do believe that I am obligated to warn her, under the Jewish law requiring that I interevene to prevent harm to others. Do I inform her?