Breakaway Minyanim - Sources

These are the sources for Wednesday night's Tzibburology class on Breakaway Minyanim... [Update: Audio now available here.]

Shul Building as Mitzvah and Communal Imperative

1. Tosefta Bava Metzia 11:23

כופין בני העיר זה את זה לבנות להן בית הכנסת ולקנות להן ספר תורה ונביאים

The people of a city may force each other to build a beit haknesset and to purchase a Torah scroll and Prophets

2. Talmud Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 3:1

כל המעכב את הרבים לעשו' דבר מצוה צריך נידוי

One who prevents the community from performing a mitzvah requires ex-communication.

3. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillah 11:1

כל מקום שיש בו עשרה מישראל צריך להכין לו בית שיכנסו בו לתפלה בכל עת תפלה ומקום זה נקרא בית הכנסת, וכופין בני העיר זה את זה לבנות להם בה"כ ולקנות להם ספר תורה נביאים וכתובים.

Wherever there are ten Jews, they must prepare a house into which they will enter for prayer at all times of prayer. This is a called a beit haknesset, and the people of the town may force each other to build a beit haknesset and to purchase a Torah scroll, Prophets and Writings.

4. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shecheinim 6:1

כופין בני העיר זה את זה לעשות חומה דלתים ובריח לעיר ולבנות להן בית הכנסת ולקנות ס"ת ונביאים וכתובים כדי שיקרא בהן כל מי שירצה לקרות מן הצבור.

The people of a city may force each other to build a wall, doors and a bolt for the city, and to build a beit haknesset, and to purchase a Torah scroll, Prophets and Writings, from which anyone from the community who wishes to read will be able to read.

History of the Large Shul vs. the Small Shul

5. Talmud, Succah 51b

רבי יהודה אומר: מי שלא ראה דיופלוסטון של אלכסנדריא של מצרים לא ראה בכבודן של ישראל. אמרו: כמין בסילקי גדולה היתה, סטיו לפנים מסטיו, פעמים שהיו בה כפלים כיוצאי מצרים, והיו בה שבעים ואחת קתדראות של זהב כנגד שבעים ואחד של סנהדרי גדולה, כל אחת ואחת אינה פחותה מעשרים ואחד רבוא ככרי זהב. ובימה של עץ באמצעיתה, וחזן הכנסת עומד עליה והסודרין בידו. וכיון שהגיע לענות אמן - הלה מניף בסודר, וכל העם עונין אמן. ולא היו יושבין מעורבין, אלא זהבין בפני עצמן, וכספין בפני עצמן, ונפחין בפני עצמן, וטרסיים בפני עצמן, וגרדיים בפני עצמן. וכשעני נכנס שם היה מכיר בעלי אומנתו ונפנה לשם, ומשם פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו.

Rabbi Yehudah said: One who never saw the Dyoploston of Alexandria of Egypt has never seen the glory of Israel.

They said: It was like a big basilica, a platform within a platform, and sometimes there were double the number who left Egypt in it. It had 71 gold thrones, parallel to the 71 judges on the High Sanhedrin, and each was made of no less than 21,000 gold kikar.

There was a wood platform in the center, on which the chazan of the knesset would stand, holding scarves. When the time came to respond Amen, he waved the scarf and the nation would respond Amen.

They did not sit in a mix; the goldsmiths sat apart, the silversmiths sat apart, the blacksmiths sat apart, the copper smelters sat apart, and the weavers sat apart. When a pauper entered, he recognized the practitioners of his craft and turned to them, from there he found his support and the support of his household.

6. Rama Choshen Mishpat 149:31

בית שהיה בה בית הכנסת בביתו מימים רבים אסור לשנותו (מהרי"ק שורש קיג)

The community may not alter the status of a house which has hosted a beit haknesset for a long time.

7. Rashi to Shir haShirim 1:13

הקדוש ב"ה נתרצה לישראל על מעשה העגל ומצא להם כפרה על עונם ואמר התנדבו למשכן ויבא זהב המשכן ויכפר על זהב העגל:

Gd was appeased by Israel for the creation of the Calf, and He found atonement for their sin. He told them, ‘Give to the Mishkan, and the gold of the Mishkan will come atone for the gold of the Calf.’

8. Ramban to Shemot 25:2

ואמר ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (שם ו), והנה הם קדושים ראוים שיהיה בהם מקדש להשרות שכינתו ביניהם. ולכן צוה תחלה על דבר המשכן שיהיה לו בית בתוכם מקודש לשמו, ושם ידבר עם משה ויצוה את בני ישראל.

Gd said, ‘You shall be, for me, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ They are holy, and it is appropriate to have a mikdash among them, for Gd to manifest His Shechinah among them. Therefore Gd first instructed them regarding the Mishkan, so that He would have a house among them, dedicated to His Name, and there He would speak with Moshe and instruct the Jewish people.

Multiple smaller shuls serve many needs: Practical: Geography, Functionality

9. R’ Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 2:46

הוא רק עצת היצר שהוא כדי לבטל בתי כנסיות של שומרי תורה ולהפכם במשך הזמן לקאנסערוואטיוון ורעפארמער, וגם תיכף כיון שיהיה גדול יותר מדי ירצו להעמיד מייקרעפאן לשמוע התפלות מהחזן וקה"ת ודרשת הרב שהוא חלול שבת וכדומה עוד הרבה איסורין ולכן צריך להשתדל בכל הכחות ולבטל זה.

וגם בעצם הדין אף אם היתה הכוונה לשם שמים כדי שיהיה ברוב עם, נמי אסור לבטל ביהכ"נ. דהא המג"א הביא בסימן קנ"ד סוף ס"ק כ"ג בשם הריב"ש שהמעכב לבנות ביהכ"נ אפילו יש ביהכ"נ אחרת בעיר מונע הרבים לעשות מצוה, אף שיכולים להתפלל בביהכ"נ האחד ויהיה עוד במעלת ברוב עם ומ"מ אסור ונחשב מונע הרבים לעשות מצוה שהוא מחייבי נידוי שמנה הרמב"ם פ"ו מת"ת הי"ד כמפורש בריב"ש סוף סימן רנ"ג. והטעם פשוט משום דיש מעלה בעוד ביהכ"נ לאלו שרחוקים מביהכ"נ הראשון שלפעמים יקשה להם לילך לביהכ"נ וכשיהיה עוד ביהכ"נ שקרוב להם ילכו לביהכ"נ ויתפללו בצבור וישמעו קדיש וקדושה וזה עדיף ממעלת ברוב עם וגם בלא זה לאפושי קדושה עדיף.

This is only the counsel of the yetzer hara, to nullify batei knessiyot of observant people and convert them, over time, to Conservative and Reform use. Also, immediately, it will be too large and they will wish to establish a microphone to hear the prayers from the chazan and kriat haTorah and the rabbi’s speech, involving desecration of Shabbat, and many similar prohibitions. Therefore, one must work with all force to oppose this.

Also, in terms of the essential law, even if they intended altruistically to amass a great nation, they still would not be permitted to nullify a beit haknesset. The Magen Avraham cited the Rivash that one who prevents construction of a beit haknesset prevents the masses from fulfilling a mitzvah, even if there is another beit haknesset and even if they can pray in the one beit haknesset and have the advantage of a great nation. It is still prohibited, and considered “preventing the masses from fulfilling a mitzvah,” which is one of the actions that warrants ex-communication, as listed in the Rambam and explicit in the Rivash.

The reason is simply that there is an advantage in having another beit haknesset for those who live at a distance from the first beit haknesset, such that attending this beit haknesset would be difficult for them, and with another beit haknesset closer to them they would attend this one and pray with a community and hear kaddish and kedushah, and this is greater than the advantage of having a great nation. Further, even without this, it is better to increase sanctity.

Multiple smaller shuls serve many needs: Halachic: Kedushah, Kavvanah

10. R’ Dovid ben Shlomo ibn Abi Zimra, Responsa of Radvaz 3:472

לא יתפלל אדם לא במקום שטורד מחשבתו ולא בזמן שמבטל את כוונתו ומעתה היחיד או הרבים שיש להם איבה או שנאה או כעס או מריבה עם הצבור אין תפלתם רצויה ואסור להם להתפלל שם שמחשבתו טרודה ולא יוכל לכוין בתפלתם וכ"ש אם מכעיסין אותו על פניו תמיד וכ"ש אם הכעס הוא עם מנהיגי הקהל ואי לאו דמיסתפינא הוה אמינא דטב ליה להתפלל ביחיד מלהתפלל בחברת בני אדם שאין דעתו נוחה מהם. עוד יש טעם אחר דאין ראוי לאדם שיתפלל אלא במקום שלבו חפץ. כי היכי דאמרינן אין אדם לומד תורה אלא במקום שלבו חפץ וטעמו של דבר כי בהביט האדם אל מי שדעתו נוחה בו נפשו מתעוררת אל הכוונה השלימה ודעתו מתרחבת ולבו שמח ונחה עליו אז רוח ה' כענין שאמרו בנבואה:

One may not pray in a place which will distract him, or at a time when he will be distracted. Therefore, an individual or group who experience open or concealed enmity, or anger, or a quarrel with the community will not be able to pray in an acceptable way, and they are not permitted to pray there, for their thoughts are distracted and they cannot focus in their prayers. This is certainly true if people overtly antagonize him, constantly. This is all the more true if the anger is with the leaders of the community.

Were I not afraid to say it, I would say that it would be better to pray privately than to pray with a group of people with whom his mind is not at peace.

There is also another reason: One should not pray other than in a place his heart desires, just as we say that one can learn Torah only where his heart desires. When a person looks at someone with whom he is at peace, his spirit is aroused into complete focus and his mind expands and his heart is joyous and the spirit of Gd then rests upon him, as we state regarding prophecy.

Multiple smaller shuls serve many needs: Institutional: Free-riding, Joining, Connection

11. Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the human side of Religion, pg. 148

Indeed, religious organizations are especially vulnerable to free-riding, as Mary Douglas (1986) recognized, because some of the most important features of religion are collective goods. They exist only to the extent that some set of individuals pool their resources to provide the physical setting within which religious activities can occur and engage in the collective activities themselves – religious rituals such as worship services, weddings, and funerals are collective “goods.” The norms of religious groups, especially of lower-tension religious groups, are such that it is difficult to justify withholding these collective goods from anyone. This, of course, encourages a substantial amount of free-riding.

12. The Barna Group, How Faith Varies by Church Size, http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/289-how-faith-varies-by-church-size

Despite the substantial attention focused on Protestant mega-churches, such congregations draw about 9% of adults who frequent a Protestant church. In contrast, 41% of adults attending a Protestant church associate with a congregation of 100 or fewer adults. An additional 23% can be found at churches of 101 to 200 adults, 18% associate with bodies of 201 to 499 adults, and 9% can be found in churches of 500 to 999 adults.

13. The Barna Group, cited by Thom S. Ranier, Surprising Insights from the Unchurched, cited at http://churchrelevance.com/qa-top-reasons-for-church-attendance/

Top 9 Reasons that Church-Attenders Choose a Church

58% - Doctrine/Theology 53% - People Caring for Each Other 52% - Preaching

45% - Friendliness 45% - Children’s Programs 43% - Helping the Poor

36% - Denomination 35% - Like the Pastor 26% - Sunday School

14. Dunbar’s Number, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Primatologists have noted that, due to their highly social nature, non-human primates have to maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex region of their brain. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortex volume.

In a 1992 article, Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).

Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans…Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialization; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size.

Dunbar has argued that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming. Correspondingly, only groups under intense survival pressure, such as subsistence villages, nomadic tribes, and historical military groupings, have, on average, achieved the 150-member mark. Moreover, Dunbar noted that such groups are almost always physically close: "... we might expect the upper limit on group size to depend on the degree of social dispersal. In dispersed societies, individuals will meet less often and will thus be less familiar with each, so group sizes should be smaller in consequence." Thus, the 150-member group would occur only because of absolute necessity — i.e., due to intense environmental and economic pressures.

15. Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point

http://www.nextreformation.com/wp-admin/general/tipping.htm

Gore is the company that makes the water-resistant Gore-Tex fabric, as well as Glide dental floss, special Insulating coatings for computer cables, and a variety of sophisticated specialty cartridges, filter bags, and tubes for the automobile, semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and medical industries.

At Gore there are no titles. If you ask people who work there for their card, it will just say their name and underneath it the word "associate," regardless of how much money they make, or how much responsibility they have or how long they have been at the company. People don't have bosses, they have sponsors - no organization charts, no budgets, no elaborate strategic plans…

Gore is, in short, a very unusual company with a clear and well articulated philosophy. It is a big established company attempting to behave like a small entrepreneurial start-up. By all accounts, that attempt has been wildly successful. Whenever business experts make lists of the best American companies to work for, or whenever consultants give speeches on the best-managed American companies, Gore is on the list. It has a rate of employee turnover that is about a third the industry average. It has been profitable for thirty-five consecutive years and has growth rates and an innovative, high-profit product line that is the envy of the industry. Gore has managed to create a small-company ethos so infectious and sticky, that it has survived their growth into a billion-dollar company- with thousands of employees. And how did they do that? By (among other things) adhering to the rule of 150.

Wilbert "Bill" Gore - the late founder of the company - was no more influenced, of course, by the ideas of Robin Dunbar than the Hutterites were. Like them, he seems to have stumbled on the principle by trial and error. "We found again and again that things get clumsy at a hundred and fifty" he told an interviewer some years ago, so 150 employees per plant became the company goal. In the electronics division of the company, that means that no plant was built larger than 50,000 square feet, since there was almost no way to put many more than 150 people in a building that size. "People used to ask me, how do you do your long-term planning," Hen said. "And I'd say, that's easy, we put a hundred and fifty parking spaces in the lot, and when people start parking on the grass, we know it's time to build a new plant."

We have reason to avoid splits: Spiritual: Unity

16. R’ Moshe Sofer, Responsa of Chatam Sofer 5:Choshen Mishpat 12:3

אוי לנו, שכך עלתה בימינו כינוס לצדיקי' הנאה להם והנאה לעולם. אבל מה נעש' שחטאתינו גרמו שא"א להכניסם, ע"כ יתפרדו.

Woe is us, that in our day such has happened! Gathering is good for tzaddikim, and good for the world! But what can we do, when our sins have created a situation in which we cannot gather them, and so they must separate.

We have reason to avoid splits: Halachic: Marit Ayin, Lo Titgodidu, Halachic strife, B’Rov am

17. Talmud, Yevamot 14a

אמר אביי: כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו - כגון שתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת, הללו מורים כדברי ב"ש והללו מורים כדברי ב"ה, אבל שתי בתי דינים בשתי עיירות - לית לן בה.

Abbaye said: We say ‘Lo titgodidu’ in a situation like that of two courts in one city, these ruling with Beit Shammai and these ruling with Beit Hillel. If there are two courts in two cities, though, then this does not apply.

18. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodah Zarah 12:14

ובכלל אזהרה זה שלא יהיו שני בתי דינין בעיר אחת זה נוהג כמנהג זה וזה נוהג כמנהג אחר, שדבר זה גורם למחלוקות גדולות שנאמר לא תתגודדו לא תעשו אגודות אגודות.

This law includes that there should not be two courts in one city, this following one practice and this following another practice, for this causes great divisions. As it is written, “‘Lo titgodidu’ – Do not form multiple agudot.”

19. Semachot 2:8

כל הפורש מדרכי ציבור אין מתעסקין עמו לכל דבר. אחיהם וקרוביהם לובשים לבנים ומתעטפין לבנים ואוכלין ושותין ושמחין שאבדו שונאיו של מקום, שנאמר הלוא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט, תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי.

We do not deal with one who leaves the paths of the community, at all. His brothers and relatives wear white and cloak themselves in white and eat and drink and celebrate that the enemies of Gd have been destroyed, as it is written, ‘I will hate Your enemies, Gd, and I will fight with those who rise against You. I have hated them with the height of hatred; they have become my enemies.’

20. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:11

הפורש מדרכי צבור ואף על פי שלא עבר עבירות אלא נבדל מעדת ישראל ואינו עושה מצות בכללן ולא נכנס בצרתן ולא מתענה בתעניתן אלא הולך בדרכו כאחד מגויי הארץ וכאילו אינו מהן אין לו חלק לעולם הבא

‘One who leaves the path of the community’ – Even if he does not violate any sin, but he is only separate from the community of Israel and he does not perform mitzvot among them and he does not enter in their trouble and he does not fast for their fasts, but he goes his own way like one of the nations, as though he is not from them. Such a person has no share in the next world.

21. Kesef Mishneh Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Terumot 1:11

והמנהג הפשוט בכל א"י כדברי רבינו ומימינו לא שמענו פוצה פה לחלוק על זה. ועתה קם חכם אחד ונראה לו שהוא מתחסד בעשותו הפך המנהג הפשוט ומעשר פירות שגדלו בקרקע העכו"ם ונגמרה מלאכתן ביד עכו"ם וגם מירחן עכו"ם. והולך ומפתה אחרים שיקבלו עליהם לעשות כדבריו. ונראה פשוט בעיני שראוי למנעם מזה משום לא תתגודדו ועוד שמאחר שבכל אלו המדינות קבלו עליהם לעשות כדברי רבינו מלבד מה שנוגע בכבוד הראשונים שנהגו כן והרי ריב"א לא מלאו לבו לסמוך על סברתו לבטל המנהג ומי הוא זה ואיזהו אשר מלאו לבו לעשות כן...לכן יש לגזור עליהם שלא ינהגו כן ואם יסרבו יכופו אותם כההיא דשמואל דא"ל אכול משחא ואי לא כתיבנא עלך זקן ממרא.

The practice that has spread throughout Israel is like the words of our master, and we never heard anyone open a mouth to disagree. Now one scholar has arisen and it appears to him that he is being pious by doing the opposite of the practice that has spread… and he goes and seduces others to accept his practice for themselves.

It appears clear in my eyes that it would be good to prevent people from this, under the law of ‘Lo titgodidu.’ Further, in all of these lands they have accepted to practice according to the view of our master, aside from the honor of earlier generations who practiced this way, and the Riva did not have the hubris to depend upon his own view and nullify the practice. מי הוא זה ואיזהו אשר מלאו לבו לעשות כן!...

Therefore, it would be appropriate to decree upon them not to practice this. Should they refuse, we should compel them, as in the case (Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 2:8) in which Shemuel declared, “Eat the oil, and if you will not then we will publish that you are a rebellious elder!”

22. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 298:14

היו יושבים בבה"מ והביאו להם אור, אחד מברך לכולם.

If they are sitting in the beit hamidrash when someone brings a flame, one should recite the berachah for all of them.

23. Mishneh Berurah 134:10

אפי' אם מתחלה היה עומד מבחוץ מצוה ליכנס לביהכ"נ לראות כשמוציאין ומכניסין הס"ת משום ברב עם הדרת מלך:

Even if one was standing outside, it is a mitzvah for him to enter the beit haknesset to see when they bring out and bring in the sefer torah, because of the principle of, “The glory of the king is in a great nation.”

24. R’ Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe 2:46

מסתבר שאף הרא"מ שהביא המג"א שפליג וסובר דאם ביהכ"נ האחד מכילה אותם אסורים ליפרד הוא רק מטעם שכיון שעד עתה מקיימים ברוב עם אין למנוע מעלה זו בשביל מעלות האחרות שיהיה בשני בתי כנסיות אף שהם עדיפי

It would be logical to suggest that even the Re”em, whom the Magen Avraham cited, who disagreed and felt that they may not separate so long as a single shul can contain them, said so only because they had a large nation until then. He felt that one should not prevent this advantage for the sake of the other advantages that would come with having two batei knessiyot, even though those other advantages are greater.

25. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 90:18

בית המדרש קבוע קדוש יותר מבהכ"נ, ומצוה להתפלל בו יותר מב"ה, והוא שיתפלל בי'.

הגה: וי"א דאפי' בלא י' עדיף להתפלל בבה"מ הקבוע לו; ודוקא מי שתורתו אומנתו ואינו מתבטל בלאו הכי (הרי"י פ"ק דברכות). ואפילו הכי לא ירגיל עצמו לעשות כן, שלא ילמדו עמי הארץ ממנו ויתבטלו מב"ה

Mechaber: A fixed beit hamidrash is of greater sanctity than a beit haknesset, and prayer there is a greater mitzvah than prayer in a beit haknesset, so long as one prays with ten.

Rama: Some say that even without ten it is better to pray in one’s fixed beit hamidrash, if one’s Torah is his trade and he never ceases to study other than for this. Even in such a case, though, one should not accustom himself to do this, lest ignorant people learn from him and cease attending the beit haknesset.

We have reason to avoid splits: Institutional: Danger to old institution, Communal Property

26. R’ Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet, Responsa of Rivash 253

גם מה שאמרת, אם באו יחידים לעשות להם מדרש לתפלה, וקמו אנשים למנוע; אם נתן לשמוע? ודאי משתקין אותו בנזיפה, שמעכבין את הרבים מלעשות מצוה, ואין עון גדול מזה. וכבר מנה הרמב"ם ז"ל זה, באותן כ"ד דברי' שב"ד נזקקי' לנדות העובר; ואיתא בירושלמי דמוע"ק : מעכב רבים מלעשות מצוה, צריך נדוי. ואם נותנין טעם לדבריהם, מפני ישוב הבה"כ, שלא תחרב, אז הקהל מעיינין בדבר, ועושין תקנה לקיים את שתיהן

Also, regarding your comment about individuals who have come to establish a study hall for prayer, and others have arisen to prevent it, and the question of whether one should listen [to the latter group]: Certainly, we silence them harshly, for they prevent the masses from fulfilling a mitzvah and there is no greater sin than this. The Rambam already counted this among the twenty-four actions for which Beit Din ex-communicates a trespasser, and the Yerushalmi says that one who prevents the masses from fulfilling a mitzvah should be ex-communicated.

And if they explain their words on the grounds of the establishment of the beit haknesset, to prevent it from being ruined, then the community should examine the matter and create enactments to maintain both.

27. R’ Avraham Gombiner, Magen Avraham 154:23

הקהל יכולים לגזור שלא יתפללו י' חוץ לבה"כ מפני מראית העין מפני האומות שיסברו שהם רבים וגם מפני היחידים שאין נותנים המסים ומתפללים בי' במקום אחר

The community may decree that no minyan pray outside the shul, because of appearances – lest the nations think that they are many. Also, because of the individuals themselves who do not pay the taxes and pray elsewhere.

28. R’ Eliyahu Mizrachi, Responsa of Re”em 53

בנדון דידן נמי שנחלקו הקהל לב' כתות כל אחת מתפללת לעצמה והכת האחת מהן היא רוב הקהל וגם שלא היו הם הנפרדים אבל הם עומדים על הכנסת הראשון שבררו אותו כל הקהל טרם החלוק במקום שנודרו שם כל ההקדשות שנתבטלה בעונותינו הרבים מגזרת המלכות וגם כל עניי הקהל אשר עקר כל ההקדשות שלהם לא נעשו אלא בעבורם הם עמהם וגם הפרוד שנפרדו מהם מעוט הקהל שלא כדין עשו מה שעשו שהרי היה להם להמשך אחר רוב דיעות הקהל כפי מה שגזרה תורתינו הקדושה אחרי רבים להטות ואפילו אם היו המועטים יותר עשירים ויותר חכמים מהמרובים כדאוכחנ' לעיל, הנה מכל אלו הפנים שורת הדין נותנת שיתנו כל ההקדשות בידי הכת הגדולה שיעשו בהם כרצונם אם... אבל היכא דנחלקו הקהל לשתי כנסיות מפני שאין המקום מכיל את כלם או מחמת שום סבה אחרת לא מפני חלוק דיעותיהם והיה החלק האחד יותר מהחלק השני ונתרצו כלם לחלק כל ההקדשות שלהם רק שנסתפקו באופן החלוק אם יהיה לחצאים מאחר שכל חלק מהם הוא כנסת לעצמו או על פי מספר הגברים אז שורת הדין נותנה שיהיה החלוק לפי מספר הגברים מכיון דאית להו לכלהו הנאה וריוח בהנהו הקדשות

In our case, too, the community is split into two groups and each prays on its own, and:

• One group includes the majority of the community and they were not the ones who broke away but rather they remain in the original knesset chosen by the community before the division,
• Which is the site of all of the hekdeshot that have now been nullified due to our great sins by royal decree, and
• All of the community’s paupers, for whom have the hekdeshot were originally dedicated, are with them, and
• The secession itself by the minority of the community was improper, for they should have followed the communal majority, as the Torah decrees, “Incline after the majority,” even if the minority are the wealthy or the wise.

For all of these reasons, the law is that they should give the hekdeshot to the larger group to do with as they will…

But where the community split into two groups because the space was insufficient or for some other reason and not internal disagreement, and one portion was larger than the other, and they agreed to divide up the hekdeshot and only disputed as to how to go about it – whether in half because each is an independent knesset, or based on the number of people – then the law is that they should divide it based upon the number of people, since all of them have a right to benefit and profit from these hekdeshot.

29. Talmud, Nedarim 46b

אמר ליה רב יוסף, הרי בית הכנסת, דכמי שאין בו כדי חלוקה דמי

Rav Yosef said: A beit haknesset has the status of an entity which is insufficient for splitting…

30. R’ Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Be”er Yitzchak Orach Chaim 24

מוכח מהש"ס הנ"ל בנדרים דקאמרי והא בהכ"נ דכמו שאין בה דין חלוקה דמי, ואמאי לא אמרו בקצרה הרי בהכ"נ דאין בה דין חלוקה, אלא ע"כ מוכח כסברת הט"ז הנ"ל דבאמת בהכ"נ מקרי יש בה חלוקה דזה יכול להסתלק מחלקו לצד זה וזה יסתלק לצד זה אלא דכיון דאין דרך לחלק כן לכן אין יכול לכוף לחבירו לחלק, והוי כמו נשתתפו לכ"ז שיהי' הבהכ"נ קיים ולא מצי לחלק שלא מרצון חבירו דהוי כמו שהתנו בפירוש,

It is clear from that passage in which they say, “A beit haknesset has the status of an entity which is insufficient for splitting.” Why do they not say more briefly, “A beit haknesset cannot be split?” Rather, it is clear that we follow the view of the Taz that a beit haknesset actually can be split, for one could leave his portion to one side and one could leave his portion to the other side, but since such splitting is not normal, one cannot force the other to split. They are like people who joined for as long as the beit haknesset exists, and each cannot split without the desire of the other. It’s as though they had an explicit agreement to this effect.

How might we maintain larger shuls and yet encourage people to stay?

31. Scott L. Feld, Bernard Grofman, Toward a Sociometric Theory of Representation: Representing Individuals Enmeshed in a Social Network

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/R35%20Grofman%20and%20Feld.%201988.Toward%20a%20sociometric%20theory%20of%20rep....pdf

Specifically, we suggest that sociometric representation requires that, for each citizen, there should be at least one individual representative who is in a position to receive information from that citizen via informal interpersonal channels. This means that there should be a short chain of personal relationships that leads from each citizen to some member of the legislature.

32. Eui Hang Shin and Hyung Park, An Analysis of Causes of Schisms in Ethnic Churches, Sociological Analysis 49:3 (1988) pg. 240-241

It was hypothesized that the status competition among members of a congregation would be conducive to formation of factions within the church and strife between the factions will lead to schisms. As indicated in Table 5, strife between factions within the congregation were cited as the primary cause of the schisms in 13 of the total 34 cases. Even in the remaining 21 cases the factional struggle was at least indirectly behind such disputed issues as denominational affiliation, formal affiliation with a larger church system, church building purchase, and others. The factional conflicts had been brewing for some period of time before the formal eruption which might have been precipitated by any of the formal issues…

Unlike nonreligious voluntary associations in the immigrant community, the congregation of a church consists of members with divergent backgrounds directly reflecting the variance in the total Korean immigrant population. Hence, it is inevitable that cliques and factions will be formed within a congregation on the basis of shared interests and backgrounds.

33. Talmud, Megilah 26a

אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בבית הכנסת של טורסיים שהיה בירושלים שמכרוה לרבי אליעזר,

R’ Yehudah said: Once, the beit haknesset of the Tursiyyim in Yerushalayim was sold to R’ Eliezer…

34. Balswick & Layne, Studying Social Organization in the Local Church: A Sociometric Approach, Review of Religious Research 14:2 (1973), pg. 106-107

In a previous study (Balswick and Faulkner, 1971) the formation of ministerial cliques was found to be based on theological beliefs. For our sample of congregational members we found that, although there are theological differences among the members, neither cluster formation nor clique formation within clusterings reflect these differences. An examination of the four clusterings will show that there are no consistent groupings of self-defined fundamentalists, conservatives, moderates or liberals. Theological belief is not a factor in clique formation, nor do clique members differ theologically from marginals and isolates. However, another factor, sex, does seem to account for most of the cliques within clusterings. The Conjugal Clustering, for instance, has two major cliques, one consisting of all males and the other consisting of all females. Except for the Christian Education Clustering, similar cliques are discernible within the other clusterings.

I moved to the wrong country

I love what I'm doing in Toronto, but being back here in Israel, if only for 60 hours, reminds me all over again of where I really belong...

When I was a shul rabbi, a Christian woman from Nazareth, PA would come to shul occasionally. She told me that she had once heard voices instructing her to move to Nazareth, and she had done so, but that the voices told her she had moved to the wrong Nazareth.

I'm not in "the wrong place." I'm doing good things, with good people, promoting Torah and helping young men become rabbis and teaching and learning, it's great.

But Israel is just 'it.'

... Not to mention the fact that the temperature is in the 60s, and it's January. Amazing.

Tomorrow is Masorah Day!

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here!]

[This post is actually my article from this week's Toronto Torah.]

I imagine that somewhere in the bowels of Revenue Canada, office staff gather every January 5th or July 17th to toast the anniversary of some little-known loophole-closing legislation. Perhaps ecologists similarly celebrate the day when a codicil was amended to further protect our environment. But who would ever expect Jews to celebrate a minor legislative achievement? Our holidays tend to mark blood-and-guts, slavery-to-freedom battles; Chanukah, Purim, Pesach, Shavuot, these are major milestones!

And yet, Jews of two millennia ago did observe a holiday marking a minor legal victory: The 24th of Tevet. As the gemara (Bava Batra 115b) explains, citing Megilat Taanit, “On the 24th of Tevet we returned to justice, for the Sadducees said that a daughter should inherit equally with a son’s daughter. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai dealt with them, saying, ‘Fools! What is your source for this?’ And no one could answer him except one elder… and he defeated them, and they made that day into a Yom Tov.” [Note: A variant text assigns this holiday to the 24th of Av.]

Certainly, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s triumph must have been of interest to the Trusts & Estates attorneys of his day and to families involved in inheritance battles, but who else noticed this enough to warrant jubilant celebration, not to mention the omission of tachanun? This certainly was not the final victory of the sages over the Sadducees, so why does this event warrant commemoration across the generations?

The answer may be that with his defeat of the Sadducees in this arena, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai strengthened the Masorah, the transmission of Jewish tradition, for each Jewish family.

Our national Masorah is a mighty rope, but it is composed of many thin threads: the relationships of millions of pairs of parents and children, of teachers and students. The collective cord is tough and resilient, but each individual thread is frail and vulnerable. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who issued many edicts to preserve Judaism, sought to defend the individual family’s Masorah against the inroads of the Sadducees, and we celebrate his victory.

The personal nature of this legislation is particularly important. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai also defeated the Sadducees on a major national issue, the setting of the proper date for Shavuot (Menachot 65a), but no special holiday was declared for that victory – perhaps because that was the national issue of our avodah in the Beit haMikdash, and so our Masorah was never truly under threat.

Our calendar would become far more fragile later in Jewish history. In the early 10th century, Aharon ben Meir attempted to wrest control of the Jewish calendar’s calculation, and the point on which he made his stand affected the date on which each individual Jewish family would observe Pesach and Rosh HaShanah. Without a central Beit haMikdash, with an exiled Jewish population, this would have threatened the cohesion of our Masorah far more than the earlier calendar challenge. Therefore, when Rabbeinu Saadia (later to become Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon) triumphed over Aharon ben Meir, a national holiday was declared – again, to celebrate the cementing of our Masorah.

We no longer mark the 24th of Tevet in any noticeable way; presumably, we will say Tachanun this Sunday. Nonetheless, we would do well to pause and consider Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s great achievement, and the way it relates to us. What are we doing, how are we shaping our household and training our children, to ensure the solidity of our tradition? Will our children know the Masorah? And, in many ways more important, will they love it enough to pass it on to their own children?

The 24th of Tevet comes along one month after Chanukah, another Yom Tov marking the survival of Torah. The two events could not be more different, the 25th of Kislev a blaring, glaring military victory and the 24th of Tevet a relative whisper. Nonetheless, each is an important occasion, each is a cementing of our Masorah. Each, in its own way, played a major role in bringing us to our own day intact, carrying our people and our Torah forward.

A Social Health Insurance Nightmare

Warning: This is not a Torah post. This is not a Life-in-the-Rabbinate or Life-in-the-Kollel post. This is an O Canada post. Skip to another one if you don’t want to hear a rant about something that may not seem like a big deal to you.

Also, while reading this, Americans should keep in mind that the planned US Healthcare plan will require orchestration between state and federal bureaucracies, as well as the IRS... I wish you lots of luck.


So there we were, innocently approaching the Canadian border back on August 18, our passports and papers in hand, complete with a letter from our beit midrash attorney explaining our immigration status. We looked at this as a momentary nuisance, 90 minutes in a squat brick office building watching our children’s behavior deteriorate while a clerk stamped and coded and printed out the documents that would render me eligible to work in Canada and would, 90 days later, qualify us for our the much-balleyhooed OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Phiasco).

Screechy, Hitchcockian violins should have been playing in the background, to warn the audience of the six-month nightmare that awaited.

The clerk incorrectly entered me as a Minister of Religion, instead of a Religious Worker. This affected my ability to work; I should not have been able to get a Social Insurance Number on that entry visa, although, somehow, the SIN office didn’t realize it and granted me one anyway. Go figure.

Also, it meant I would not qualify for OHIP, Ontario’s provincial health insurance plan.

So, after several false starts, we got our papers together and went to the Federal Immigration office to have our visa changed. This was November 26. After some confusion, they granted us the new status, taking back our old permit and giving us our new, Religious Worker papers. They stipulated that our 90-day wait for OHIP would be counted retroactive to our original, August 18 entry. The new working papers noted that they were a substitute due to administrative error, and that despite the November 26 date on our new working papers, we had entered the country on August 18. My wife’s work permit, and all of my kids’ permits, listed August 18 as their official date and needed no replacing. All good, right?

After a few false starts, we went to the Provincial OHIP office to formally file – and they insisted that the 90-day count would not begin with August 18, but would instead begin with November26, because my working papers listed that as the official date of entry. So we don’t qualify for OHIP until February twenty-something.

Contacted our beit midrash attorney, who insisted that they should accept the papers, since they listed the August 18 date as well. Went back to OHIP this morning. Got nowhere. They wanted to see the original working papers – which don’t exist, because the government takes back the old when they grant the new. Offered them a xerox, but copies are not accepted.

They did offer us one option: Write an appeal to the OHIP General Manager. Want to guess the turnaround time on that? About four weeks – or the time when we’ll get OHIP anyway, even with the late date.

I understand that policy requires that they work with the official date on the work visa – but when the visa itself states that the right date is months earlier, the clerk should be flexible. In this case, neither the clerk nor the manager, for all of their politeness, listened to a word of reason.

Thank Gd and thank YU/TMZ, the Beit Midrash is generously retaining a supplemental insurance package for us until we get OHIP, however long that takes. It’s pay out of pocket, and it’s costing the Beit Midrash funds unnecessarily, but it’s the best we can do for now. But I worry about what happens to people who lack that kind of employer, or who lack the means to pay out of pocket.

I fancy myself a liberal on many issues, and I want to see universal healthcare; it’s a sane policy, not to mention a moral one. But it must be done right, which includes working with people intelligently and not obeying blind protocol. IT also includes agencies that work with each other – as opposed to Federal Immigration promising the 90 days will start retroactively, and Provincial OHIP demanding a document that Federal chose to destroy.

Otherwise, the very people you want most to help – the indigent, the homeless, the people without a safety net or support system, the ones who have no recourse when government dronesmanship takes over – will suffer most.

Ten Signs of an ex-Shul Rabbi

[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]

Almost five months in, I'm finding some benefits in retirement. I still miss some aspects of the shul rabbinate, but I am finding time to work on WebShas, I am able to drive carpool in the mornings, and I'm able to devote serious time to creating shiurim that are deeper as well as broader than ever before.

Here's an interesting find: I've come to believe that, in some sense, I will always be a shul rabbi. Many aspects of the rabbinate have just stuck with me. All of the following have happened to me in my months since leaving the shul rabbinate; I think of them as Ten Signs that you are an ex-Shul Rabbi:

10. You feel bad about stepping out to talk to someone during the rabbi's dvar torah between minchah and maariv [but at least you step out...];

9. You naturally assume that people want your advice on matters public and personal;

8. Months before Purim, you start thinking about what costume to wear (see here and here);

7. The sight of Thursday on the calendar strikes unspeakable terror into your heart;

6. You shush the people around you when the rabbi starts his derashah;

5. You unconsciously refer to the president of the shul in which you daven as My president;

4. You blurt "Kaddish!" at the end of Aleinu before you can restrain yourself;

3. You feel a natural obligation to send Mishloach Manot to everyone in the shul;

2. You instinctively look around to make sure that everyone has a seat and food at shul dinners;

1. You walk into your kitchen, see a pot of eggs boiling on the stove, and automatically ask, "Who died?" [Community rabbi/rebbetzins often prepare the seudat havraah - post-funeral meal - of bread and eggs for mourners.]

If you scored more than 7 out of 10, you, too, were once a shul rabbi, whether in this life or another...

Tzibburology 101

I expect to start teaching a new class next Wednesday night, a 7-part series I call "Tzibburology." We'll be looking at the intersection of Halachah and Social Science: Breakaway minyanim; Social eating, seudot mitzvah and sumptuary laws; Maris Ayin (concern for the appearance of impropriety) and more.

The first class, Gd-willing, will be on the issue of Breakaway Minyanim: Halachic issues, How they are good and/or bad for a community, and What a community can do about them.

Of course, from a halachic perspective there is a great deal of literature on the topic, dating back many centuries. Some relevant in-favor issues include the positive value of building a shul, and the need for kavvanah in prayer as well as for a comfortable social network. On the other hand, there is a concern about multiplying institutions which then detract from each other (קפסקת לחיותאי), as well as an element of avoiding schism (לא תתגודדו), and of pursuing prayer in large communal gatherings (ברב עם).

The sociology standpoint is equally fascinating, I am finding. I've been doing some research into Dunbar's Number and the idea that social networks can only grow to a certain size (Malcolm Gladwell famously developed this theme in The Tipping Point), and therefore the possibility that shuls truly should remain at a capped size, in order to preserve unity and religious growth. I'm also looking into ways communities can mitigate the disaffectedness that comes with growth, to enable shuls to serve larger populations.

Churches, of course, have been dealing with this issue for a long time, and have a lot of material out on the matter. Here are some of the articles and sites I've been perusing to prepare for the Social Science aspect of this shiur:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3509778
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3711587
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/289-how-faith-varies-by-church-size
http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/demographicsresearch/
http://churchrelevance.com/qa-top-reasons-for-church-attendance/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
http://www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/Hill_Dunbar_networks.pdf
http://www.nextreformation.com/wp-admin/general/tipping.htm
http://subversiveinfluence.com/2007/03/the-rule-of-150-the-mission-of-the-church/
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/R35%20Grofman%20and%20Feld.%201988.Toward%20a%20sociometric%20theory%20of%20rep....pdf
http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/ChurchSizePersonalResponsibility.pdf

I'm really looking forward to this.

Rabbi Yosef Albo vs. Gotcha!

Elsewhere we’ve discussed the world of Gotcha!, in which everyone is a critic and every public figure a target.

Inherent to the Gotcha! game is the assumption that the target is ignorant/incompetent/ill-intentioned, so that her opponent may take a shoot-from-the-hip potshot on the basis of superficial reads and thirdhand accounts and assume that his gut reaction is correct, not to mention the acceptable equivalent of a fully formed, rationally explored, articulately expressed thesis.

From the attacks on Rabbi Lookstein at the start of 2009 for his participation in the National Day of Prayer, to the attacks at the close of 2009 on Rabbi Riskin for his comments on Christianity, the chattering critics spent little time analyzing, let alone researching, and instead launched their salvos immediately. [Note: I am defending neither of them, only pointing out the unwise haste of people who leap to criticize.]

This came to mind when I read the following disclaimer by Rabbi Yosef Albo, from his introduction to Part Two of his Sefer haIkkarim:

What should not escape the attention of this book’s reader is that the text includes many statements of hypothetical ideas rather than the truth itself. In other sections, the opposite idea may appear as an expression of the actual truth.

Alternatively, in one place an idea may be expressed with one meaning and in another place with a different meaning, as the Rambam did in many places in the Moreh haNevuchim…

Therefore, it would be appropriate for one who would examine a chapter from any author’s work not to leap to respond before he knows the styles employed in that work, and until he has surveyed the related material that appears in other parts of that work.

Sometimes a text will omit an introduction in one spot because it is independently understood or clarified elsewhere, or because the author wishes to conceal it, and the reader will think that this is an error of the author and will rush to respond and to think him a fool…

Therefore, one who examines a text should not leap to reply based upon his initial reaction, but he should think in his heart that the author is not an intellectual lightweight who fails to grasp the depths perceived by the reader and the thoughts the reader developed at his first read. It would be more appropriate to suspect one’s own wisdom and understanding, and to say that it is not possible for the author to err in an obvious matter. The reader should attribute the error to his own analysis, and extend the depth of his analysis until the author’s true intent becomes clear. Because of the great breadth of his analysis of deep matters, the author will sometimes give short shrift to clarification, and so analysis will be difficult for the reader.

I particularly like his point, “He should think in his heart that the author is not an intellectual lightweight who fails to grasp the depths perceived by the reader and the thoughts the reader developed at his first read. It would be more appropriate to suspect one’s own wisdom and understanding, and to say that it is not possible for the author to err in an obvious matter. ישיב אל לבו כי המחבר ההוא לא היה מקלי הדעת שלא השיג בעומק עיונו מה שיעלה על לב המעיין בתחלת הדעת, ויותר ראוי לכל אדם לחשוד שכלו והבנתו ולומר כי אי אפשר שיטעה המחבר ההוא בדבר נגלה הטעות.”

A little credit, a little care, a little benefit of the doubt and presumption of competence, would go a long way toward defusing pointless and baseless Gotcha!ism.

Like a Waving Flag

Ever since catching a piece of the song on the radio a couple of weeks ago, I’ve been taken with K’naan’s Like a Waving Flag. The lyrics, the music, K’naan’s own Somalian history grab me. I love the Balboaesque, רבים ביד מעטים defiance. Listening to the song, which is also the official anthem of the 2010 World Cup, it’s obvious that so much of it could be a history of the Jewish people.

But the other day I saw a homemade Youtube video set to the song, featuring pictures of victim children from around the world. Sudan, Tamil Tigers, Segregation-era US, Iran, and, of course, inevitably, Palestinian Arab children holding weapons, depicted not as victims of their parents’ militance but rather as victims of Israeli aggression. No pictures of Sderot's children, of course. And now I can’t hear the gentle iron of K’naan’s voice without thinking of those pictures and feeling outraged.

We've seen this before, of course; the world loves its youthful victims, embracing and even idolizing them for their suffering martyrdom. These children tug at our consciences, their pain is our pain, their faces the faces of our own youth, and helping them, or even contemplating helping them, makes us feel better about our own luxury. That their narrative can be so simply described – “Jews moved in, took their land and consigned them to poverty” – helps their cause, too; the world is hardly as sympathetic to Chechnyan children, for example, whose story seems so much more murky.

This is a professional martyrdom, a calculated decision to continue as victims in order to rally the world’s sympathy, and it drives me up the wall. The greatest sin of modern Israeli history is the decision of a nation to defend itself, and the Divine as well as international aid which made that effort a success.

Had the Jewish state remained a pitiful, besieged enclave, surviving at subsistence level, the world would have been most sympathetic, and aid for Israel would be as attractive a cause as tsunami relief was in 2004. But, instead, Israel is cast as the aggressor for its relative success in creating a strong and free society – you cannot be strong unless you are also guilty, apparently – and the Palestinian Arab child, consigned by his family to hunger to afford ammunition, is the poster child for a song about longing for freedom.

Kinder-Grind, Jewish style?

[Haveil Havalim is here!]

I am no expert on pedagogy; my kids are young enough that the Rebbetzin and I are still freeloading off of genetics and circumstance rather than earning our keep.

Still, I had to wonder a few weeks ago when the father down the table at a parent-child learning program [not a program of ours] shouted at his young son – I’d guess five years old – to properly and consistently identify and combine Hebrew letters and their vowels. The peremptory demands went on for about 40 minutes, “Do it!” “Read this!” “This time without mistakes!” and so on. The reading task itself didn’t appear overly taxing, and the child neither cried nor appeared particularly embarrassed, but the parent’s stentorian tone was just so harsh that I couldn’t see how this was a good educational method.

The father reminded me of soccer parents, gymnast parents and the like, putting their very young children through rigorous programs in the hopes of developing some germ of talent.

He also reminded me of Jewish parents’ attempts to start their kids very young, in programs exposing the kids to intensive Torah study, memorization and ritual. It’s an approach that Time Magazine once dubbed Kinder-Grind. A friend once described to me a program in which six-year olds memorize perakim of mishnayos. Another friend sends his child to a program in which the kids are given very little break time, spending long hours both during school and afterwards drilling in text, text and more text.

It feels like a desperate hunt for the next iluy, an anxious search for the Gadol in the family. The philosophy is really not that different from the approach that leads parents to choose preschool programs with an eye toward university admissions, or to try their toddlers on everything from violin to calculus in an attempt to identify the prodigy that must be lurking inside.

But, to me, inculcating Judaism should be different.

Torah is religion, not intellectual discipline. Yes, certainly, intellectual accomplishment in Torah study is part of Jewish excellence. But where the child who grows up resenting his math teacher will still be able to do math, and the child who grows up resenting his swim instructor can choose to walk away from swimming without penalty, a child who grows up resenting his parent or rebbe may know a lot of Torah and still walk away from Judaism as a whole, the best intentions of his mentors notwithstanding.

I'm very familiar with the passages of gemara that talk about starting kids young. And maybe I’m entirely off-base; as I said, the kid didn’t seem to be suffering. Still, and despite my pedagogic ignorance, I'd rather see kids grow up happy and well-adjusted and physically fit, and needing to work extra-hard in 5th-8th grade to pack in the knowledge, than see kids grow up stuffed with both knowledge and resentment.

Mazal tov! Mazal tov!

[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]

Last night we celebrated my brother-in-law’s engagement. (To a Toronto girl, no less! I have now passed the first test of Toronto citizenship: I have mishpachah here on both sides of my family.)

And another simchah: This evening we’ll celebrate my bechor’s first siyyum, Gd-willing; we’ve finished learning Mishnayot Masechet Berachot together.

These s’machot have put me in mind to contemplate Vicarious Joy – the happiness we feel when someone else is happy.

I see two kinds of vicarious emotion:
1. I feel the same joy/sadness/revulsion/anger you feel, because I can imagine how I would feel if that happened to me;
2. I feel the same joy/sadness/revulsion/anger you feel, because you feel it.

The first, I think, is the easier one to feel; it’s natural to imagine ourselves experiencing what others experience, even if we have no direct connection to them. I heard a radio report this morning about Michelle Lang, a 34-year old reporter for the Calgary Herald, engaged to be married this summer and killed yesterday in Afghanistan, and my gut reaction was to imagine myself in that situation.

The latter is more challenging, I believe, because it requires of us that we adopt others’ emotional state. Logically, it means that I would be happy just becausehe was happy, or sad just because he was sad, even if I didn’t know why he was happy or sad, even if his emotional reaction to a situation is foreign to me.

The Torah (Shemot 4:14, as explained in Shabbat 139a) describes Aharon meeting his brother Moshe and feeling great happiness for him, after Gd selects him to lead the Jews out of Egypt. It says, “וראך ושמח בלבו,” “He will see you and be glad in his heart.” And the gemara says Aharon is rewarded with the honor of wearing the Kohen Gadol’s special breastplate upon his heart.

Rashi takes this gemara as saying that Aharon felt joy that Moshe had been selected, and he views the gemara’s praise of Aharon as praise that he was happy rather than jealous. But the Torah’s sentence itself – “He will see you and be glad in his heart” – suggests that Aharon’s joy comes before he actually knows anything about Moshe’s appointment. This read is cemented by Shemot 4:27-28, in which it is explicit that Aharon does not know: Gd tells Aharon to go meet Moshe, he meets Moshe, and then Moshe tells him about the appointment.

This suggests that Aharon’s joy is simply triggered by seeing that Moshe is happy. He sees that Moshe is glad, and therefore he is glad, even without knowing why. It’s pure. [I know there is one weakness in this: Moshe resisted being selected! אף על פי כן. His resistance was not sadness; it was humility.]

This also puts me in mind of another point: Our natural expectation that others will be happy when we are happy, and sad when we are sad. We expect it, I think, and we are disappointed when it is not forthcoming, and it makes us doubt our relationships. Interesting, but seder starts in a minute, so I’ll have to return to this thought.

Jewish Snowball Fights

I'm giving a shiur this Friday morning, January 1, on "Snowball Fights in Jewish Law and Thought."

The shiur will begin with a segment on why it's good to be hit by snowballs [rolling in snow as a penance], followed by a discussion of why it may not be good to hit someone with a snowball [practical jokes].

We'll wrap it up by talking about this as a situation in which rigid halachah [tort law] recognizes the flexibility of human nature [the joy of a snowball fight].

Here is the source sheet; I expect to upload the shiur audio to our website, too. [Update: The shiur is here.]

Receiving is Great
1. R’ Yehudah haChasid, Sefer Chasidim 167
If a man who lived with a married woman comes to ask how to repent… For those people for whom repentance is effective… he should repent with a method that matches lashes or kareit.
This is his repentance: If it is during the winter, when ice develop in the river, then if he wishes he may break the ice and sit in the water up to his mouth or nostrils, just as he spoke with her regarding the sin until they completed it.
And so he should do continually, whenever there is ice… And if his body continues to be heated for sin, he should chill himself…

2. R’ Aharon ben Yaakov haKohen, Kol Bo 66
He should endure all of the punishments which are compared to death. He should sit in ice and snow daily…

3. Mishnah, Mikvaot 7:1
The following materials add to a mikvah, and do not disqualify it: Snow, hail, frost, ice, salt and liquefied clay.
R’ Akiva said: R’ Yishmael once argued against me, saying that snow does not count for a mikvah, but the people of Medva testified in his name that he once told them to bring snow and create a mikvah that way, from scratch.

4. Yeshayah 1:18
If your sins will be like red wool, they will become white like snow.

Giving is Problematic
5. Schramm, When fun snowballs into anger, Washington Post 12-23-09
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/12/22/ST2009122202681.html
You may be familiar with The Great Snowball Incident of 2009. The Post put the story on its front page, and it appeared on CNN, Fox and other major media outlets. This mostly friendly gathering at the corner of 14th and U streets NW began harmlessly enough. But things got ugly when the combatants pelted the personal vehicle of a D.C. police detective.
The officer got out of his car, displayed his firearm and started threatening arrests. Someone, not knowing the man was a police officer, called 911. The uniformed officers who responded recognized the detective and took his side in trying to control the crowd, which by then had started chanting: "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight." Meanwhile, the snowballs kept flying.
Standing toward the back of the crowd, with the survival instincts of an armadillo, I decided the time had come to depart. But right at that moment, the detective apparently got hit by another snowball, and he decided I was the one who threw it (I wasn't). Videos of what followed are widely available on the Internet. That guy in the drab, olive coat and fuzzy wool cap being dragged through the crowd by the detective, shouting, "I didn't throw that snowball"? Yeah, that's me. At my finest.

6. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:1
One may not wound himself or any other person. This is not only a prohibition against “wounding;” anyone who hits…in a manner of Victory [alternate edition: Humiliation] violates a prohibition.

7. Talmud, Bava Metzia 61b
Why did the Torah write “Lo Tignovu” [as the laws prohibiting theft could be deduced from related prohibitions]? It is as we’ve learned, “You shall not steal in order to irritate, you shall not steal in order to pay the kefel fine.”

8. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Geneivah 1:2
Biblically, one may not steal any amount. One may not steal in the manner of playing, or with intent to return it, or with intent to pay. All of these are prohibited, lest one accustom himself to such conduct.

Simchah Pranks
9. Mishnah, Succah 4:7
Immediately, the children would remove their lulavim and eat their etrogim.

10. Rashi to Succah 45a מיד, ואוכלין
The adults would remove the lulavim of the children from their hands on the seventh, and eat the etrogim of the children. There was no theft and no issue of peaceful conduct, for they did this in simchah.

11. Midrash, Vayyikra Rabbah 37:2
Once, on Hoshana Rabbah, his wife gave him ten coins and told him to purchase something for his children. When he went to the market he encountered tzedakah collectors, who said, “Here comes a person of mitzvot!” They asked him, “Please give your portion in a mitzvah, for we are purchasing the wedding needs of an orphan girl.” He gave those ten coins to them, and was then embarrassed to go home.
The man went to shul, where he saw the etrogim that the children ruined on Hoshana Rabbah, regarding which we learned, “Immediately, the children would remove their lulavim and eat their etrogim.” He took the etrogim from them and filled a sack and went to sea until he arrived at the land of a certain king... [He went on to heal that king of a stomach ailment with these etrogim, and he was rewarded with great wealth.]

12. Mishnah, Gittin 5:8
Taking that which a minor has found is prohibited as theft, because of the need for peaceful conduct.

Applications of this leniency
13. R’ Yisrael Isserlein, Terumat haDeshen, Psakim 210
Certainly, in this case [of apparently intentional harm, during hakafot] we would need greater evidence that there was intent to harm, for without intent to harm he would be exempt – even though the harm was a result of his actions – since it occurred during the time of joy in pursuit of a mitzvah…

14. Rama, Choshen Mishpat 378:9
Young man who ride out to greet a groom and bride and harm each other’s property in a manner of joy and laughter, or who do so in other joyous circumstances, are exempt from liability because that is the practice.

15. R’ Yechiel Michel Epstein, Aruch haShulchan Choshen Mishpat 378:21
Where they normally play at times of joy, having people run and ride horses as they would in earlier times, as when they had young men ride on horses to greet a groom, and they would run and damage each other's property in a manner of joy and laughter, and so in other matters of joy like Simchat Torah and Purim, if this is the practice then they are exempt.
Still, if the court decides that they should make a fence and hold a vandal liable, they are so empowered, for many corruptions emerge from this conduct.

16. Rama, Orach Chaim 696:8
People who grab from each other in a manner of joy do not violate “Do not steal.” This is the practice, but only so long as one does not do anything violating municipal edicts.

17. R’ Yechiel Michel Epstein, Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 696:12
One who harmed must pay, for today, due to our great sins, all joy is dimmed and we are not on this level.

How does this leniency work?
18. Talmud, Bava Kama 93a
If someone says, “Hit me” or “Wound me” on condition that the assailant will be exempt from liability, he is exempt.

19. Shoel uMeishiv IV 3:108, cited in Sdei Chemed ד:קסג ובעיקר
When Rashi says that forgiveness does not work regarding onah, because it is a matter of physical pain, that is specifically where the husband requests the condition and she is appeased and she forgives it. The same is true whenever someone requests of a person that he forgive something, and he is appeased. Then we say that he did not forgive with a full heart, but only relented to his friend’s appeal.
However, if the forgiver was the one who initiated it, then even in a matter of physical pain it is obvious that he forgave with a full heart. Who asked him to forgive, if he is not speaking out of the desire of his heart?

20. R’ Yisrael Isserlein, Terumat haDeshen, Psakim 210
However, I see, and my heart tells me, that that this matter requires a great fence. If, Gd-forbid, one would ambush another in this place, the mitzvah of circumnavigating the bimah would be lost out of fear of harm from one’s enemy. Further, the sin of one who would harm another at this time would be greater than in another place and at another time, for he mocks the holiness of the synagogue and he performs this mitzvah with a transgression. Further, he does it while the Torah is upon the bimah…

21. Rama, Choshen Mishpat 378:9
Still, if it would appear to the court that they should create a fence against this, they are so empowered.

Why use a siddur

First, a disclaimer: I don’t always use a siddur [prayerbook]. I normally daven at shuls which are nusach sfard, and I am an Ashkenazi boy. Nusach Sfard siddurim are a distraction, and I often leave my own pocket siddur in the wrong pockets.

Nonetheless, I believe that one should use a siddur, and particularly for the amidah. Aside from the halachic reasons favoring siddur-based prayer (see, for example, the Rama in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 99:3 and 100:1, and Mishneh Berurah 53:87), there are many other reasons why one should use a siddur. Among them:

A siddur guarantees that you don’t miss words or get lost in the middle of the Shir Shel Yom for Wednesday;

A siddur held before your chest can protect you from stray bullets, and earn you a wonderful story you can tell for decades to come, assuming your siddur has enough pages to do the job;

A siddur can assure that you won’t be interrupted during davening by a well-meaning friend who thinks you want to know the latest football score. Staring into a siddur clarifies for the world that, yes, you are davening;

A siddur of sufficient weight anchors you, keeping you from wandering too far across the shul and away from your makom.

A siddur – assuming you look into its pages and do not only hold it closed upon your heart, its shieldworthiness notwithstanding – can focus your eyes so that they don’t wander around the room and make contact with mine twice during your amidah, giving the false impression that you are daydreaming rather than davening.

And a siddur is an accessory, even a fashion statement, a way for you to affiliate with those who are like-minded. Artscroll, Koren, RCA, Birnbaum, Tikkun Meir, Shiloh, etc, all of these send important messages about your identity. Note that this is especially important in your shidduch years.

The classic, timeless, siddur: It’s the way to go.

Why the Tropper Scandal Scares Me

I have not the slightest inclination to listen to the infamous audios floating around on the Internet, for a few reasons.

One, because we are trained (Pirkei Avot 4:18) not to look at others בשעת קלקלתן, at the time of their corruption. We have nothing to gain, and much sensitivity to lose, by such voyeurism.

Another reason is that I saw this coming years ago. I didn't predict his specific downfall, but I attended an EJF conference in Boston several years ago, where it was obvious that the people in charge were taking advantage of the benevolence of their major donor, Tom Kaplan.

Mr. Kaplan spoke at a dinner during the event and outlined his vision of an organization which would help intermarried couples return to Judaism. From what I could see, this was not the agenda of the people running the conference, and it was not what was being implemented on the ground. The man with the dream was being used by the people charged with carrying it out.

I turned to the person next to me – turned out to be the Executive Director – and I commented, “He reminds me of Peter Pan.” After that comment I didn’t get invited back, which was neither a surprise nor a disappointment; it was clear that agenda had already trumped ethos.

But the major reason I don’t want to hear those conversations is the thought of how many others could end up doing what he did.

The profile for leaders who fall into this trap is straightforward:
People whose great ambition overwhelms their personalities;
People who abandon tzniut as they put themselves into the spotlight;
People who think they are the smartest ones in the room.

Taken with their ambitions, they overstep lines in pursuit of their goals, until the act of breaking rules becomes meaningless;
Abandoning tzniut, they stand front-and-center, eating up the accolades and thinking themselves unbounded heroes whose foibles are nothing to their successes;
Believing themselves the smartest in the room, they ignore the concerns of others and they imagine that any danger they don’t perceive must not be real.

And so they feed their egos, and so they break rules, and so they fall, thinking all the while that they are in pursuit of the greatest good.

There are lots of ambitious, talented, charismatic leaders in the Jewish world. They are many leaders who are quite capable of ignoring red lines on issues that are dear to them. I am very concerned, worrying who will be next.

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here.]

The Taking Tree

Sorry - On the advice of wise people, I have pulled this post.

Too bad; it was a good one.

Blackberry Blackout

(or, Bugged by Blackberries - a בדיקת תולעים pun)

Yesterday I finally sealed the deal on something I had been contemplating for quite some time.

I never wanted a Blackberry. When I first took the Toronto position and was offered a cell phone as part of the deal, I was advised by friends to make sure it was a Blackberry – and I told them I didn’t want it. The office said they would get me a Blackberry, and I said No.

I wanted to avoid the Blackberry because I am leery of becoming reliant upon handheld e-devices. I cut my teeth on floppy disks, those promising repositories of information which all-too-easily lost their data, and on easily-virused software. Ever since, I have refused to rely on cell phone address books and the like; even my daily-email lists were in text files until a couple of years ago.

Nonetheless, the upgrade from a regular phone was minimal and the office wanted to be generous and so, lo and behold, I had a Blackberry. I can’t tell you if it’s a Curve or a Tour or whatever; that’s like asking me whether my car is an EX, DX or LX. Who knows? It has four wheels (the car, not the Blackberry).

I thought I was resisting the Blackberry culture when I refused to descend into unreadable shorthand – Pls and CYL and so on, glyphs of the modern age.

I thought I was resisting the Blackberry culture when I declined to take advantage of Memopad and Calendar. (I did go for Brickbreaker in odd moments of waiting for appointments, but that’s about it.)

But slowly, slowly, the vibrating buzz became part of my consciousness, a summons with as great an urgency as a child’s cry. I started to exchange one-line emails which were truly inefficient, and often unnecessary, just because I could. I was tempted to email at red lights, as a way to use my time more actively.

Finally, I began to worry about the claim this device had on my time and my blood pressure, but I was lazy about doing anything - until the other day, when the evil device buzzed toward the end of Shacharis and I spent the next few minutes wondering who had emailed me. Time to get a grip.

So I’ve set a new policy for myself: A set email time in the mornings, a set email time at lunch, a set email time during the dinner break and another before bed. People who email me get a polite auto-reply alerting them that I am looking at ways to make my emailing more efficient (rather than say overtly, “I am restricting my time for communicating with you”…), and no longer can they expect an immediate response.

I feel good about this; I should have done this years ago.

National Fatherhood Initiative's finding on raising teens

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here!]

A friend pointed me to the National Fatherhood Initiative’s “Mama Says” Survey, which studied mothers’ beliefs about fathers. Among the findings:

* 93% of moms believe there is a father absence crisis.
* Closeness to children and work-family balance were the biggest predictors of mom's happiness with dad (after living arrangement).
* Moms said that "work responsibilities" were the biggest obstacle to dad's success in fathering.
* Strong religious values are beneficial to helping dads be better fathers.
* Moms think communities of faith are the top place for dads to get fathering help.

One particular finding caught my eye: Dads of young children got better marks than teens.

I can see that (assuming they meant Dads of young children got better marks than dads of teens...).

For me, one of the main challenges of fatherhood is recognizing that resistance from the kids isn’t always about me. I am so naturally competitive that I tend to take resistance personally, even though the conflict may be about a real problem, or about tension over a test that day, or about the fact that the sun rose that morning. The result is that I frequently need to take a mental step back and make sure I am responding to the right stimulus, in order to parent properly.

For example: If my daughter refuses to put on a coat before going outside in the Toronto winter, I could respond competitively, using warnings and the like to ‘win’ by getting her to put on her coat. But I’m far better off asking myself why she is refusing, and dealing with the problem at its root.

I know it’s dangerous to stereotype by gender, but I’ll do it now anyway: I think men are generally more competitive than women, and certainly than mothers. And I think men are more likely to allow themselves to compete with their children.

And to take the next step, I think this probably becomes more challenging when dealing with teenage children, specifically. Younger children usually live in their own world and tend to be stubborn rather than competitive. I’ve noticed with my older children, though, that as they are nearing adolescence they are becoming more competitive with their parents, in ways both evident and subtle. Managing that competition, especially as the kids become more legitimate as competition, is becoming more of a challenge for me.

In other words: Competitive fathers have an easier time with younger children, who are less capable of competition and less interested in competition. That changes as the kids get older, and fathers either learn to deal with it or they and their children have a very rough time.

And here’s a possibly-somewhat-relevant thought, building on something I saw the other day on-line, I forget where: Among the founders of the Jewish people, our ancestors all spent serious time away from their parents when embarking upon their major biblical careers. Avraham and Sarah leave altogether. Yitzchak spends some serious time out of the house after the Akeidah (binding), before his father decides to seek a wife for him. Rivkah leaves her family, as do Rachel and Leah. Yaakov spends more than twenty years away from home. And then, of course, we have Yosef.

Interesting.

Working late on a derashah

[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]

I'll be giving a derashah this Shabbos, and I'm up late working on it. Just came across an old derashah of mine, and a line and concept I really like:

In truth, both the pauper’s Maror and the prince’s Korban Pesach belong at the Seder, and we even eat them together; as the Torah instructs, צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו, the Jew must eat the Korban Pesach and the Maror together. The cry of long-suffering experience and the pledge of indefatigable hope are equal collaborators to Jewish identity.

But when it came time to leave Egypt, the Korban Pesach’s remains were burnt and left behind, and the last shreds of bitter herbs were likewise abandoned. The only item that remained was the entity that owned portions of both - the Matzah.

Matzah is לחם עוני, the bread of suffering, poor man’s bread, a spare combination of flour and water that sates but offers no pleasure. Matzah, like Maror, reflects our dark past and the bleak outlook it generates.

But Matzah is also bread of redemption, barely-baked dough borne on our shoulders in haste as we broke out of the world’s largest prison, associated with the thrill of our sudden liberation and with it our expropriation of Egypt’s golden wealth.

The Making of a Rabbi

I have had no time to string together coherent thoughts over the past several days. Thank Gd, I’ve been very busy running Chanukah programs as well as setting up progarms for the rest of winter, but my writing has suffered.

So, instead, I’ll post a list I’ve been contemplating for many months. It’s a list of rabbis who made a profound impact on me, shaping my own way in the rabbinate.

The list first emerged in response to a certain line of questions I’ve often been asked: “Which rabbis shaped your thinking?” “Which rabbis are your role models?” “To whom do you address your own questions?” This was my attempt to answer those questions.

I’m not including rabbis whose seforim I’ve used; this list is limited to rabbis I knew personally.

I’m also not including my friends who are rabbis, although they have taught me a great deal; this list is limited to rabbis I’ve seen in more of a teacher/mentor role.

And, of course, I’ve learned from many who are not rabbis, as well as my own students, but that’s for other lists…

Some of the rabbis on this list taught me to learn, others taught me to teach, others taught me (or tried to teach me) menschlichkeit, others taught me communal involvement and still others taught me counseling.

Some of them taught overtly, others by example.

Some of them taught me just one lesson of pivotal importance, others were my rebbeim for many years.

Rabbi Yosef Blau
Rabbi Benjamin Blech
Rabbi J. David Bleich
Rabbi Michael Broyde
Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen
Rabbi Hillel Davis
Rabbi Armin Hyman Friedman
Rabbi Moshe Fruchthandler, zt”l
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin
Rabbi Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht, zt”l
Rabbi Zvi Koff zt"l
Rabbi Daniel Korobkin
Rabbi Maurice Lamm
Rabbi Haskel Lookstein
Rabbi Pesach Oratz, zt”l
Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt
Rabbi Yonasan Sacks
Rabbi Herschel Schachter
Rabbi Boruch Simon
Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, zt"l
Rabbi Moshe Tendler
Rabbi Mayer Twersky
Rabbi Noach Weinberg, zt”l
Rabbi Avi Weiss
Rabbi Yosef Weiss
Rabbi Mordechai Willig

One more thought: I publish this list here not only because I find it interesting, but also because I think creating a list of mentors is a good idea; perhaps this will motivate others to create their own.

The message of Huram, Hiram, Hirom and Chanukah

As requested by Brad, here is my article from this year's Chanukah To Go, published by Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future. I don't know why the file on the YU website is corrupted (maybe it's because of Footnote 4), but here is the article, in full:

In presenting the seventh chapter of Melachim I as our haftorah for the second Shabbat Chanukah¹, the sages introduce us to a story of three men with near-identical names, as well as a moral lesson of broad sweep and penetrating depth.


Our story begins not in our Haftorah, but in Divrei haYamim II 2:10-13:

And Huram, King of Tyre, wrote to Solomon: “Because Gd loves His nation, He made you king upon them.”
And Huram said: “Blessed be HaShem, Gd of Israel, who created the heavens and the earth and gave King David a wise son who possessed intellect and understanding, who would build a house for Gd and a house for his reign. I have now sent you a knowledgeable, understanding man, my master craftsman² Huram. He is the son of a woman from Dan and his father is a man of Tyre; he knows how to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, wood, purple wool, blue wool, linen and crimson, and to engrave any engraving and to design any design which would be given to him, along with your wise men and the wise men of David your father.”

So far, then, King Huram³ of Tyre has sent King Shlomo a brilliant craftsman who shares the name Huram. As the Malbim notes, this occurred at the start of the construction of the Beit haMikdash.

Melachim I mentions another, similarly-named craftsman (Melachim I 7:13-14):

And King Solomon sent and took Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naftali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a brassworker. He was filled with knowledge and understanding and intelligence, to perform all of the tasks involving brass. He came to King Solomon and performed all of his tasks.

This Hiram is also from Tyre, but there are marked differences between this craftsman and the previous craftsman sent by King Huram:
• The former craftsman worked in a range of materials; this one works only in brass;
• The former craftsman was sent at the start of the construction, while this one arrives at the end;.
• The former craftsman is described as the son of a woman from Dan; the latter craftsman’s mother is from Naftali.

This second craftsman is also mentioned in the opening sentence of the Ashkenazi haftorah for the second Shabbat Chanukah, Melachim I 7:40, albeit with the altered name of Hirom:⁴

And Hirom formed the sinks, shovels and basins, and Hiram completed all the tasks he had performed for King Solomon in the house of Gd.

Why were two craftsmen, Huram and Hiram/Hirom, involved in building the Beit haMikdash? Malbim⁵ explains that they were actually father and son:

It appears to me that when Divrei haYamim says that King Hiram sent a written message to King Solomon, “Now I have sent you,” that referred to the father of this Hiram, and his name was also Hiram.⁶ He was sent from the King of Tyre at the start of construction… And he died after seven years, and Solomon sent for his son. Regarding this it says, “And Solomon sent and took Hiram from Tyre,” for the first came at the order of the King of Tyre and the second came because Solomon had sent for him. He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naftali, and she was a widow because her husband, Hiram, had died.

In sum, then, King Huram/Hiram sent a craftsman named Huram, who was succeeded by his son Hiram/Hirom, to help build the Beit haMikdash.


This story is about more than an odd interplay of names, though; both Melachim and Divrei haYamim take pains to present us with the lineage of both craftsmen - the son of a woman from Dan and a father from Tyre, and the son of a woman from Naftali and a father from Tyre. Why is this information germane?

Rabbi Yochanan offered one answer: (Erchin 16b)

How do we know that one should not diverge from his craft, and from the craft of his fathers? As it is written, “And King Solomon sent and took Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naftali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a brassworker.” We are taught, “His mother was from the family of Dan,” and it is written, “Ahaliav, son of Achisamach from the tribe of Dan.”

In other words: This craftsman is a matrilineal descendant of Ahaliav, who was also a craftsman. The prophet stresses this lineage in order to teach us to continue the lines of our family businesses.

Another midrashic approach, though, offers deeper moral guidance:⁷

Great and small are equal before Gd. Betzalel was from Yehudah and Ahaliav was from Dan, and he was paired with him.
R’ Chanina said: Great and small are equal… The Mishkan was created by these two tribes. So was the Beit haMikdash – Solomon from Yehudah, with Chiram, “the son of a widow from the tribe of Naftali.”

Betzalel and Ahaliav, the team responsible for construction of the original Mishkan, were the products of opposite families. Betzalel descended from the royal clan of Yehudah, who was a son of Leah. Ahaliav emerged from the tribe that travelled last, Dan, who was a son of Bilhah, Rachel’s maidservant. The two men could not have hailed from more varied backgrounds, but together they built the first building on earth where Gd would be manifest and the Jewish people could gather in worship.

Shlomo and the two Hirams, as the midrash notes, carried the same theme into the first Beit haMikdash. Shlomo, the king from Yehudah, paired first with a descendant of Bilhah’s son Naftali and then a descendant of Bilhah’s other son Dan to assemble the first permanent home of HaShem. Indeed, Hiram of Dan and Betzalel of Yehudah are both described as being Divinely invested with חכמה and תבונה, knowledge and wisdom; these traits can exist in anyone, regardless of family history.

Abarbanel (Melachim I 7:14) makes this point even stronger in his explanation of Hiram’s lineage. Regarding both Hiram the elder and Hiram the younger, the prophet notes that their fathers were “men of Tyre.” Noting that Tyre might simply refer to a geographic origin, Abarbanel then adds that Hiram might actually have been a product of an intermarriage:

It is possible to say that he was Tyrean from birth, as the text suggests, and his wife was Jewish, and she married him for some reason – because she had been taken captive, or for some other reason.

This possibility underscores the message of the midrash above, that a Jew is Jew, regardless of his background, and that any of us can grow to greatness.

It is natural for human beings to assume that spiritual character is an inherited trait and that certain lines are more gifted than others, but the description of Hiram’s lineage teaches us that our natural inclination is incorrect. No Jew should ever say, “I am predisposed to spiritual weakness,” or, “My ancestors handicapped me.” Certainly, all of us are gifted with certain basic talents – but anyone who is willing to invest the effort is given the opportunity to develop those talents to the fullest.


Rav Mordechai Elon adds that this message may have special relevance for Chanukah:⁸

Our Chanukah Torah reading recounts the gifts brought by each nasi (tribal prince) at the end of the Mishkan’s dedication. Despite the fact that each gift’s elements were identical, the Torah repeats every detail of each gift as if it were unique, emphasizing the importance of each individual. Then, at the end, the Torah sums up the gifts collectively and demonstrates that we are all as one before HaShem.

Rav Elon points out that the first nasi to bring a gift is Nachshon ben Aminadav, leader of Yehudah, and the last nasi to bring a gift is Achira ben Einan, leader of Naftali. With this we are taught, yet again, that the entire nation exists on the same plane. Each leader’s gift for the mishkan is significant, but each also functions as an equal part of the greater unity.


This message is also critical as we look toward the building of a third Beit haMikdash, for we are taught that our national unity is a prerequisite for the arrival of Mashiach.⁹ Further, this theme unites the two haftarot of Chanukah.

On the face of it, the two haftarot of Chanukah seem to be read out of order; the haftarah for the first Shabbat of Chanukah is Zecharyah’s foretelling of the second Beit haMikdash, and the haftarah for the second Shabbat of Chanukah describes Shlomo’s construction of the first Beit haMikdash. Why do we read these messages in reverse chronological order?

Tosafot Yom Tov¹⁰ cites the Ran to suggest that Zecharyah’s vision actually relates to a future time of Mashiach, and so it is more beloved to us than a description of the first Beit haMikdash.¹¹

Certainly, Zecharyah’s message is more explicitly linked to a future time of mashiach, but, as noted above, Hiram’s message is also important for our eschatological future. On the day when we will truly stand together, when we look not at tribe and lineage but at the knowledge and understanding and talent of the individual, then we will merit a final חנוכת הבית for the בנין עדי עד, the eternal Beit haMikdash.

-
Notes:

1. Megilah 31a assigns the haftarot of Chanukah.

2. Rashi, among others, renders this as “my father’s craftsman.”

3. Note that the king of Tyre’s name is sometimes presented as חירם, Hiram. See, for example, Melachim I 5:15.

4. The Artscroll Stone Chumash (pg. 1212) errs in this regard, commenting on the haftarah, “Much of the Haftarah describes the Temple vessels that were made by King Hiram of Tyre, a friend and collaborator of King Solomon.”

5. Malbim to Melachim I 7:14

6. Malbim ignores the Hiram/Hirom/Huram variations throughout.

7. Sh’mot Rabbah 40:4

8. http://www.elon.org/shiur_hebrew_doc/vayigash64.doc

9. See, for example, Yechezkel 37 (the haftarah for Parshat Vayyigash)

10. Tosafot Yom Tov to Megilah 3:4

11. The Kolbo (#20) answers that precedence is determined by relevance for Chanukah; Zecharyah’s vision relates to the second Beit haMikdash, during which Chanukah took place.