NishmaBlog

When do the 11 months of Kaddish for a parent end?

2012-02-02T11:34:00.001-05:00

I'm sharing this with permission of R Akiva Males

Here's how he wrote it to his congregant:
____________

Hi YYYYY, I hope you're well.

While researching your Kaddish question & I found different answers.

As such, I reached out to Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz in Chicago (he's the head of the RCA's Beit Din as well as the Beit Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Council) for guidance.

Here's what he told me:

When we say that a child stops reciting Kaddish for a parent after 11 (Hebrew) months, that means Kaddish concludes after the child has recited the Kaddish for that parent for a full 11 months.

As such, the 11 months are counted from the burial -- when Kaddish was first recited -- and not from the date of death (unless the person was buried on the same day he/she died).

The Yahrtzeit, however, is the day the parent died.

[He added that a Yahrtzeit is always observed on the Yom HaMitah unless the Yom HaKevurah took place 3 daysafter the death.]

As such:

Your mother passed away on 1 YYYYYY.

She was laid to rest on 2 YYYYYY.

That means that Kaddish was first recited for your mother on 2 YYYYYY.

As such, a full 11 months of reciting Kaddish for her would be completed at sundown on 1 XXXXXXX.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Akiva Males
Kesher Israel Congregation
------------------

Shalom,
RRW

Centrism - The Call for Thoughtful Judaism

2012-02-01T11:34:00.000-05:00

Quotation

"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking"

Alfred Korzybski Quotes - The Quotations Page

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Alfred_Korzybski/

--------------------

Right Wingers can avoid thinking by invoking absolute dogma re: Belief and Humra re: Behaviour

Conversely
The Left wing can also dispense with thinking by cynically or dismissively rejecting Tradition

The Centrist needs to weigh each case, to determine with reasonable skepticism combined with faith in the Tradition how to approach any given case.

A Centrist learns how to think and to investigate fairly while engaging his/her faculties and mentors to determine the Sh'vil Hazahav.

The rewards include liberation from a slavish mentality and flexibility to perpetuate Torah without reducing it to mindless rote and trivial pursuit. Yet a Centrist preserves Q'dushah without kowtowing to "political correctness" or the "ism du jour"

Think about it! :-)

Shalom,
RRW

If Prayer[Davening] is People Speaking to God, Then Meditation [Reflection] is People Listening to God.

2012-01-31T11:47:00.000-05:00

See
NishmaBlog: If Torah is God speaking to people, then Talmud is people speaking to God.
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2012/01/if-torah-is-god-speaking-to-people-then.html

-------------------
Corollary -

If Prayer [Davening] is People Speaking to God, Then Meditation [Reflection] is People Listening to God.

When Reading the Torah there is no doubt that one can hear God's "voice" talking to us directly
There is a secondary and more subtle voice, and that can be heard after Davening or Learning Torah, when one sits still and listens for an "Inner" or "still small voice". Maybe it's not technically God's voice but rather that of one's Higher N'shamah, at any rate one can get in touch with Divine Spirit by simply listening after a bit of preparation.

Thus after a certain effort [Na'ase] one may experience a Nishma.

Shalom,
RRW

Mei'afeilh l'Or Gadol

2012-01-30T14:39:00.000-05:00

By Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran

«Titus' statement of conquest and humiliation was transformed into a symbol of Jewish pride. Jews live and exist even in darkness, they continue to shine even when persecuted and humiliated.

...

Was it irony or fate that this symbol of a strong, dynamic,and re newed State of Israel was taken directly from the Arch of Titus? That Titus' statement of conquest and humiliation was transformed into a symbol of Jewish pride. »

A Lesson in Renewal - Judaism - Israel National News

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11136

Shalom,
RRW

If Torah is God speaking to people, then Talmud is people speaking to God.

2012-01-29T23:29:00.001-05:00

«... Even for Israel, this was strange photo op - a group of Koreans, fully rigged out with a TV cameras, winding their way through a crowded beit midrash filled with animated yeshiva bochrim shouting, gesturing and doing what they generally do in a beit midrash: learning. Why were they so interested? Well, it seems that Asians are impressed by the high achievements made by Jews thoguhout the world. How, they wonder, could such a relative minority of the world population have captured a majority of the world's accolades? »

"Torah is God speaking to people. Talmud is people speaking to God."
- Adin Steinsaltz

From Ponevezh To Oslo | Got Talmud?

http://opensourcetalmud.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/from-ponevezh-to-oslo/

Shalom,
RRW

Mussar: Rebuke - Embrace, Resist, or Ignore

2012-01-28T18:37:00.000-05:00

Sefer Mitzvot Katan, mitzvah 9:

The Bible verse:
AND YOU WILL CIRCUMCISE YOUR HEARTS
(Devarim / Deuteronomy, chapter 10, verse 16)
means
loving [receiving] rebuke and loving people who rebuke you.

Like King Solomon, may peace be upon him, said in his book:
...REBUKE A WISE MAN AND HE WILL LOVE YOU
(Mishlei / Proverbs, chapter 9, verse 8).

DerechEmet : Message: Quick Jewish Quote for 2012 January 21
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/message/156

Shalom,
RRW

Alleged Northern NJ Synagogue Firebomber Captured

2012-01-27T11:26:00.004-05:00

«...Graziano is accused of a firebombing at a Rutherford synagogue and arson at a Paramus synagogue in recent weeks. He is being held on $5 million bail after being charged with a host of crimes including nine counts of attempted murder and the arson and bias intimidation charges.

Authorities say Graziano was responsible for fires at synagogues in Paramus and Rutherford this month. They traced the materials in some of the bombs to a Wal-Mart store and captured surveillance images of a man buying the materials who later was identified as Graziano..».

Note: Graziano — could face a Rocky Road ahead of him ...

Accused synagogue firebomber denies guilt, wants case moved out of Bergen County - NorthJersey.com

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Lodi_man_accused_of_firebombing_synagogues_due_in_court_this_morning.html?mobile=1

Shalom,
RRW

On Working with Christian Evangelicals

2012-01-26T11:00:00.000-05:00

Premillennial Dispensationalism vs. Replacement Theology - The Evangelicals

Guest Blogger : Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz

Shalom and Regards, RRW

*****

Roots Of Evangelical Support For Israel

by Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz

Note: This article appeared in the August 31, 2007 edition of The Jewish Press.
The full article is available at http://www.jewishpressads.com/pageroute.do/23613

...For many centuries Christianity fostered an essential religious principle - replacement theology - the Jewish refusal to accept the Nazarene as Messiah resulted in the Church taking upon itself the mantle of the new Israel. In consequence the Prophetic promises of G‑d's benevolence to Israel were reserved for the new Israel, the Christian Church. It is to replacement theology, the nullification of the Jews as G‑d's chosen People and its natural extension of ascribing to the Jew every form of evil including deicide, that Christian anti-Semitism owes its beginnings and nurturing down through the centuries. Even in recent decades when most mainline Churches claim to have disavowed this significant source of anti-Semitism and replaced it with what is commonly referred to as covenant theology (Jews and the State of Israel enjoy no special theological status) they have tremendous difficulty dealing with the reality of the Jewish People.

As expressed by the Presbyterians, "The continued existence of the Jewish People and of the Christian communities elected by God is as the Apostle Paul expressed it, a mystery. We do not claim to fathom this mystery, but we cannot ignore it." The fertile soil of anti-Semitism or, at the very least an ambivalence toward the Jews and the Jewish State, is still present in covenant theology.

Does one recite Shenatan Mechachmato Lebasar V'dam on an "Einstein"?

2012-01-25T11:04:00.001-05:00

Shenatan Mechachmato Lebasar V'dam - HaRav Hutner

Guest Blogger -
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen

The concern as to whether this Beracha should be recited to a Jewish scientist or scholar in secular subjects was many years ago the subject of a Ma'amar by HaGoan HaRav Yitzchok Hutner (ZL) the Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshivat Rabbainu Chaim Berlin. He suggested that a careful reading of the terminology of the Shulchan Aruch indicates that it is not proper to recite this Beracha over a Jew. The Shuchan Aruch (SA) states,""Should one see wise Gentiles who are scholars in secular knowledge, one says, blessed be He… who has given from His wisdom to human beings.(SA, Orech Chayyim (OC) 224:7) Note the specific terminology of the SA. It specifically limits this beracha to Gentiles who are knowledgeable in secular wisdom. Apparently , Jews who are masters of secular wisdom are not to receive this beracha. Also, Gentiles who excel in Torah studies also would not be granted a beracha. Why?

In dealing with Berachot (blessings) there is a guiding principle of primary and secondary purpose. (Ikar V'tafel). For example, a blessing for spice is only recited when the spice was originally solely set up for the purpose of providing fragrance. Should the spice , however, have other purposes, then even if it provides a pleasant fragrance, one does not recite a beracha upon enjoying its fragrance. The fragrance that commands a beracha must emanate from its essential purpose. (See SA , OC 217:2) So too contends HaGoan HaRav Hutner this principle relates to blessings over people. The prime purpose of the Jew is to learn Torah. This is the goal of his existence. Everything else, including secular scholarship or scientific knowledge is of a secondary value to the Jewish soul. It may be important. It may even be vital to life, but it is still secondary to Torah. As such, a Jew is not granted a beracha unless he excels in his primary role, Torah. So too with the Gentile. A beracha is not operational should the Gentile excel in Torah for that is not his primary role in life.(See Pachad Yitzchok-V'Zot Chanukah, Ma'amar 9:2 and 9:6)

JVO: Remembering September 11

2012-01-24T20:49:00.000-05:00

My first instinct would be to look at history. How did American Jews observe the anniversary of December 7th, 1941, "a date that will live in Infamy"?

Personally, I am prone to using the Hebrew Date - namely the 23rd of Elul. This maps out precisely to ONE WEEK before the Jewish New Year of Rosh Hashanah [R"H]. In fact 9/11 was the 3rd day of the Ashkenazic S'lichot season, while S'phardim had started weeks earlier. Perhaps a S'lichah or Kina [elegy] would be apropos - see Below

Of course many Jews will join secular commemorations.

If we set up our own Jewish Program, then I don't think we need a specific prayer ritual, so much as an outline of "which bases to cover"

Here is an outline I hope is helpful.

1. Psalms to fit the occasion

2 Appropriate selections from the Scroll of Eichah or other Kinot lamenting similar tragedies

3. A speech or sermon discussing what happened and reflecting upon the aftermath.

4. Memorial Prayers for those who fell - E.G. "Keil Maleh Rachamim"

5. Perhaps prayers for protection in the future E.G.

6. Psalms 121, 130

--------------------

In the long run, the memory of Sept. 11, 2001 may begin to fade as did the memory of 12/07/1941. And perhaps that is as it should be. While the. survivors are with us however, it is fitting to observe the anniversary of this tragedy.

CNN: Increasing diversity redefining America's Jewry

2012-01-24T11:05:00.000-05:00

At times, I believe, the Orthodox world loses sight of what is happening in the general Jewish community. We have a certain vision of the non-Orthodox and relate to them through this perception. While this perception may have been more correct in the past, it may be totally inappropriate today. The question, of course, is what to do. Clearly our first step is to correct our perceptions so that we truly understand the greater world of those who identify as Jews. It is then that we can determine how to relate.

In this spirit, I direct you to the following article on CNN.com.
http ://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/increasing-diversity-redefining-americas-jewry/?hpt=hp_c2
I would then direct you to the link it presents to Be'chol Lashon -- and read between the lines.

In the end, you have to conclude that, in this world, what makes someone Jewish is simply that they call themselves a Jew. (Maybe, one also has to not believe in Jesus but that may also be changing. Although this article does not mention it, there are some, albeit still weak, voices out there advocating, under the platform of pluralism and diversity, that Jews for Jesus should also be accepted into the fold.) When we look at the gerut issue, we believe that we are advocating for one set of standards over another set of standards being advocated by the non-Orthodox. What we don't recognize is that the real argument that we are confronting is not a different set of standards but the absence of standards. To the world, if you call yourself a Jew and you sort of identify thereby with the Jewish community (however loose that definition may be), that's enough. Not only that you get diversity.

Also take note how a negative view of intermarriage that there will be people who challenge a view against intermarriage because of racism for thereby you are distinguishing one person from another based upon some grouping. That challenge, however, can be met with a reference to religion and an argument that one is simply promoting the faith and encouraging members to marry other members who share their beliefs and convictions. But in this article, because the intermarriage cited is one between a European and an Asian, the discrimination is presented as a discrimination against Asians thus changing the whole tenor of the issue. By being against intermarriage, you are portrayed as being against inter-racial marriages and then you are open to easy attack. Diversity becomes a further banner for no standards in any definition of a Jew.

The real question for us is what will be in 25 years (absence the coming of the Mashiach)..

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Joe Paterno, and the Myth of the Crucified Guru.

2012-01-23T11:11:00.022-05:00

As I write this Joe Paterno has just passed away.

I'm here neither to praise nor to condemn the late, great Joe-Pa, Joe Paterno, the man who gave advanced "S'michah" to linebackers

Rather I wish to share a viewpoint I heard with regard to the New Testament as a literary piece - in other words treated as Tragic Myth.This psychological insight is amazing and has been oft-repeated throughout history.

First people deify the "Guru" - only to subsequently crucify him. Thus the story of the Gospels, the deified guru is eventually crucified, and the popular Bar Abbas, for example, is pardoned instead of J of Nazareth

Similarly, the 61-year-long guru of Penn State football dies "crucified" by the media.

The "fad" starts first by first glorifying, then deifying , only to lead to the discovery of the idol's clay feet, ultimately ending tragically in some form of crucifixion.

How many times have we seen this theme repeated?

Perhaps Lincoln and JFK qualify? Or how about Marilyn Monroe? Howard Cosell? The Kardashians? Moses - as in Robert Moses? :-)

Despite its "Christilogical" origins, this Parable happens to Jews, too. And it would be wise to take note of its recurring implications

Shalom,
RRW

What Goes Up, Must Come Down

2012-01-22T07:51:00.001-05:00

This is bound to give us a "rise".

«Haredi elements posted signs in one of the city's business centers last week, calling on men and women to use separate elevators.»

New in Modiin Illit: Segregated elevators - Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4175727,00.html

Shalom,
RRW

R Haym Brisker, 100 Years Later

2012-01-20T11:08:00.003-05:00

«100 Years Ago in the Forward

Haym Soloveitchik, otherwise known as the Brisker Rov, is one of the best-known scholars among contemporary rabbis. Considered one of Jewish law's top authorities, people turn to him from all over the world with their legal queries. For the young generation, Soloveitchik is regarded as a fanatic who is unwilling to recognize that we have entered a new, modern era. But if you talk to young people in his hometown of Brisk, Belarus, even the apikorsim, or secular Jews, don't see it that way. To the locals, who know the rabbi, he is, quite simply, a moral giant. In Brisk, young atheists and old religious Jews share the same view of Soloveitchik. He is talked about as if he is a living legend. Soloveitchik's breadth as a thinker and moralist is known to all in his hometown, no matter what religious affiliation they may or may not have.»

Looking Back: December 16, 2011 – The Jewish Daily Forward

Mobile Devices Link

http://m.forward.com/articles/147665

--------------------

Pursuant to this, I once heard the following from a Rav...

R Haym Soloveichik Z"L was such a Ga'on/Genius that people would forget what a tremendous ba'al chessed he was

Conversely and Ironically -
The Choffetz Chaim Z"L was such an outstanding Tzaddik, people tended to overlook his great level of learning

Shalom,
RRW

Dennis Prager: Why I am not Orthodox

2012-01-19T11:11:00.003-05:00

«Finally, given that I believe that the Torah is from God and that the Jews are the Chosen People, and because I have values similar to Orthodox Jews, I am often asked why I am not Orthodox. My standing-on-one-leg response consists of three Hebrew words: Yom Tov Sheni. That's not my only reason, but it's shorthand for rabbinic law not changing.»

Can Halachah ever be wrong? | Dennis Prager | Jewish Journal

http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/can_halachah_ever_be_wrong_20120111/

--------------------

Sometimes the Creative Minds [Oker Harim] forget that by chipping away at the system, that the system may lose its structural integrity.

AISI

A Modern Orthodox person sincerely may QUESTION Y"T Sheini

And

A Non-Orthodox person simply discards it

See Beis Halevi on "Mah Ha'Avodah Hazot Lechem"

Shalom,
RRW

Attitudinal distinctions between moral/ethical and ritual Mitzvot

2012-01-18T11:19:00.002-05:00

Guest Blogger:
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Attitudinal distinctions between moral/ethical and ritual Mitzvot
by Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
-------------------

Recent debate over the proper attitude necessary for the observance of Mitzvot galvanizes the question as to whether
a pious Jew should have a disciplined control over his/her desires or appetites that he/she does not even lust after (or desire) that which is forbidden?
Though such a character trait would appear to be lauded, concern must be noted that , at first glance, it seems to be contradicted by the following Talmudic dictum. Namely the rule that "no one should say, my soul cannot tolerate the meat of a pig, rather , one should say: personally I would eat it, but what can I do, it has been forbidden to me".(See Rashi, Vayikra 20:26)
In other words desiring forbidden foods is not a negative Jewish trait.
HaRav Shlomo Kluger contends(I simply cannot recall the source) that there is an attitudinal distinction between different types of sins.
In general Jewish law may be divided into two distinct categories. There are Mitzvot which are logical and supported by a moral/ethical point of view. In addition there are Mitzvot beyond human comprehension, precepts that are considered statutes (Chukim) In the former group, the rational component of the sin should be powerful enough to eliminate even a scintilla of desire to sin. Accordingly the true believer and observer of the Torah should be of such a mind that lying , stealing and cheating should be viewed as repugnant to morality.
Regarding, however, the statutes (Chukim), we simply do not understand their raison d'etre. As such, there is nothing wrong with manifesting a personal inclination to enjoy the forbidden item. In these matters the concern is not the desire per se, but, rather, withholding oneself from violating the Biblical injunction.
Thus, one may not contend that he/she sees nothing wrong with stealing but refrains from doing so due to the biblical mandate.

Thus, when performing logical Mitzvot we are implored to observe them in the same manner and enthusiasim as one performs action of great joy and moral value.When, however it comes to commandments whose reason we simply do not understand, we follow the ruling of Rabban Gamliel who said in Avot, "Nullify your will before His will, so that He will nullify the will of others (Avot 2:4) In other words, even though we may desire forbidden foods, we hold back from eating them and hope HaShem will reward us by nullifying the evil will of others. (See Magen Avot- Commentary of Rav Shlomo Kluger, Avot m2:4)

About our Guest Blogger
Rabbi Cohen is the recipient of the prestigious "Jerusalem Prize" for rabbinic scholarship and leadership presented in the presence of the President of Israel and the chief Rabbis. Rabbi Cohen has published several Sefarim on Halacha. His latest, "Shabbat The right Way-Resolving Halachic dilemmas (Urim Publications) is available at Judaica stores and at Amazon.com

Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Mesira and Dina d'Malchusa Dina

2012-01-17T20:00:00.001-05:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: JTA is reporting that a New York area rabbi has invoked Mesira as a legal defense. How is this concept reconciled with dina d'malkhuta dina? which conept is paramount?

Rabbi Hecht's answer

Of course, to properly answer this question, it is important for us to clearly define these two Halachic (Jewish Legal) terms that are being introduced, namely mesira and dina d’malkhuta dina. However, prior to this, it may first be important to understand the context in which these terms are applied.

The ideal manifestation of the Jewish People is to live as an independent nation in the Land of Israel under the legal system of the Torah. It is important to recognize that Jewish Law is not just a system of religious law but that it is a full legal system upon which a Jewish society is to be based. Halacha, as such, touches upon all aspects of civil law, contractual law, taxation – the whole gamut of what is legally necessary for a well-functioning society. And we, the Jewish People, in our observance of Torah are ideally to be a well-functioning model society on our land.

Exile, as such, is not just a personal misfortunate that has tragically impacted negatively on Jews as individuals. Exile also had a communal impact in that our Jewish society was thereby placed in the midst of other societies – often other societies that not only did not share our value constructs but also were hostile towards us. The fact that our society was uprooted from our land and our independence, however, did not mean that we were to totally forsake any attempts to maintain our uniquely Jewish societal constructs to the greatest extent possible. With Exile, we were given the challenge of trying to exist as individual Jews under the pressures to conform from a greater population of non-Jews with different mores. We were also, however, given the challenge of maintaining, to the greatest extent possible, the constructs of a Jewish society with Torah as our legal backbone as we also exist within the confines of the host and dominant society.

So, one of the challenges facing the Jewish People in Exile is how they are going to survive as a corporate entity within the bosom of the corporate entity of the greater society. This may involve two distinct issues. One would be what to do to protect the community in the face of a hostile host society – for example, when the host society imposes unfair taxation demands upon its Jewish inhabitants. The other may be how to maintain the distinctive nature of the Jewish community and ensure, to the greatest extent possible, its unique value and legal perspective. Consideration must also, though, be made for the necessary well-functioning of the host society for reasons of law and order, in general and in regard to the Jewish community. Mishna Avot 3:2 instructs us to pray for the welfare of the government for without its proper functioning there will be mayhem. See, also, Yirmiyahu 29:7 in reference to Exile. We are to support the workings of the foreign society in which we find ourselves yet this should not be at the expense of our fair treatment and a proper expression of our uniqueness.

It is with an understanding of the tension of these directives that we can best understand the terms mesira and dina d’malkhuta dina. The former, mesira, instructs us not to give a Jew over to non-Jewish authorities. We can especially understand such a restriction if the host society is a hostile one and there is also concern that the consequences could be unfair both to the individual Jew and/or the Jewish community. This prohibition, though, may also extend to situations where the host society is not hostile; our concern, in such a matter, would be our desire to deal with the matter within our own Jewish perspective. Mesira, though, is not a blanket prohibition. At the same time, there would be cases where it would even be our obligation to assist the authorities in capturing and convicting even a fellow Jew – such as in the interests of law and order if this person was a violent criminal. This, of course, is only a very brief introduction to the concept and issue of mesira. There are many other factors that may be involved in responding to a query as to when a prohibition of mesira is applicable and when it is definitely not. Bottom line, it is a balancing of considerations between maintaining support of the functioning of our host society while also maintaining a certain level of our unique independence.

It is a similar balancing of values that is represented in the concept of dina d’malkhuta dina, which translated simply means that the law of the land is the law, namely that Halacha recognizes the law of the host country as binding. This construct, though, clearly has its limitations. If, for example, the law of a host country outlawed circumcision, Halacha, clearly, would not accept it; Jewish law would not respect as binding a law of the host country of this nature. Basically, this maxim concerns monetary matters and in its most restrictive interpretation applies to taxation, that the tax laws of a host society, if just, are binding on the Jewish community. The maxim in its most limited understanding basically instructs the Jewish community that we are to consider the laws of a host society, that are enacted to promote the proper functioning of the society, to be considered binding as well by Jewish Law. As a first extension from taxation, this would also apply to enactments for law and order. There are further understandings of this maxim that also declare it applicable in other, essentially monetary, matters. A contravening value consideration to this may be our desire to maintain the uniqueness of our Jewish perspective. With this in mind, there may be some argument to limit the application of the laws of the host society. Bottom line, again, it is a balancing of considerations between maintaining support of the functioning of our host society while also maintaining a certain level of our unique independence.

To further investigate the details of these two principles, I would direct you to the following:

Rabbi Hershel Schachter, “’Dina De’Malchusa Dina’: Secular Law as a Religious Obligation”, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 1:103;

Rabbi Simcha Krauss, “Litigation in Secular Courts”, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 3:35;

Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, “The Practice of Law According to Halacha”, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 20:5;

Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, “Informing on Others for Violating American Law: A Jewish Law View”, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 43:5.

Of course the first article deals directly with dina d’malkhuta dina while the last article deals directly with mesira.

Returning to the original question, we see that at issue is really this balancing of considerations. Mesira may be the term that is used to reflect the value in maintaining the independence of the Jewish community which may include a concern that Jews may not be treated fairly by members of the host society. Dina d’malkhuta dina may be the term that is used to reflect the value of respecting the laws of the land and the call to be good citizens especially in a land that not only has not been hostile to the Jewish community but has even been welcoming and supportive. Without knowing the specific case to which this rabbi made this statement, it is difficult to actually comment on the rabbi’s position. Similarly, it is difficult to state unequivocally that dina d’malkhuta dina clearly applies. I can only say that in regard to most of the recent cases where I have heard of such arguments, an argument of mesira would clearly not be normative. Considerations for the defaming of God’s Name (chilul Hashem) also are to become a factor in limiting charges of mesira. We are called upon to be good citizens – good members of the nation in which we live. We are also called upon to be good Jews – good members of the Jewish nation. The answer is not to pick one over the other but to attempt to accomplish both. In an environment where this would be possible, this clearly must be our goal.

"Do the ends justify the means?"

2012-01-16T12:25:00.000-05:00

Guest Post from Douglas Aronin, Esq.

Shalom
RRW

*****

The dangers of extremism: a reflection on recent events in Israel

I trust that all of us, despite differences in our religious and political perspectives, have been dismayed by recent events in Beit Shemesh, an Israeli city between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv whose population spans the religious spectrum, from secular to chareidi. In recent years, as the chareidi enclaves in Jerusalem and Bnai Brak have become increasingly overcrowded, a growing number of chareidim have moved into Beit Shemesh, generally residing in all-chareidi enclaves within the city.

In case you missed the recent news reports, the current controversy began when a group of chareidim who call themselves the Sicarii (a name taken from a group of first century zealots whose unabashed fanaticism helped bring about the destruction of the Second Temple) began harassing students and parents as they walked to a religious (but not chareidi) girls' elementary school that borders a chareidi neighborhood. Although the students were dressed modestly by Western standards (long skirts and long sleeves), they apparently fell short of the increasingly stringent modesty standards demanded by some of the more extreme chareidi subgroups in the area. (Foreign media tend to treat chareidim as if they were all identical, but in fact there are wide differences among them.) A news story by an independent Israeli television station featured an eight-year-old girl who had been cursed and spit at by chareidi men and was so traumatized that she was afraid to walk to school, even accompanied by her mother.

Not surprisingly, that story provoked widespread outrage in Israel, resulting in government pledges to take strong action against chareidi harassment and culminating in a Beit Shemesh rally against religious coercion, which attracted secular and religious Israelis from all over the country, even including some chareidim.. When the police tried to protect students and parents entering the school from harassment and removed signs that some chareidim had put up demanding modest dress for women on the public streets around the school, some of the chareidim responded by throwing stones at the police and calling them Nazis, an epithet that not surprisingly provoked further outrage. (The "Nazi" label in this context is self-disproving. If the chareidim really thought that the police were behaving like Nazis, they would never have dared to confront them as they did.)

The unrest in Beit Shemesh comes on the heels of an unrelated series of incidents perpetrated by a group of militant, predominantly religious Israeli settlers in the West Bank who have engaged in a series of reprisals that go under the name "price tag". Those operations have the dual purpose of retaliating for indiscriminate violence against Jewish civilians living in the West Bank by perpetrating indiscriminate violence directed against Arab civilians living nearby and distracting the Israel Defense Forces from dismantling illegal settlement outposts. Needless to say, the IDF, which is responsible for maintaining order in the West Bank, has sought to stop these "price tag" militants, resulting in clashes between the militants and IDF soldiers. The simmering conflict reached a climax of sorts a few weeks ago when a group of the militants invaded and vandalized an IDF base, throwing rocks at the brigade commander, who fortunately was unhurt, though another officer was reportedly injured. That incident was unequivocally condemned by the mainstream settler leadership and provoked widespread outrage across the country, resulting in renewed government promises to crack down on future "price tag" activities. (According to a report in this morning's New York Times, which I saw after this post was almost complete, Israeli prosecutors have arrested and filed charges against five of the "price tag" militants.)

Both factually and ideologically, the activities of the Beit Shemesh chareidim and those of the "price tag" militants are unrelated. The chareidim of Beit Shemesh, who want to seal themselves off into enclaves where they are free to insist on their increasingly fanatical version of female modesty, have no affinity with the militant settlers of the West Bank, whose overarching goal is to hold Israeli foreign policy hostage to their militant outlook by making the prospect of evacuating settlers from any part of the West Bank as part of a future peace agreement all but unthinkable. Though the Western media sometimes obscure this distinction by using the term "right wing" to refer to both groups, in reality the chareidim of Beit Shemesh, who are at best ambivalent toward Zionism, and the militant religious Zionist settlers of the West Bank are wholly different religious and political phenomena.

Yet for all the profound differences between these two groups, there is an underlying thematic similarity that is hard to deny. Each group insists that its own religiously based value system trumps not merely the laws of the State but also the most basic concepts of democratic governance and civic morality. In their minds, the importance of the goals they seek -- promoting enhanced female modesty on one hand and preventing the cession of territory to Arab rule on the other -- is increasingly seen as justifying virtually any means of achieving those goals. And it appears that some of the more extreme members of each group have taken the fight to implement their goals farther than their leaders anticipated or desired.

As far as I know, no respected chareidi leader has condoned spitting at an eight-year-old girl or throwing stones at the police. The leadership of the settler community, for its part, was genuinely horrified by the attack on an IDF base and condemned it in unqualified terms. Yet while I would not suggest that the leadership of either group intended or condoned their followers' most extreme actions, that doesn't let them off the hook, When you continually emphasize to your followers that their value system comes directly from God and thus takes precedence over the man-made laws of the State and encourage them to resist the State's encroachment on their values by unlawful and undemocratic means, can you really be shocked when some young hotheads take that resistance further than you intended?

Both of these phenomena risk serious harm to Israel, but the risks in the two cases are different. In the short run, the actions of the militant settlers are more dangerous since they could increase tensions with the Palestinian Arabs, further damage Israel's international standing and potentially prevent Israel's democratically elected government from pursuing the policies that it believes, rightly or wrongly, to be in the country's best interests. In the long run, however, the settlers' militancy is inherently self-limiting. Militant Zionism is about maintaining Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel and is thus unavoidably intertwined ideologically with the institutions of the State, especially the IDF. That's why the settler leadership was so quick to condemn the attack on the IDF base, and it's why, for the most part, even the more militant factions among the settlers are unlikely to equivocate about attacks on IDF facilities. Whether that consensus would hold in the face of an actual evacuation order may be less certain, but it's worth recalling that, in the 2005 evacuation of the settlements in Gaza, the understandable fears of unrestrained violence against Israeli soldiers were not fulfilled; the bonds of civic cohesion strained but ultimately held. In any event, given the moribund state of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, that scenario is not an immediate concern.

On the surface, the chareidi conflict in Beit Shemesh appears less dangerous, at least in the short run. Sure, the press attention was embarrassing, but given the public's limited attention span, it will soon be forgotten. The chareidi harassment is obviously unpleasant for those who live in Beit Shemesh -- or in immediate proximity to chareidi neighborhoods elsewhere -- but will have little or no direct effect on the country's citizens as a whole. The outrage that led to such widespread support for the rally from those living outside Beit Shemesh did not indicate a generalized fear that such demands for hyper-chareidi modesty standards will spread to the country as a whole, since the chareidi extremists as a rule favor isolation over coercion. Rather, the reaction from secular and religious Israelis alike bespeaks a frustration that has built up over the course of years as a result of a combination of issues, among them the yeshiva draft exemptions, gender-segregated public buses serving chareidi neighborhoods, and the perception that chareidim make excessive claims on the Israeli social welfare system and do not contribute economically to the country as a whole.

These perceptions may be oversimplifications, but they are rooted in reality. They are close enough to the truth to feed the ongoing secularist resentment and contempt for the chareidim. So when events like those in Beit Shemesh provide an opportunity to express the growing resentment of secular Israelis toward the chareidim, it is hardly surprising that many will jump at the opportunity.

To be sure, many Israelis of what is often referred to as the "peace camp" are also resentful of what they perceive as the political power of the settlers and are rightly fearful of the potential consequences of the "price tag" militants. There is a fundamental difference, however, between that fear and the resentment felt toward the chareidim -- which is why the chareidi conflict in the long run may be more dangerous to Israel than the conflict with the "price tag" militants. There may be widespread anger at those militant settlers who go over the line in relation to the IDF, but even those in the peace camp cannot completely ignore the fact that the militant settlers serve in the army, contribute to the economy and on the whole share the costs and risks of Israeli life. The conflict among Israelis as to the appropriate contours of their relations with the Arabs has existed since the beginning of the Zionist movement and may well be inevitable in a country facing the kind of existential threats that are an unfortunate but unavoidable part of the Israeli reality. Indeed, over the last few years, mainstream Israeli opinion has moved closer to that of the militants -- not because of anything the militants have done, but rather because events have heightened Israelis' ingrained skepticism of the Arabs' desire for peace.

When it comes to the chareidim, however, the feelings of resentment among secular and even many religious Israelis is different. They are seen as freeloaders who don't participate constructively in the economy, don't serve in the army, make excessive claims on the welfare system and insist on educating their children in a government-funded but independently run school system that perpetuates their economic marginalism and does not teach loyalty to the State or respect for its institutions. And underlying those resentments is the fear that since their birthrate makes the chareidim the fastest growing segment of the Israeli population, their political power and thus their ability to obtain the government largess that underwrites their way of life is likely to grow over time.

The fact that these perceptions are oversimplifications of a more complex reality is almost beside the point. The chareidi demand for increased stringency and isolation and the unrestrained contempt expressed by some secularists toward the chareidim are mutually reinforcing. The greater the expressed anger of many secularists toward the chareidim becomes, the stronger is the chareidi desire to isolate themselves from the non-chareidi world, which is facilitated by creating ever greater and less rational stringencies. And the more isolated the chareidim become, the greater is the anger that secular Israelis express toward them.

Despite the vast ideological differences between the price tag militants and the Beit Shemesh chareidim, the two groups inadvertently reinforce each other. They have vastly different visions of Israel's future, but they share an ambivalence toward the normative democratic principles that are the foundation of the State. Common sense suggests, and modern history confirms, that when the hold of democratic norms is weakened, the ultimate beneficiaries may be groups ideologically distant from those who initially did the weakening.

There is another, distinctly Israeli sense in which militant settlers and chareidi militants have reinforced each other. Over the course of the last four decades, those two groups between them have essentially destroyed religious Zionism as a meaningful political force. Prior to Israel's independence, and for three decades thereafter, religious Zionism, and its primary political manifestation, the National Religious Party, pursued an unapologetic vision of Jewish statehood informed by Jewish religious values, and its religious citizens as full participants in the life of the State. Beginning with the Six Day War in 1967, and accelerating after Likud's victory in the 1977 elections, the retention and settlement of the captured territories came to dominate the political agenda of the religious Zionists to the extent of crowding out all other issues. The purely religious issues that had once been central to the National Religious Party's vision were left to the chareidi parties, whose vision focused on isolation from rather than participation in Israeli society. Even the chief rabbinate, once seen as a religious Zionist institution, came to be dominated by the chareidim, while the National Religious Party shrank until it eventually merged into a far-right party focused almost exclusively on protecting the interests of the settlers.

Within this context, it is hardly shocking that secular Israelis have become more inclined to tar religious Jews as a whole with the brush of religious extremism. It is in a sense fortunate that the eight-year-old girl whose tribulations sparked the furor in Beit Shemesh came from a religious family, making it somewhat harder for secularists to impute chareidi attitudes to the religious population as a whole . Nevertheless, the chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name) resulting from the inexcusable actions of the chareidim of Beit Shemesh have created a burden that all observant Jews must bear. At the same time, they have also created an opportunity to demonstrate to the Israeli public that intolerance and isolationism are not synonymous with a life of Torah. Whether Israel's remaining religious Zionists -- and their counterparts in the Diaspora -- will take advantage of that opportunity remains to be seen.

Douglas Aronin

Reciting Baruch Asher Yotzar Eschem Baddin Aloud at Burials, Unveilings

2012-01-15T14:36:00.000-05:00

While recently attending a graveside l'vayah and burial, the Rabbi who officiated started the service completely omitting the b'rachah -
"Baruch ... Asher Yotzar eschem Baddin"

Usually, when I conduct a burial I make it a point to either recite it myself out loud - to be Motzi anyone who has not been to a cemetery within 30 days; or at least to have another person recite it out loud.
Even if the Rav has been at a cemetery it seems that he could still recite the b'rachah for the many who need to be yotzei who can't or won't say it on their own. Alternatively, he might designate an alternate who has not been there during the past 30 days.

Shalom,
RRW

Bassar b'Chalav Introductory Texts and Overviews

2012-01-14T18:59:00.003-05:00

1. Rambam MT Ma'achalot Assurot 9, 14:10-11
2. P'ri M'gadim - P'tichah to Bassar b'Chalav
3. Minchat Hinuch - Mitzvot 92 and 113
4. R Forst's Books on Kashrut both in Hebrew and English

Shalom,
RRW

P. Sh'mo: Ra'amseis vs. Ra'm'seis‏

2012-01-13T10:49:00.002-05:00

I posted this to the Leining Group

Given: The 2 words have the same consonants

It is sometimes pointed with a Patach under the Ayin implying that the Mem has a Sh'va Noch

Other times it is pointed with a Sh'va. Noch under the ayin implying that the Mem has Sh'va Na

Any Comments re: the Two versions?

______________

--------------------

Reply -

Morsels
Parasha Shemot from 5763

One or two places?

ra'amseis (Exod. 1:11) a place name, as are all the others; ra'meseis (Gen. 47:11); meira'meseis (Exod. 12:37; Num. 33: 3; 33:5). In our parasha this place-name is pointed with two Patachs one under the Resh and one under the Ayin and a Sheva under the Mem. Minchat Shai writes that the Masorah here states leit rafi. Leit means that there is no other word exactly like it anywhere in Scripture. Minchat Shai explains that rafi means that the Mem has a Sheva Nach because the Ayin has a Patach and refers to R' A. ibn Ezra. In all the other occurrences (whether with or without the prefix Mem) there is a Sheva under the Ayin. As a result the status of the Sheva under Mem is affected by the rule that the second of two Shevas in the middle of a word is a Sheva Na (sounding). ra'amseis is mentioned as a city of storage. Rashi (in a comment which does not appear in the first print), states that these cities were originally not suitable for storage and the building operation made !
them suitable. The implication of this comment is that we have here different pronunciations of the same place-name.

R' A. ibn Ezra maintains that these are two different place-names. In our parasha he writes this is not a place of habitation of Israel. Elsewhere (Gen. 47:1) he writes that the land of Goshen is a general name including smaller lands, one of which is the land of ra'meseis and the Ayin has a Sheva Nach. When the Ayin has a Patach, he argues, it is not a place where Israel lived, but one of Pharaoh's storage cities.

--
From
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP

Who attributes it to Morsels of Hebrew Grammar by Dr. Meshullam Klarberg

Shalom,
RRW

How Europe Veils its Anti-Semitism by Appealing to "Animal Rights"

2012-01-12T10:45:00.001-05:00

«I have news for the Spaniards: [Europeans in General! - RRW]
- Bull Fighting is a far more painful death than is Shechitah. Why is Bull Fighting not concerning the European Legislation Against Animal Cruelty?»

| The Message Of European Legislation Against Shechita: Jews Are Cruel

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/114047/The-Message-Of-European-Legislation-Against-Shechita%3A-Jews-Are-Cruel.html

Shalom,
RRW

The merit we need to be helped

2012-01-11T11:12:00.001-05:00

«The housewife was upset and burst into tears. She hurried into the privacy of her home and gave vent to her distress there, weeping in solitude. Then she went and engaged in the long process all over again, this time hanging her laundry to dry in a neighboring courtyard.

That evening, the offending neighbor came to the house crying, begging forgiveness. "I don't know what came over me. I am so sorry. Please be mochel me. Plus, I already got my punishment. My son is sick, burning up with fever."

The woman forgave her and wished her son a refuah sheleimah. The story is told in many different versions, but the way I heard it, upon hearing the commotion, the woman's father looked up from his learning and asked what had transpired.

With much emotion, she related the story. She explained that the cruel actions of her neighbor had been too much for her to handle in her already fragile state and she couldn't calm down. But rather than react with angry words to her neighbor, she went inside her home to express her pain in private. She told him how she then went and redid the laundry, without making a machlokes or telling anyone.

"The fact that you didn't respond to her and prevented this from becoming a fight," said the father, "will be the merit you need to be helped. Your great deed will grant you a child who will be great."»

Yated Newspaper

http://www.yated.com/main.asp?categoryid=3

Shalom,
RRW

Modern Orthodoxy at a Crossroads: OU Audio Interview of Rabbi Adlerstein

2012-01-10T11:03:00.001-05:00

Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein of Cross Currents has furthered a discussion of Modern Orthodoxy -- what is it? What should it be? In this audio interview, though, I wonder what Rabbi Adlerstein is really asking.
http://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/modern-orthodoxy-at-a-crossroads-audio/

Rabbi Adlerstein refers to a discussion that is on-going in the RCA Rabbinic Forum as to what should be the criteria for membership in this Rabbinic body. What I found interesting in Rabbi Adlerstein's reference, though, is what I would describe as his underlying perception of what the essence of this debate is. Is the RCA a body for all Orthodoxy rabbis and thus the debate is on the definition of Orthodoxy i.e. what makes one an Orthodox rabbi? Or is the RCA a body for a specific segment of Orthodoxy -- let us call it Modern Orthodoxy -- and thus the need is to define the criteria for membership in this group? It would seem, from certain statements that Rabbi Alderstein made during this interview, that he perceives the question to be the latter one.

The difference between these two questions is major. The first question is a theological one; the demand is to define the theological boundaries of the group. Disagreement within this context is secondary, as long as the disagreement is within the theological parameters. Given the nature of Torah and that the essence of the connection within such theological boundaries being more a matter of process than conclusion, difference in action and policy is to be expected. Strong heterogeneity would be expected.

The second question is, for want of a better word, political; the demand is to define some characteristic of the group that would allow this group to function more powerfully in promoting certain agendas. Greater homogeneity in action and policy would be expected. This connects with Rabbi Alderstein's assertion that the group should have a shared language ...yielding, from my perspective, a greater shared policy perspective.

In a certain way, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as to how the RCA should define itself. It is really up to the RCA membership to define the type of group that it is. While I may favour a larger tent perspective, which would reflect the theological definition, that is really just my opinion. The one issue I do have with Rabbi Alderstein's presentation, though, is that while he seems to lean towards a definition that sees the RCA more as a 'political' entity, his subsequent definition seems to be more theological. He seems to say on one hand that he is not defining Orthodoxy but then what he does is define Orthodoxy. A specific focus of his is the idea of the mesorah -- that is a theological definition. It is a cross-over for him to use this term to define the parameters of the RCA and then side-step the issue of a full presentation of this subject by then maintaining that he is really defining a 'political' entity which is more defined by action than a theoretical presentation of the concept of mesorah. Its mixing apples and oranges.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Law of Unintended Consequences - A Positive Result

2012-01-09T11:36:00.001-05:00

In discussing the humra of "non-gebrokts" to a layman who is unfamiliar with this concept I added a postscript -
One of the Happy Un-intended Consequences of non-gebrokts is that we've created a new resource for Gluten Free diets - both during Passover itself and Year 'round. Year 'round due to the existence of cake mixes etc.

Who knows? Is this perhaps the Hashgacha of HKB"H to provide a necessity as a mother to this invention?

Shalom,
RRW

Vaychi - Ephraim and M'nasheh 2 - Rav Kook on Sibling Jealousy

2012-01-08T19:44:00.001-05:00

What happened to make Ephraim and M'nashe so special that the b'rachah uses their names? Certainly over the course of Sefer B'reisheet we can see the names of several great Tzadikim?

I heard this in the name of Rav Kook at a Shalom Zachor on Shabbat Vaychi.

Throughout Sefer B'reisheet a recurring theme appears amongst siblings - jealousy and envy

• Kayin and Hevel
• Yitzchok and Yishma'el
• Yaakov and Esav
• Yosef and his brothers

Finally, Yaakov favors the younger Ephraim and guess what? No jealousy, no envy, no vindictiveness!

Success at last. We have evolved to transcend sibling resentments. This is the reason "B'cha Y'voreich" due to this achievement at the close of Sefer B'reisheet.

Source text below:

--------------------

כ ויברכם ביום ההוא, לאמור, בך יברך ישראל לאמר, ישמך אלהים כאפרים וכמנשה; וישם את-אפרים, לפני מנשה.

Shalom,
RRW

Vaychi - Ephraim and M'nasheh 1 - A Cute D'rash

2012-01-08T11:32:00.003-05:00

A Cute D'rash about the B'rachah of Y'simcha .. K'Ephraim uMnasheh

Q Why do we Bless Girls with Sarah Rivkah Rachel and Leah
What's the common denominator with Ephraim and M'nasheh? - IOW what's the "tzu-shtell"?

A. Just like Ephraim and M'nasheh grew up in a "galut environment" in Mitzrayim, so too did the imahos grow up in the homes of Nachor, B'tuel, Lavan, etc. - and yet they all did not fall prey to their environments. Rather they remained Tzaddikim and Tzadkaniyot.

Shalom,
RRW

Mussar: How to Make Shalom Amongst Our People

2012-01-07T19:16:00.009-05:00

Sefer Mitzvot HaKatan, mitzvah 8, paragraph 1:
Making peace between Jews and judging others favorably
are included within the commandment [mitzvah] of:
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
(Vayikra / Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18).»

DerechEmet

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/message/152

--------------------

Here is my simplified "Ahavat Yisroel" program hierarchy

First make Shalom with all Torah Jews

Then make Shalom with all Jews.

Then make Shalom with all B'nai Noach, etc.

--------------------

Agreed that this is not so simple, but think global and act local anyway.

Shalom,
RRW

Women Obligating Themselves to Observe Mitzvot

2012-01-06T10:54:00.001-05:00

See Mishnah Sh'qlaim 1:5 below
This Mishnah AISI is a paradigm for 3 categories
1. Those obligated - Yisroel and Levi
2. Those who are NOT obligated but MAY contribute
- women, children, and perhaps Kohanim
3. Those whose contributions are rejected - EG Kuthim
--------------------

Seems pashut to me
"Asher Kid'shanu" applies as an obligation on class #1
And as an OPTION for class #2.
AIUI when category #2 performs, they take on the minutiae of the mitzvah
EG a woman need not take arba minim, but if she DOES take them - then, she may not do so at night nor using a lemon instead of an Etrog Etc.
Hence the b'rachah makes sense in that she performs the mitzvah K'dat and K'din
--------------------

Tefilas n'davah is another one. One need not daven it, but once one does, he has to conform to the rules of the amidah. He cannot just say EG r'fo'einu as the only middle 'brachah.
--------------------

This is how I understand the Ran [a Sephardi] as quoted by Bet Yosef [EG Hilchot Tzitzit, Sukkah, etc.]

While the Rambam paskens that women may absolutely NOT say a b'rachah, the BY differs in that he concludes that it's a s'feiq b'racha l'haqeil, and is omitted out of DOUBT, not out of certainty. Yes he seems to pasken the same omission, but the dynamic underlying it is different
The Rema following Ran says we definitely say the b'rachah; the permission to do this is ratified by both Kaf haChaim and Ben Ish Chai who state that a firm Minhag trumps s'feiq b'rachah

Kein Nireh Li

Source Text
--------------------

מסכת שקלים פרק א
א,ה אף על פי שאמרו, אין ממשכנין נשים ועבדים וקטנים; אבל אם שקלו, מקבלין מידם. הנוכרי והכותי ששקלו, אין מקבלין מידם; אין מקבלין מידם קיני זבים, קיני זבות, קיני יולדות. חטאות ואשמות, מקבלין מידם. זה הכלל--כל שהוא נידר ונידב, מקבלין מידם; וכל שאינו לא נידר ולא נידב, אין מקבלין מידם. וכן הוא מפורש על ידי עזרא, "לא לכם ולנו, לבנות בית לאלוהינו" (עזרא ד,ג).

Shalom and Regards, RRW

The Talmud: Next Comes the Hyperlinks

2012-01-05T11:22:00.002-05:00

«But now that breach has been filled, or so claims the publisher of HaMafteach, or the Key, a guide to the Talmud, available in English and Hebrew. It was compiled not by a white-bearded sage, but by a courtly, clean-shaven, tennis-playing immigration lawyer from the Bronx.»

NYT: An Index for the Talmud, After

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/nyregion/an-index-for-the-talmud-after-1500-years.xml

Shalom,
RRW

Hareidim Put on a Good Face

2012-01-04T11:18:00.001-05:00

Note this video is in Hebrew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zNjQktisI&feature=colike
Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Confusion About God

2012-01-03T20:34:00.004-05:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: Is it normal or acceptable to be confused about the truth of God this day and age? Can one have doubts or be uncertain and still be a 'good Jew'?

Rabbi Hecht's answer

Responding with another question, I could ask: how could it be possible for a normal person in this day and age not to be confused? The issue actually goes beyond our day and age: how could anyone in any time not be confused about the truth of God?

The simple answer is that, during those times in history when there were open miracles and clear prophecy, it would seem that the truth of God was pretty straightforward. In fact, the Torah text itself (Shemot 7:5, for example) states that one of the very purposes of the plagues in Egypt was to establish, without any doubt, the truth of God. Indeed, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 8 points to the fact that one of the most important elements of the Revelation at Sinai is that there was no doubt, amongst those who witnessed this event, that God presented Himself at Sinai. The relevant issue for us, though, is how we are to look at this issue of the truth of God when such open miracles are not existent. Clearly, it would seem to be normal to be confused about the truth of God without such obvious evidence.

Perhaps, the clearest indication that Jewish Law recognizes the reality of this confusion is the various statements within the Halacha which accept a possible reality of lack of knowledge and confusion leading to a subsequent non-culpability for violation. Ignorance of the law, for example, is an excuse within Jewish Law; before a conviction, there must be a clear cut indication that a violator accepted the authority of the law. (See Encyclopediat Talmudit 11:292, Hatra’ah) One who was unsure of the truth of God and, as such, the authority of the law could not be found guilty. (It should be noted that there was a limitation on this principle in cases which affected societal law and order, however, a further discussion of this legal issue is beyond the parameters of the specific topic of this response.)

As another example, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Mamrim 3:2 also states, although there are strict laws of censure against a heretic, one who was brought up under the influence of such heresy is basically exempt from such consequences for that person is not responsible for having such beliefs. The truth of God is not so obvious that we can expect someone to clearly have this knowledge. In addition, although I have not personally seen a statement of this nature, it is often presented in the name of the Chazon Ish (Rabbi Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, 1878-1953) that in the absence of clear, open miracles in our present world, it is impossible to declare anyone today a heretic subject to the censures of the law. (I should, perhaps, mention that I have seen something of a similar nature by the Chazon Ish, although not as far reaching, in his comments on the laws of kashrut.)

The greater question may now be why this is so. Why does God not make knowledge of His Existence obvious? In that God did make this Knowledge more obvious at certain times in history and less so at other times, such as our own, we may further wonder: why this is so? It must be that every generation has its own challenge that it must confront and, at times, this challenge is built upon clearer knowledge while at other times it is built upon less clear knowledge. Times of less clear knowledge demand of us, for example, to consider how we know anything and how to think and render decisions in such circumstances; this may in fact be our generation’s challenge. In a certain way the goals of Torah are measured not by the conclusions we reach but the effort that we apply in trying to meet God's goals for us. As such, the real issue for us is not the confusion about the truth of God that presently exists but rather how we respond to this challenge.

(Someone truly interested in this topic may be interested in researching the various different viewpoints that are found in Torah sources in regard to how one knows of the truth of God. Rambam, for example, clearly understood it to be a result of intellectual, logical inquiry. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, Kuzari, on the other hand, felt it emerged from an intuitive perception of our souls. The very fact that there is disagreement, debate and discussion about this most basic of issues truly reveals, in my opinion, the essence of what Torah truly is about. It is a guide to our struggle with reality. To meet the challenge of this struggle is what God demands of us.)

A Must See for Students of the Holocaust

2012-01-03T10:54:00.000-05:00

Nazi Collaborators

Nazi Collaborators Episodes
- Nazi Collaborators Season 1 2011 Episode Guides
- Watch Nazi Collaborators Episodes from Military Channel

| TVGuide.com
http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/nazi-collaborators/330760

Shalom,
RRW

Remember: These Are Jewish Children!

2012-01-02T11:06:00.014-05:00

"Are these not Jewish children?"

This incident is recorded in the auto-biography of Rabbi Moshe Blau; "Al Chomosaich Yerushalayim"; Netzach Publishing, Bnei Brak, 1967. Pages 114-115.

The narrator is Rabbi Moshe Blau himself and this entire chapter deals with Rabbi Blau's relationship with his Rebbe, Rabbi Zonnenfeld:

"One day I left Shaarei Zedek Hospital in his (Rabbi Zonnenfeld's) company. It was Tu B'Shevat [In the Zionist movement, Tu B'Shevat was (and is) a big event as it celebrates the people's connection to the land- this comment is my own].

I noticed that from far away that students from the secular non-religious schools were approaching us; boys and girls [emphasis added by me], male and female teenagers [emphasis added by me], with the Zionist flag at the front of each group; the 'workers songs' [the Zionist were closely associated with the 'Workers Movements: me again] coming from their mouths.

They were walking four abreast and the people on the street were pushed to the sides of the road.

I knew that that the sight of a few thousand boys and girls from non-religious schools walking in a parade immodestly dressed and without gender separation would cause Rabbi Zonnenfeld pain. Therefore I said to him, "The parade of children from the (non-religious) schools is coming; perhaps the Rebbe wants to go back into the hospital building?"

"No", was his answer. {He then asked :}

"Are these not Jewish children?"

--------------------

Are These Not Jewish Children? » Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry

http://matzav.com/are-these-not-jewish-children

Shalom,
RRW

Results of Poll on: Hanukah

2012-01-01T12:02:00.003-05:00

In our last poll, we inquired

Your Responses (total 8)

Choice 1 - 37.5% (3)
Choice 2 - 37.5% (3)
Choice 3 - 00.0% (0)
Choice 4 - 25.0% (2)

Comments

Rabbi Hecht
What would seem to be most interesting about the responses is the absence of any one who favoured choice 3, the significance of the miracle itself.To be honest, I am not sure what that would really mean. It does seem to indicate that, at least amongst those who visit the Nishmablog, there is a greater concern for the effect in this world and within the specific parameters of our lives than on matters from another dimension.

Rabbi Wolpoe
Wow! The Bavli's account got the LEAST votes
I mostly liked #4, what WE do in the Here and Now.
Though as a historian #2 is important. Too
Actually I felt all 4 had at least some validity, so every choice is "right" on some level.

Which Racism is Still Deemed Politically Correct Today?

2011-12-31T21:27:00.001-05:00

Q: Which Racism is Still Deemed Politically Correct Today?

A: Racism against anyone considered too "right-wing" be it political or religious etc.

MK Yechimovich: Stop Airing Racist Comments About Chareidim » Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry

http://matzav.com/mk-yechimovich-stop-airing-racist-comments-about-chareidim
Shalom,
RRW

Jewish Tribune: Clarity of Definitions

2011-12-30T10:51:00.003-05:00

With the so-called "Orthodox" same-sex "marriage" ceremony, the issue was not same sex marriages. The issue was the correctness of terms and the clarity of definitions.

In my latest Jewish Tribune article, I develop this idea further. Please see http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5305&Itemid=53

Rabbi Ben Hecht

RCA and OU Jointly Protest "Hooliganism" in Beit Shemesh

2011-12-29T18:42:00.003-05:00

PRESS RELEASE
December 29th 2011

RCA and OU Join in Condemning Extremist Violence in Beit Shemesh, Israel - and Call for Care to Not Assign Guilt to Entire Communities for the Actions of the Few

The Rabbinical Council of America and the Orthodox Union join together to strongly and unambiguously condemn the recent violence and intimidation committed by segments of the Jewish community in Beit Shemesh, Israel. As the largest body of Orthodox Rabbis, and the largest organization of Orthodox Synagogues, respectively, we call upon all involved to return to the peaceful ways of our sacred Torah and to respect the dignity of all human beings. It should be clear to all that this hateful activity does not represent Judaism.

We also urge all observers to recognize that the behavior of these hooligans does not in any way represent the attitude or demeanor of the Charedi community at large. The vast majority of Charedi Jews find these actions abhorrent, and the community should not be judged by the inexcusable conduct of a few.

Finally, as Rabbis and national congregational leaders we support the right and the duty of Israel's police to act with the full force of the law in putting an end to these illegal, and dangerous, activities.

--------------------

The "downward spiral" of zealotry must be reversed.

Shalom,
RRW

True Science Cannot Contradict True Torah

2011-12-29T11:48:00.001-05:00

Since we affirm that True Science is made by Our Creator and so is True Torah, therefore they can never collide.

However, there CAN be popular misperceptions in either realm that DO present apparent contradictions.

What to do when we detect a conflict? I say dig deeper. Maybe science has still not firmed up its hypotheses; it's also possible [in my way of thinking] that misunderstandings have crept into our M'sorah over time. But the pristine, pure Torah, would never, could never, present a contradiction to True Science.

I perceive that R Micha Berger is pointing in the same direction in this piece on his Blog.

-------------------

«For similar reasons, these science vs Bereishis questions don't really bother me. Each "theory" works so well so consistently in their own domains, I presume that some resolution will someday be found. I can live until then with the open questions.»

When a Paradox is not a Disproof | Aspaqlaria

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2011/12/open-q-science-mashal.shtml

Shalom,
RRW

Tandems: Orah v'Simchah, and a Hanukkah Thought

2011-12-28T19:55:00.001-05:00

Some terms and expressions seem to come together in tandem

EG
D'risha vaChakira
Kosher v'Samei'ach
Hazzaq uVaruch
Etc.

One such tandem that intrigues me is "Orah v'Simchah"

This seems to be the most celebrated in the Shabbat Zemer "Yom Zeh l"Yisra'el" where the refrain has Orah vSimchah, [twice when using the Yekke melody!]

Orah and Simchah go so nicely together on Hanukkah. As our Orah increases, so does our Simchah.

On Purim - Layhudim hay'tah Orah v'Simcha - that says it all. Also said at Havdalah, too

On Kol Nidre night - OR zaru'a latzaddik, ulyishrei leiv SIMCHAH, Also said at Kabbalat Shabbat, too!

There is even a concept when lighting Shabbat Candles at Hotels for example, that the More Light the Merrier! And this s'vara allows women to make a b'rachah even where there are already many "Shabbos Lichts"

My inquiry is, just how ubiquitous is this theme of Orah v'Simchah in our classic Literature and Liturgy?

By Literature - Tananch, Talmud, Midrash

By Liturgy - Siddur, Machzor, Piyyutim etc.

Shalom,
RRW

Studying Liturgy as a Separate Subject

2011-12-28T12:16:00.002-05:00

From the
The Rabbi Network

Within LinkedIn

The Beurei Hatefila Institute | LinkedIn

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=1866270&item=85383442&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_mc-ttl-cn&ut=0TJxkl47zuPR01

«. The Institute was founded to encourage the study of the origin of the words and structure of the Siddur. To better understand the mission statement of the organization, allow me to ask a question: Why is it that the book that many of us hold in our hands at least three times a day is not studied in the same manner as we study the Chumasch, the Neviim, the Mishna and the Gemara? Is the expectation that we are all born with an innate understanding of the Siddur?»

Also see
Beurei Hatefila Home

http://www.beureihatefila.com/

Shalom,
RRW

HHH: Review of R Shimon Eider's Halachos of Chanukah

2011-12-27T19:34:00.027-05:00

Note: HHH = Hagahot, He'arot, Hassagot.
--------------------
Halachos of Chanukah by R Shimon Eider Z"L
Published by Feldheim, Compact Edition October, 2002
ISBN 1-5330-584-x
-------------------
During the last several years l've been learning various "Kitzur Halachah" S'farim. I have found most of them useful, some have been better than average, and nearly all omit points or have questionable "judgment calls" in a few cases.
--------------------

Some Comments About the Author's Halachic Series

Around the late 1970's before the Artscroll Revolution took off, I anticipated that R Shimon Eider's Halachah S'farim would soon dominate Anglo Halachic literature.
Even today, his Laws of Passover are IMHO the best of its kind on the subject. However, his other major works on Niddah and Shabbat have since been equaled or even surpassed.
I'm not sure what slowed R Eider Z"L's output down. He seemed prolific enough to become a dominating presence, before he practically stopped publishing.
--------------------

First of all, I really enjoy his Halachos of Chanukkah, although I would have called it Hilchos Haukkah instead :-). It is quite comprehensive, clear, and his footnotes are quite useful.
I'm only going to "nipick" in order to suggest some improvements that would make it even better from my perspective.

1. R Eider omits little. One case I would have liked to see is a more explicit treatment of the Maftir of 2nd Shabbat of Hanukkah. OTOH, the Haftarah is mentioned [section VI C around p. 50].

2. Another case I cannot figure out is EG if one eats dinner out-of-town and then goes home to sleep. When one eats in-town, he requires going home first to light. Out-of-town remains fuzzy to me. [Section IV A 7 P.36 does discuss the case of a wedding. Section IV A 10 discusses the same city]
--------------------

3. He recommends lighting in shul AFTER any speech between Minchah and Maariv [Arvit]. [P. 39 Section IV C 2]. From what I've heard, ipcha mistavra, i.e. let the pirsumei nissa in shul start earlier and therefore last longer

4. His case in favor of lighting on an airplane [p. 37 Section IV A 16] disturbs me because this seems to me as clearly lacking "beito". Lighting on a train with a private compartment or a boat/ship with a private cabin or state room OTOH could make sense to me. But an airline seat, or a seat on a train or bus, makes no sense to me as "beito". To be fair I should check out his sources in fn 37. However, if the Shu"T M'harsham cited there is specifically dealing with a train that has a private compartment, then I will stand pat on my Sheetah
--------------------

Overall, the book is well-written, well-foot-noted, and a great resource for the average Observant Jew to go a step beyond EG Kitzur Shulchan Aruch on this topic.

Shalom,
RRW

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 3

2011-12-27T11:21:00.001-05:00

«Perhaps we can offer another approach?»
How about a simple hypothesis - with very few kinks to work out?

Hanukkah I -
• Military Victory
• Political Independence
• Re-Dedication of Bet Hamikdash and Mizbei'ach -
Which in turn reflects Hag Sukkot, a celebration of the First Mikdash of Sh'lomoh haMelech
• Al Hanissim Account
• Josephus Account
• Macccabees Account
• Early Braittot including opinions of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel - which are probably pre-Hurban

Then comes the Hurban
• Loss of Independence
• Loss of Mikdash
• No M'gillat Taanit
• No Halachic Hanukkah anymore
• No Need for Mishnayaot re: Hiilchot Hanukkah, only passive mention of what might have become a Minhag

Hanukkah II
• Spiritual Revival
• Miracle of Oil
• Sans Military or Political considerations
• Talmud Bavli [and Scholion of M'gilat Ta'anit]
• Hashgachah during Galut - reminiscent of Purim
• Hallel Now for Miracle of Oil instead of for Mikdash

--------------------

Thus -

1. Al Hanissim and Bavli have differing accounts because they describe different aspects based upon different eras.

2. The Mishnah was redacted when Rebbi felt that Hanukkah was "out-of-commission" Now, it is indeed possible of course that others differed during that same era...

3. IIRC none of the post-Hurban Tannaim who dominate the Mishnah are named in the Braittot, note the Mishnah re: Getz hayotzei as an exception

4. The Amoraim have a robust set of Meimrot. Suggesting Hanukkah II was in full swing shortly after Rebbi.

Just like an old battleship consigned to "mothballs" only to come back to life in a future conflict, so too Hanukkah came back to life and was refitted with a theme more fitting for Galut rather than for Military/Political Triumph.

We now observe Hanukkah II, with sparse vestiges of Hanukkah I surviving, such as Al Hanissim.

Shalom,
RRW

Why Potato Latkes on Hanukkah?

2011-12-26T19:08:00.001-05:00

The Rema [O"Ch 670:2] reports a Minhag to eat cheese on Hanukkah. Yet throughout Eastern Europe Potato Latkes caught on instead

The Late Professor Arnold Miller A"H [father of the late R Sheldon Miller A"H and Louis Miller] once explained to me that the switch from cheese to potatoes was due to the poverty in Eastern Europe;
that Potatoes were simply a cheap substitute for cheese.

Shalom and Regards, RRW

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 2

2011-12-26T11:31:00.001-05:00

Although a Bar Ilan search can reportedly find 7 hits on the WORD Hanukkah in the Mishnah, nevertheless, the laws of Hanukkah are entirely absent from Rebbi's magnum opus.
All the more strange is that the Bavli DOES quote braittot about Hanukkah, meaning there WAS Tannaic material to select from, yet Rebbi still omitted it from the Mishnah anyway.

"Drushy" answers I've heard include:
A. There is no Tanachi basis for Hanukkah.
B. Rebbi wanted to punish the Hashmonaim for usurping Malchut Beth David.

Problems include
A Yadayyim does not seem to have a Tanachi basis either. And if you say Kiyyor for Yadayin I can say Parshat N'siim for Hanukkah
B. Rebbi seems to be portrayed as a bit petty or vindictive Chas v'Shalom.

Perhaps we can offer another approach?

Shalom,
RRW

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 1

2011-12-25T11:47:00.003-05:00

Given

A) That the Talmud Bavli Shabbat 21a - 24b describes ONLY the miracle of the Oil in Mai Hanukah - quoting a B'raitto from M'gilat Ta'anit.

And

B) That the Al Hanissim omits the miracle of the oil entirely

Question: How can we have two authentic sources with such a divergence as to what occurred?

One "Drushy" approach can be found in the Artscroll Book on Hanukkah [page 13]. The same question is raised and the answer proffered there is that of the Maharal; namely that the miracle of the oil confirmed what was only a hypothesis, that the military victory was also due to Hashgachah P'ratit. Without an open miracle, we might have suspected otherwise. The advantage from a Spiritual perspective is "inspiration"

While as a D'rashah, we do not quibble with the Maharal's sentiments, nevertheless we still may wish to continue digging. And because this answer raises many questions of its own, including the absence in other accounts such as Maccabees and Josephus, it makes sense to see if we can find a more historical simplified approach.

Shalom,
RRW

Mussar: For the Festival of Lights

2011-12-24T19:35:00.000-05:00

Something to meditate on while contemplating Nerot Hanukkah
"The pure righteous do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil, but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but increase wisdom."

~ Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook

Shalom,
RRW

Hanukkah in Verse

2011-12-23T11:03:00.000-05:00

Hanukkah Gratitude
With a rhyming attitude
Or
Hanukkah in Verse
That cannot get much worse

Today Where would I be
without any Maccabee?
When it's dark and dreary
The lights shine bright and clearly!
How about all the food
That tastes awfully good?
Latkes and cheese delights
For 8 days and nights!
A nice dreidle to spin
Some coins we will win
We remember courage and might
And the Miracle of Oil when we light
We sing songs melodious
On-Key and harmonious
Tis the season and the time
To now end this silly rhyme

Shalom,
RRW

Xmas Music - is it Good for the Jews?

2011-12-22T11:19:00.002-05:00

«Almost everyone knows that America's most popular secular seasonal song ever, "White Christmas," was written by Irving Berlin, whose Jewish parents transported young Israel Baline from Siberia to the Lower East Side some 50 years earlier.

But when the American Society of Composers and Publishers releases its annual list of the 25 most popular holiday season songs, a good half of them have music and/or lyrics by Jewish writers.

Without Jewish writers, we would just for starters not have "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire."

And how did this happen?»

Xmas Music - is it Good for the Jews?

Yes - at least those from Tin Pan Alley!

Jewish songwriters like Irving Berlin, Johnny Marks and Mel Torme wrote the score of modern Christmas - NY Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/jewish-songwriters-irving-berlin-johnny-marks-mel-torme-wrote-score-modern-christmas-article-1.992851?localLinksEnabled=false

Shalom,
RRW

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Intro

2011-12-21T19:48:00.000-05:00

There are several anomalies and contradictions within our Hanukkah traditions. This is all the more puzzling because it is the last of the significant holidays to enter our Liturgical Calendar; its history being the most recent - except perhaps for Lag ba'Omer
There are many D'rashot and Spiritual Answers that address these phenomena, I would prefer to offer a simplified explanation based upon Historical Principles.
I mean to introduce nothing radical; nevertheless it still may be outside the "comfort zones" of many who have been conditioned by the "drushy" approach. So rather than take offence, may I suggest to either expand your horizon or just ignore it as the rantings of a frustrated Historian. <Smile>

Shalom,
RRW

The Irony of Chanukah

2011-12-21T12:01:00.001-05:00

I always have found it interesting that Chanukah, the holiday that marks our victory in the battle against Greek assimilation, is the most assimilated of the Jewish holidays. In the eyes of even some justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is just how Jews celebrate this festive season.

I find this ironic...but there must be a purpose and so I thought about this irony of Chanukah. I invite you to read my perceptions at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-11.htm

What are your thoughts on this?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

PS We have actually discussed this issue in 2007 in http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2007/12/irony-of-chanukah.html. Check that out as well but comment here.

The Little Known Chanukah M’gillah

2011-12-20T11:06:00.001-05:00

«... whilst Chanukah without its M'gillah is not only possible but taken for granted. Yet there is actually a M'gillah for the festival.

Known variously as M'gillat Antiochus ("The Scroll of Antiochus"), M'gillat Beit Chashmona'i(m) ("The Scroll of the House of the Hasmoneans") and M'gillah Y'vanit ("The Greek Scroll"), it is a post-Biblical compilation in 76 verses, originally in Aramaic, in deliberate imitation of the style of the Scroll of Esther...»

OzTorah » Blog Archive » The unknown Chanukah M'gillah

http://www.oztorah.com/2007/11/the-unknown-chanukah-mgillah/

Shalom,
RRW

Why Davka did Kohanim lead the Revolt against Antiochus?

2011-12-19T13:42:00.003-05:00

Q: Why davka did Kohanim lead the Revolt against Antiochus?
A friend of mine came up with a nifty insight

A: Due to the g'zeira of "tiba'eil l'hegmon" all of the women marrying Kohanim would produce Hallalim and not Kohanim. This threatened to destroy the entire "race" of Kohanim within a single generation.
While for L'viim and Yisra'elim, this egregious g'zeirah did not threaten the yichus of their offspring, hence there was a lesser sense of urgency.

Shalom,
RRW

The Jewish Rosa Parks?

2011-12-18T18:03:00.004-05:00

Its all over the news in Israel. A woman travelling from Ashdod to Jerusalem refused to move to the back of the bus when asked to by a charedi gentleman. See
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4163399,00.html

Luckily, the matter did not erupt into violence...but it does reflect a serious issue that is emerging in Israel. Even the charedim have to start recognizing that they are not the only group in the country. I found it interesting that the Jerusalem Post quotes Chief Rabbi Metzger, in presenting this idea,as using the word 'we':

"We [the ultra-Orthodox] don't have the authority to force our ideas on others," he continued. "This state does not belong to the haredi community.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=249899

I wonder, though, does he really speak for the charedim, especially those who would act in this manner.

Perhaps, though, there is a more fundamental question that we should be asking, a question that may be quite apropos for this time of year.

What is the Torah view on Freedom of Religion?

(In the Commentary section of our website, www.nishma.org, I have some thoughts on this question if you are interested in taking a look.)

Rabbi Ben Hecht

When Life Hands You a Lemon...

2011-12-16T10:26:00.001-05:00

Last summer on 11 July, 2011 we posted this:.
Fla. synagogue painted with anti-Semitic graffiti
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/07/fla-synagogue-painted-with-anti-semitic.html

Baruch Hashem there is a very positive side to this as a feel-good follow-up story

Rising from the "ashes" of defacement -
"Mount Dora Community of Respect Event"
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=cy5ac8dab&v=001laauDGMXfkX57VMV4TdFevBbeQGBlEQYYde4feIW7mnLrLC4nletP5_VMyi1MTTI_Q56e7Mwdim0UFsC5JIzZCwP4MqTUD7G1iZ0Ycc-WSSYI_rtG1n8LxVUIV0hVMGQ7BO-0L8sPK6ChBW5W0s8jEFczPzkP3iqLPaVyq3Nmm6FP6_kC3b9UJYc4pMUFugfBAQocbVaylz7uArmRsfxwXWHeVZKg3XdIu3vymLxRI5sS_IHCCNUW3Y1tlrSeYaipoJ682lXrQ3bV3HeRay_MiFpJn0lAxOVjleSOMquxS2Cb3CFSbGyALP0FtWsd1IZz_ZotV5KTSvrRGZdoXJxbg%3D%3D

Shalom,
RRW

Matisyahu Shaves

2011-12-15T15:37:00.001-05:00

It even made CNN: Matisyahu, the Chassidic Reggae Superstar shaves.

The question I was wondering was: why.

Was it a statement that he was no longer going to be an Orthodox Jew or was it a statement of transformation within Orthodoxy? From the first photo I saw, I could not tell. In the second one I saw, though, it was clear that he was wearing a kippa. It seems from the interview that he did on WNYC, that he is still religious; see http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2011/dec/14/matisyahu-freshly-shaved/

So the question then becomes: what does this transformation say about his Orthodoxy? There was actually much in this interview that made me wonder not only about his understanding of Orthodoxy but also as to how Torah was even presented to him. This action may truly reflect a positive development in his understanding. Still his statement about a beard representing the Chesed of Hashem being ludicrous made me think of all those who contend that it is ludicrous to believe that God cares about what someone eats. There just seems to be something more going on here then was presented in this interview. Perhaps, given the nature of the audience of this program, he could not really express his thoughts in a better manner. I am just left wondering, though, how he sees Torah and how, in fact, many see Torah.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Pirsumei Nissa at a Take Out Restaurant

2011-12-14T16:27:00.000-05:00

AFAIK There is no hiyyuv to light at a place of work. However, it seems desirable to be m'farseim hanneis anyway. Since lighting with traditional candles presents a fire hazard, so this is not really a practical solution.

The preferred alternative seems to be to light an electric M'norah. However, these M'norot can get pricey, and, since the owner is not Jewish, he would not likely spend money on this

The simple alternative I use is to set up a cheap Hanukkiyah with old fashioned candles, but without lighting them. I set a shamash with the amount of candles that would be lit as per Mehadrin etc., set them up, but leave them as is

This presents several advantages

1. They last all evening long
2. They trigger no brachah
3. They are quite visible
4. A form of pirsummei nissah is accomplished
5. There is no fire hazard
6. It's economical

The disadvantages are apparent, eg no lamp is lit!

This might also work for travellers who cannot light on a bus, train or plane, or in a car. Consult your Poseik first.
<Smile>

Hag Samei'ach
Shalom and Regards, RRW

JVO: What is a Jew?

2011-12-13T19:58:00.001-05:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: I hear the question asked, but I have not heard a good answer to it: for both purposes of inclusion, and for Israeli citizenship, what is a Jew?

Rabbi Hecht's answer

I would begin by first noting that you say you hear this question asked but, if you pause for a moment, you will recognize that, in the actual way you framed the question, it is generally not asked. What you usually hear asked is the question of ‘who is a Jew’ but the question, as you framed it, ‘what is a Jew’, is actually rarely asked. This is really most unfortunate, in my opinion, and may be the first problem that must be faced in approaching this subject. This may also explain your disappointment in the answers you have heard.

Asking the question of ‘who’ before the question of ‘what’ is like asking how one becomes a member of a certain group before describing the exact nature of this group. Of course, how one answers the ‘who’ question may inherently indicate how this person would also answer the ‘what’ question, but it does so with a lack of clarity and in a roundabout way. The question of ‘what’ is clearly not tackled head on. It may just be that people think the answer is so obvious and shared by everyone – when in reality it is not. It may, however, also be that people are wary of facing this question because they are not sure of where a subsequent discussion will take them. There may be a concern that the result may be a clear recognition of the extent of the difference in viewpoints that exist on this fundamental question – and that such a clear enunciation of the differing views would have strongly negative consequences. It is my belief, though, that the opposite is actually the truth. For us to meet this challenge – the challenge of Jewish identity and unity – it is actually important to confront this issue, rather than avoid it. We must ask the question ‘what’.

To fully approach this question, though, we must recognize that it really has two parts. First, it asks of the individual to present his/her answer to the question. This would demand of me to present my theoretical understanding of the nature of the group termed ‘the Jews’ pursuant to my belief in the principles of Orthodox Judaism. In a certain way, with this answer I would be explaining what I think this term should mean. Second, though, in that this definition is not shared by all Jews but, rather, in that there are other definitions of this group termed ‘the Jews’, there would be an additional demand to consider whether it is possible to arrive at a further definition that could combine these other definitions into one whole. On a certain level, this would represent a more practical issue with an answer attempting to formulate if these variant definitions can connect – and if yes, how.

As a starting point, we must recognize the challenge that is before us. Jewishness seems to combine religion and nationhood (or ethnic identity) but what we often do not recognize is the difficulty presented by this combination. How can religion and nationhood combine: they refer to different constructs? Nationhood refers to some shared genetic or social construct. Religion reflects a different type of bonding based upon an ideological position, a certain view of life and reality. Some may contend that such a combination is not really so strange, after all many national entities would seem to combine the two. For example, when we think of Italians, we think of Roman Catholics. There are, however, many differences between this combination of nationhood and religion and that expressed by the term Jew. There are Roman Catholics who are not Italians and there are Italians who are not Roman Catholics. They are two different types of groupings that happen to converge, to a large extent, in a certain population. The term Jew, though, would seem to inherently reflect these two types of groupings in themselves – Jew defines religion, Jew defines ethnic grouping. How can this one term ‘Jew’ mean both?

To answer this question pursuant to Halacha, we must first recognize that Orthodox Jewish Thought perceives its theology as actually universal. It is expected that all human beings should know and accept the One God as defined by the tenets of this theology. As such, the term Jew may categorize an individual as a believer in, what we may term, this universal religion of Judaism; being an adherent of Judaism, itself, would not necessarily define one as a Jew. The fact is that throughout history there have been individuals who believed in this universal religion of Judaism who were not Jewish. In our present time, such individuals are referred to as Noahides (or Noachides); a simple Google search of this term will reveal approximately 279,000 responses (see http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=noahide&pbx=1&oq=noahide&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=1781l5603l0l8910l7l5l0l0l0l1l1118l3124l3-2.0.1.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ce27fe47b2a800b8&biw=984&bih=533).

What this universal religion of Judaism then does is distinguish between two different groupings of humanity, Jews and non-Jews, presenting different directives (Codes) to each. The specific term Jew, as such, refers to a specific grouping, specifically nation, within this religious perspective that has a specific code of conduct that is different from the rest of humanity. This nation is formed out of the religion and is identified to further serve the goals of this religion in a special significant way. The term Jew thus identifies an individual as a member of this unique nation to which God has given a special code of conduct.

This recognition is necessary to fully understand the two different standards that are applied in defining members of the Jewish group. According to Halacha, the first definition of a Jew is one born to a Jewish mother (T.B. Kiddushin 66b). This would seem to point to Jewishness as an ethnic identity. In that being born to a Jewish mother would not seem to reflect any ideology, this definition would actually seem to challenge a perception of Jewishness as reflecting a religious perspective. What the Halacha is really stating is that, within this universal religious perspective, one way we can identify members of the Jewish nation who are bound to the unique Code of Torah is that they include those who are born to a Jewish mother. What of someone born to a Jewish mother who does not believe in this religion? That person is still Jewish, i.e. an individual who is Divinely commanded to meet the standards expected of members of the Jewish nation.

This leads us to the second definition of a Jew, according to Halacha: one who has gone through a process of gerut, generally translated as conversion. If we understand Halacha as perceiving Jewishness as defining those who are bound to a special code of conduct, gerut would thus be the process by which one outside this group, not so commanded, can become a member of this group and become commanded. It could thus be expected that the essence of the process would be the verification that this person wishing to enter this group indeed will meet these standards of this group. This brings the matter back to the realm of religion and may explain why this process is described as conversion, a process by which one joins a different religion. As mentioned above, it is actually expected of non-Jews that they should also accept the tenets of universal Judaism so gerut is not a process, really, by which one changes his/her faith. Gerut, though, still demands the acceptance of this theological perspective for, to be part of this process -- whereby one, not within this nation with this special Code, can join this special nation -- there, first, has to be an acceptance that this nation has this special Code. As such, Halacha perceives as the first necessity of one wishing to become Jewish a commitment to meet such obligations. It is kabbalat mitzvoth, acceptance of the commandments, which is the prime focus of conversion for within the purview of Halacha, this is what it means to be part of the Jewish nation.

So what is a Jew according to Halacha? A Jew is a member of the Jewish nation, a nation that was distinguished by God and given unique tasks in His service as defined in the Halacha. One born Jewish is one born with these responsibilities even if he/she does not recognize it. To become Jewish, though, someone must recognize what it really means to be Jewish – bound to these responsibilities – and accept this obligation.

Now we can go on to the second part of this answer. It is clear that not every person who calls himself/herself a Jew would accept this definition. There is a reality of differing definitions even as people may not be able to articulate them. Indeed, over the past few centuries since the beginning of the Haskalah, we have seen extremes in both directions: some even declaring Jewishness to be solely a religion and rejecting any element of nationhood (early adherents to Reform Judaism); others declaring it to be solely a nation with religious practice simply being this nation’s cultural expression (secular Zionism and, to some extent, Reconstructionist Judaism).

Further diversity in theological principles also emerged. This is an essential issue in the controversy over conversion. If one converts pursuant to Reform Judaism, for example, that person would be declaring an acceptance of the theological principles of Reform Judaism, principles that are in disagreement with, let us say, Orthodox Judaism. As Orthodox Judaism would demand as a prelude to gerut the acceptance of its theological principles, by definition it cannot accept a conversion based upon acceptance of principles with which it disagrees. The challenge is further complicated by the attempt to avoid a recognition of such differences and their consequences. (In "Adjective and Non-Adjective Jews”, available at http://www.nishma.org/articles/introspection/introspection5761-2-adjective_jew.htm, I maintain that it is actually necessary for us to confront these differences and consequences if we are to have any chance for unity.) Essentially what this all represents are different understandings of the nature of the Jewish group, leaving us with a further challenge of seeing if there is any way of devising a feasible, pragmatic definition that could integrate all those (or most of them) who define themselves as Jewish into one working, understanding of this grouping.

To this part of the question, I really can’t give an answer. It is a challenge – a challenge that we must face and solve. This is the real issue in Israel regarding Jewish identity. There is value in accepting Orthodox standards for they are the most restrictive and, as such, almost anyone defined as Jewish within these standards would also be accepted as such by those maintaining other definitions. Maybe, though, there is a need for new terminology reflecting, for example, one who would be accepted as part of the Jewish group by certain definitions but not so accepted by others. Such an approach may be very relevant for Israel. Perhaps the reason you have not heard a good answer to the question of ‘what is a Jew’ is because the question is actually more of a maze than one may think.

Will New Jersey become the Mecca for North American Jewry?

2011-12-12T19:57:00.000-05:00

« ... "I would not be surprised if in the not-too-distant future Rutgers* overtakes [the University of] Florida as the number one destination school for Jewish undergraduates," said Getraer.

Rutgers recruiters target Jewish high schools around the country, he said.

"We now have students active in Hillel from California, Massachusetts, Texas, Florida, Ohio — and we actually are now getting a lot of students from Israel and even students from Europe and Latin America." ...»

Rutgers builds reputation as Jewish destination | New Jersey News | NJJN

http://njjewishnews.com/article/statewide/rutgers-builds-reputation-as-jewish-destination

* Rutgers is the Official State University of NJ
Shalom,
RRW

Declaration Against Same Sex Marriage Ceremony

2011-12-11T21:06:00.009-05:00

In response to the "Orthodox" same sex marriage ceremony performed recently, the Algemeiner printed a Declaration, signed by 100 Orthodox rabbis (an my understanding is that more have now signed it) declaring emphatically that this action has nothing to do with Orthodoxy and an offense to Orthodox principles and values. See http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/05/100-orthodox-rabbis-issue-same-sex-marriage-declaration/

I am proud to say that I am one of the rabbis who signed this document.

However, that is not the end of the story. This week, I received a phone call from a reporter at the Forward informing me that they went through this list of rabbis and also the list of those who signed the "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community" (see http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/) and they found only one rabbi on both lists -- yours truly. They wanted to know why I signed both lists and also why there were no other rabbis who overlapped.

As followers of the blog know, I expressed some regret in signing the Statement but specifically because of the way it was, I believe, misinterpreted. See http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/08/u.html and http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/08/media-misinterprets-meaning-of.html. In essence, though, I agreed with basic substance of the Statement as I did with the Declaration -- and so had no difficulties responding to this reporter's questions. The answer was really very simple, and the reporter understood this -- there was no contradiction between the Statement and the Declaration. To read further about this. I invite you to read the Forward article at http://www.forward.com/articles/147684/

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Jews, Israelis and Zionists: Thoughts about a Discontinued Ad Campaign‏

2011-12-10T23:28:00.001-05:00

From Guest Blogger: DOUGLAS ARONIN

Shalom

RRW

*****

Israel has enough problems todeal with right now, so it was hardly an opportune moment to pick a fightwith the institutional leadership of American Jewry. Then again, Israel'sMinistry of Absorption didn't realize it was picking a fight with AmericanJewish leaders when it launched an advertising campaign aimed atpersuading Israelis living in the United States to return home. Theensuing brouhaha reminds us, in case we needed further reminding, that Israelisand American Jews really don't understand each other.

The ad campaign targeted Israeliexpatriates, commonly known as yordim (literally those who descend), not nativeborn American Jews, but it apparently touched a raw nerve amongAmerican Jewish leaders. Abraham Foxman, the national director of theAnti-Defamation League, called it "heavy-handed, and evendemeaning." The leadership of the Jewish Federations of NorthAmerica, the national umbrella for local Jewish federations, reportedly sent aletter of protest to the Ministry, calling the ads"insulting". Once Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu learned of the controversy, he promptly stopped the ad campaignand sent Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States, to do damagecontrol. Oren asserted that Netanyahu had not known about the ad campaignin advance and assured American Jews that "[t]he prime minister deeplyvalues the American Jewish community and is committed to deepening ties betweenit and the State of Israel."

What was it about this ad campaignthat caused such a furor? One of the ads depicted Israeli-born parentsand their young daughter talking via Skype to the child's grandparents inIsrael. When the grandparents ask the girl what holiday itis, she responds "Christmas" as her parents look uncomfortable.The tag line of the ad follows in Hebrew: before Chanukah turns intoChristmas, it's time to come home to Israel. Another similar ad depicts ayoung boy trying to wake his sleeping father, calling him "Daddy"several times; only when he calls out "Abba" does thefather wake up, as a voice intones in Hebrew the tag line: BeforeAbba turns into Daddy, it's time to come home to Israel.

It's easy to understand why someAmerican Jews found ads like these offensive. Though it was directed atthe yordim,, almost the same ad campaign (without the Hebrew) could havebeen used to target American Jews. The message is a familiar one, the samebasic message that has been used to encourage aliyah (immigration to Israel)among Diaspora Jews since the early days of Zionism. In the Diaspora,even in America, that familiar message goes, assimilation isinevitable. Only in Israel can the Jewish future be assured.

That message is a grossoversimplification, of course, but it contains more than a grainof truth. The notion that the organized Jewish community is on theverge of extinction is wildly exaggerated. It's reminiscent of thefamous 1964 Look Magazine cover story, "The Vanishing American Jew",which predicted that the American Jewish community would disappear by the endof the twentieth century. When that century ended, of course, theAmerican Jewish community was still there; it was Look Magazine that haddisappeared. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of our demise have beengreatly exaggerated.

But that doesn't mean that the fears ofassimilation are pure alarmism; I only wish that they were. Theexperiences of the last half century have taught us that those Jewswho place a high priority on Jewish continuity and build their livesaccordingly can usually succeed in passing their Jewish commitment to thenext generation. But it has also taught us that those whoselives do not reflect a substantial commitment to the Jewish future -- whichalmost always includes some form of religious commitment -- are athigh risk of demographic disappearance.

I suspect that it was the grain oftruth underlying the ill-advised ad campaign, not the exaggeration that manyJewish leaders found so offensive. Who wants to have their flaws pointedout to them? How many of the prominent Federation leaders who were so quickto take offense live lives so infused with Jewish content that they can beconfident of the Jewish continuity of their own family trees? How many ofthem, indeed, already have children who have intermarried?

The specificexamples reflected in the ads summarized above are laughable. Transmitting the notion that Jews celebrate Chanukah, not Christmas, is one ofthe few indicators of Jewish identity that many marginally committed Jewsdo manage to pass on. It's really not that difficult to teach children to calltheir parents Abba and Eema, if that's what the parents want, even if most oftheir friends do not. The problem is that such gestures by themselves arenot enough to make transmission from one generation to the next likely, andmany American Jews -- including, I regret to say, a fair number of AmericanJewish leaders -- are not willing to do much more than that.

Offensiveness aside, the ad campaign wasprobably a waste of money. I say this not because I don't believethat Israel should be trying to lure back its expatriates; of course itshould. But it's hard to imagine that long-term yordim are likelyto be influenced by an ad campaign that somehow manages to be heavy-handedand trivial at the same time.. If they were that easily susceptibleto Jewish guilt trips, they probably wouldn't have left in the first place.

While we're on the subject, why are there somany expatriate Israelis living in North America, and elsewhere? Thatquestion is something of a sociological Rorschach test, telling us moreabout the person answering than about the phenomenon he's supposedly analyzing.A particularly egregious example is an opinion piece published on line by RogerCohen of the New York Times, who is (to put it mildly) no friend ofIsrael. He claims to know "several Israeli expatriates or would-beexpatriates" and he insists that they are leaving because of "theilliberal drift of Israeli politics, the growth of a harsh nationalism, theincreasing influence of the ultra religious [and] the endlessness of the'situation.'" I am sure that some Israeli expatriates are motivatedby such factors, and I have no difficulty believing that all of those with whomRoger Cohen is acquainted fall into this category. With whom else wouldyou expect him to be acquainted? But Cohen's analysis, if you can callit that, ignores the inconvenient fact that the phenomenon of yerida(emigration from Israel) is not a new one. Large numbers of Israelis havelived abroad throughout the State's history. If yerida is, as Cohenappears to believe, primarily the fault of Prime Minister Netanyahu andAvigdor Lieberman (the foreign minister and head of the Yisrael Beiteinuparty), then how do you explain the large number of Israelis who emigratedbefore the current political leadership came on the scene?

The primary reasons for yerida arereally not that hard to figure out. Israel is a small country, and livingthere can produce a sort of claustrophobia; that's why in recent years, it hasbecome de rigueur for secular Israelis, after completing their army service, totrek to remote parts of Asia for a while before returning home to commence therest of their lives. Considering its size and the circumstances in whichit has lived, Israel's economy is remarkably robust, but highly educatedIsraelis in many fields can find better professional opportunities outside thecountry than inside it -- or at least they could before the onset of thecurrent recession. (This is not so unusual in our increasingly mobile andinterconnected world. There are plenty of Americans living temporarily orpermanently abroad, and many citizens of other countries as well.) And ofcourse, while Israelis seem to bear up well under the strain of thesecurity threats that are a normal part of life there, living in a constantstate of siege with no end in sight can take its toll...

Most Israelis living in the UnitedStates come here intending to stay for a while and then return, or at leastthat's what they tell their families and friends in Israel. Some havegone back, but others, not surprisingly, have found the comfort and relativesafety of the US hard to give up; such is human nature. It is certainlyappropriate for any country to seek to reduce the "brain drain"resulting from the emigration of highly educated citizensby encouraging its expatriates to come home. For Israel, thereis the added concern of the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs amongits own citizens. In his opinion peace, Cohen claims that "[t]heads play to Israeli patriotism, but it’s not patriotism that expatriateslack." By framing the issue as one of "patriotism", Cohenmanages to evade the issue that is at the heart of both the ad campaignand the American Jewish response to it -- the issue of Jewish identity. If the ad campaign was addressed merely to Israeli patriotism, then whywould American Jews who are not Israeli citizens take offense? But therisk of Chanukah morphing into Christmas is not a matter of the expatriates'patriotism, but rather of their core identity as Jews. Maintaining thatidentity despite the temptations of assimilation in a pluralistic open societylike ours is a challenge that faces yordim and native born American Jews alike-- and the implication of the ad campaign is that it can't be done in theDiaspora, even in America, an implication that many American Jewsunderstandably find offensive.

Only in a Jewish homeland, classicalZionists have always insisted, can Jewish identity be sustained in the long runwithout dependence on religion. Secular Jewish identity, they haveargued, has no future in the Diaspora. In this argument classicalZionism was partly right but fundamentally wrong. It was rightthat secular Jewishness in the Diaspora is ultimately unsustainable, but it waswrong in assuming that it was the Diaspora rather than the secularism that wasthe problem. What has become apparent over the decades of Israel'sexistence is that in the long run secular Jewishness is not sustainable inIsrael any more than it is in the Diaspora. In the absence ofreligious commitment, secular Zionism is simply too weak afoundation on which to build an ideology capable of motivating the sacrificenecessary to defend a state under siege. It is hardly surprising thatZionism as a serious ideology, at least among secular native Israelis, hasbeen weakened almost to the point of disappearance. Indeed, for many, thevery word Zionism has developed pejorative connotations.

I do not mean to suggest that secularIsraelis are not loyal to the State of Israel. The vast majority serve inthe army, often heroically. But allegiance to the country where you wereborn and in which you live, and even willingness to risk your life in itsdefense, does not require an ideological commitment. It is, rather,the normal human instinct to which we attach the label patriotism. Most secularIsraelis remain patriotic citizens, who are loyal to theState. A growing number, however, have little sense of Jewishidentity beyond their identity as Israelis. They know little ofJewish history before the birth of modern Zionism and have no knowledge orunderstanding of the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. They arepatriotic Israelis but they are not Zionists.

The problem with relying solely onpatriotism as the glue holding the people together is that patriotism is notimmutable. Over the course of the last century, after all, many millionsof people have left the lands where they were born and settled in other, oftendistant countries. Some came to escape persecution, others to betterthemselves economically. Many have retained cultural or nostalgic ties tothe countries of their birth, but after an adjustment period (admittedly,one of variable length), they have usually shifted their primary politicalallegiance -- their patriotism -- to the countries in which they live. Of course, human experiences are varied, and human emotions are complex. Not everyone who has emigrated from the countries of their birth has initiallyintended that move to be permanent. Many temporary migrants, for a wholehost of reasons, do return to their native countries; others consider it for awhile and ultimately decide, whether consciously or by inertia, to stay wherethey are. Those countries who wish to avoid "brain drain" byenticing their expatriates to return home are far more likely to meet successduring each emigrant's emotional adjustment period, before his or her primarilyallegiance has shifted.

Historically, this basic paradigm ofthe immigrant experience has applied to Jews a little differently than toothers. Most Jews had little or no residual allegiance to the countriesfrom which they had emigrated and little or no temptation to returnthere. Indeed, during the largest period of Jewish immigration to theUnited States, the so-called Third Wave (1880-1924), most Jewish immigrantswere not native speakers of the languages of their native countries butinstead spoke Yiddish, a language unique to the Jewish communities of EasternEurope. Thus there was little adjustment period in the usual sense beforeJews who immigrated to the United States became, in their own estimation,American Jews, patriotic citizens of the United States. To the extentthat they retained any other residual loyalty, it was to a land they had neverseen, one that their ancestors had left centuries earlier. That residualloyalty arose not from instinct but from ideology -- the ideology we callZionism.

When to Omit Birkat Me'ein Sheva [Magein Avot]?

2011-12-09T15:11:00.000-05:00

I see various Minhagim WRT Omitting "Magein Avot"
1. At Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l's private minyan in his apartment on Friday Night, he had them omit "Magein Avot"
- supposedly because when he was absent, the Minyan did not convene.

2. I've heard that in many summer bungalows that they DO recite it, even though there is no minyan there year 'round
3 In Teaneck - There are TWO private Minyanim nearby for Friday Night
A. One is for a person with a disability. There, Magein Avot is omitted
B The other is a Carlebach Minyan in a private home There, they do say it despite the fact that about once a month they daven elsewhere.
--------------------
What are the proper parameters here?
Someone on Davening Discussions suggested that this is a "judgment call"

Shalom,
RRW

Vayishhlach: Binyamin: A Definition of Youth

2011-12-08T17:42:00.000-05:00

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Vayishlach and the topic is the concept of na'ar. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-6.html

Can a Divorcing Couple Remain "Friends"?

2011-12-07T16:48:00.000-05:00

«...At the conclusion of the session, I stated the following: "I have just one question for you." One of the parties quickly provided the question I was pondering, i.e. "Why are we getting divorced?"

I nodded in a manner that indicated this was indeed my question. The response was one I quote often:

"We are really good friends. We are just a lousy husband and wife." ...»

Why Does Gittin Precede Kiddushin? A Plea for Divorce Ethics »

Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry
http://matzav.com/why-does-gittin-precede-kiddushin-a-plea-for-divorce-ethics#more-71727

Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Downloading

2011-12-06T18:34:00.002-05:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: I know many friends—honest, God-fearing people—who have no problem “stealing” entertainment in the form of illegal downloads. Why have we let our attitude toward this kind of theft become so permissive? Can we stop it? Should we? Or, as many people claim, since they wouldn’t have paid for the show/music in the first place, it’s not like anyone lost money on their download. What is right? What is the Jewish view?

Rabbi Hecht's answer

The issue of intellectual property, of which this is a case, is one that has challenged every legal system. How do you assign proprietary rights to an intangible? This is clearly also an issue within Jewish Law, however the nature of Halacha is such that it need not approach this issue solely from a perspective of property. The questioner asks whether downloading is a form of stealing or theft which, to answer, would first demand a determination of a property right in the intangible download. The issue within the realm of Halacha, though, is much broader; the question being whether it is right or wrong – and this answer may have little to do with the establishment of proprietary rights.

It should not be surprising, as such, to find that over the centuries there have been many variant approaches undertaken to answer these types of questions, namely to what extent, if any, can someone benefit, without pay, from another person’s labours or financial outlay. This is essentially what is happening when one downloads a form of entertainment, one is benefitting from someone else’s efforts. The challenge, though, is that one is still not causing the other to actually expend more time, energy or money by downloading an item. In addition there may be other policy or ethical reasons for allowing this download. It is with a recognition of all these and other factors that Halachists have attempted to approach these questions.

There is a key shift, however, that occurs with the formulation of the issue with Halacha. In the language of Halacha, we would say that the prime focus of the issue becomes no longer one of cheftza, object, but gavra, person. What this means is that we are no longer focusing on the object – i.e. the download and its ownership – but the people involved and whether it is proper behaviour to download items without paying for them. The answer to this question may have little or nothing to do with actual ownership of the object but simply emerge from an ethical view of the behaviour itself. Is downloading objectionable behaviour?

This brings us to a key concept in the Halacha’s determination of the ethics of financial interaction. What is asked are the questions of whether one has benefitted (nehneh) and/or whether one has lost something including an opportunity cost (chaseir). The underlying broad values are that one should pay for a benefit and one should cover the cost of a loss that he/she has imposed upon another. Of course, the Halacha also recognizes that there are numerous details and further concerns that have to be considered and evaluated before these broad principles can be applied to any specific case. For example, one can only be held liable for a loss if one is responsible for causing it – what makes someone responsible? In many ways, Jewish financial law is an investigation of the many such details.

It would be first important, though, to understand the essential distinction between nehneh and chaseir in their legal ramifications. Mishna Baba Kamma 2:2 presents a good example. The case involves an animal eating the produce of a merchant in the public domain. As animals were common in the public domain in Talmudic times, it was deemed to be the responsibility of the merchant to protect his wares from animals. As such, an owner of an animal was not deemed responsible for what the animal ate in terms of the financial damage that was caused to the merchant i.e. he was not responsible for chaseir. Yet the Mishna informs us that he is responsible for the benefit he received through having his animal fed with the merchant’s produce i.e. he should still pay nehneh. The Gemara informs us that the owner does not have to pay the merchant for the price of the fruit but rather must pay him for the benefit he received in not having to feed his animal i.e. the amount he would have paid on the cheaper feed he would have used of the same quantity. It’s not always about what you cost the other but sometimes you have to consider your benefit. This would seem to be an important principle in regard to downloads for, while people contend that they are not directly causing a lost, they do cause opportunity costs and they do benefit. This approach to establishing copyright law was actually taken by Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, the Noda B’Yehuda.

Consideration for chaseir may even be broader. While the topic is actually complex as the Halacha also values competition, there is concern for activities that may impact on another’s business. For example, T.B. Baba Batra 21b states that once a fisherman has marked out an area for himself, perhaps putting out feed to attract fish, other fisherman cannot fish in this area. Again the issue is not propriety rights; this place and the fish are not owned by this fisherman. It is simply a recognition that you are causing loss – the fisherman has extended time, effort and, perhaps, even money to mark this area. It is, as such, improper to fish there and take a fish that this fisherman may have otherwise caught. Rabbi Moshe Sofer, the Chatam Sofer, applied this idea in his discussion of copyright.

The reality is that Jewish Law takes a serious approach to issues of intellectual property while in many ways not focusing on the property question but rather on the conduct that should be expected from the ethical individual. Consideration for Dina d’Malchuta Dina, that the law of the land has standing in Jewish Law, also is to be considered. Nonetheless, especially when the secular law has such exceptions, there are opinions that would consider the extent of the download and whether it is just for personal use before absolutely declaring it forbidden. Other ethical motivations for a download may also be considered.

The bottom line is that the issue is much more than a question of stealing with implications that you are taking something. The definitions of taking are much broader than an object of something. In addition there is the fact that you have benefitted. I would not say that this means that every action of downloading is forbidden but that the issue is one that needs to be approached seriously.

For further investigation of Halacha’s view of copyright, see:

Rabbi Israel Schneider, “Jewish Law and Copyright”, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XX1 (http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/halacha/schneider_1.htm)

Rabbi Chaim Jachter, “Halachah and Copyright Laws”, Gray Matter: Discourses in Contemporary Halachah (http://www.torahlive.co.il/templatebild/tipsresources/Halacha%20and%20Copyright%20%28Jachter%29.pdf)

Rabbi J. David Bleich, “Chapter 6, Business and Commerce: Copyright”, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Volume 2

Rooted in Tradition - Torah Responds to a "Sour" Economy

2011-12-05T11:38:00.001-05:00

«Now 39 years old and serving as the rabbi of a Chabad center near Atlanta, Rabbi Minkowicz has done something he never expected: open a gemach that deals primarily with non-Orthodox Jews in a prosperous stretch of suburbia. The reason, quite simply, is the prolonged downturn in the American economy, which has driven up the number of Jews identified by one poverty expert as the "middle-class needy."

The same phenomenon has appeared in Jewish communities across the country, albeit most often in those with existing Orthodox populations already familiar with the gemach system. This institution, rooted in biblical and Talmudic teachings and whose name is a contraction of the Hebrew words for "bestowal of kindness" ("gemilut chasadim"), is now meeting needs created by such resolutely modern causes as subprime mortgages, outsourcing and credit default swaps.»

NYT: Gemach Offers Loans Without Profit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/a-traditional-jewish-loan-program-helps-ease-pain-of-tough-economic-times.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gemach&st=cse

For Mobil Devices:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/a-traditional-jewish-loan-program-helps-ease-pain-of-tough-economic-times.xml

-------------------

I grew up in a shul that hosted such societies - some were known as "oxies" whatever that means.

Also, my Dad's company had its own Federal Credit Union which offered low-cost loans to its members based upon the same premise of mutual help.

Shalom,
RRW

Baruch Dayan HaEmes: Cantor Macy Nulman z"l

2011-12-04T11:22:00.000-05:00

«The Yeshiva University Family is saddened by the passing of
CANTOR MACY NULMAN, z'l
Former Director of the Philip and Sarah Belz School of Jewish Music at Yeshiva University, a Founder of the Cantorial Council of America, a pioneer in Cantorial and Jewish music education and author of numerous books and journals on Jewish music and liturgy. »
-------------------
B"H I attended quite a few courses at the Belz school over the years. Cantor Nulman was a consummate professional and helped to raise the Modern Orthodox "cantorate" to a higher level of professionalism. His book "The Encyclopedia of Jewish Liturgy" is a great quick reference guide for us.

While I only chatted with him a few times -- most of his influence on me was indirect -- he, nevertheless, will be missed as a mentor.

To his family, Hamakom Y'nachem ....

Shalom and Regards,
RRW

Mussar: Let's Face It! - Quick Internet Mussar

2011-12-03T19:56:00.002-05:00

Instead of FaceBook
Face the Book!
See
http://uberdox.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-mussar-for-me.html

Shalom,
RRW

Issur V'heter Overview in 3 Sections

2011-12-02T10:59:00.001-05:00

Basic Rabbinic Literacy
Program

Goal: To Prepare Prospective Students in 3 areas of Issur V'heter Using "Classic Texts"

Note:
Each Overview stands on its own and does not require going further in order to grasp these concepts on a basic level

Each Session is assumed to be 90 minutes. No preparation is necessary, but review is indispensable

--------------------

Overview 1
Bassar b'Chalav

Sefer Minchat Hinuch - Mitzvot 92, 113

Rambam MT Ma'achalot Assurot Ch. 9

4-6 sessions

--------------------

Overview 2 - M'lichah

SA YD 69- 78 with Be'er Hagolah, Ba'er Hetev

Hochmat Adam 43 with Yad Adam

6-8 sessions

--------------------

Overview 3
Taaruvot of Hametz
SA O"Ch with Mishnah Brurah
442
447
467

7 - 9 sessions

Shalom and Regards, RRW

Soviet Purges: Lenin vs. Stalin

2011-12-01T10:41:00.004-05:00

Due to the recent death of Comrade Stalin's daughter Svetlana [aka Lana] I thought that it's time to revive a thesis I wrote for my Soviet History class circa December, 1973

Given that both Lenin and Stalin ruthlessly persecuted and purged, can we still compare and contrast their approaches?

The approach I took was to contrast NOT their degree of zealousness; after all the Cheka / Ogpu [Lenin] were as ruthless as the NKVD / MVD [Stalin]. What DID change? The targets of their zeal!

Lenin went after Czarists and "Whites" and other factions who opposed Bolshevism. EG Lenin was willing to overlook Trotsky's personal history as a Menshevik because of his steadfast loyalty to the Bolshevik Revolution. Thus Lenin's "US" were the community of all good Bolsheviks and his "THEM" were all those opposed to Bolshevism

Stalin morphed the zealousness by turning internally onto Fellow Bolsheviks. Stalin's "US" were the community of all those who'd give their life for Stalin and his "THEM" were all those had an independent power base and could thus think and act on their own w/o Stalin

As a result, Trotsky, Kirov, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc. Were all Bolsheviks in good standing, yet nevertheless were ruthlessly and brutally purged. Their goodstanding as Bolsheviks is testified to by the fact that most were posthumously rehabilitated - except for Trotsky.

Hopefully the Mussar here for US is obvious. How far to take "Kannaus"? Think about it.

Shalom,
RRW

Palestine's Grand Mufti - Nazi Collaborator

2011-11-30T00:41:00.001-05:00

The Military Channel has a fascinating series about Nazi Collaborators. On TV now (the evening of Nov. 29), is an episode about the grand Mufti and his personal alliance with Hitler YS"V and his Nazi cohorts.

I highly suggest seeing this episode.

For more info:

Controversy-laden "Nazi Collaborators" coming to Military Channel - Channel Guide Magazine

http://www.channelguidemagblog.com/index.php/2011/09/28/nazi-collaborators-coming-to-military-channel/

Shalom,
RRW

The Battle of the Tunnel - Part 2

2011-11-29T11:50:00.000-05:00

Last year, we reported and commented on what we termed "The Battle of the Tunnel" between Atheists and Roman Catholics in that the former put a billboard at one end of the Lincoln Tunnel while the latter put up one on the other end. See http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/12/battle-of-tunnel.html.

Well it seems that the battle may be on for this year as well -- well at least the atheists have fired the first shot for this year. They have put up a billboard on one end of the Tunnel with a similar message to the one they presented last year. This year they have pictures of Neptune, Jesus, Santa Claus and the Devil with the question "What do you see?" It seems that they are trying to be a bit more subtle this year, not challenging everyone to be atheist but calling upon those church going people who secretly are atheists to, figuratively, come out of the closet. Further on this, see
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-706810?hpt=hp_bn2

The Roman Catholics have not responded yet as far as I know. If they do, I most likely would have the same dilemma as I had last year, effectively siding, in a certain way, more with the atheists than the Roman Catholics. Let's face it, in regard to this year's billboard, I would agree with the atheists putting Neptune, a divine Jesus, Santa Claus and a Christian presentation of the Devil, in the same category.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The increasing chasm Amongst Jewish Factions

2011-11-28T11:36:00.000-05:00

«Which leads me to the following question: Who is there anywhere in the Jewish world whose passing would evoke the sense of shared loss that was felt when Peretz died? Is there anyone in the Jewish world – in Israel, the United States, or anywhere else – who would be mourned by secularists and religious Jews alike, conservatives and liberals, Zionists and those more dubious about the Jewish state? Were Haim Nahman Bialik to die now, would the Israeli religious community mark his passing? (In 1934, it did.) Were Rabbi Shlomo Goren alive now, would American Reform and Conservative Jews see his loss as theirs, too? Would Israeli Orthodox Jews take note of the loss of Abba Hillel Silver? »

Daniel Gordis
A Tale of Two Funerals

http://danielgordis.org/2011/11/25/a-tale-of-two-f

-------------------

Comment:

I have long admired Abba Hillel Silver as a spokesman for Jewry, but I'm no fan of his "theology. I can say similar things about Z'ev Jabotinsky.

Certain leaders were imho good for our Nation, but not so good for our Religion. [And perhaps vice versa]

Shalom,
RRW

Is Judaism a matter of what Rabbis say, or a matter of what Jews do?

2011-11-27T13:33:00.000-05:00

«If so, fine. If not also fine. Which brings us back to the old, vexing question: Is Judaism a matter of what Rabbis say, or a matter of what Jews do?»

See:
DOVBEAR: Oy Gay

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2011/11/oy-gay.html?m=1

--------------------

To answer DovBear's question it's a combination of

Torah
Rabbis
Jews

The Zohar says "Yisroel v'raitto v'kudsha bkrich hu had hu"

Similarly, Halachah is also the product of an amalgam. Re: this specific issue, more later BE"H

Shalom,
RRW

Texts: Underrated Yet Classical

2011-11-25T11:14:00.001-05:00

There are some classic texts in Judaism that are powerful but nevertheless often neglected. I'm not always sure why. Dear Readers, you will probably come up with a few short lists of your own. Here are a few of mine

1. Midrashim in general. Midrash Rabbah in particular. Fortunately we often do get access to this via intermediate texts

2. The L'vushim. One of the very finest Halachic Codes has been largely neglected for centuries

3. R Hananel on Sha"s. To Rashi goes the first prize in Talmudic Parshanut. R Hananel probably is a close runner up and can be very user-friendly and occasionally highly informative

4. Perhaps the only major Rishon to miss the cut into Mikraot G'dolot is Rabbenu Bachayei al haTorah. He reviews Pardeis on the Humash, making distinctions between each approach

5. Tomer D'vorah. Better known in Kabbalistic circles, it still works in the realms of Mussar, Hashkafah, and Ahavat Yisrael
6. Siddur Avodat Yisrael by Seligmann Baer. One of the few gems admired in both Orthodox and non-Orthodox liturgical scholarship

7. Soncino Humash by Rev. A Cohen. Long overshadowed, first by the Hertz Humash then by the Artscroll Humash the commentary has a "Kitzur Mikraot G'dolot in English.

BE"H we can add more

Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Thanksgiving 2

2011-11-24T12:26:00.003-05:00

I would favor consulting Traditional Siddurim [Prayer Books] Jewish Prayers are filled with expressions of thanks. Any recitation using them would accomplish Thanksgiving and incorporate a Jewish aspect.

For example, one could recite one or both of the "Modim" prayers. Or the morning Modeh Ani prayer

My own favorite is Psalm 100 "Mizmor leTodah", a Psalm of Thanskgiving. In particular I enjoy Louis Lewandowski's awesome choral composition of same. It is a most inspiring way to express gratitude.

And following dinner as we recite the "Birkat Hamazon" the 2nd Blessing is based upon the theme of thanks - "Nodeh Lecha"

My in-laws "Did Thanksgiving" on the Friday Night Shabbat Dinner on the Day after the Secular Thursday. There is perhaps no more Jewish way to celebrate Turkey Day than by having it as a Friday Night Shabbat Feast

I hope these help

Happy Thanksgiving
RRW

-------------------

And here's a blog post on this theme

Making Thanksgiving into a Kiddush Hashem
« ...Kesher Israel Congregation (KI) in Harrisburg has found the perfect way to spend the day… They came up with the idea of providing a full Thanksgiving meal for those firefighters who would be spending Thanksgiving on call at the fire station rather than at home surrounded by family and friends. This novel idea resonated with the congregation...»

-------------------

Sources:

JVO Link
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=243&cprg=%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dthanksgiving%26what%3DA

NishmaBlog: Making Thanksgiving into a Kiddush Hashem
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/11/making-thanksgiving-into-kiddush-hashem.html

Thanksgiving Kiddush Hashem | Hirhurim – Torah Musings
http://torahmusings.com/2010/11/thanksgiving-kiddush-hashem/

Shalom and Regards,

RRW

JVO: Thanksgiving

2011-11-23T20:12:00.002-05:00

Making Thanksgiving into a Kiddush Hashem

2011-11-23T11:35:00.000-05:00

« ...Kesher Israel Congregation (KI) in Harrisburg has found the perfect way to spend the day… They came up with the idea of providing a full Thanksgiving meal for those firefighters who would be spending Thanksgiving on call at the fire station rather than at home surrounded by family and friends. This novel idea resonated with the congregation...»

Thanksgiving Kiddush Hashem | Hirhurim – Torah Musings

http://torahmusings.com/2010/11/thanksgiving-kiddush-hashem/

Shalom,
RRW

Issues in Contemporary Hashkafa

2011-11-22T12:06:00.000-05:00

A series of shiurim

with Rabbi Hecht

on the interface between Torah and the modern world
Videos available on Koshertube.

The first shiur is at
http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=8916

The second shiur is at
http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=4&task=videodirectlink&id=9054

For those within the area, the shiurim themselves continue:
Wednesday nights
9:00 pm
BAYT in Thornhill

An Encounter with Gay Orthodox Marriage

2011-11-21T17:24:00.002-05:00

With all this discussion regarding Steve Greenberg's latest undertaking, I thought it might be appropriate for me to share a personal encounter with a similar event.

A few years ago, I was faced with the following shaila. Soon after Canada allowed same sex marriages, a woman called me to ask if it would be okay for her to attend such a wedding of a friend of hers. This, however, was not a simple request. This woman, when she was in her early twenties, was involved in a terrible accident which required much time in the hospital and then in rehabilitation (B"H, she is fine now.) It seems that during this ordeal, two friends stood beside her throughout and helped her out greatly in overcoming this adversity. One was this man. She therefore was torn. On one hand, her attendance at this ceremony could be seen as somewhat of an acquiescence to this behaviour, something, which as a frum woman, she did not want to do. It was, further, for this same reason that her husband felt she should not go. On the other hand, the value of hakeret hatov, of recognizing, acknowledging and thanking someone for their good behaviour towards you, would seem to demand of her to attend. The result was this shaila which she and her husband had agreed to ask me.

Immediately, I saw her dilemma. Hakeret hatov is a most significant value and her behaviour in not attending this event could possibly be seen as her ignoring the good that was done for her. In a world of tolerance, there is pressure upon us to also demonstrate tolerance or face the charge of being ungrateful. On the other hand, even within a world of tolerance, we must still abide by our principles so how could she show any possible acceptance of this action? I knew my leanings were just to say no but I truly had to further think about it.

We spoke the next day with me mentioning that I still had not come to a definite decision. Then came the statement that totally forced me to take a definite stand right away. This woman asked me whether it might be better if she only attended the Sheva Brachot? I said: what? Yes they were having Sheva Brachot.

It seems that her friend had actually developed an interest in Judaism and if he was not already shomer Shabbat, he was on his way. The consequence was, also, that everything to do with this same sex ceremony was patterned after an Orthodox wedding ceremony, even in regard to the invitation (which she then read to me over phone). My answer was now simple. This was an inherent mockery of Torah to which she could not be part. I use the word mockery not in the sense that this man was intending to mock Torah. The reality was that his understanding of Torah was a mockery of Torah's essence -- and this is what is occurring with this ceremony by Steve Greenberg.

People are projecting Torah as standing for certain life expectancies be it spirituality, family closeness, national grouping etc, etc. The fact is that Torah really only stands for Torah and that all else that may, at times or even most of the time, flow from its observance will also find the situation when it does not reflect the Torah directive. To take another value, any other value, and to place it above Torah itself is fundamentally flawed, a mockery of the very foundation of Torah. This is what I felt in arriving at the decision I rendered in telling this woman that she should not go to this ceremony. This man had already found something within Torah that he desired and it pushed him to observance. He wanted to bring this into his same sex ceremony -- but it was at this point that one could see that this motivation was not Torah for it drew him to create a travesty of Torah itself for he did not recognize that Torah is not about this motivation but about the simple demands of Torah itself and a same sex marriage was not one of them. It was like toivel v'sheretz b'yado and he didn't even know that there was a sheretz b'yado.

Its one thing to accept a value of same sex marriage -- but why the need to declare it okay within the realm of Torah. Go practice your own faith. The desire is though to impose it as my faith. With that the issue is not just the ethics homosexuality but the very definition of Torah. That, we must defend.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Intersection of Orthodoxy and Gay Marriage

2011-11-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

There is a lot to say on this subject

First Morethdoxoy -

An Orthodox Gay Wedding? by R. Yosef Kanefsky | Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth, Depth and Passion of Orthodox Judaism

http://morethodoxy.org/2011/11/18/an-orthodox-gay-wedding/#comments

Then Hirhurim -

Post-Orthodox Gay Marriage | Hirhurim – Torah Musings

http://torahmusings.com/2011/11/post-orthodox-gay-marriage/

Soon Nishma BE"H

Shalom,
RRW

A Response to a Reform Critique

2011-11-20T14:30:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday, the Toronto Star published an article from one of their columnists, Rabbi Dow Marmur, the Rabbi Emeritus of Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple, a leading institution within Reform Judaism. The article was entitled: "Women energize modern Judaism," and its topic was obvious -- how the greater involvement of women in the synagogue, liturgy and clergy has had a 'positive effect' on 'Judaism'. Of course, included in the article, even as Rabbi Marmur himself states that he has "the highest regard for Orthodox Judaism", are a few jabs at Orthodoxy -- enough of them that more than one person asked me to respond. The article can be seen at:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1085859--marmur-women-energize-modern-judaism

The question for me was how to respond. His was the politically correct position and challenging this position directly in the largest newspaper in Canada would be foolish and only have negative results. Yet, while in the end my response was not published by the paper, I felt that it was important for me to respond, at least to try and challenge what he said, specifically the subtle negative implications he presented about Orthodoxy. Here was my response:

While Rabbi Marmur is fully entitled to express his thoughts on how women have energized his religion, I do not think it appropriate for him to misrepresent my religion in the process. He critiques those who “depict Judaism as an obsolete relic” and then he revels the same accusation at Orthodox Judaism. Any representation of Orthodox Judaism as fundamentalist negates its commitment to thought and its consummate rejection (via the diversity of opinion found within its studies) of the expression of life in black-and-white terms. Rabbi Marmur’s misrepresentation may be innocent however due to a general perception that the distinctions in the branches of Judaism are more matters of form than issues of essential objectives and understandings. While he may incorporate practices from Orthodoxy in his world of Reform Judaism, he misses seeing how Orthodoxy’s principles really differ from those of Reform Judaism. If he truly understood the distinctions, he would recognize that the changes in the understanding of gender that have occurred over the past 150 years, while having their impact upon Reform Judaism in the obvious manner they have, have also had their impact on Orthodoxy but in a vastly different way reflecting the underlying distinctly substantial and complex values of Orthodoxy.

As I maintained in my article "Adjective and Non-adjective Jews" (available on the Nishma website at http://www.nishma.org/articles/introspection/introspection5761-2-adjective_jew.htm, I truly do believe that the best way of responding to these types of directives against Orthodoxy is by just presenting the theological truth -- the religion of Reform Judaism and the religion of Orthodox Judaism are two different religions. What is the problem with stating this? Describing Reform Judaism as its own religion does not in any way give it a standing as true. Let Rabbi Marmur talk about how women have energized Reform Judaism -- well maybe this religion needed some energization. I make it clear this way, though, that what he says has nothing to do with my faith.

Comments?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Nothing is as powerful....

2011-11-17T12:29:00.006-05:00

"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come", - Sir Victor Hugo 1852

At one time there was a viable "Traditional Wing" of Conservative Judaism. Since about 1980+ the C movement has moved sharply left-ward.

My late Rabbi, William Cohen A"H used to frequently repeat: "nature abhors a vacuum"

There is a new vacuum in the spectrum. There are powerful forces at work here forcing the issue [no pun intended] Those forces are not internal to Orthodoxy, the gap that needs to be filled is indeed external.

The idea or movement that seems irresistible now is what I call "neo-Con" a new Traditional Conservatism.

Not that I am personally endorsing this movement. Far from it. I just see that the nature of this gap is making the Neo-Cons a virtual physical necessity in order to plug this missing hole.

This movement somewhat reminds me of how Z. Frankel resisted Radical Reform with his counter-weight of Positive-Historical Judaism.

It is interesting to see that the Neo-Cons are mostly dominated by Left-Wing Modern Orthodox types as opposed to Right-Wing Conservative types. I'm not clear as to why that is.

My guess is that there may be more "dynamism" or charisma in the LW Ortho circles, composed of those who are still exploring the new parameters of making a break.

Shalom,
RRW

Halachic Movement

2011-11-16T13:35:00.003-05:00

In my post The Shelo Asani Ishah Issue, I mentioned that I wanted to present a more thorough discussion on this matter, not necessarily the particular topic of Shelo Asani Isha but the whole question of, what we may term, Halachic movement. I have recently completed this presentation and invite you to take a look at it.

Halachic Movement

A new Commentary on the parameters of Halachic change within Orthodoxy
available on the Nishma website at http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/movement.html

JVO: Glatt Kosher

2011-11-15T16:54:00.002-05:00

Rabbi Hecht's answer

When I first saw this question, I felt providing an answer would be pretty straightforward but as I drafted a response I began to realize that a proper answer would also demand the presentation of some basic principles of Jewish Law that are often not recognized. As such, allow me to begin by directing the reader to a good, basic response to this question by Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky which can be found at the following link, http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/#starstar. Now allow me to elaborate.

The word kosher in Hebrew means proper or fit and, in its more specific usage, declares that a piece of meat is permitted to be eaten according to Halacha, Jewish Law. In its more extended usage, it is also used to indicate that matters – be it a product, a program, an event – conforms to the requirements of Halacha. For example, I am a member of the Rabbinic Advisory Board of Koshertube (www.koshertube.com) where the term kosher indicates that the viewing of the videos on the site present no problem according to Halacha, namely that, according to the Jewish Law, they are fit to be viewed.

It is very important to recognize that kosher is, as such, a legal term and, thus, is similar to such terms as guilty or innocent. It does not reflect an attribute that is inherent in an item – such as dimension or colour – but reflects a judicial determination based upon facts and law. This is what a verdict such as guilty means; it is an evaluation that, pursuant to the accepted facts and the law as determined by those entrusted to make this decision, a person is guilty of a crime. Kosher is a similar, judicial conclusion. When someone declares an item to be kosher, one is stating that, based on the facts as presented to this person and this person’s determination of the appropriate halachic principle in this matter, an item is legally fit, in the case of meat that it is permitted to be eaten according to Jewish Law.

The technical case of glatt kosher may actually serve as a good example of the legal nature of such terms. There is a halachic principle that meat from an animal that would have died within one year is not kosher. An exact determination of whether an animal would have died within a year or not, especially after the animal has been slaughtered, could, obviously, be a most difficult one even for a veterinarian. This is where legal principles enter into the discussion. What exactly are the legal standards in this regard according to Jewish Law? As one example of such a standard, there is a principle in the Halacha that we may apply the concept of rov, following the majority, resulting in that, without evidence to the contrary, we can assume that what applies to the majority applies to all. In this case of meat, the principle that is applied is not necessarily that of rov but of a similar nature, namely that we need be only concerned with issues that have a significant minority occurrence. What is a significant minority occurrence? That is a matter of legal disagreement. Based upon the study of Jewish, legal sources there is a debate between scholars of the Halacha as to the exact definition of this. This is a classic example of a disagreement within Jewish Law with which many people have problems. As with any legal system – in the same manner that you have differing conclusions of judges – there are scholarly disagreements about halachic principles. This is why you have many possible contradictory presentations of what is kosher or not – there are disagreements in law.

The technical, specific definition of glatt kosher concerns one of these disagreements. It is generally accepted that we need not be concerned with a possible malady in a slaughtered animal that would demand of us to label it ‘expected to die within a year’ and thus not kosher. We, thus, upon slaughter, generally do not examine an animal to see if there is some indication that it had such a malady. Such an occurrence is beyond a significant minority. There is one noted exception to this rule. There is enough of a significant minority occurrence of holes in the lungs of cows – which are life threatening – that it is a principle of Jewish Law that, before declaring the meat of a properly slaughtered cow to be kosher, an examination of the lungs has to occur.

This is where we get to the exact nature of glatt kosher. If a cow’s lungs are found to have a hole, the meat is not kosher. If a cow’s lungs are found to never have been punctured, we can determine, judicially, that the meat is kosher based upon the assumption that we do not have to be concerned about remote occurrences of other maladies. What, however, if the cow’s lungs were once punctured and were healed – or were within the process of being healed. We would be able to determine if this was the case by examining the lungs to see if there were adhesions on the lungs. Any evidence of an adhesion would indicate that the lungs were once perforated. In such cases, a decision in law is necessary to determine if this presents a halachic problem or not. Since an adhesion could indicate that there was once a hole in the lungs and, at that time, the cow could be defined as one expected to die within a year, the question is now whether, after the healing, that determination still stands.

When a cow, as such, is slaughtered, a cow’s lung is thus checked in these two manners. First, there is a physical determination whether there are any holes which, based on this fact, if found would result in a determination that the meat of this cow is not kosher. Then, there is an examination of the lungs to see if there are any adhesions. If there are, a further, judicial determination has to be made whether these adhesions present a problem. There is a disagreement amongst the scholars of the Halacha in this regard: do adhesions present a problem to a determination of kosher and, if so, which ones? The result would be that certain meat could be declared kosher by some halachic authorities while others would render it not kosher.

The term glatt kosher is actually a Yiddish term that technically refers to smooth lungs, lungs without any adhesions, and thus would be declared kosher by all authorities. When meat is said to be only kosher, and not glatt kosher, the presumed message is that there was an issue regarding the lungs but a determination was made to follow the authorities that would permit this type of adhesion although there would be some authorities who would not permit it. Someone choosing to only eat glatt kosher technically means someone who wishes not to enter this controversy and eat only meat that would be kosher to all the opinions (or, at least, an even greater number of them).

This leads us to the more colloquial use of the term. In reality, disagreements in the principles of Jewish Law exist in all areas of Halacha, in fact even extensively. As such, those who observe a halachic lifestyle are always making determinations of which positions in Jewish Law they observe. (This should not be perceived to arbitrary or, even, fully autonomous. There are further principles that are to be applied in this regard as well.) When someone applies the term glatt kosher beyond the case of cow’s meat (and, even, when the term is used, in some other ways, in regard to cow’s meat), what one is really saying is that they are attempting to be more stringent in their observance of the law through conduct that is acceptable to all opinions or the vast majority of them.

Making the Menschlich Offer - Mishnah Yoma 6:5

2011-11-14T10:39:00.000-05:00

The agent who took the s'ir hamistalei'ach was offered food and water every station on the way. Being Yom Kipurim, the sh'liach never actually availed himself of this privilege [Bartenura] but it was done anyway "K'day Sheyeitiv Libbo". The psychological boost of this offer was enough to keep the spirits up of the fasting sh'liach.

--------------------

There is a story that R Yosef Dov Soloveichik Z"L was disappointed that he was never offered the Presidency of Yeshiva University.

Many find this puzzling - because why would the Rov give up his life's passion as a teacher/M'lamed par excellence, to go into the world of politics and fund raising?

One answer that resonated with me is along these lines. RYDS never actually wished to serve as President. He simply was disappointed that it was never OFFERED.

Mussar: Sometimes the menchslich gesture is to offer even without expectation that the offer will actually be accepted.

Text of Mishnah Below [also See the Bartenura]
-------------------

מסכת יומא פרק ו

ו,ה על כל סוכה וסוכה אומרין לו, הרי מזון והרי מים; ומלווים אותו מסוכה לסוכה, חוץ מן האחרון שבהן--שאינו מגיע לצוק,
אלא עומד מרחוק ורואה את מעשיו

Shalom,
RRW

Selling Religion

2011-11-13T14:23:00.002-05:00

There were a few incidents in my life recently that pointed out to me the fact that so much of the effort within the Jewish community today is to 'sell religion.' The bottom line is that we try and encourage Torah observance because it is a __________ [insert the word: better, more enjoyable, meaningful, etc.] way to live. In other words, it seems to be all about the person. Everything seems to come down to what religion can do for you.

Of course, you still hear a rhetoric of the importance of truth and the demand to serve God but, to be honest, this all seems secondary to the recognized, real motivating force -- how it will enhance your life. You can see that even as someone declares an acceptance of a chumra, a stringency in observance, as a supposed indication of commitment to the Divine, the real motivation behind this is really that somehow it enhances one's life. It can even be declared openly -- the reason one wishes to commit to the Divine is because it makes one's life _____________ [again fill in the word].

I am not saying that this is all wrong. Why we serve God is a significant question and cannot be ignored. How else would you get people interested in Torah is you do not point out its benefits? The problem is that if the yardstick of observance is personal, what one wishes becomes the arbiter, not what should be. With all this selling of religion -- and I use the term religion because I find that this exists beyond the world of Torah to somehow sell all faiths -- religions becomes necessarily defined for you need a concrete, demanded lifestyle in order to sell it as _________________ [again fill in the word]. The difference with truth is that it really is built on a reality of na'aseh v'nishma, that I do it because it is not because I benefit. In our present world, we seem to always put the benefit first, thereby defining religion as we wish it.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Ein Manichin, Forbidding the Permitted

2011-11-11T10:56:00.003-05:00

Cases:

1. In SA YD 1:1 and in the underlying Beth Yosef, the m'chabeir sees no reason not to permit women to do Sh'chita. [Lo ra'inu eino Raya]In fact such Halachic permission is granted in Hullin by the Mishnah and the G'mara

Rema based upon [iirc kol bo and agur] says "she'ien l'haniach nashim lishchot". Shach there defends this Rema

Note - We have here a principle that what is Halachically permitted can still be restricted by "ein manichin" or similar language.

2. The m'chabeir himself use this same terminology as this With Regard To consecutive aliyot involving EG 2 brothers. See SA O"Ch 141:6 and the Lashon "y'cholim...v'ein manichim"

3. I found an early source in Mishnah Yoma 6:3 for this terminology viz. of Halachicallly permitted but "lo hayu manichin" With Regard To who takes out the s'ir hamisthalei'ach. There the B"D of Kohanim [Bartenura] legislated a higher standard than the Halachah. And an exemption was noted for "Ars'la"

--------------------

For Further Research:

1. Are there more sources on these cases - especially those giving us any parameters?

2 Are there more cases in Sha"s and Poskim

3 What might be the parameters justifying exemptions?

4 Does EG Encyclopedia Talmudit or others define the parameters of this phenomenon of "mutar aval ein manichim"?

--------------------

Comment: it does not take an Illuy to see that Traditionalists will likely defend the Agur/Rema/Schah on SA YD 1:1, while "feminists" will seize on this opportunity to promote women since it complies with "Halachah".

What bothers me I guess is that SOME on the left have impugned the Rema et al. as somehow doing something aweful, although we see that it is a policy rooted in Sha"s in other circumstances.

Shalom,
RRW

Jewish Tribune: Watch your language

2011-11-10T12:26:00.006-05:00

The ridiculousness of the charge that Israel was an apartheid state may have distracted us to miss the intended objective of this diatribe -- to define Israeli Jews as colonialists.

In my latest Jewish Tribune article, I develop this idea further. Please see http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5006&Itemid=53

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Sheva Brachot at Shalosh Seudot

2011-11-09T15:45:00.000-05:00

When may the Bride and Groom drink wine at Sheva Brachot following Shalosh Seudot given that they have not yet made Havdalah?

Guest Blogger Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen answers this question

Shalom and Regards, RRW

Re: Sheva Berachot at Shalosh Seudot
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen

Concern for the proper procedure for drinking the wine of Sheva Beracot at Shalosh Seudot is not a new problem. The general custom is that the bride and groom drink the wine even though it is after Birchat HaMazon and quite late at night on Saturday night.I believe this usage is based on the Halachic rulings of Rav Avraham Butchacha who in two different commentaries ruled that drinking wine at Sheva Berachot is qualitatively different from drinking wine at a regular Shalosh Seuda on Shabbat. The rationale is as follows:

At Sheva Berachot , the last Berachah is chanted over wine. Should this Berachah not be recited, then only six , not seven Berachot would be recited. Yet, seven blessings are mandated for a bride and groom. Since the seventh blessing is required, the wine should be drunk to eliminate any concerns for reciting a blessing in vain.(Se Eishel Avraham, Mahdura Tenina, Orech Chayyim 22:7)The distinction is that on a regular Shabbat afternoon one does not recite the wine blessing after Birchat HaMazon should the hour be late. To the extent that the wine Berachah is always chanted at Sheva Berachot, then the wine should be drunk.

The Minchat Shabbat, my paternal grandfather , cites (in his additive notes, Shirurei HaMinchah, Siman 94:4) that Rav Avraham Butchacha expounded in his commentary on Even HaEzer(62) a theory supporting drinking wine at Sheva Berachot on Shabbat afternoon. He notes that many scholars contend that a person who has the actual custom of always drinking wine after Birchat HaMazon is permitted to drink the Kos Shel Berachah after Shalosh Seudot on Shabbat.The wine is then deemed as part of the seuda.( See Magen Avraham OC 299:7)Since a bride and groom conclude each meal during the first week of marriage with seven Berachot that include a blessing for wine, they, the bride and groom are classified as people who normally drink wine after Birchat HaMazon. Accordingly, they are permitted to drink wine on Shabbat afternoon after Birchat HaMazon.

It is reputed that HaGoan HaRav Moshe Feinstein ZL only permitted the bride and bridegroom to drink from the Kos Shel Berachah on Shabbat afternoon.My assumption is that based on the logic of the Eishel Avraham only the bride and groom had the custom of drinking wine after meals, not necessarily the person who led Birchat Hamazon. As such, he should not drink from the Koss Shel Berachah after Seudat Shlishi ( It should be noted that the custom of HaRav Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, was himself to sip some wine and then to give the wine to the bride and groom.(Minhagei MaHaRitz 58)

JVO: Hillel's Statement

2011-11-08T20:10:00.003-05:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: Why does Hillel choose “What is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor” as his version of “the entire Torah?” Why not “Love God” or “Keep mitzvoth.” HiIlel’s tenet is never actually mentioned in the Torah itself.

Rabbi Hecht's answer

While the essence of this question is a good one, there are a few assumptions that are made within the question that need to be identified and corrected first in order to fully respond to it. Indeed T.B. Shabbat 31a records this statement as the response of Hillel to the potential proselyte who wished to be taught the whole Torah while he stood on one foot. What, though, did Hillel really mean with this answer? Did he actually believe that this idea represented “the entire Torah”? What actually was the essence of the non-Jew’s request? Finally, does it really matter that this tenet is “never actually mentioned in the Torah itself”?

Rabbi Shmuel Eidels (generally known by his acronym Maharsha), a major Talmudist of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, points out that the essence of the non-Jew’s request was a desire to find the one fundamental principle upon which the whole Torah system was based. Hillel’s answer, thus, was not an expression of the entire Torah but rather his understanding of this one singular, fundamental principle upon which the whole Torah is built. The challenge still exists, though: how could this be a statement of the Torah’s fundamental principle given that it seems to ignore the commandments related to the religious side of Torah such as loving God. Seemingly bothered by this very concern, Rashi actually presents one understanding of the statement as not referring to one’s human neighbour but rather one’s Divine neighbour. Essentially, according to this view, Hillel is basically saying that the fundamental principle of Torah is, actually as you suggest, “Keep mitzvot.” As you would not like something hateful done to you -- as you would not like to be ignored -- do not do to your Divine neighbour -- namely do not ignore God through not observing His mitzvot. Hillel is, according to this view, informing the non-Jew that the fundamental principle of Torah is to follow the Will of God through the observance of all mitzvot, both those between Man and God as well as those between Man and Man. With this explanation, the statement could indeed be understood as reflecting a principle fundamental to the entire Torah.

A problem with this explanation, however, may exist in that it could be argued that it is a bit of a stretch to understand the word neighbour as the Divine neighbour. A simple reading of the statement would seem to better imply that Hillel was talking about human neighbours. There is a general principle that when Rashi presents two explanations it is usually because he finds there to be a weakness in each one independently. In this case, Rashi actually does present a second explanation, implying that he too had some difficulty with his first answer perhaps because of this stretch. Maintaining the simple meaning of the words, namely that neighbour means human neighbour, in his second explanation, though again raises the problem of how could this principle regarding human relations serve also as the fundamental principle for the specifically, religious mitzvot. One possibility is that Hillel, recognizing that he could not give one fundamental principle for all the mitzvot of the Torah, was really only trying to present the fundamental principle for the societal mitzvot. The weakness with this answer is, obviously, in that it did not truly meet the non-Jew’s request. This would explain why Rashi also presented his first explanation although he felt that with that answer there was the weakness of the stretched language.

Is there, though, a possible way of understanding the gemara as referring to human neighbours while still also maintaining that this principle can serve as the singular, fundamental principle of the entire Torah. Maharsha queries why Hillel presented his statement in the negative – don’t do to your neighbour what you would not like done to yourself – and doesn’t just quote the positive verse of “love your neighbour as yourself” found in Vayikra 19:18. He explains that a true investigation of this verse would reveal that it actually is also only presenting what we may term the negative demand; what Hillel was actually doing was presenting the real essence of the idea. The call upon the human being cannot be in the positive to treat another just like oneself for one has an obligation to take care of oneself first. (See Vayikra 25:36 as explained in T.B. Baba Metzia 62a.) It is also contrary to human nature to demand an individual to treat everyone as one treats oneself. If I buy myself a car, am I expected to buy everyone else a car? If I give a present to my child, am I expected to give similar presents to all children? Reality demands that we accept a responsibility for self and act within the parameters of this concern. While the Torah clearly perceives there to be a value in chessed and demands of us to exhibit this quality and assist others to the proper extent possible, its first and foremost demand is that we respect the other’s responsibility for self and not impede upon it just as we would wish others to respect our responsibility for ourselves and not impede upon it. This latter demand is actually Hillel’s fundamental statement – not to do to the other what you do not want done to yourself.

Within this context, Hillel’s statement could actually be understood in a much broader way as to encapsulate the proper attitude that one should have within life. There is clearly a value in chessed, in helping others. But there is a more primary value in sensitivity, in being aware of the world around you and ensuring that you, at least, do not harm others. Viewed this way, we can understand how this perspective could affect all aspects of life, not just what we may term the societal areas of the law but even within the areas of our religious endeavours. Be sensitive to ensure that you do not cause harm, is the fundamental principle upon which all else is built.

This now leads to the final phrase of Hillel’s statement (which was actually not included in the original question posed on this site). Hillel concludes by telling the potential proselyte, after articulating that one should not do to others what one would find harmful to oneself, that all else is commentary, now go study. It is one thing to have a simple statement of a fundamental principle; it is another thing to think that one can apply such a statement simplistically in the reality of this complex world. Hillel is adding in his very formulation of his fundamental principle that to fully understand this principle one must accept the challenge of study, with the recognition of the further challenge that one continuously faces in balancing one’s rights and obligations with another’s rights and obligations. This takes a lifetime of study and application.

This would also explain why Hillel’s statement is not “actually mentioned in the Torah itself”. The Written Torah is not the end statement of Jewish Thought or Ethics. It is the beginning statement from which we are, through the study of the Oral Law (also a product of the Divine origin of Sinai) to advance these teachings. Hillel’s statement was such a step. His end charge was then to take his step and further build upon it within the edifice of Torah.

Haftarat Lech Lecha, v'Koyei vs. v'Kovei

2011-11-07T11:18:00.002-05:00

I recently posted this query to the leining group
Re: the recent haftarah, of Lech Lecha, Yeshaya 40:31, what is the proper pronunciation?
v'Koyei - with a holam malei tzeirei under the yud and no yud following [yet simanim tikkun does have a 2nd yud]
vs.
v'Kovei - holam hoseir, vov with a tzeirei malei, that is a yud ending the tzeirei.
Someone told me that the Minchat Shai favors v'Koyei.
--------------------

Editorial:
Sometimes we are sure of ourselves, certain about a given point. But this certitude must be weighed against the ambiguities of reality. As humans, we often cannot be so certain of our "sheetot". We need to learn to tolerate ambiguity - because the flexible reed bends and withstands the storm, while the mighty oak cracks.
Note - this is both an aggadic passage and a zen lesson - using bamboo instead of the reed.

Shalom,
RRW

Rationalism and Religion - can they co-exist?

2011-11-06T10:06:00.002-05:00

Intensity of Religious Experience appears to be dominated by very "Holy" people. In Judaism that usually means by Hareidim.

While some Rationalists do profess to obey Halachah, Rationalism has usually been championed by largely anti-Religious types such as the late Dr. Albert Ellis.

The question is, can a really rational, yet intense spiritual brand of Judaism be minted? And if it can, can it work for a community, or for just a few "y'chidei S'gulah" [Think: Rambam and RYD Soloveichik]

R Natan Slifkin offers us his world view here:

Rationalist Judaism: The Making of Post-Haredim
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/making-of-post-haredim.html?m=1

Shalom,
RRW

Announcing: Free, live, online classes at WebYeshiva.org

2011-11-05T20:10:00.001-04:00

Join now for free live, online classes!

Free classes have just begun at WebYeshiva.org!

Choose from nearly 30 courses to study on your own schedule!

Shalom,
RRW

גלן בק: חזק ביותר אפשר ומותר להזיל דמעה

2011-11-04T11:13:00.001-04:00

The sender says -

«This video is probably the most powerful and noted support for Israel that I have ever seen and heard.»

RRW: very moving. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMTpZaWpLPo&feature=player_embedded

Shalom,
RRW

Lech Lecha: The Involvement of Self

2011-11-03T17:36:00.000-04:00

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Lech Lecha and the topic is the self. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-2.html.

Was Israel Condemned to a Perpetual Existential Struggle by the UN Partition?

2011-11-03T13:04:00.002-04:00

Did the British and the UN foist a no-win or never-win situation by the very act of Partition in November, 1947? When Jews in Palestine danced for Joy, did they realize what a struggle they were in for? Did they contemplate how the world had "stacked the deck against them?

Read the prophetic sentiments of Ze'ev Jabotinsky below:

************************

In his memorandum [to Winston Churchill July 16, 1937, Zev] Jabotinsky stressed that a partitioned Palestine. would create a Jewish State too small in area to be. defendable [sic] from sustained Arab attack from outside it.

SOURCE: Churchill and the Jews (chapter 11, page 125)
by Martin Gilbert, year 2007)

************************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/message/131
Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Waste at Simchas

2011-11-01T18:59:00.000-04:00

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the denominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Wolpoe responded.

* * * * *
Question: I often see guests at simchas (celebrations) waste so much food, putting mounds on their plate. We seem to take more than we need. Should we be promoting a more responsible balance between hospitality and waste?

Rabbi Wolpoe's answer

Having worked for several caterers and restaurants I can personally testify to the large amount of excess food "wasted" at many celebrations

This is not a "Jewish" Problem. Rather it's a North American problem. We are a careless society due to our great bounty of food.

It also makes no sense to be so neurotic so as to expect that we can waste no food at all. Such expectations are unrealistic. Yet, without a doubt there are many ways to reduce excessive waste

1. Smaller portions, because uneaten portions will waste less. Then allow the more voracious eaters to get "seconds"

2. Provide leftovers to "soup kitchens". E.g., In Teaneck, NJ a society called "Sheirit haPLATE" takes extra food to the needy.

3. Invite needy people to the simcha. If seating them in the main hall is logistically difficult, then seat them elsewhere and make the leftovers available to them.

4. Have less lavish parties - at least with regard to the food served.

Note: while buffets and smorgasbords might seem to waste less, in reality they waste about the same amount.

The concept of waste is subsumed in he mitzvah of "bal Tashchit"

Is Massive Outreach Good for the Jews or Bad for the Jews?

2011-10-31T15:05:00.002-04:00

Does spreading a wide net of outreach make sense to replenish Judaism? Or will we dilute ourselves by inviting many half-way converts who eclectically except minimal Jewish ideals along with alien dogma.

Note: this may be a subject for an upcoming poll.

Rabbi Celso Cukierkorn The king of Conversion to Judaism. | PRLog

http://www.prlog.org/10498611-rabbi-celso-cukierkorn-the-king-of-conversion-to-judaism.html

Shalom,
RRW

Following in the Footsteps of the "Creative Master" - Part 3

2011-10-30T10:23:00.001-04:00

I've been asked to identify the "Creative Master" to whom I was alluding

Suggestions have included:
Rashi
Arizal
Ramchal
GRA
R Hirsch
RAI Kook
RYD Soloveichik
Even Reb Shlomoh Carlebach's and his music!

There is no individual here. There just is a need to see that some followers are faithful to their Master - not by slavishly following them - but rather by going beyond them by internalizing their teachings and by emulating the Master when adding their own "spin"

And still others are synthesising several masters and are therefore not fully "faithful" to any one. EG RY Karo used a B"D of 3 masters to help adjudicate many issues.

While RY Karo claimed fealty to the Rambam, he still needed to blaze a slightly different trail to update Halachah in light of the many post-Rambam Poskim. This does not mean he did not adhere to the Rambam as his master, rather it means he added a dimension to the Rambam's corpus by incorporating more Poskim to the mix.

Shalom,
RRW

NishmaBlog

When do the 11 months of Kaddish for a parent end?

Centrism - The Call for Thoughtful Judaism

If Prayer[Davening] is People Speaking to God, Then Meditation [Reflection] is People Listening to God.

Mei'afeilh l'Or Gadol

If Torah is God speaking to people, then Talmud is people speaking to God.

Mussar: Rebuke - Embrace, Resist, or Ignore

Alleged Northern NJ Synagogue Firebomber Captured

On Working with Christian Evangelicals

Does one recite Shenatan Mechachmato Lebasar V'dam on an "Einstein"?

JVO: Remembering September 11

CNN: Increasing diversity redefining America's Jewry

Joe Paterno, and the Myth of the Crucified Guru.

What Goes Up, Must Come Down

R Haym Brisker, 100 Years Later

Dennis Prager: Why I am not Orthodox

Attitudinal distinctions between moral/ethical and ritual Mitzvot

JVO: Mesira and Dina d'Malchusa Dina

"Do the ends justify the means?"

Reciting Baruch Asher Yotzar Eschem Baddin Aloud at Burials, Unveilings

Bassar b'Chalav Introductory Texts and Overviews

P. Sh'mo: Ra'amseis vs. Ra'm'seis‏

How Europe Veils its Anti-Semitism by Appealing to "Animal Rights"

The merit we need to be helped

Modern Orthodoxy at a Crossroads: OU Audio Interview of Rabbi Adlerstein

Law of Unintended Consequences - A Positive Result

Vaychi - Ephraim and M'nasheh 2 - Rav Kook on Sibling Jealousy

Vaychi - Ephraim and M'nasheh 1 - A Cute D'rash

Mussar: How to Make Shalom Amongst Our People

Women Obligating Themselves to Observe Mitzvot

The Talmud: Next Comes the Hyperlinks

Hareidim Put on a Good Face

JVO: Confusion About God

A Must See for Students of the Holocaust

Remember: These Are Jewish Children!

Results of Poll on: Hanukah

New Poll: Hanukkah

Which Racism is Still Deemed Politically Correct Today?

Jewish Tribune: Clarity of Definitions

RCA and OU Jointly Protest "Hooliganism" in Beit Shemesh

True Science Cannot Contradict True Torah

Tandems: Orah v'Simchah, and a Hanukkah Thought

Studying Liturgy as a Separate Subject

HHH: Review of R Shimon Eider's Halachos of Chanukah

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 3

Why Potato Latkes on Hanukkah?

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 2

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Part 1

Mussar: For the Festival of Lights

Hanukkah in Verse

Xmas Music - is it Good for the Jews?

The Hanukkah I Hanukkah II Hypothesis - Intro

The Irony of Chanukah

The Little Known Chanukah M’gillah

Why Davka did Kohanim lead the Revolt against Antiochus?

The Jewish Rosa Parks?

When Life Hands You a Lemon...

Matisyahu Shaves

Pirsumei Nissa at a Take Out Restaurant

JVO: What is a Jew?

Will New Jersey become the Mecca for North American Jewry?

Declaration Against Same Sex Marriage Ceremony

Jews, Israelis and Zionists: Thoughts about a Discontinued Ad Campaign‏

When to Omit Birkat Me'ein Sheva [Magein Avot]?

Vayishhlach: Binyamin: A Definition of Youth

Can a Divorcing Couple Remain "Friends"?

JVO: Downloading

Rooted in Tradition - Torah Responds to a "Sour" Economy

Baruch Dayan HaEmes: Cantor Macy Nulman z"l

Mussar: Let's Face It! - Quick Internet Mussar

Issur V'heter Overview in 3 Sections

Soviet Purges: Lenin vs. Stalin

Palestine's Grand Mufti - Nazi Collaborator

The Battle of the Tunnel - Part 2

The increasing chasm Amongst Jewish Factions

Is Judaism a matter of what Rabbis say, or a matter of what Jews do?

Texts: Underrated Yet Classical

JVO: Thanksgiving 2

JVO: Thanksgiving

Making Thanksgiving into a Kiddush Hashem