Again - it's almost New Year's Eve as I write this. On another year RYG had warned his boys NOT to be caught dating on New Year's Eve.
Here is story #2 on this topic.
RYG caught a fellow "David" on the subway dating a young woman.
When caught, David protested: "This is NOT a date! She's my sister."
RYG responded: "Avraham Avinu gehot die zelbe taynah"
[Avraham made the same claim]
Shalom
RRW
Monday, 31 January 2011
Throwing a "Hissy Fit"
Urban Dictionary: hissy fit
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hissy+fit
Well this is my wife's favorite [rhymes with Fight] :-) expression when someone gets all bent out of shape
Recently some friends of mine were aghast about a certain pronouncement made by a Jewish Leader and they proceeded to throw a "Hissy Fit"
While they had some reason to take the statement a certain way, the statement - taken out of context - was tough to pin down
Re: another "apparently" outrageous statement, my colleague "RSG" practiced a bit of "Havvu mattunim baddin" and asked some cogent questions
«Could you put the statement in context? It would help understand why the comment was made.
What was the incident?
What was the comment that preceded it?
Was it meant as a guzma?
Was it said in frustration?
In reference to what type of X was the comment made?»
IOW before throwing a "Hissy Fit" some times it pays to verify the nature of the context and the background before acting outraged.
Shalom
RRW
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hissy+fit
Well this is my wife's favorite [rhymes with Fight] :-) expression when someone gets all bent out of shape
Recently some friends of mine were aghast about a certain pronouncement made by a Jewish Leader and they proceeded to throw a "Hissy Fit"
While they had some reason to take the statement a certain way, the statement - taken out of context - was tough to pin down
Re: another "apparently" outrageous statement, my colleague "RSG" practiced a bit of "Havvu mattunim baddin" and asked some cogent questions
«Could you put the statement in context? It would help understand why the comment was made.
What was the incident?
What was the comment that preceded it?
Was it meant as a guzma?
Was it said in frustration?
In reference to what type of X was the comment made?»
IOW before throwing a "Hissy Fit" some times it pays to verify the nature of the context and the background before acting outraged.
Shalom
RRW
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Halachic Death vs. Medical Death 2 - The Slippery Slope
Originally published 1/30/11, 9:11 pm.
Even those who completely accept the position that Brain Stem Death [BSD] = respiratory death = Halachic death STILL must exercise caution.
[For the record, currently it appears to me that BSD has a strong "yeish al mi lismoch". But let's defer that to another day]
Meanwhile there is a poignant true story. I've been given permission to share this as a warning, BUT I have altered some identifying facts to protect the family
Here goes from Rabbi "Sholom"
«Several years ago I was involved in a tragic situation of a Teenage boy who had a bleed in the brain. Medically, the situation was hopeless. Aware that there were different opinions on the matter, the parents were adamant about wanting to donate their son's organs.
Given the machloket haposkim on the matter, I felt I could not deny them their
wish. I called Rabbi Tendler, and he was extremely helpful in guiding me
through the protocol and the tests that had to be done to establish brain death.
What was most disturbing was that I felt - as far as the doctors were concerned - that I was slowing things down. They clearly wanted to move
things along, given the utter hopelessness of the situation. As a result of their eagerness, I could not afford to leave the boy's side, for fear that they would skip steps and not do what. was necessary even for their own protocols.»
I hesitated to share this, nevertheless, I felt obligated to do so.
"Let the families beware"
Shalom
RRW
Even those who completely accept the position that Brain Stem Death [BSD] = respiratory death = Halachic death STILL must exercise caution.
[For the record, currently it appears to me that BSD has a strong "yeish al mi lismoch". But let's defer that to another day]
Meanwhile there is a poignant true story. I've been given permission to share this as a warning, BUT I have altered some identifying facts to protect the family
Here goes from Rabbi "Sholom"
«Several years ago I was involved in a tragic situation of a Teenage boy who had a bleed in the brain. Medically, the situation was hopeless. Aware that there were different opinions on the matter, the parents were adamant about wanting to donate their son's organs.
Given the machloket haposkim on the matter, I felt I could not deny them their
wish. I called Rabbi Tendler, and he was extremely helpful in guiding me
through the protocol and the tests that had to be done to establish brain death.
What was most disturbing was that I felt - as far as the doctors were concerned - that I was slowing things down. They clearly wanted to move
things along, given the utter hopelessness of the situation. As a result of their eagerness, I could not afford to leave the boy's side, for fear that they would skip steps and not do what. was necessary even for their own protocols.»
I hesitated to share this, nevertheless, I felt obligated to do so.
"Let the families beware"
Shalom
RRW
Halachic Death vs. Medical Death 1 - The Cardiac Death Conundrum
Originally published 1/30/11, 10:39 am.
[Mi]Mah Nafshach!
How can WE/YOU Jews refuse to donate organs from the "brain-stem" dead [BSD], but conversely are willing to ACCEPT organs from those donors who are merely brain-stem dead!
If BSD is dead - donate! If BSD is alive how dare WE/YOU accept organs by killing!
Sounds like a persuasive argument.
Rabbi/Lawyer R Dov Fischer has pierced the veil of this apparent "cake-and-eat-it-too point of view"
«Meanwhile, we must continue to emphasize, apparently again and again and again: Among the "cardiac death" school, absolutely no one advocates or permits inducing organ-harvesting from the "brain dead." Nevertheless, if someone else (Jewish or non-Jewish), in his darkness and ignorance (as perceived by the "cardiac school"), chooses to have the plug pulled at "brain death" and to have organs harvested at approximately that time so that he may have the comfort of knowing that he is saving other lives, there is no reason under "cardiac death" theology to refuse the organ when presented.»
There you have it
The "CSD" school recipient would be a willing recipient of a BSD school donor, despite the fact that the CSD would not himself encourage such a donation in the first place. BUT post facto - why not accept it?
There might indeed be a perception problem, but only because the common perception fails to make this necessary hair-split match the reality.
Shalom
RRW
[Mi]Mah Nafshach!
How can WE/YOU Jews refuse to donate organs from the "brain-stem" dead [BSD], but conversely are willing to ACCEPT organs from those donors who are merely brain-stem dead!
If BSD is dead - donate! If BSD is alive how dare WE/YOU accept organs by killing!
Sounds like a persuasive argument.
Rabbi/Lawyer R Dov Fischer has pierced the veil of this apparent "cake-and-eat-it-too point of view"
«Meanwhile, we must continue to emphasize, apparently again and again and again: Among the "cardiac death" school, absolutely no one advocates or permits inducing organ-harvesting from the "brain dead." Nevertheless, if someone else (Jewish or non-Jewish), in his darkness and ignorance (as perceived by the "cardiac school"), chooses to have the plug pulled at "brain death" and to have organs harvested at approximately that time so that he may have the comfort of knowing that he is saving other lives, there is no reason under "cardiac death" theology to refuse the organ when presented.»
There you have it
The "CSD" school recipient would be a willing recipient of a BSD school donor, despite the fact that the CSD would not himself encourage such a donation in the first place. BUT post facto - why not accept it?
There might indeed be a perception problem, but only because the common perception fails to make this necessary hair-split match the reality.
Shalom
RRW
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Can we Learn Mussar from the Kitzur? - KSA 165:2
There is AISI some really good Mussar here from the Kitzur
Goldin Translation:
"It is important that children be trained to behave at the synagogue with awe and reverence. Children who run about to and fro and cause confusion should rather be kept at home."
There are some Minyanim where unfortunately the kids do disrupt the decorum. Ideally, the parents should be aware of this Halacha and see to it that the kids stay home - or alternatively they are supervised to maintain proper decorum.
And - who says we can't get Mussar from the Kitzur? :-)
Shalom
RRW
Goldin Translation:
"It is important that children be trained to behave at the synagogue with awe and reverence. Children who run about to and fro and cause confusion should rather be kept at home."
There are some Minyanim where unfortunately the kids do disrupt the decorum. Ideally, the parents should be aware of this Halacha and see to it that the kids stay home - or alternatively they are supervised to maintain proper decorum.
And - who says we can't get Mussar from the Kitzur? :-)
Shalom
RRW
Friday, 28 January 2011
P. Mishpatim 2 - "Et Ishti" The Answer
Originally published 1/28/11, 11:03 am.
I received this answer
From Gershon Eliyahu
Aka
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
«For that matter, bonay is equally troublesome, as the children are not legally his sons, they are the adon's property, they have no yichus to the eved ivri, for example, if he later dies leaving no other children alive, these do not exempt his lawful wife from yibbum or chalitza.
My guess: the key word is "ahavti". True, she is not his, and not his wife. But he has fallen in love with this woman and these children. He is using the possessive forms ishti, bonay, in the sense of "I love this woman as if she were my wife, I love these children as if they were my own sons.
GEK»
I said "this makes sense to me" and I received GEK's permission to share.
Shalom
RRW
I received this answer
From Gershon Eliyahu
Aka
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
«For that matter, bonay is equally troublesome, as the children are not legally his sons, they are the adon's property, they have no yichus to the eved ivri, for example, if he later dies leaving no other children alive, these do not exempt his lawful wife from yibbum or chalitza.
My guess: the key word is "ahavti". True, she is not his, and not his wife. But he has fallen in love with this woman and these children. He is using the possessive forms ishti, bonay, in the sense of "I love this woman as if she were my wife, I love these children as if they were my own sons.
GEK»
I said "this makes sense to me" and I received GEK's permission to share.
Shalom
RRW
Thursday, 27 January 2011
P. Mishpatim 1 - "Et Ishti" The Question
Originally published 1/27/11, 9:01 am.
I posted the following in the Leining discussion group:
See Shemot: 21:5 "et ishti."
Rashi - [namely] the shifchah.
Rashi makes perfect sense because, after all, his regular wife goes out with him...
My query is about the term ISHTI. How is this applicable to a woman who is not his lawfully wedded wife, and is merely given over to produce children for the Adon?
The terminology ISHTI seems a bit strange because she never really belongs to this eved Ivri in the first place.
Any suggestions?
Shalom,
RRW
I posted the following in the Leining discussion group:
See Shemot: 21:5 "et ishti."
Rashi - [namely] the shifchah.
Rashi makes perfect sense because, after all, his regular wife goes out with him...
My query is about the term ISHTI. How is this applicable to a woman who is not his lawfully wedded wife, and is merely given over to produce children for the Adon?
The terminology ISHTI seems a bit strange because she never really belongs to this eved Ivri in the first place.
Any suggestions?
Shalom,
RRW
P. Mishpatim - Midrasho vs. P'shuto
Originally published 1/27/11, 10:23 am.
See Mishpatim 21:28
Rashi: "Baal Hashor Nakki"
The Halachah is "Midrasho"
P'shuto is something else.
So - as per Rashi - a Halachic translation here would be "al pi midrash, even though it is based upon Midrash Halachah and not upon Midrash Aggadah. P'shat - while not anti-Halachic - does not [necessarily] imply the Halachot derived here.
Shalom,
RRW
See Mishpatim 21:28
Rashi: "Baal Hashor Nakki"
The Halachah is "Midrasho"
P'shuto is something else.
So - as per Rashi - a Halachic translation here would be "al pi midrash, even though it is based upon Midrash Halachah and not upon Midrash Aggadah. P'shat - while not anti-Halachic - does not [necessarily] imply the Halachot derived here.
Shalom,
RRW
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Jewish Tribune: My History, Our History
In Winnipeg, Manitoba, a new museum devoted to the evil of genocide is now being planned. A controversy, though, has developed in response to the Museum's special area devoted specifically to the Holocaust. Some are arguing that it is wrong to focus on one particular action of genocide; the evil of genocide in general should be the consistent focus within the museum. Others are contending, though, that for a variety of reasons, a special exhibit on the Holocaust is fully justifiable and a good idea.
In my latest Tribune article, I weigh in on this debate. See
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201101263914/My-history-our-history.html
In my latest Tribune article, I weigh in on this debate. See
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201101263914/My-history-our-history.html
P. Yitro - Last 3 Mitzvot, the Answers
Originally published 1/26/11, 9:54 am.
I wrote, «There are 3 mitzvot a the end of P. Yitro that are wedged in between the end of the 10 Dibrot and P. Mishpatim:
What are they?
What underlying theme connects these three together?
Hint: one is explicit, the other 2 are only subtly connected.»
The 3 mitzvot are
1 "Lo Ta'asoon iti ...elohei chessef..."
2. "Mizbach adama.." thru "ki charb'cha..."
3. "V'lo ta'aleh b'ma'alot...Asher lo tiggaleh ervatcha..."
The common thread?
1. Idol Worship
2. Murder [charbecha]
3. Gilluy Arayot [explictly so]
These constitute the 3 "cardinal sins" - albeit the last two are "subtle / abbizraihu" cases related specifically to the Mizbei'ach.
Shalom
RRW
I wrote, «There are 3 mitzvot a the end of P. Yitro that are wedged in between the end of the 10 Dibrot and P. Mishpatim:
What are they?
What underlying theme connects these three together?
Hint: one is explicit, the other 2 are only subtly connected.»
The 3 mitzvot are
1 "Lo Ta'asoon iti ...elohei chessef..."
2. "Mizbach adama.." thru "ki charb'cha..."
3. "V'lo ta'aleh b'ma'alot...Asher lo tiggaleh ervatcha..."
The common thread?
1. Idol Worship
2. Murder [charbecha]
3. Gilluy Arayot [explictly so]
These constitute the 3 "cardinal sins" - albeit the last two are "subtle / abbizraihu" cases related specifically to the Mizbei'ach.
Shalom
RRW
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
M'lameid l'Hoil O"Ch 1:121
שו"ת מלמד להועיל חלק א (אורח חיים) סימן קכא שאלה מאת הרב דק"ק שוואבאך. בנר חנוכה אי צריך שידלקו נרות ביהכ"נ שיעור, והעיר השואל על מג"א /או"ח/ סי' תר"ע ס"ק ב' ופמ"ג שם דמשמע שהיו דולקין עד חצות הלילה, וכן העיר על אשל אברהם /או"ח/ סי' תרע"ה ס"ק ב' דמשמע דבעי שיעור. תשובה: באמת תימה שלא דיבר אחד מהפוסקים דבר מפורש האיך נוהגין בנרות בית הכנסת, ורק מכותלי דבריהם נראה שיש מנהגים שונים בדבר. והנה להדליק נ"ח בביה"כ לא מצאתי בפוסקים ראשונים המפורסמים לא ברי"ף ולא ברא"ש ולא ברמב"ם גם לא באור זרוע ולא באשכול ולא במחזור ויטרי, והיותר קדמון שדיבר מזה הוא בעל העיטור בעשרת הדברות שלו והוא כתב המנהג להדליק נ"ח בביהכ"נ אבל לא כתב שמברכין. והשבלי הלקט והתניא הביאו ומסופקין אי מברכין, אך הכלבו דף מ"ד פי' טעם המנהג להוציא את שאינו בקי, משמע מדבריו דמברכין. גם היה בימיו מנהג כל המקומות להדליק בביהכ"נ. והריב"ש הוא הראשון אשר החליט לברך בהדלקת ביהכ"נ ;נ והובא בב"י סי' תרע"א עיי"ש ונפסק הדין בש"ע. והח"צ סי' פ"ח פקפק עליו לאותם שאינם מברכין על ההלל בר"ח, עיין באר היטב ופתחי תשובה. והנה לענין השאלה אימתי ועד כמה דולק בביהכ"נ ראיתי בספר דברי קהלת לר' זלמן גייגער דבפראנקפורט דמאין דולק הנר מערב עד בוקר לאחר תפילת שחרית, ולפמ"ש המג"א /או"ח/ סי' תר"ע סק"ב (לפי פי' הפמ"ג, וכן הבינו היעב"ץ בסידורו) היו הנרות דולקין עד חצות הלילה. אמנם מפמ"ג שם משמע שהנרות דולקין גם בתפלת שחרית, וקשה דדוחק לומר שאחד ילך בחצות הלילה לביהכ"נ לכבות הנרות כדי שישארו קצתן להדליק בתפלת שחרית. וע"כ נ"ל דמאן דתני הא לא תני הא דבמקומות שנרות ביהכ"נ דולקין עד חצות הלילה הן דולקין עד כלה, ויען שהנרות גדולות דולקין עד חצות, ובמקומות שמדליקין גם בשחרית בתפלה, מכבין הנרות לאחר תפלת ערבית כדי שישאר להדליק מהן לתפלת שחרית וכן הוא המנהג כאן בבערלין בכל בתי כנסיות. ומצאתי בספר שדה חמד בסוף ערך חנוכה שהביא תשובת בנין שלמה (ספר זה אינו בידי וכנראה מחברו מוהר"ש מ"ץ דק"ק ווילנא) שחקר טעם על מה שנוהגין בכמה מקומות בבתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות להדליק נרות גם בעת תפלת שחרית על מה הוטבע מנהג זה, ועיי"ש מה שכתב ולי נראה דהמנהג נתיסד לפי שברוב פעמים לא דלק בערב כשיעור והשלימו זה בשחרית, ואף שבבית אין להדליק נ"ח בשחרית היינו דשם לא נתקנה כלל בלילה דשרגי בטיהרא מאי מהני, ואף דמנורה דלקה (לכה"פ נר מערבי) גם ביום, מקדש שאני (וע' שו"ת הרשב"א סי' ש"ט ולח"מ פ"ג מה' תמידין ומוספין הי"ב). ומ"מ בביה"כ דעיקר טעם הדלקה לפרסם הנס גם ביום מדליקין. ומכש"כ דאתי שפיר לדעת הרמב"ם שם דבהטבת הנרות דשחרית היתה ג"כ הדלקה וכמו שהביא השדה חמד בשם בנין שלמה, והשתא מיושב ג"כ המנהג שאין ממתינין בערב בביהכ"נ עד שדלקו חצי שעה, דהא שיעור חצי שעה היינו משתשקע החמה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק, ושיעור זה לא שייך כלל לביהכ"נ, אלא דלא פלוג בין ביהכ"נ לבית היחידים, אך במקום שנהגו להדליק בביהכ"נ גם בשחרית, שפיר יש לצרף הדלקת שחרית להדלקת ערבית וזה עדיף דהעם מתאספין בשחרית מלהניח דולק בערבית ואין איש שם וביותר שקשה להנהיג שידלקו בביהכ"נ חצי שעה דהיכי נעביד, ימתין השמש אחר תפלת ערבית עד חצי שעה א"כ יאחר הדלקתו בביתו יותר מן הראוי, ואם יקדימו להדליק בביהכ"נ קודם הלילה, הא תינח בחול, במו"ש מאי איכא למימר, ומעתה נצטרך להטריח את השמש לילך אחר חצי שעה לביהכ"נ ולכבות את הנרות, כדי שידליקו גם בבוקר, או לבטל המנהג של הדלקת בוקר ולהניח הנרות דולקות עד כלה. ובשני האופנים האלו אין דעתי נוחה, ועל כן במקום שאין עושין כמנהג פפד"מ לעשות נרות גדולות כל כך שידליקו עד הבוקר, אין למחות לכבות הנרות אחר תפלת ערבית ולהדליקן שוב בבוקר. ולולא דמיסתפינא הו"א דגם במג"א /או"ח/ סי' תר"ע סק"ב הכי פירושו עד חצות היינו חצות היום, ובמקום המ"צ (היינו מעגל צדק) שהביא היו מכבין הנרות בערב אחר מעריב ומדליקין אותן בבוקר, והיו דולקין עד כלותן, וזה היה בחצות היום, ודלא כפמ"ג. והלא ק"ק פיורדא קרוב לו ידרוש אחר המנהג דשם, וכן יעשה גם הוא.
P. Yitro - Last 3 Mitzvot, the Questions
Originally published 1/25/11, 10:38 am.
There are 3 mitzvot at the end of P. Yitro that are wedged in between the end of the 10 Dibrot a nd P. Mishpatim.
What are they?
What underlying theme connects these three together?
Hint: one is explicit, the other 2 are only subtly connected.
Shalom,
RRW
There are 3 mitzvot at the end of P. Yitro that are wedged in between the end of the 10 Dibrot a nd P. Mishpatim.
What are they?
What underlying theme connects these three together?
Hint: one is explicit, the other 2 are only subtly connected.
Shalom,
RRW
Monday, 24 January 2011
The Wit and Wisdom of Rav Yerucham Gorelick Z"L - 4A
It's almost New Year's Eve as I write this.
Well once RYG had warned his boys NOT to be caught dating on New Year's Eve.
Here is story #1 on this topic.
RYG caught a fellow "Binyamin" on the subway dating a young woman.
Next time in shiur RYG kept his peace for a good hour or so. Meanwhile, Binyamin was trembling, dreading the certain moment of humiliation.
Quite abruptly in the middle of shiur RYG turned to Binyamin and blurted out "chodsh a sheina!". [At least a good-looker!]
Shalom
RRW
Well once RYG had warned his boys NOT to be caught dating on New Year's Eve.
Here is story #1 on this topic.
RYG caught a fellow "Binyamin" on the subway dating a young woman.
Next time in shiur RYG kept his peace for a good hour or so. Meanwhile, Binyamin was trembling, dreading the certain moment of humiliation.
Quite abruptly in the middle of shiur RYG turned to Binyamin and blurted out "chodsh a sheina!". [At least a good-looker!]
Shalom
RRW
Chief Rabbi's Immoral Stance?
Joel Braunold from the Guardian (UK) at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/18/chief-rabbi-donor-card-immoral argues that Chief Rabbi Sacks has taken an immoral stance.
Let's just take a look at his title and his bi-line to see what he means
The chief rabbi's immoral stance on donor cards
Orthodox Jews should be free to make their own decisions about what constitutes death
On the surface, he seems to be challenging the Chief Rabbi's position on organ donations. As you read further and as he already clarifies in his bi-line, it seems that what he is really challenging is the Chief Rabbi's refusal to allow Orthodox Jews to make their own decision regarding what constitutes death. But wait a second, of course Orthodox Jews cannot make their own decision regarding what constitutes death for that is a halachic decision which can only be made by someone proficient in this halachic area. Arguing that the Chief Rabbi is immoral for not allowing individuals to decide this matter of Jewish Law would be similar to describing him as immoral for not allowing people to decide what is kosher or what is prohibited on Shabbat. It would seem that Mr. Braunold is just simply attacking the Chief Rabbi for being Orthodox and insisting that the Orthodox follow the religion. So why not just say that and argue that, he feels, Orthodoxy is immoral.
Mr. Braunold, of course, would contend that this is not what he saying. He is just saying that Orthodox individuals should be allowed to choose the decision within Orthodox law that they wish to follow. The argument is that they should free to choose the opinion they like within Orthodoxy and the Chief Rabbi is immoral for not allowing them to do so -- after all Orthodox Jews around the world are able to make that decision. The question then is: what exactly is a Chief Rabbi? More succinctly, what is a rabbi? Is the rabbi's function to give you the choices available to you within Halacha, leaving it to you to choose the opinion you favour or is the rabbi's function to tell you the law (as he sees it)? That is what is so strange within this article -- it seems to imply that there is a right in the individual to choose.
The reality is of course that today we choose our rabbis, i.e. the person we wish to learn from and/or the person we wish to ask in regard to Halacha. This, of course, may have been the way it almost always was -- after all Pirkei Avot states twice "Aseh lecha rav" with some mefarshim stating that it refers to the two tasks noted above. Today, though, there is more flexibility than before -- but what one is really choosing is still an authority figure. This is what is so problematic in this article. The job of a rabbi is to state the law, to make the decision. This article seems to imply that the individual has a right to choose the decision to follow. That actually challenges the very role of a rabbi.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/18/chief-rabbi-donor-card-immoral argues that Chief Rabbi Sacks has taken an immoral stance.
Let's just take a look at his title and his bi-line to see what he means
The chief rabbi's immoral stance on donor cards
Orthodox Jews should be free to make their own decisions about what constitutes death
On the surface, he seems to be challenging the Chief Rabbi's position on organ donations. As you read further and as he already clarifies in his bi-line, it seems that what he is really challenging is the Chief Rabbi's refusal to allow Orthodox Jews to make their own decision regarding what constitutes death. But wait a second, of course Orthodox Jews cannot make their own decision regarding what constitutes death for that is a halachic decision which can only be made by someone proficient in this halachic area. Arguing that the Chief Rabbi is immoral for not allowing individuals to decide this matter of Jewish Law would be similar to describing him as immoral for not allowing people to decide what is kosher or what is prohibited on Shabbat. It would seem that Mr. Braunold is just simply attacking the Chief Rabbi for being Orthodox and insisting that the Orthodox follow the religion. So why not just say that and argue that, he feels, Orthodoxy is immoral.
Mr. Braunold, of course, would contend that this is not what he saying. He is just saying that Orthodox individuals should be allowed to choose the decision within Orthodox law that they wish to follow. The argument is that they should free to choose the opinion they like within Orthodoxy and the Chief Rabbi is immoral for not allowing them to do so -- after all Orthodox Jews around the world are able to make that decision. The question then is: what exactly is a Chief Rabbi? More succinctly, what is a rabbi? Is the rabbi's function to give you the choices available to you within Halacha, leaving it to you to choose the opinion you favour or is the rabbi's function to tell you the law (as he sees it)? That is what is so strange within this article -- it seems to imply that there is a right in the individual to choose.
The reality is of course that today we choose our rabbis, i.e. the person we wish to learn from and/or the person we wish to ask in regard to Halacha. This, of course, may have been the way it almost always was -- after all Pirkei Avot states twice "Aseh lecha rav" with some mefarshim stating that it refers to the two tasks noted above. Today, though, there is more flexibility than before -- but what one is really choosing is still an authority figure. This is what is so problematic in this article. The job of a rabbi is to state the law, to make the decision. This article seems to imply that the individual has a right to choose the decision to follow. That actually challenges the very role of a rabbi.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Why aren't Day Schools open before YT? - KSA 165:11
The teacher is bound to teach the children the whole day and also part of the night and the only interruption is erev Shabbos and erev YT
Source given is fn 20 in SA YD 245:11,12,13
So how is it that our Day Schools give off many days before Yamim Tovim? This seems to contradict the Halachah here..
Shalom
RRW
Friday, 21 January 2011
Does the Sanhedrin Operate "Democratically"?
On the one hand [OT1H], each vote on a Sanhedrin counts the same
On the other hand [OTOH] there is a definite hierarchy that precludes junior members from contradicting their senior members during the debating phase. Thus opinions are solicited from the most junior members first in order that they not contradict their seniors.
And On the other Hand again :-) - the seniors MAY contradict their juniors
So the answer is YES and NO
OT1H The Voting is indeed Democratic
And OTOH the discussions are quite
Hierarchical
Thus, even Sanhedrins are complex!
Shalom
RRW
On the other hand [OTOH] there is a definite hierarchy that precludes junior members from contradicting their senior members during the debating phase. Thus opinions are solicited from the most junior members first in order that they not contradict their seniors.
And On the other Hand again :-) - the seniors MAY contradict their juniors
So the answer is YES and NO
OT1H The Voting is indeed Democratic
And OTOH the discussions are quite
Hierarchical
Thus, even Sanhedrins are complex!
Shalom
RRW
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Hoq l'Yisrael - Proposed Enhancement
Originally published 1/20/11, 9:30 pm.
One of the most well-rounded approaches to "programmed learning" is the Hoq l'Yisrael. It includes selections from Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud and Zohar.
It already has been enhanced once, yosef or yusaf l'Hoq was already added to include a piece of Halachah and Mussar on a daily basis.
What else could be missing?
The first thing I would add is a companion volume to complete the Mishnah. The Hoq already covers approximately 300 chapters of Mishnah in the course of doing 6 chapters per weekly "Sidrah."
My edition has a table of the missing pieces in my edition, telling the reader WHAT to finish
My proposed enhancement is simply to publish a companion volume with those missimg Mishnayot with the very same commentaries and layout. They could be covered after completing the sefer or during Shabbat and Yamim Tovim.
Shalom,
RRW
One of the most well-rounded approaches to "programmed learning" is the Hoq l'Yisrael. It includes selections from Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud and Zohar.
It already has been enhanced once, yosef or yusaf l'Hoq was already added to include a piece of Halachah and Mussar on a daily basis.
What else could be missing?
The first thing I would add is a companion volume to complete the Mishnah. The Hoq already covers approximately 300 chapters of Mishnah in the course of doing 6 chapters per weekly "Sidrah."
My edition has a table of the missing pieces in my edition, telling the reader WHAT to finish
My proposed enhancement is simply to publish a companion volume with those missimg Mishnayot with the very same commentaries and layout. They could be covered after completing the sefer or during Shabbat and Yamim Tovim.
Shalom,
RRW
P. Yitro - "Navol Tibbol", Torah as a Co-operative Venture
Recall that no one Jew can do all 613 Mitzvot!
We can easily understand the necessity for "G'dolim" to address the complex, knotty issues such as agunot, and definition of death, etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that if every Rav were required to master every Halachic complexity, then each of us individually would face "navol tibbol" - we'd be overwhelmed by the Yam Hatalmud, and Pos'qim, Chas v'Shalom
OTOH, let's recall Yitro's Mussar to Moshe Rabbenu. If Moshe Rabbenu himself could not handle the sheer volume without a hierarchy beneath him, Al achat kama vakammah that g'dolim today could be overwhelmed too!
So it's mistavra that the role of Sarei alafim etc. is just as vital to avoiding "navol tibbol" as Moshe's own role on the top of the pyramid. IOW - this is a co-operative venture. Local Rabbonim, G'dolim, and any "vaad" or Dayan in between, are all necessary components to keep this mechanism going.
Therefore, all levels really need each other. It seems this is the Mussar Heskel from our Parshah, that Torah is a co-operative venture
Shalom
RRW
We can easily understand the necessity for "G'dolim" to address the complex, knotty issues such as agunot, and definition of death, etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that if every Rav were required to master every Halachic complexity, then each of us individually would face "navol tibbol" - we'd be overwhelmed by the Yam Hatalmud, and Pos'qim, Chas v'Shalom
OTOH, let's recall Yitro's Mussar to Moshe Rabbenu. If Moshe Rabbenu himself could not handle the sheer volume without a hierarchy beneath him, Al achat kama vakammah that g'dolim today could be overwhelmed too!
So it's mistavra that the role of Sarei alafim etc. is just as vital to avoiding "navol tibbol" as Moshe's own role on the top of the pyramid. IOW - this is a co-operative venture. Local Rabbonim, G'dolim, and any "vaad" or Dayan in between, are all necessary components to keep this mechanism going.
Therefore, all levels really need each other. It seems this is the Mussar Heskel from our Parshah, that Torah is a co-operative venture
Shalom
RRW
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
It's MLK Day - Why is our Day School Open?
OK Canadians, you can skip this one
For the Yanks in the readership - why are our Hebrew Day Schools open on MLK Day? [That's Martin Luther King Day]
Actually this is a "strawman" -- we can have our cake and eat it too - meaning we CAN have our schools open and still instill our students to revere both the Day and the Man who inspired it.
I myself had been similarly inspired by my Day School Teachers to grow up with HEBREW stories and plays concerning the biographies of, for example, G. Washington and A. Lincoln. We actually spent class time learning something constructive educationally and inspirationally as well
Win Win
My friend R Avi Herzog says the following re: the Nearby Moriah School in Englewood, NJ
I'd like to tell you what transpired (and transpires every year) in Moriah School in Englewood, NJ on Martin Luther King Day.
1) The principal encourages ALL faculty to devote some time in some way to this day and the man for whom it is named.
2) All secular studies grades have some sort of program in their classrooms.
3) Some (and I personally wish it were all) limudei kodesh teachers as well devote some time to the significance of the day. I personally pride myself (I teach 4th grade limudei kodesh) on the fact that I make an unequivocal statement that MLK was a great man who was willing to stand up, even risk his life and lose his life, for what he felt was right. I then ask all of my talmidim to keep in mind that we are devoting all of our learning on this day lichvod and l'zecher MLK. We then close this short piece of our day with a moment of silence, after which we proceed to learn. I think it's important for our kids to see that we can/should not only tolerate leaders of a different color, but that we (in my case rebbeim) actually respect and recognize them and their contributions.
The exciting part is
A. We can keep school open
B. The Kids can grow intellectually
C. Without dishonoring the day or Dr. King's Memory
D. And the students can even be inspired - by Dr. King's persistence to his ideals - to apply them to Torah Ideals.
This is how we can actualize Torah uMadda ideals.
Shalom
RRW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)