RCA Report of Shiva Visit

From RRW

I'm grateful for the ambassador's sensitivity

The following is a report by Rav Reuven Tradburks, RCA Representative in Israel, about a shivah visit he made, along with Rav Ellis Bloch, to the families of terror victims Ziv Hajbi and Kim Levengrond Yehezkel, HY"D:

On behalf of the RCA, I visited the shivahs today of Ziv Hajbi, Hy”d, in Rishon leTzion and Kim Levengrond Yehezekel, Hy”d, in Rosh Ha-’Ayin both murdered by a terrorist in their office at the Barkan Industrial Park. Rabbi Ellis Bloch, officer of the RCA Israel Region, joined me.

We arrived at the shiva tent for Ziv at an opportune time to be able to speak personally with his parents and brothers. Ziv, 35, left a wife and 3 children. His mother met us and sat us down with the father and 3 brothers. After bringing tanchumei aveilim on behalf of the rabbis of the RCA, I asked the father to tell us about Ziv. He deferred to the others. One brother could not speak through his tears. The mother spoke of an exemplary man. “I know,” she said, “they speak like this of everyone but with Ziv it was true.” She spoke of him as only the best. Reliable, honest, straight, whatever he wanted to accomplish he achieved. He was an accountant, working at that office for only a few months, filling in for a woman on maternity leave. As she described him as the best father, the best brother, the best husband, the best son, all the others fought back their tears of agreement.

Her deeply moving description was interrupted with the arrival of “the shagrir,” David Friedman. We stood as the United States Ambassador to Israel came in and spoke real, honest words of comfort in Hebrew to the father, the mother, spoke to them on behalf of the United States in expressing sorrow on their senseless loss. He then sat, speaking both in Hebrew and in English, listening to them speak of their anger at how this could happen. I remarked to Ellis afterwards that I felt we were witnessing an historic moment in Israeli history. Of course there have been fine ambassadors before, sensitive and Hebrew speaking, but this felt like a member of the family – comfortable, real, and warm.

Ziv’s brothers are a reflection of Israel. Ziv, married, father of 3, worked as a highly respected accountant. One brother is studying water science, another is studying agriculture, and the third is living in New Hampshire.

The English speaking brother was angry – as were the parents. They only check the work permits, there are too many to check their bags, how could this happen, my brother was murdered and it didn’t have to happen. Friedman responded that it happened davka at a place where Arabs and Jews were working together, trying to live together peacefully.

I was sitting between Friedman and his assistant and the other 2 brothers. I translated what Friedman said to Hebrew for the brother next to me. He immediately responded, we can live in peace and work with them. This was one crazy man – it doesn’t define everything. Politics are inescapable even amidst pain.

We were fortunate also when we arrived in Rosh Ha’ayin to have private time with Kim’s parents, husband and sister. David Friedman had visited them earlier.

  

Kim’s father told us of his family. His father was a survivor from Poland, came to Israel and fought in ’48. Kim’s mother’s family was also from Poland. As they were speaking, the dominant Rosh Ha’ayin population of Yemenite neighbors were coming through wishing them “tnuchamu min haShamayim”.

Kim, 28, was working as the assistant to the CEO of the Alon Group. Her parents, interrupting each other, told us of a young woman with no filter on her generosity and kindness. It was without limit. Kim had 2 credits to go on her law degree. She was 9 months pregnant for the end of term and so was just barely short of completing her degree. She took this job in the meantime. 

She was kind without limit. As a student, she gave a poor destitute woman the only 200 shekels she had in her pocket. She fed the animals in the neighborhood. Her husband said that when she would cook something she would bring some to her parents or this person or that. Her mother asked her what she would do if she won the lottery. She would give it all away – to people who need, build an animal shelter, but did not mention one thing for herself. If Kim was ever in a disagreement, she would give in, nothing was worth any bad feelings.

All this time both Kim’s husband and sister offered brief words, choked through tears.

Her father told us that he felt he needed to attend the funeral of Ziv, murdered with Kim, as he knew they were friendly and he wanted to be there. He didn’t know anyone there and stood in the crowd. As he listened to the descriptions of Ziv and heard so much of him, he realized that he was a unique and outstanding person, as was Kim. Why were such unusual souls murdered? Why not some simple people? He understood that G-d takes special people, the best, the most wonderful. The “meyuchadim”. They are the ones He takes.

He continued, again with his wife adding her comments: But why did the terrorist tie her up? Terrorists have stabbed people or blown them up. But why did he tie her up? What were her last moments like? What did she endure those last moments? Why did he do that?

Kim’s mother continued, it’s 20 years of this terrorism. If you try to stop them for 20 years and it doesn’t work, you have to change. Do something else. Why do we have to have one more orphan here, and Ziv’s 3 children be orphaned and just a few weeks ago those children had their father murdered. How many orphans? We need something different and posed to me, “what do you say? What should be done?”

The others rescued me: “why are you asking him? He came to be with us and we appreciate that.”

I hope that listening to their very moving description of Kim and their seering and painful questions brought them comfort. Because all we can do is listen – words are petty, responses vacuous.

Igud Halacha Challenge Cheshvan 5779

From RRW 

October 9, 2018, Tishrei 30, 5779

With the Yamim Tovim behind us, we send out this monthly she’eilah and the answers to last month’s she’eilah with encouragement to explore the question with creativity and depth. Please send answers to this month’s question to Igud.Halacha@gmail.com. This is all available on the website here: link.

These questions and answers are courtesy of Rav Mordechai Tzion, author of Shu”t HaShoel (2 volumes), Shu”t Eretz Yisrael and other seforim available for purchase on HavaBooks.org.il.

This month’s she’eilah for you to consider and answer:

שאלה: 

האם יש מעלה לתלמיד חכם לקדש על מיץ ענבים בשבת ויו"ט כדי שיכול לפסוק הלכה אם שאלה תגיע?

Last month’s she’eilah with answers, first from Igud members, then from poskim and mechabrim and then a few editorial additions:

שאלה: 

מי שיש לפניו שתי סוכות, האם יש להעדיף לישב בזו שיש לה ד' דפנות, על השניה שיש לה רק שלוש?

 

תשובות מחברי איגוד הרבנים:

הרב בנימין גדעון הלוי קלזן כתב שיש לדייק מדברי המהרי״ל שהביא הרמ״א (או״ח תרל, ה) וז״ל ונהגו עכשיו לעשות מחיצות שלימות כי אין הכל בקיאין בדין המחיצות (כל בו). ומי שאין לו כדי צרכו למחיצות עדיף אז לעשות שלש מחיצות שלימות מארבע שאינן שלימות (מהרי''ל) עכ״ל. משמע שלכתחילה יש לשבת בסוכה של ארבע דפנות ורק אם אין לו כל צרכו למחיצות שלימות יעדיף שלש דפנות שלימות מארבע דפנות שאינן שלימות. אבל יש לשאול מה הענין של ארבע דפנות אם סוכה כשרה בשתי מחיצות וטפח.

הנראה לומר על פי הגמרא (סוכה כח, ב) ת״ר כל שבעת הימים אדם עושה סוכתו קבע וביתו עראי כיצד היו לו כלים נאים מעלן לסוכה מצעות נאות מעלן לסוכה אוכל ושותה ומטייל בסוכה מה״מ דת״ר תשבו כעין תדורו ע״כ. הנה מצות עשה מן התורה לשבת בסוכה ובתורת תשבו כעין תדורו אנחנו מחוייבים להביא כלים הנאים שלנו וכו׳ לסוכה. אבל יש לשאול מה הדין אם מישהו אוכל בסוכה בכלים שאינם נאים כגון צלחות חד פעמיים. האם יוצא מצות ישיבת סוכה או לא? 

לא מצאתי מי שאומר שאינו יוצא. הוא אוכל חלה בתוך סוכה כשרה ולפיכך יוצא מצות ישיבה בסוכה אע״פ שאינו ממש כעין תדורו. יש להסביר שיש הרבה דרגות של קיום מצות ישיבת סוכה ואפשר לקיים כעין תדורו בדרגה עליונה וגם דרגה תחתונה והרבה דרגות בינוניים. מי שאוכל וסועד וישן בסוכה אבל אינו מביא כלים נאים לסוכה מקיים את המצוה אבל לא בדרגה העליונה ביותר.

משל למה הדבר דומה, עיין בתוספות (סוכה כט, ב ד״ה לולב יבש) שהקשו על רש״י שפירש שלולב היבש פסול משום זה קלי ואנוהו. והקשו התוס׳ שא״כ רק יהיה פסול לכתחילה כמו כל דין של ואנוהו והלא לולב היבש פסול אף בדיעבד. תירץ המאירי בבית הבחירה שם שיש כמה דרגות בדינו של זה קלי ואנוהו. יש מהם שפסולים בדיעבד, יש מהם פסולים רק בי״ט ראשון ויש מהם שפסולים רק לכתחילה. ״לא כל שאינו הדר בחדא מחתא.״ וכן נומר בתשבו כעין תדורו שלא כל כעין תדורו בחדא מחתא.

נחזור לענייננו ונומר שמי שיושב בביתו רוצה בארבע דפנות להגן עליו מן הרוח והזבובים ועיניהם של שכיניו. ואם כן בתורת תשבו כעין תדורו עדיף שיהיה ארבע דפנות בסוכה. כלומר מתורת סוכה די בשתי דפנות וטפח אבל מתורת ישיבה בסוכה צריך ארבע דפנות. אבל כל זה רק בדרגה העליונה של תשבו כעין תדורו ואם יש סיבה למעט מארבע דפנות כגון שאין לו כל צרכו אז אינו מעכב. לפיכך הרמ״א אומר בשם המהרי״ל שיש להעדיף סוכה של ארבע דפנות כי יש קיום בדרגא יותר גבוהה של תשבו כעין תדורו.

תשובות מפוסקים ומחברים: 

הגר"א נבנצל כתב: "אין עדיפות לישב בסוכה של ד' דפנות".

הגר"ש אבינר, ראש ישיבת עטרת ירושלים ורב הישוב בית אל, השיב: "כן, ד' דפנות". ושוב שאלנו: לכן גם סוכה שיש לה ג' דפנות על סוכה עם ב' וטפח? כלומר, פחות דפנות היא קולא? והשיב: "כן".

הג"ר שמאי קהת הכהן גרוס, בעל שו"ת שבט הקהתי, כתב: "בסוכה של ד' דפנות דעפ"י קבלה יש ענין של ד' דפנות".

הג"ר אליהו שלזינגר, אב"ד ורב גילה ומח"ס שו"ת שואלין ודורשין, כתב: "כיון שחז"ל קבעו דשלוש דפנות היא סוכה כשירה, א"כ אין הבדל".

הג"ר שמחה ב"צ רבינוביץ, מח"ס פסקי תשובות, כתב: "היכן שנוח לו יותר".

הערות מהעורכים: 

בקונטרס ידון משה (חלק יא שאלה עה), לשאלה זו השיב הגר"ח קניבסקי: "כן". כלומר, עדיפה סוכה עם ד' דפנות.

הג״ר אליעזר מלמד כתב בספר פניני הלכה על סוכות (פרק ב סע׳ ו): ״לכתחילה טוב לבנות סוכה מהודרת בעלת ארבע דפנות שלימות, ולעשות לה פתח שאפשר לסוגרו, כדי שהסוכה תהיה נוחה ומוגנת משמש ורוחות״.

בספר פסקי תשובות סי׳ תרל בהערה בראש הסימן כתב: ״דע כי לכתחילה נוהגים לעשות סוכה מד׳ דפנות שלימות שלא יהא מקום פרוץ אלא מקום הפתח בלבד״.

"The Hope: Churchill & the Jews"

From RRW 

https://youtu.be/FDhy5uWPVDM

Disclaimer

 

When I post a link without a comment it usually means its FYI. 

 

My objective is to just share what the memes are saying, not whether or not they are 100% true to history .At any rate,  historians revise history a lot - so I'm not sure we can ever arrive at a single "TRUTH". As one Professor said the history of how a text was construed can often be as valuable as its actual original intent - at least from a historical perspective

Mistaken identity - Wikipedia

From RRW 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaken_identity

Just Winging It

From RRW

Courtesy of Rav Eliezer Grafstein

This Torah is from Rabbi Klein enjoy and grow in Torah wisdom

Just Winging It

Biblical Hebrew has three different words for birds: of (with a long vowel “o”), tzipor, and kanaf. As we have explained in other cases of apparent synonyms, these words do not all mean the exact same thing. There are slight differences between the connotations of each word.

The word kanaf is used colloquially by the Torah to mean “bird”, but it literally means “wing” or “winged creature”. In essence, when using the word kanaf for birds, the focus is on the fact that a bird has wings. When G-d commands Noah to bring all the animals to his ark, He tells Noah to bring “[from] every of according to their species, every tzipor, every kanaf” (Genesis 7:14). Rashi explains that the latter clause serves to include all winged creatures, such as grasshoppers — a detail not included in the phrase “every tzipor”.

Radak, in his commentary to Genesis, expands on Rashi’s explanation of G-d’s directive to Noah. He writes that of is a general term for any flying creature (as the word “of” also means “flies”), whereas tzipor and kanaf refer to specific classes of flying creatures. Tzipor refers to any type of bird, while kanaf refers specifically to winged insects like grasshoppers, wasps and flies. In his book called Sefer ha-Shorashim (about root-words in the Hebrew language), Radak remains consistent with his view that the word tzipor is a general term for all types of birds. This is an idea with some Talmudic precedent (see Chullin 139b).

Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman Heller in his commentary Tosafot Yom Tov to the Mishna notes that there is a disagreement amongst rabbinical sources as to the implications of the word tzipor. While the Talmud seems to suggest that that the word tzipor is a general term for all types of birds, the Sifri (a halachic Midrash) maintains that tziporrefers to a kosher bird, while the word of refers to all birds. This is an approach also adopted by Maimonides. The Bible commands that one must send away the mother bird before taking her eggs or hatchlings (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The Mishna in Chullin (12:2) rules that this commandment applies only if taking the eggs or hatchlings of a kosher bird, but one taking those of a non-kosher bird need not send off the mother. Citing Sifri, Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishna) explains the source for this ruling by noting that in the context of this commandment the Bible uses the word tzipor to mean bird, and that word specifically refers to kosher birds. Therefore, non-kosher birds are excluded.

Nachmanides (to Leviticus 14:4) also rejects Radak’s view that tzipor refers to every type of bird, but he restricts its meaning in a different way. As opposed to those who understood that tzipor means only a kosher bird, Nachmanides maintains that tzipor refers specifically to small birds which wake up in the morning and chirp. According to this approach, the meaning of tzipor is derived from the Aramaic word for “morning”, tzafra.

Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialastok bridges the disparate views on the nature of the word tzipor as opposed to of, throwing in a moral lesson for good measure. Just as the Talmud often differentiates between “thick animals” (behama gasa) and “thin animals” (behama daka), there is similarly a difference between stronger and weaker types of birds. The word of denotes a bird with strong wings (even if it physically a smaller bird), and such birds usually serve as predators in plundering other creatures and eating them. The word tzipor, on the other hand, denotes flimsy and weak types of birds. These birds are generally not predatory, but rather suffice with accepting whatever foods man or nature grants them. With this in mind, Rabbi Chanoch Zundel reconciles Maimonides’ explanation with Nachmanides’: a tzipor which trusts in others to provide for its food is able to sleep at night, awakening in the morning and begins to chirp. An of, however, does not sleep at night to waken in the morning, because as a predator it always seeks its next victim upon which it will feast. It relies on nobody else but itself — so it is always restless and cannot relax. This fundamental difference between these two sorts of birds is reflected in the criterion for determining a non-kosher bird. While the Torah simply lists all the non-kosher birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), the Mishna (Chullin 3:6) reveals that any predatory bird is non-kosher. Accordingly, the very characteristics of a tzipor according to Nachmanides are congruent with Maimonides’ understanding that a tzipor by definition means only a kosher bird.

This idea serves as a moral lesson to man: one who trusts in G-d to provide can rest assured, relying on his Creator to supply his needs. However, one who believes only in his own handiwork will constantly be on edge, trying to make sure that he can produce for himself all the provisions necessary for survival.

Kol Tuv,

Reuven Chaim Klein

Beitar Illit,

Defense of Marriage Act

From RRW  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

What changed in the USA  to make this 1996 sentiment out if step in less than 20 years?

MUSSAR: Evil speaking

From RRW 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evil_speaking

Kosher-keeping Orthodox teen wins ‘Chopped’ championship

From RRW

https://www.jta.org/2018/09/09/news-opinion/kosher-keeping-orthodox-teen-wins-chopped-championship?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-5983-5060

Origin of the words "Erev" and "Boker"

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First   

                      What is the Origin of the Words “Erev” and “Boker”?

                   “Erev” (evening) and “boker” (morning) are words that are well-known to us. How did these words develop these meanings”?

                 The root Ayin-Resh-Bet has several meanings, one of them is “mix.” See, e.g., Psalms 106:35: “va-yitarvu va-goyim.” The “mix” meaning very likely lies behind the term “erev rav” (=the mixed multitude that lacked a common identity and left Egypt with the Israelites). The “mix” meaning may also underly the use of the root Ayin-Resh-Bet  in connection with weaving, as weaving combines both vertical and horizontal directions. Also, the “mix” meaning is usually assumed to underly the name of the plague of “arov.” E.g., the plague was a mixture of wild animals or of very small harmful creatures. (But I did write an article in this paper last year mentioning an entirely different explanation: “Arov” was the scarab beetle which the Egyptians worshipped. The Hertz Pentateuch, p. 240, bottom, follows this explanation.)

                 The “mix” meaning also underlies the word “eruv” of Rabbinic Hebrew. This term typically relates to the “mixing/joining” of areas.

                I had always thought that the “mix” meaning was the explanation for erev/evening as well. Indeed, two such explanations are often presented in traditional Jewish sources. One is that “erev” is the time when there is a mixing/confusion of objects to the human eye due to the lack of light. (This is in contrast to “boker,” where items can be inspected and distinguished.) The other is that “erev” is the time when the conditions of light and dark begin to mix. For these suggestions, see, e.g., the concordance of Solomon Mandelkern, p. 912, and the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Radak,  S. D. Luzzatto, and Rav S.R. Hirsch to Gen. 1:5. 

                 I was therefore surprised to learn that modern scholars take a different approach. In Akkadian (a Semitic language that was the language of Assyria and Babylonia), they have an Ayin-Resh-Bet root that means “to enter.” Most modern scholars believe that “erev” is called this because it is the time when the sun has set and early man viewed it as having entered into its resting location. See, e.g., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 335.

                  This “set/enter” meaning also explains the related word “maarav” (=west). The maarav is the place where the sun sets. (This is in contrast to mizrach, the place where the sun begins to shine, derived from the root Zayin-Resh-Chet.)  The “set/enter” meaning of the verb Ayin-Resh-Bet is perhaps seen in the Tanach at Proverbs 7:9 and Judges 19:9. (It may be implicit in the Ayin-Resh-Bet of “weaving” as well.)

                On the subject of Ayin-Resh-Bet, these letters have many other meanings in Tanach. For example, an “aravah” is a desolate, wilderness area. Also, an “aravah” is a willow, and an “orev” is a raven.  I have seen the speculation that “orev” for raven derives from it being a bird of the aravah/wilderness, or from it being a dark bird (=from the “evening/dark” meaning of “erev”). Alternatively, the name may derive from the sound that the bird makes.

               The verb Ayin-Resh-Bet also means to be a surety/guarantor (see, e.g., Genesis 43:9: “anokhi e‘ervenu”). There are also related nouns, “eiravon” and “arubah,” that mean “pledge.” It has been suggested that these meanings come from the “enter” meaning and are related to entering under the authority of another.

                        

             An unusual use of Ayin-Resh-Bet is found at Psalms 68:5 (and in the zemer “Baruch Kel Elyon”) where God is described as “rokhev ba-aravot.” Here, the scholarly consensus is that this A-R-B should be viewed as deriving from an original root A-R-P and that the meaning is “God who rides on the clouds.” (“Arafel” is a word in Hebrew that means “clouds,” and most likely that final lamed is not a root letter but a suffix. I wrote a lengthy column about this last year.)

               To conclude this section on a positive note, there is also another meaning of A-R-B in Tanach. The last sentence of the Amidah is: “ve-arvah...minchat yehudah vi-yerushalayim.” This phrase comes from Malachi 3:4. The root A-R-B here means “pleasant, sweet.”  The root A-R-B  has this meaning elsewhere in Tanach as well. I have seen the suggestion that this originated from the “mix” meaning and originally meant “mixed well.” But this suggestion is not found in the more recent scholarly works, so I suspect that for some reason this suggestion is no longer accepted.

              Hopefully, I have not mixed you up too much, as now it is time to deal with “boker.”

            The verb B-K-R only appears a few times in Tanach. It generally has a meaning of “inspect” or “investigate.” As mentioned earlier, a common view in our commentaries (e.g., Ibn Ezra and Radak) is that “boker” is the time when items can be inspected (unlike “erev,” when they are mixed and hard to distinguish.)

            However, two other approaches to the origin of “boker” deserve mention. One is the approach of S.D. Luzzatto (commentary to Genesis 1:5) who notes that B-K-Ayin  means “split” or “break.” Luzzatto then suggests that “boker” is simply a contraction of “baka or” (=the light broke through). To support his position, he cites Isaiah 58:8:  “az yibaka ka-shachar orekha.”

           The other approach to “boker” is one supported by many modern scholars. This approach observes that in Arabic, “bakara” means “to split” or “to open.” The suggestion is that this was the original meaning of the verb B-K-R in Hebrew as well.  “Inspect/investigate” was just a later expansion, since this is what you did after you split something open (e.g., a sacrificial animal). See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 219. If the original meaning of the verb B-K-R was “split,” then “boker” can be the time when the light first breaks through. (A parallel is our English word “daybreak.”) Moreover, under the assumption that the original meaning of B-K-R was “split” or “open,” we can suggest why “bakar” were called by this name. These animals plow, thereby making openings in the ground. See, for example, Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, p. 81. He writes that “bakar” means “the plowing animal.”

               Finally, I will make a point about another time-related word, shachar/the morning light.  We all know that shachor, with the same three root letters, means “black.” To explain this anomaly, some have suggested that shachar really means “the blackness just before the dawn.” Others have suggested that shachor/black derives originally from a different root, chet-resh-resh, which means “burn.” But both of these suggestions seem farfetched. Most likely, it is just coincidence that the root Shin-Chet-Resh has two opposite meanings.

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

Mitchell First is a personal injury attorney and Jewish history scholar. He does his best writing in the very early morning before boker and shacharit.  If you need to disturb him then, he can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com.

Mishnah Yomit

From RRW 

https://www.mishnahyomit.com/

How the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s New Calendar Distorts the Holocaust

From RRW

As published by the History News Network - Sept. 16, 2018

 by Rafael Medoff  

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169903

Simchat Torah 5779 - The Knock Upon the Door

From RRW

Rabbi Eliyahu Safran -- hope you enjoy

 https://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=45&ARTICLE_ID=108317

Mussar: The Long Spoons

From RRW

The Allegory of the Long Spoons

Legend has it that Rabbi Haim of Romshishok, Lituania, an itinerant preacher, was granted permission to visit both heaven and hell. Upon his return to earth, he traveled from town to town sharing his journey.

With an angel for his guide, the Rabbi is first ushered through the gates of Hell, which, he is surprised to find, are made of finely wrought gold. The gates are exquisitely lovely, as is the lush green landscape that lies beyond them. He looks at his angelic guide in disbelief. “It’s all so beautiful,” he says. “The sight of the meadows and mountains ... the sounds of the birds singing in the trees ... the scent of thousands of flowers ... ” And then the tantalizing aroma of a gourmet meal catches his attention.

Entering a large dining hall, he sees row after row of tables laden with platters of sumptuous food; yet the people seated around the tables are pale and emaciated, moaning in hunger. Coming closer, he sees that each man is holding a long spoon, but that both his arms are splinted with wooden slats so that he cannot bend either elbow to bring the food to his mouth.

The angel then took the rabbi to Heaven, where he encountered the same beauty he had witnessed in Hell. Entering the dining hall there, he saw the same scene, except in contrast to Hell, the people seated at the tables who had their arms splintered with wooden slates were sitting contentedly, cheerfully talking with each other, as they enjoyed their sumptuous meal.

As the rabbi came closer, he was amazed to watch how each person at a table would feed the person sitting across from him. The recipient of this kindness would express gratitude and then return the favor by leaning across the table to feed his benefactor.

The rabbi urged his angel to bring him back to Hell so he could share this solution with the poor souls trapped there. Racing into the dining hall, he shouted to the first starving man he saw, “You do not have to go hungry. Use your spoon to feed your neighbor, and he will surely return the favor and feed you.”

“‘You expect me to feed the detestable man sitting across the table?’ the man said angrily. ‘I would rather starve than give him the pleasure of eating!”

It was then that the rabbi understood. Heaven and Hell offer the same circumstances and conditions. The only difference is in the way that people treat each other.

Sukkah Sensitivity - A Paradigm for Communing with the Outside World

Sukkah Sensitivity

originally posted Sept. 23, 2013 

Sukkah Sensitivity (c) 2000 by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

 
One of the laws of the Sukkah roof {aka SCHACH} tells us if the shade is less than 

50%  it is invalid. And on the other hand, any thatched SCHACH that is so thick that 

rain cannot permeate is also not valid.

So the cover must be more shade than Sun, yet not so shady that neither rain nor the 

Starlight can penetrate.

This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the outside world.

A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid,it is too prone to assimilation.
It is by definition more outside than inside, it is too permeable to be considered valid 

protection. However, any barrier that does not allow rain drops or Starlight, that is so 

thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside world, is also no good.  IOW, 

avoiding assimilation does not entitle us to erect barriers that completely eliminates 

sensitivity to the outside world at large.

-->

--
Kol Tuv- Best Regards,
Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Did Moses Have a Speech Impediment?

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First   

                   Did Moses Have a Speech Impediment?

                  I wrote about this topic before, but in revising my article for my forthcoming book, I came across a scholarly article that made me change my mind. Since we are in the midst of Devarim, this is a timely topic.

                  Moses tells God that he is “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon” (Exodus 4:10). But what exactly do these terms mean? 

                  To explain the first of the above expressions, Rashi uses a word from the French of his time. The word is usually translated as “stutter” or “stammer.”  (Rashi does not make any comment on the second expression.)  But where did Rashi get his explanation from? No such view is expressed by the Tannaim or Amoraim.

                   James Kugel, The Bible As It Was (1997), p. 297, points out that there was a Hellenistic Jewish writer from the 2^nd century B.C.E., Ezekiel the Tragedian, who wrote that Moses stammered. So Rashi was not the first to give the stammer interpretation.

                   It is possible that Rashi’s source was a story that eventually made its way into Exodus Rabbah 1:26. There a story is recorded about a test put to the infant Moses and that Moses’ mouth and tongue ended up being burned by a piece of coal and that this is what made him “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon.” But I have seen it suggested that burning to a mouth and tongue would more likely cause lisping than stuttering/stammering.  More importantly, Rashi does not cite any such a story in his comments to Exodus 4:10.

                Most likely, Rashi was just interpreting “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon” and offering a reasonable interpretation without any connection to the coal story. (Strangely, Rashi only makes his comments on “khevad peh.” Perhaps he interpreted both “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon” the same way. See his comment at Isaiah 6:8.)

                  How have other commentators understood “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon”? Rashbam thought that the eighty-year old Moses was telling God that he was not familiar with the Egyptian language anymore, having left there when he was young. Ibn Ezra, in his early commentary on the verse (his shorter commentary) agreed with Rashbam. But years later, when he wrote his longer commentary on the verse, he suggested that Moses was telling God that he had difficulty with certain letters. He then suggests that God’s response at 4:11-12 implied that God agreed to provide him with words without the difficult letters! A similar idea was suggested earlier by R. Chananel (quoted in R. Bachya). R. Chananel had written that Moses had difficulty with the letters that were difficult for the teeth: zayin, shin, resh, samekh, and tzade, and with the letters that were difficult for the tongue: dalet, tet, lamed, nun, and tav. 

                 Others have focused more on Moses’ oratorical and persuasive abilities. For example, S.D. Luzzatto suggested that Moses was arguing that he was not a “powerful orator who could speak at length before any audience and not cringe before anyone.” Luzzatto explained that this is alluded to at Numbers 12:3 which refers to Moses as the most modest man on the earth. Luzzatto explained further that having spent so many years as a shepherd it was difficult for Moses to go before a great king and argue with him. Similarly, Umberto Cassuto explained: “the meaning is only that he did not feel within himself the distinguished talents of an orator, and in his humility, he expressed the thought with some exaggeration.”  

            Finally, to give one more example, the Daat Mikra commentary suggested that “khevad peh” meant that Moses “spoke slowly” and “khevad lashon” meant that his “voice was not pleasant.”

            We can evaluate the various suggestions by looking at God’s response. At verse 12, God says: “ve-anokhi ehiyeh im pikha, ve-horeitikha asher tedaber.”  The key phrase is the second one: “I will instruct you what to say.” This phrase fits Rashbam’s approach and the Luzzatto-Cassuto oratorical approach better than it fits the other approaches. But the Rashbam’s approach is problematic because it does not fit well with Moses’ statement. Moses refers only to a general problem of “khevad peh” and “khevad lashon.” He does not say anything about inability to speak Egyptian. Based on this analysis, it would seem that the Luzzatto-Cassuto oratorical approach has the most merit.

             But after I wrote all the above and my earlier column on this topic, I came across an  article on our topic by the scholar Jeffrey Tigay in  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 231 (1978). He defends the “speech impediment” approach. He points to Genesis 48:10 which describes Jacob’s eyes and records: kabdu mi-zoken, lo yukhal lirot. This suggests that K-B-D reflects a medical difficulty. He then looks at evidence from Akkadian and Arabic. He observes that “heaviness,” with respect to a body part, is a medical difficulty in these languages. His evidence from Akkadian is particularly persuasive since it is from kabātu, a cognate of the Hebrew K-B-D. (He admits that the evidence from these languages is not sufficient to pinpoint precisely what medical difficulty was involved.) 

           Most importantly, Tigay advises us to focus on Moses’ entire statement at 4:10: “lo ish devarim anokhi gam mitmol gam mi-shilshom…ki khevad peh u-khevad lashon anokhi.”  “Lo ish devarim” seems to be the complaint of lack of eloquence or ability to persuade and the like, and “ki khevad peh u-khevad lashon” seem to be adding something more specific. A speech impediment fits perfectly here. Tigay makes the reasonable assumption that “ki” means “because” in the above statement.

              So while God’s response at verse 12 supports the Luzzatto-Cassuto oratorical approach, Moses’ entire statement at verse 10 supports the speech impediment approach.

             But there is a response for the Luzzatto- Cassuto approach. It can interpret “ki” in verse 10 so that it means something like “rather.” This is how the Daat Mikra commentary interprets “ki” here.

             Nevertheless, looked at overall, Tigay’s arguments are strong ones and perhaps his approach, essentially the approach of Rashi, wins the day. It wins the day, despite the fact that it does not fit as well with God’s response at 4:12.

                                                          -------

              We still have a little more to discuss. At Exodus 6:12 and 6:30, Moses describes himself as aral sefatayim. We now have to ask whether this is a different flaw, or merely another way of referring to the flaw of Exodus 4:10. Rashi on Exodus 6:12 explains that it means that Moses’ lips were blocked. Although he does not refer to his comments on Exodus 4:10, the simplest approach is to view Rashi as understanding aral sefatayim as another way of describing the stuttering/stammering problem of Exodus 4:10. Rashbam does not comment at all on 6:12. Perhaps he would view aral sefatayim as another idiom for inability to speak Egyptian. Ibn Ezra (shorter commentary) writes that this is just another way of referring to the articulation defect he described earlier.  Luzzatto and Tigay also believe that aral sefatayim is just another idiomatic way of referring to the flaw described earlier, even though they disagree as to what the earlier flaw was.

                   On the other hand, some commentators believe that what we have here is a description of a new flaw. For example, Cassuto believes that aral sefatayim  reflects Moses’ doubting his oratorical capacities in a new and more drastic form. Daat Mikra  believes that the idiom here is that Moses’ lips were closed, and the meaning is that he could not speak words that penetrated to others.

                    But since most commentators are reluctant to attribute to Moses a new flaw, we can conclude that whether or not Moses had a speech impediment depends on how one interprets the flaw (or flaws) of verse 4:10.         

                                                                -------        

                  Tigay concludes as follows: “History has known other creative geniuses and national leaders, from Demosthenes to Felix Mendelssohn and Churchill, who worked their effect on humanity despite speech impediments. The Bible viewed Moses as an agent of God whose success owed nothing to his natural endowments, but only to the persuasion worked by the words and deeds he uttered and performed under divine direction.”    

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

Mitchell First does not recall the Hollywood producers giving Charlton Heston any difficulties in articulation.