Wednesday 30 November 2011

Palestine's Grand Mufti - Nazi Collaborator

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

Tuesday 29 November 2011

The Battle of the Tunnel - Part 2

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

Monday 28 November 2011

The increasing chasm Amongst Jewish Factions

«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

Sunday 27 November 2011

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

«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

Friday 25 November 2011

Texts: Underrated Yet Classical

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

Thursday 24 November 2011

JVO: Thanksgiving 2

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 serves as an Orthodox member of their Panel of Scholars, offering answers from our perspective.

This post is part of a weekly series on the Nishmablog presenting the questions to which he responded and the answers that he gave.

* * * * *


Question:
Is there a special Jewish prayer that we can say at Thanksgiving dinner in commemoration that we were granted religious freedom in America?

Rabbi Wolpoe:

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

Wednesday 23 November 2011

JVO: Thanksgiving

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 serves as an Orthodox member of their Panel of Scholars, offering answers from our perspective.

This post is part of a weekly series on the Nishmablog presenting the questions to which he responded and the answers that he gave.

* * * * *


Question:How can Jews bring Judaism into celebrating Thanksgiving?
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 Thanksgiving. 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

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...»



Thanksgiving Kiddush Hashem | Hirhurim – Torah Musings


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

Shalom,
RRW

Tuesday 22 November 2011

Issues in Contemporary Hashkafa

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

Monday 21 November 2011

An Encounter with Gay Orthodox Marriage

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

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

Sunday 20 November 2011

A Response to a Reform Critique

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

Thursday 17 November 2011

Nothing is as powerful....

"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

Wednesday 16 November 2011

Halachic Movement

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


Tuesday 15 November 2011

JVO: Glatt Kosher

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: What is the difference between "Glatt Kosher" and "Kosher?"

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.

Monday 14 November 2011

Making the Menschlich Offer - Mishnah Yoma 6:5

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

Sunday 13 November 2011

Selling Religion

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

Friday 11 November 2011

Ein Manichin, Forbidding the Permitted

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

Thursday 10 November 2011

Jewish Tribune: Watch your language

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

Wednesday 9 November 2011

Sheva Brachot at Shalosh Seudot


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)   

Tuesday 8 November 2011

JVO: Hillel's Statement

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.

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.

Monday 7 November 2011

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

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

Sunday 6 November 2011

Rationalism and Religion - can they co-exist?

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

Saturday 5 November 2011

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

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

Friday 4 November 2011

גלן בק: חזק ביותר אפשר ומותר להזיל דמעה

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

Thursday 3 November 2011

Lech Lecha: The Involvement of Self

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?

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

Tuesday 1 November 2011

JVO: Waste at Simchas

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?

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"