Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte

Originally published 5/16/08, 6:05 PM.
A bit odd, but interesting. Vive Lafitte!
KT
RRW

This recent article is about the most famous Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte.

It was written by a former professor from Temple University, Professor Bernard Glick:

Many of the pirates of the Caribbean were Sephardic Jews who turned to piracy to get revenge on the Spanish Catholics who expelled them from Spain in 1492, murdered their families and stole their property. Six of Barbarossas chief officers were Jewish! This article sheds light on one of the most famous Jewish Pirates: Jean Lafitte the Jewish Pirate.

One of the things I do since I retired from Philadelphia's Temple University is lecture on cruise ships. My signature talk is the 50-century old history of piracy whose practitioners I call the Seafaring Gangsters of the World. A few weeks before my first gig, I sent a draft of the talk to my history buff sister, Phyllis. She liked it, but was very unhappy that I had not mentioned Jean Lafitte. I told her I didn't include him because I intended to deal with the economics, the sociology, and the politics of piracy. She said I simply had to talk about Lafitte because he was unique. He was a Sephardic Jew.

In his prime, Lafitte ran not just one pirate sloop but a whole fleet of them simultaneously. He even bought a blacksmith shop in New Orleans, which he used as a front for fencing pirate loot. And he was one of the few buccaneers who didn't die in battle, in prison, or on the gallows. Though I didn't lecture about Lafitte at first, a circumstance of serendipity has made me do so ever since. I was flying to Norfolk, Virginia. The man in the seat next to me wore a skullcap and he began chatting with me in Gaelic-accented English. Though born in France, the friendly passenger now lives in Switzerland. We quickly established that we were both Jewish and that both of us had taught in Israel.

Then we had the following conversation:

What are you doing on this plane? I asked.

I'm a mathematician. I work for an American company and I'm flying to Norfolk today because it has the US Navy's largest naval base and my company is trying to get a Navy contract. Now, what are you doing on this plane?
My wife and I are picking up a cruise ship in Norfolk.
Taking a vacation?

Not entirely. I'll be giving lectures on the ship...... as many, in fact, as there are full days at sea.

What do you lecture about?
Since cruise lines frown on controversial topics. I have talked about Israel once or twice, but I usually talk about Latin America, which is my second specialty, or the Panama Canal or Mexico's Isthmus of Tehantepec, or the voyages of Captain Cook to the South Pacific. But I always begin a cruise with a lecture on pirates. The kids love it and the old folks like it too.
Are you going to talk about Jean Lafitte?

No. And I repeated what my sister had told me.

He pulled out his wallet and handed me a business card. It had Melvyn J. Lafitte written on it. Then he said, I am a direct descendent of Jean Lafitte. Your sister, Phyllis, is absolutely right. Our family, originally named Lefitto, lived in the Iberian Peninsula for centuries. When Ferdinand and Isabella re-conquered Spain and expelled the Jews in 1492, most of the Jews fled to North Africa. Others went to the Balkans or to Greece and Turkey. But some Sephardic Jews, my ancestors among them, crossed the Pyrenees and settled in France, where Jean was born in about 1780. He moved to French Santo Domingo during the Napoleonic period. However, a slave rebellion forced him to flee to New Orleans. Eventually he became a pirate, but he always called himself a privateer because that label has a more legal ring to it.

In 1814, the British sought his aid in their pending attack on New Orleans. However, he passed their plans to the Americans and helped General Andrew Jackson beat them in 1815. A grateful Jackson, not yet President, saw to it that Lafitte and his family became American citizens. And, by the way, did you know that there is a town of Jean Lafitte, as well as a Jean Lafitte National Historical Park in Southwestern Louisiana?

I was flabbergasted, not so much by the saga of Jean Lafitte as retold by a proud descendant, but by the fact that the two of us had met so coincidentally in the skies over Georgia. Melvyn Lafitte lives in Geneva and I live in Portland, Oregon. These cities are 5,377 miles apart. Unlike him, I am mathematically challenged, so I don't know what the statistical probability is that a descendant of the Franco-Jewish-American pirate Jean Lafitte would board an airplane and sit next to me as I was agonizing over whether to mention his famous ancestor in my forthcoming talk.

Jewish history is replete with vivid coloring

An Unintentional Intermarriage - OU Article

Originally published 5/16/08, 5:39 PM. Link no longer works.
What can happen in this society!

"A strange thing happened on the way to my becoming a ba'alat teshuvah: I
discovered I was not a Jew."

For more details see the entire article
http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/38176

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Potential Split in Orthodoxy?

Originally published 5/13/08, 12:52 PM. Link to The Jewish Week no longer works.
Dr. Marc Shapiro's recent comments in the Jewish Week -- See

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a9351/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html# have initiated much discussion and debate. There is no doubt a growing friction between the Charedi and Modern Orthodox world, yet Dr. Shapiro's suggestion that MO should, so to speak, break away from the Charedi world has an essential problem for MO. It will demand the MO not maintain one of its fundamental principles.

The essence of Modern Orthodoxy can be viewed from two perspectives. One is the specific behaviour of MO that distinguishes it from the behaviour of, let us say, the Charedi world. For example, MO is more favourable to the State of Israel. Of course this distinction is not absolute. There are Charedi individuals with positive feelings for the State and MO individuals who are more distant from the State but this distinction in behaviour generally stands. In a variety of behaviour there is a distinction between the Charedi world and the MO world and how one personally behaves will define which world he or she is in or he or she is put in.

There is though another major distinction between the MO world and the Charedi world and that is the distinction based on wisdom and authority. The Charedi world advocates for the value of authority -- thus its fostering of commitment to the Gedolim simply in their person of Gadol. The MO world values wisdom, thus even as they also have Gedolim, it fosters allegiance to these Gedolim because of the arguments that these Gedolim present to support their positions. Of course this dividing line is not absolute and, as there is value in both authority and wisdom, one may find the advocacy of each value, at some time, in both communities, yet there is a greater stress on authority in the Charedi world, and in wisdom in the MO world. (For more on the issue of authority and wisdom, see my article Authority and Wisdom: the Slifkin Affair.

The result is the following. The Charedi world has an easier time discounting the opinion of one scholar, even a great Torah scholar, outside of its orbit. What it ultimately values is allegiance to the position of its Gedolim, simply as authority and discounts the value of wisdom, per se, especially wisdom that points to an opposing position. Yet in the MO world, the opinion of even a singular scholar cannot so easily be dismissed, for the wisdom that may be found in this viewpoint is valued and desired. MO scholars study the Satmar Rav, the Chazon Ish and other similar Charedi gedolim because MO wishes to embrace the entire spectrum of opinions and gain an appreciation of the entire realm of Torah thought. As such, the Charedim can more easily set up parameters that push their viewpoint for the wisdom in an opposing viewpoint falls in the face of the authrity the the Charedi position and the person of the Charedi Gedolim. That is not so for MO. It will always see value in knowing and studying the position of all Torah scholars even those out of the Charedi world and, as such, give respect to all Torah scholars.

So to call for what Dr. Shapiro is asking really presents a problem for, in a way, it is a call for MO not act as MO.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Responsa on Mother's Day and Kibbud Eim

Originally published 5/11/08, 9:12 PM.
Question: Since we are required to Honour our Mothers every day, is it appropriate to have a Mother's Day?
Response: We have a mitzva to remember the Exodus at least once or twice a Day. Is it appropriate to do more once a year? The answer is yes, one or two evenings a year we recited the story of the Exodus with a lot of pomp and circumstance. this in now way negatively impacts our daily obligation. Aderabbah, it enhances it!

Honouring one's Mother is a daily obligation. but there is no need to give her flowers, a card, and to treat her to dinner etc. There is only a need to honour and revere her. Once a year, we can add on to the daily obligation by going beyond the letter of the law [lifnim mishurat hadin]

Question: Would this also apply to thanksgiving?
Response: yes but I can make that into an extra Post on the Blog - so let's wait for that one!
--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Ivrith - back to Fundamentals or Evolving New Styles

Originally published 5/9/08, 4:45 PM.
Dear Readers:

Here is a really interesting debate on proper Ivrith Articulation from the "Leining Group"

Enjoy
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

From: bearpecs@aol.com
Date: Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Subject: [Leining] Tiberian
To: Leining@yahoogroups.com

I think we should keep in mind that no community pronounces Hebrew just as the Tiberian Masoretes did. We need to balance the competing priorities of accurate and consistent reading on the one hand with preserving the legitimate and established minhag of communities on the other hand. In some cases (e.g. zekher/zeikher) accuracy and consistency must take precedence (although in that example it has been shown that it was not truly a reliable "minhag"); in others (e.g. thaw/tav/saf) minhag must take precedence. The goal is not to read Torah as the Tiberians did. The goal is meaningful reading that preserves grammatical and articulate Hebrew.

-Hayyim

==========================================================================================

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon jeremy.simon@nyu.edu wrote:

I would disagree. At least in term of the phonetic distinctions made, I think the goal is to come as close to Tiberian as possible without sounding odious to the congregation. From my first and second hand experience, in a modern askenazi shul, you can pronounce dagesh chazak and ayin, but not, soft gimels and dalets. Tiberian Hebrew represents the masorah that has been universally accepted, and we should strive to stay as close as possible. Of course, languages change in their phonetics, but kri'at hatorah is a specific kind of ritual performance, and so a certain degree of deviation from standard spoken Hebrew is acceptable and as it happen desirable. How else are we to make sense of the rambam's strictures on who can lein, the most famous one being that one must be able to distinguish between an ayin and an alef. Clearly, already in his time and place had been lost among routine speakers of Hebrew, and nonetheless, he felt the need to insist on in in kri'at hatorah.

- Jeremy

Controversy at the Chidon

Originally published 5/9/08, 1:56 AM.
To be honest, I have always had somewhat of a problem with the Chidon HaTanach. Of course, such knowledge of the Tanach is important and I am very impressed with the knowledge of Tanach that participants gained. But something always bothered me -- the written Torah can never stand alone. The very mark of our Torah, the uniquely Jewish understanding of Torah, is that it consisted of, right from the beginning, an Oral Torah and a Written Torah. The focus on the Written Torah in the Chidon, especially in all the preparation leading up to the contests, simply bothered me. Its not the Jewish way.

What occurred this week with the controversy over the Messianic girl who was a participant in this year's quiz only proves my point. The Written Bible is deemed to be significant to many beyond just the Jewish world. It was the fundamentalist Christian faith, in the guise of Messianic Judaism, that led to this girl's proficiency in the Bible. For the Chidon to be uniquely Jewish, it must apply the uniquely Jewish understanding of a written Tanach that cannot stand apart from the Oral Torah.

I am not sure how it would be implemented, but, to be uniquely Jewish, the Chidon must include the Torah She'b'al Peh. There must be questions from midrashim on the pesukim as well as from aggadata on the pesukim. This way, we would not again have a problem with a Messianic in the contest. More importantly, though, the contest would be uniquely Jewish.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Haggadah - Back to Basics [from Avodah]

Originally published 5/2/08, 5:39 PM.
Sometimes Gedolim are great because they focus on the simple things. As Grand Master Sober once said, in a real-life situation you will probably save your life with a simple technique like a Front-kick as opposed to some fancy advanced technique

The "Minhogei CS" [10:15] writes that the CS spent the entire Seder talking to the young children - translating every word of the Hagada and explaining 'tochen ha'inyan' to them. He didn't say any Drush at all during the Seder.

He was clearly following the psak of the Rema 473:6.

In his Droshos, he writes that the Seder is not for giving pilpulim etc, but purely to talk about the Nissim veNiflaos of Hashem. The fact that he had to point this out shows that even in his days people were saying Toros and pshetlech at the seder - rather than concentrating on poshuteh pshat.

SBA

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Tzvia Greenfield of Meretz

Originally published 5/1/08, 12:57 AM. Link no longer works.

Left-wing firebrand via haredi seminary
By MATTHEW WAGNER

In the fall of 1968, Tzvia Greenfield, an intense 19-yearold philosophy student, stood on the lawn of the Hebrew University's Givat Ram campus warning her peers that it would be a big mistake to keep the newly conquered territories.

Most, intoxicated by the miraculous victory and dreaming of the fulfillment of ancient biblical promises, resisted Greenfield's passionate arguments, which seemed incongruous with her appearance.

....

When asked by The Jerusalem Post what a "nice Haredi woman" was doing in Meretz, Greenfield said, "For years Meretz has been saying what I believe in. Literally everything on Meretz's platform is in line with my opinions. I believe in the individual's rights. I believe in
citizens' rights. I believe in rights for everyone, including Arabs. I believe in peace. And I also believe in working toward an agreement with the Palestinians. "I believe in the right to protection for both rich and poor. Society has an obligation to all citizens to foster solidarity, to make sure people are not thrown out on the street because they cannot support themselves.

"I am a social democrat," she continued
....

For Further Details see: Jerusalem Post Article

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Things are not always as they seem to be!

Originally published 4/30/08, 12:39 AM
Interesting comments upon the history of some masorah.
-RRW

THE DAF YOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf@dafyomi.co.il

________________________________________________________________

General: The Three Zechusim

Barry Robinson asked:

Dear Kollel,

I have been asked to find the mekor for the well-known statement that Klal Yisroel were saved from Mitzrayim B'Zechus of the three things they kept - they did not change their names, their language and their clothing.

I have found several variants on this maamar in various Midrashic sources. Almost all of the variants list four Zechusim - for example, many of the variant versions remove mention of clothing and add that Klal Yisroel did not speak Lashon Hara and were careful about Arayos.

But everyone I talk to seems to remember learning the first version in school. Were we misled by our teachers or does this form of the Midrash really exist?

Thank You.
Barry Robinson
Cong. Or Torah, Skokie, Illinois, USA

-----------------------------
The Kollel replies:

The earliest source seems to be Eliyahu Bachur (c. 1500), who quotes it the way we often hear it in the introduction to his Sefer Meturgeman. Shlomo Buber, in his notes to Pesikta d'Rav Kahana (Parshas Vayehi Beshalach fn. #66) makes your point and says Eliyahu Bachur has absolutely no source in Midrash. (It is not clear to me how the quote became so popular, perhaps it was used to defend Chasidic garb.)

There is one Midrash (Lekach Tov to Shmos 6:6) which counts among the four Zechusim that they didn't change their names or their "Salmos" (clothes). However, almost certainly the Lamed is a scribe's mistake. In either case it doesn't use the word "Levushan."

To me it would seem that the truth is Eliyahu Bachur's source is Bamidbar Rabah 13:20 where 3 (not 4) Zechuyos are counted and the third is that they were Gedurim Min ha'Ervah (and not that they were not Parutz b'Arayos - as it appears in every other Midrash). Gedurim means they took measures to prevent Arayos and it might refer to adopting the immodest Egyptian mode of dress. We find such Gedurim m'Ervah in practice in Chazal, such as in Rashi,
Sanhedrin top of 74b.

May we be Zocheh to fulfill all these Midrashim ourselves!

Best wishes for a Chag Kasher v'Same'ach!

Mordecai Kornfeld,
Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Tight Clothing - You Know it when You See It

Originally published 4/29/08, 1:33 AM.
Another insight into Tight Clothing from Cantor Wolberg: [yes the double entendre was quite intended!] -RRW

Cantor Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 stated: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Obviously, his perception would be quite different from our perception.

Prohibition against tight clothing would be our "I know it when I see it" but it's all a matter of how high (or low) our individual bar of morality is. We certainly have much higher moral standards than the Constitution of the United States and yet, da'as Torah doesn't necessarily give us the unequivocal, definitive answers.

The Constitution doesn't contain chukim, so its orientation is quite different from ours. Living in a country such as the U.S. presents tremendous challenges in being able to deal with cognitive dissonances, and it's no wonder that we can't agree on many things with each other. This, IMHO, is what gives fertile soil for potential sinas chinam.

ri

Compulsary and Voluntary

Originally published 4/28/08, 1:20 pm. Link no longer works.
The following is a most interesting article on a distinction, presented by the author, between compulsory and voluntary presentations of Judaism or Jewishness.
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12803.htm
The author concludes that what is needed is a mixture of the two. What is so strange about this conclusion is the perception that accepting Judaism as compulsory or voluntary is a choice.
If it is compulsory, it is in fact a decision not based on choice but on external forces that impose this perception of reality upon someone. Rather than describing a distinction between compulsory and voluntary Judaism, the author would have done a more important service in attempting to define why someone wishes to define himself/herself as a Jew.
That may also bring one back to a discussion of whether one feels compelled to be Jewish or simply chooses to be Jewish but in attempting to define the basic motivation for Jewishness, there is greater potential for discussing the issue and describing the underlying motivations for any type of Jewishness.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

HHH Hagaddah: What is the point of Ilu Keir'vanu lifeni Har Sinai, Vlo Nasan lanu es HaTorah?

Originally published 4/25/08, 5:35 pm.
In Dayeinu we have a line:

Ilu Keir'vanu lifeni Har Sinai, Vlo Nasan lanu es HaTorah - Dayyeinu?
If YOU had brought us near Har sinai but had NOT Given us the Torah - Dayyeinu?

What is the point of going to Sinai without receiving the Torah? What value is there to be at Sinai alone without even being commanded by G-d?

Hint:

1. What are the TWO Haftoros associated with the Parsha of the Asseres Hadevarim in Yisro?
2. What theme have they in common?
3. What theme do they omit?

Given that Ma'amad Har Sinai without the Torah has some significance:
Q: How is that significance manifested in Jewish Practice?

Hint: What Minhag-in-common is manifest during:

1. The Reading of Shiras Hayaom
2. The Recitation of Kiddush Levanah
3. The Reading of Asseres Hadibros

Moa'dim Lesimcha!
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

HHH, Anti-Xtian Polemics and the Third Blessing of the Haftara

Originally published 4/24/08, 11:22 PM.
During the recent first weekend of Passover, my sister pointed out to me that the theme of the third blessing of the haftarah is apparently an anti-Xtian polemic. Viz. Al kis'o lo yeshev ZOR v'lo yinchalu ACHEIRIMM es k'vodo...

I peeked into my Baer's Avodas Yisroel. Sure enough, he quotes Rav Amram Gaon and the Rambam as having the nusach paraphrasing Es Tzemach David Avdecha Meheira Satzmi'ach. It seems to be the same theme, but doesn't seem aimed at  the Xtians.

Could it be that since both Rav Amram Gaon and the Rambam lived in Moslem societies, they had a different nusach which didn't need the anti-Xtian polemic; while those who did live in Xtian societies inserted this anti-Xtian polemic into their nusach?

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

HHH - Who is suposed to read Mah Nistanah? Why?

Originally published 4/24/08, 1:19 pm.
Q: Who is supposed to lead the Mah Nishtana?
Q: Why?

Kol tuv,
RRW

Hagahoth, Hasgoth, and He'aroth

Originally published 4/24/08, 1:15 pm.
Dear Readers,
I am planning a new series of quick comments mostly on liturgy and Halachah called:

1. Hagahoth [glosses]
2. Hasagoth [challenges] and
3. He'aroth [notes or insights]

They will be prefaced by HHH (with apologies to the late Hubert Humphrey).

Mo'adim Lesimcha,
RRW

Lying to protect the simple of faith [From Avodah]

Originally published 4/23/08, 3:04 pm.
A very provocative post from the Avodah list:
Note: I have been procrastinating my review of Dr. Marc Shapiro's book and at times procrastination pays because you get to gather more data and information! --smile--

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Michael Makovi mikewinddale@gmail.com wrote on the Avodah list:

I've been having a debate on the Zohar at: Facebook Article Link
and at one point, I brought up ibn Ezra saying that there could be post-Moshe pesukim, and Dr. Marc Shapiro of course came up. I made the following post, from which, for Avodah, I would like to discuss my second point regarding a Torah authority lying to protect the simple
of faith (but I'll post my entire post).

I had previously there brought up an article by Dr. Shapiro that mentions this opinion of ibn Ezra, but then...

--------

Just this past Yom Tov Pesach, I saw Marc Shapiro's book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, and I saw that it truly is a magnificent sefer - basically, he collects classical Torah opinions that controvert Rambam's 13.

I opened it up, and what do you know, but the page on ibn Ezra is what it immediately opened to! In this chapter, he makes several points:

1) When Rambam says the Torah we have is the same as given by Moshe, Rambam cannot possibly believe that this is literally true, for Rambam was extensively involved in textual study of different texts, and even advocated certain Masoretic texts (ben Asher, I believe) over others. Moreover, Rambam's son refused to pasken on which scroll is kosher, because there are so many, and who are we to advocate one over the other.

1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions were made after Moshe. However, while Rambam is saying that this is the case, he cannot possibly be saying it is heretical to say otherwise. For ibn Ezra, as interpreted by a large list of authorities, held that
many verses are post-Moshe. Rabbi Yehuda heChasid went even further, and said that entire narratives could be added to. According to one authority, Ezra (not ibn Ezra) had the ability to add to narrative (not mitzvot-ic) sections of the Torah. Most importantly, the Gemara itself opines that Yehoshua wrote the end of the Torah - surely Rambam cannot declare Chazal to be heretics! So while Rambam says no post-Moshe additions were made, the contrary opinion is not heresy. As one prominent rabbi, quoted by Marc Shapiro (I forget his name), says, the basic principle is that "for all intents and purposes", the Torah we have is what Moshe gave, but in certain details and pesukim, it very well may differ. And the Gemara doesn't say that one must hold the Torah is from Moshe, but rather only that it is from Heaven, and this includes any divine source.

2) As an alternative to point 1 above: Rambam knew that there were textual variants in our Torah scrolls, but he could very well have lied about this, saying that there were no variants, and that we today have the exact same scroll as given by Moshe. In fact, in his Iggeret Teiman, Rambam makes exactly such an explicit lie. Back then, the Muslims were accusing us of falsifying the Torah, and any admission on our part would have harmed the faith of the ignorant and led them to heresy, for they would be unable to understand the complex picture as shown in points 1 and 1a. Better then to lie to the ignorant and simple of faith and tell them that we have the same scroll as Moshe bli safek; those who are more learned, and can accept the complex truth, will learn it.

--------

So I'd like to discuss my second point above, which seems ripe for controversy.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Why Do We Lean at the Seder?

Originally published 4/23/08, 1:20 AM
Q: Why do we lean at the Seder?

A: With all that food at the Seder, if it weren't for the lean we might become fat! --smile--

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

The Chametz Battle: Policy Concerns in Halachic Reasoning

Originally published 4/22/08, 9:34 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.Link no longer works
To be honest, I have only marginally been following the debate in Israel over the chametz law, so in many ways, I am really not prepared to comment. I found it interesting, though, to have found out that the judge who sparked this whole debate is actually observant. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208179714721&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
This fact must inform us that the issue is not simple a battle between leftist forces attempting to liberalize Israel and observant forces attempting to foster a fully observant Israel. There is much more to the debate. In many ways, it may really be about how Orthodoxy should relate to the non-Orthodox.

Of course, at the root of Orthodoxy is a principle that observance of mitzvot is a requirement of all Jews. Kol Yisrael aravin zeh l'zeh. We all are guarantors for each other before God. The question is how to achieve this goal.
The law of lifnei iver, causing another or assisting another to violate halacha is pivotal in this regard. An investigation of this law, though, reveals a most interesting perception of the law by various commentators. They understand the law to be based on policy rather than the usual technical understanding of the law. In general, a law is concerned with specific behaviour without contemplation of the consequences of this behaviour. With policy considerations, consequences become important considerations.
So the question emerges in the mitzvah of lifnei iver. Is the prohibition technical, ie is its focus the specific technical behaviour before us? IOW is it absolutely forbidden for me to pass a piece of pork to another Jew (given the specific circumstances of lifner iver)? Or is the prohibition to consider policy considerations? Am I thus to consider how the person will respond to my not passing the pork and evaluate whether in not passing the pork, I will develop a negative response to Orthodox Jews that will ensure that this person will continue eating pork in the future, rather than passing the pork in this circumstance and developing a relationship with this person that may have more positive Torah implications in the future? Technical means the only concern is the battle; policy means the concern in the entire war.

Now of course, the issue in not black-and-while. Of course, if you can politely not pass the pork without evoking a strong negative reaction from the other person, that would be best. There must also be the consideration that in passing the pork, the person may incorrectly interpret your behaviour as permitting him/her to eat the pork and that you accept a pluralism of Jewish standards that is incorrect -- with further potential negative consequences.
Understanding lifner iver as a policy statement actually makes it much more complex, demanding more thorough analsyis of each situation. It may be that because we want things to be simple, we tend to gravitate to the technical -- that way we have the one right answer. The reality may be though that the issue is actually a policy one and what is really demanded is thought.

As I do not know the actual details of the chametz law, I really don't have a definite position on it. There are policy reasons for both sides. The key though is to recognize that it is, according to many commentators, a policy matter and, as such, demands thought and analysis. The rhetoric on both sides must end, in order to fulfil the goal of obseving the mitzvah of lifnei iver.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Hasiba, the Raaviya, and a Potential Halachic Sea Change

Originally published 4/12/08, 11:18 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Given the Raaviya takes a very Liberal view regarding Hasiba [Reclining]. He declines to recline because, after all, in our day and age, we do not formally dine on cushions on the floor! This position is well and good - but is it a a truly Orthodox position to do away with a time-honored Halachah in the Talmud merely due to changed external circumstances?

The Bavli gives very demanding parameters, lean to the right not the left, lest one choke etc. Hasiba is very formal and very specific. How did the Raaviya ignore this? Was he acting like a proto-Liberal Rabbi?

A change occurred to me last year. Whilst slugging through the Bavli's 10th chapter of Pesachim [arvei pesachim] I took a short-cut detour and I did the much more compact Yerushalmi instead. There it was - Lo and Behold:

Q; Why must one do hasiba at the seder?
A: Lest one eat STANDING UP like a servant!

Could this alternate Talmudic source have coincided with the Raaviya's position?
Today, I ate my second S'eudah with Rabbi Dr. Kanarfgoel, a PhD in Jewish Medieval history and I mentioned this idea. While he did not respond specifically, he noted that the Raaviya was the FIRST Ashkenazic source to have a complete Yersushalmi at his disposal and he used it widely!

On a completely different topic, we have manuscripts in the Rambam's own handwriting. At times, he crosses out a Halachah and replaces it with the alternate read in the Yerushalmi. The Rambam USUALLY is very RIF-centric, but at times he follows Yerushalmi, probably AFTER considering the RIF first as the likely Halachah [as above]

==========================================================

What does this portent in the future? As Artscroll Shottenstein is publishing a user friendly Yerushalmi, people may see many concepts in a brand new light. Granted that MOST commentaries attempt to get the Yerushalmi to jibe with the Bavli, nevertheless, there will be brand new insights garnished from sources perhaps more ancient than the Bavli. Will this bring about a Sea change not only in how people view the Talmud, but will it impact pesak -as it apparently did for the R'a'aviyah and the Rambam?
--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy Hillel!

Originally published 4/7/08, 8:41 AM, Eastern Daylight Time. The link no longer works.
Hillel is opening up its facilities to non-Jews! Think of the Reprecussions!

To quote Attorney Douglas Aronin

But one thing that both the excerpt and the full JTA article make clear is that the change in orientation is one that Hillel professionals on many campuses feel is being forced upon them by the realities of campus life. If you want to attract Jewish students who are not already actively Jewish, you're going to need to offer something that they find attractive. In the pre-Richard Joel era, Hillels generally were satisfied with just serving the Jewish needs of those who were already actively Jewish. Would we be better off going back in that direction?

And to 1uote Rabbi David Willig:

I wonder what would happen if a group of Whites wanted to join the BLACK STUDENT ASSOCIATION, or Jews join the Moslem Student Union. DW

For full details see:

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008033120080327hillel.html)

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

Originally published 4/2/08, 11:06 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I looked up ZECHER in the Even Shoshan Concordance - and in it I located 2 occurences of Zecher - and BOTH were proper names!

Zecher is clearly wrong. Rav Mordechai Breuer OBM has confirmed this with unassailable research While the Ma'seh Rav attests to this idea of Zecher Rav Haim Volozhiner protested this very attestation [albeit very politely]. In NO way were TWO readings ever suggested

But if safeik D'd'oraiito lehumra re: Zachor why not go all the way? [Reductio ad absurdum indeed- after all it is read around Purim time! So why not

1. Read it from BOTH a Sephardic and Ashkenaic Torah...
2. Read BOTH Scrolls with every permutation of pronunciation [e.g. litvisher, Hungarian, Yekkish, Sephardic, Yeminite etc. etc.]?

The Vilna Gaon himself made fun of multiple pairs of Tefillin as ludicrous and came up with 32-64 possible permutations. Ironically we are beginning to perpetuate such a practice in his honor. [Incidentally, this proves there MUST be a God, or else it would make no sense to practice such a minhag to honor the one who felt such permutation was unnecessary.]

One Rabbi insisted that whilst reading Ki Tetze both Zeicher and Zecher must be read TWICE, one for Shevii'i and once for Maftir! His argument? since we have changed the form [tzura] for Zachor therefore THAT becomes THE normative way to read it EVERY time we read the Torah, including Ki Tetze! No, I am not kidding; I had a bar mitzva student who HAD to do it this way!



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe

How we argue?

Originally published 3/30/08, 10:33 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
In the latest halachic debate in Israel between the charedim and other Orthodox views in Israel, we again see the strong language of dissension. The issue is the definition of death and the position of the charedi community is that brain death does not define halachic death.
The controversy that is surrounding this issue, aside from the very halachic debate itself, is in how the charedi community is expressing its view. It presents its view as the only legitimate halachic view and other views that accept brain death as a halachic standard are simply dismissed. This seems to be another case of the charedi world simply dismissing views with which it disagrees as outside the pale.

The intersting thing that hit me though is the actuality of how meforshim throughot the centuries have responded to others with positions with which they disagreed. In many cases we also find harsh language, disparaging comments and a rejection of the opposition even amongst those that in other circumstances demanded respect for others within the halachic process. In truth, we find within halachic literature throughout the ages strong language similar to the charedi defense of their position. Is it just possible that the charedi world, rather that really dismissing those with which they disagree, is simply following the examples of language that have been used throughout the ages?

In truth, it is clear that for many charedim there is a dismissal of other positions in a most outright and simplistic fashion. Yet it has always bothered me -- could charedi scholars really be rejecting the reality of machloket in halacha? The answer may be that they are not. They are simply adopting a language that they have seen within the halachic literature in cases of disagreement. The only problem is that, while in the hands of scholars this language is known to have one connotation, as this language spreads to the masses, the result is a simplification of Torah that challenges its very essence.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Artist and the Jew

Originally published 3/17/08, 1:28 AM. Link no longer works.
A commitment to Torah and Mada (or, in the definition of Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Derech Eretz) presents a dialectic that is to push and inspire us to new understandings. The reality and the process, though, fosters a realm of conflict that challenges us on many levels and, while, perhaps, ultimately beneficial, tries us in the struggle that we must confront. This is most intense is the struggle of the self.

Tikva Hecht, a frequent contributor to Nishma, weighs in on this issue in an article she recently wrote for Kol Hamevaser entitled "The Artist and the Jew" This article is available on line at:
http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2008/02/25/KolHamevaser/The-Artist.And.The.Jew-3245120.shtml

Vayikra: Progression and Regression

Originally published 3/14/08, 12:23 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library , 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 Vayikra. The topic is the movement of ethics, specifically are we becomming more or less ethical? Rambam contends that sacrifices were an allowance to past weaknesses in the human being and it is better to worship God without animal sacrifices. Ramban strongly disagrees. If sacrifices were ordained at Sinai, they are part of the perfect Torah. Is there any possible reconciliation for these divergent opinions

We invite you to look at an article on this topic here.
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-19.htm

Spitzer

Originally published 3/12/08, 3:23 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
This is not a comment on the behaviour of Eliot Spitzer. The question still emerges: should he have resigned?

For me, this question can be divided into two parts. One is regarding the fundamental question of how we choose someone to lead, specifically in pragmatic terms. Do we judge based upon the results or the essence of the person? Of course, one whose actions and essence are in unison is the best choice -- but what to do in such a case when one's results as a leader do not coincide with one's personal behaviour? Do we want someone who delivers in terms of results even though he is personally lacking or do we choose one whose essence is fine even though he may not deliver as well? Or do we say that one whose essence is inherently tainted will eventually fail in delivering results in any event?

There is another issue as well. I have seen Mr. Spitzer referred to as a hypocrite and this made me think about the problems with that label. Does teshuva not necessitate that we all recognize ourselves as hypocites? Do we not have to accept that we are not living up to our standards in order to embarke on a path of teshuva? I do not know what Elitot Spitzer really believes in regard to what is right and what is wrong -- and that in itself is an issue and colours any comments I may make. Yet I wonder who I want as a leader. Do I want someone who argues for a certain value system although never meets this standard or do I want someone who argues for a different standard? Is one who wold be in favour of prostitution and subsequently uses prostitutes be better than one who is against prostitution yet still uses prostitutes? Is Spitzer's crime that he prosecuted prostitution yet used them himself - thus the label of hypocrite? Is that better than one who openly argues the prostitution is okay and then uses them? What if the one who argues against prostitution says that he just can't control himself even though he knows that it is wrong? What if he says he was just arguing against prostitution because he wanted to win the election but really thought it was fine, and the proof is that he used it?

As I said above, I don't know what Eliot Spitzer is really like but I find that there are more questions that need to be asked -- about ourselves and what we need and should want in such circumstances.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Standards of Judgement

Originally published 3/11/08, 3:02 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. Link no longer works.
An incident occurred in the Greater Toronto Area whereby an Orthodox rabbi was criticized for not shaking hands with the female deputy mayor of one of the cities in the area. Fed by certain newspaper reports, this became a major issue until the two involved individuals wrote a joint letter of reconciliation. That, though, may have not been enough for some of those who used the incident as an opportunity to attack Orthodoxy.

There actually was much discussion that surrounded the issue. Some felt that the mistake occurred in the briefing process that should had preceded the event that caused the outcry. The deputy mayor should have been forewarned that the rabbi would not shake her hands and no offence would be intended. Was the problem in the rabbi's staff or the deputy mayor's staff for not properly briefing the deputy mayor on what would happen and the rabbi's departure from normal etiquette due for religious reasons? We do not know the answer to that question but clearly the lesson is an important one to learn. Many are respectful of those who follow different standards; they would just like to be aware of any changes so they are not left looking foolish. In observing Torah, we must be aware of our obligation in this regard.

Nevertheless, even proper briefing may not be enough and in such cases we must stand strong in defence of our Torah values. The incident, though, brought, a new type of attack. One columnist critiqued the rabbi is not really following Orthodox law but choosing not to shake hands for some other reason, some stringency that puts Orthodoxy even further beyond the pale. See, further, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/10/barbara-kay-responds-to-her-pro-hasidic-critics.aspx.
While there may be lenient opinions in regard to this law, there are also opinions that forbid this practice and this rabbi should be entitled to follow that which he believes. How often do we see people attacking religious people, of all types, by stating that what they believe is not even what their religion believes? I find myself greatly insulted if I am told by someone that Judaism doesn't even believe in that which I may be saying (or doing) and quoting some Reform rabbi to that effect. My Judaism is not this Reform rabbi's Judaism and I should not be evaluated from that perspective. The same is true, ll'havdil, within Torah. Sometimes, one challenges me by quoting from another Orthodox rabbi. If this person is asking me a question in learning, wishing to know the point of disagreement, I am very considerate and welcome the opportunity to talk in learning. But if one wishes to challenge my Torah, use someone else's opinion as if it is the only view of Orthodoxy, I respond impatiently. Orthodoxy is not monolithic. Don't tell me what I believe!!!

I state this in regard to other religions as well. I find it most difficult when someone argues that Osama bin Laden is not a true Moslem because some other Moslem states that his position is contrary to the Koran. Who am I to say what a Moslem should believe? There are most likely Moslems that read the Koran one way and others who read it another. That is really not my issue. I may wish to know to whom I can relate and to whom I cannot, but it is not up to me to state what is the "true" belief of Islam. It doesn't really matter what I think the Koran is saying -- I don't really care what it is saying. What matters is what the other who believes in that book thinks that it is saying -- and my opinion on his understanding is not relevant to him/her.

If one wishes to argue with another over general philosophical or theological questions, I have no problems -- but know the limits. I think it is arrogance, though, to tell another what he/she really believes based upon your analysis of that person's religion.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Taking Things a Bit TOO Literally

Originally published 3/9/08, 9:55 PM, Eastern Daylight Time

Someone was asked the following question by a bride.

"She intends to go to the kever of her grandfather to give him an invitation to her wedding. When should she do it?"

My response:

Preferably before he is niftar. After all is time travel any bigger a neis than a meis coming to a chausunah?

A certain member of the list found my response a bit too sarcastic, so I did a reality check with a VERY chashuvah Rav in Teaneck and he found it to be NOT sarcastic and actually a quite amusing answer! I guess some people realize that it is Adar and others do not! [Maybe meishnichnas Adar marbim besimcha is not enough to trigger a sense of humor...]


Any FWIW, if the Niftar DID attend the Wedding all the kohanim would have to leave! I figure pashut, if you get to the niftarim whilst they are still alive then the Kohanim may stay!

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Was the Attack on Mercaz Harav Targeted?

Originally published 3/7/08, 12:07 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
When I first heard of the terrible, tragic attack on Mercaz Harav, I was immediately concerned that it may have been more than a random terrorist attack. Others seem to share my concern. See, for example, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546426188&pagename=JPost% and http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720222,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics&iref=werecommend. If this is so. and this attack was a directed attack on the yeshiva, there is reason to be further distressed by this occurrence. Mercaz Harav is more than just another hesder yeshiva; it is the spiritual centre of the entire movement. As such, if this attack was directed than it was directed against the entire movement, a specific action directed against the national religious in Israel. And if the movement's spritual centre can be a target, are the terrorists also contemplating other spiritual entities of the movement, i.e. the hesder yeshivot? I hope and pray that this is not a new episode in the calamities that have fallen upon Israel whereby our mekamot of Torah, specifically the hesder yeshivot, lose any aspect of their effectiveness due to targeted terror.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Did The Great One Really Slaughter the Lesser one?

Originally published 3/5/08, 12:17 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Here is an allegorical explanation by the late Lubavicher Rebbe re: the Purim story wherein Rabba "slaughters" Rav Zeira.

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/cgi-bin/calendar?holiday=purim13305


Whether one subscribes to this particular allegory is not quite as important as the general idea that the story was probably never meant to be taken literally and there is SOME allegorical dynamic at its Aggadic Root

KT
RRW

The American Jewish Divide

Originally published 3/1/08, 9:20 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.Link no longer works.
Recently Gary Rosenblatt wrote an editorial about the furtherance of disunity amongst the Jewish community in the United States. The article is available at:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a4612/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html
He is clearly correct in asserting that the Jewish Divide, as he describes it, is growing. The problem, however, may be more than just a question of unity. In this respect, I wrote the following letter to The Jewish Week.


Dear Mr. Rosenblatt:

Your article on the American Jewish Divide intrigues me. The issue is, however, in my opinion more than just a question of unity but rather a much more fundamental question of definition. Beyond the question of 'who is a Jew?' -- which really deals with defining criteria for membership in "the group" -- we have to start dealing with the question of 'what is a Jew?' -- the very definition of "the group." The issue, phrased in a different way, is not simply how do we keep "the group" together but the need to define the very nature of "the group."

What I believe is occurring with the advent of a further divide is a development of different fundamental definitions of "the group." This has caused even greater problems as we seem to further ignore this very need to define who we are. In dialoguing with fellow Jews, we assume that we all share the same definitions and understandings when, in fact, we do not. Even in your article, you refer to "Jewish ethics" as if it were a monolithic standard that is basically shared by all Jews, i.e. members of the group (in fact, as you would seem to present it, a defining characteristic of "the group"). The fact is that, although references to Jewish texts may be used by each different perspective, there is no longer a monolithic vision of Jewish ethics. The question of unity cannot, thus, be dealt with by reference to a theoretical single yardstick of Jewish ethics but must move on to a further question: how do we unite different segments of "the group" with different understandings of the ethics that each one believes is actually fundamental to "the group"? If our ethics actually reflect that same spectrum that exists in the general world, how can we even refer to them as a unique aspect of Jewishness? This is precisely my point. The demand is for definitions and understandings, not simply a call for unity.

In this vein, may I direct you to an article I wrote that basically calls for people to investigate their definition of Jewishness, rather than ignore this need. From this perspective, I contend that the only path to dealing with this problem is through the insistence on adjectives in defining one's Jewish identity rather than their avoidance. While a reference to being 'Just Jewish" sounds as the short path to unity, it actually fosters disunity and further problems for it leads to obscurantism and the lack of a definition for Jewishness. The article is at:
http://www.nishma.org/articles/introspection/introspection5761-2-adjective_jew.htm


Thank you.

RBH

Vayakhel: The Motivation for Giving

Originally published 2/28/09, 5:50 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library, 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 Vayakhel. The topic is tzedakah, specifically how we decide to distribute our funds for worthwhile causes. There are always more needs than available funds, so how do we determine priorities? Where would you put the call to give toward the Mishkan in a world of competing needs?

We invite you to look at an article on this general topic at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-10.html.

Parsha: Ki Tisa - Life is Complex

Rabbi Hecht and I share a synchronicity on complexity.
It's in the Nishma tagline:
Life is complex, Torah is complex etc.

As we seem to be drifting towards a new Dark Ages, people are seeking the old black-and-white solutions that made magic popular 1,000 years ago and dictators popular about 70 years ago. Perhaps that is why Roshei Yeshiva are now being invested with "rebbe"-like infallibility -an absolute anathema to misnagidic thinking!

Anyhow - in the parsha we see that aside from Levi'im, Yehoshua, and women and children - all 600,000+ adult Israelites were labelled with guilt for the "Molten Calf". And yet the Levite-produced carnage amounted to but 3,000 souls less than 1/60 the of the total- and should therefore be a nullified trivial measure by rabbinic thinking!

Hazal have explained that there was not simply ONE level of guilt but at least 3; viz.:

1. Those who sinned with witnesses and warning
   
2. Those who sinned with witnesses and NO warning
   
3. Those who sinned without witnesses
   

There is also another hierarchy:
The Eirev Rav started and instigated the sin. Some Israelites joined along and some merely witnessed idly w/o any Pinchas like protest. Thus the actual culpability for worship was limited to 3,000, but the collective guilt of acquiescence or of condoning was nationwide.

Which leads us to consider that not every guilt or culpability is morally equivalent. To say that since Andy Pettite was not 100% forthcoming at first makes him as big a liar as the Rocket or as McNamee is mis-leading and is ingenuous. There ARE degrees of guilt, it is NOT a black and white continuum. And ther are levels of honesty. While few humans bat 1.000 in the honesty department, not all are compulsive liars either!

That said: culpability is a funny thing! Many "public Jews" have railed that the world was silent about the Holocaust whilst it transpired, yet many - myself included - are silent as a slaughter occurs in Darfur.

A Hong Kong native who owns a Chinese restaurant lamented to me: Jews had a Holocaust . What about the Chinese!? Indeed he is correct. In the aftermath of the Jimmy Doolittle raid "40 seconds over Tokyo" Japanese exacted revenge on 250,000 Chinese over the next few weeks. Nanking was raped! And who in the West cares to comment!? In fact most North Americans buy the Euro-Centric version of WWII beginning at Hitler's invasion of Poland and ignore the Japanese occupation of China almost completely! [not to mention Manchuria etc.]

And even in Europe, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War were surely part of the WWII cluster of the battles of the dictators! The point is while standing idling by is NOT the same level of culpability as committing the dirty deed, nevertheless culpability there is indeed! Woe to all of us for not doing our best to protest

KT
RRW

Judaism - Which ISM triumphs?

Originally published 2/23/08, 7:54 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
It seems that every generation has its own set of challenges.

About 100 years ago - Judaism was superseded by many Jews - by Marxism/Communism/Socialism etc. It was THOSE isms that would bring about the Millennia! =- i.e Peace on Earth and all that optimistic stuff.

But it does not end with Socialism. In the Western World, most Jews genuflect to Secular Liberals as uber alles. While others go further and add Feminism or Egalitarianism to supersede Judaism/

Perhaps the most Jewish of isms to challenge Judaism is Zionism. Vesechezena Eineinu bechuv'cha leZion berachamim. Certainly Zionism is a genuinely Jewish ideal. The issue though is, Does Zionism become the be-all and end-all of Judaism superseding all the OTHER aspects?

Now that post-Zionism is upon us, we have even NEWER isms to supersede Judaism. There is of course the Kabbalism of the fringe groups that include Esther/Madonna. But even more indisious is Meshichistism or, applying an old fashioned word - Messianism. Unfortunately , the is not a brand new ism, but rather a recycled one. The idea that a human Messianic savior could supplant or fulfil the entire Torah was posited in the 1st Century CE, probably NOT by the Nazerene himself but by such apostles as Saul/Paul etc., culminating with the Nicene Creed.

But it did NOT end there. There was the Messianism of Bar Kochabe and Shabettai Zvi, to mention a few. Did it end there? Apparently not! There are STILL Jews who are more focused upon the Messiah than upon Judaism.

I would submit that there is only ONE ism to trump Judaism and I call it "Torah-ism." When you stick to the Torah, only THEN can you supersede "Judaism" per se.

KT
RRW

Opening your mouth to put your foot in it

Originally published 2/21/08, 6:17 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Why do people not recognize how to talk to someone with different a prioris, a different perspective? Recognizing a different perception does NOT mean you agree with it. What it does mean is that you can have an effective communication as you express your view. It means that you don't look like an idiot.

This issue emerges again with statements regarding homosexuality made by some religious MKs in Israel. Homosexual behaviour is clearly forbidden. I would add that much of what is permitted in terms of a gay lifestyle also presents halachic problems. For example, I recently read something about two religious men sharing an apartment while maintaining a romantic albeit celibate relationship. The problem with that, though, is that the prohibitions of yichud and of any touching may still apply; there are still halachic problems. That is not my point, though. Notwithstanding the clarity of the prohibition, one still has to know how to express the Torah view to the general populace, especially if the general populace does not share the Torah view and in fact challenges it. Dah mah l'tosheiv l'apikoris, know how to respond to the heretic. This includes stating a Torah posotion in a manner that will not allow the other to mock Torah. This demands that one understand the perspective of the other and not be seen as foolish or worse in the other's eyes.

On a certain level this is most difficult in the case of homosexuality as the Torah position is opposite the view of many in the Western World. We will thus be defined as racist or homophobic by maintaining the view of Torah. But, as such, we must be doubly careful not to add more fuel to the fire. Thus we must be extra careful about what we say and make sure that we do not create further harm to Torah.

When I first heard the recent statements made by religious individuals that the recent earthquakes in Israel were a result of Israel's liberal view of homosexuality, I was most upset. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509263,00.html

I am tired of people playing God. The gemara's call to look into one's behaviour when misfortune falls is a personal call. It tells people to look at themselves to see what they are doing wrong -- it does not mean to look at the other for reinforcement of what you already think the other is doing wrong. If you can't critique yourself, keep quiet. Further on this, see http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/katrina.html.

But then what really upset me, was the response to the statement that was also posted. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509505,00.html. Its not the response per se that bothers me but how the response makes the original statement look so foolish and, as such, thereby makes Torah look foolish. Could the MK have said that it violates Torah without mentioning that it violates nature? Isn't that actually suppose to be the Torah approach, to abide by the Halacha simply because it is the tzivui Hashem, the command of God? Furthermore, if you do want to make a point to another person based on their perspective, at least get the perspective right. I am so tired of people thinking they are defending Torah making Torah look foolish

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Orthodoxy Is More Than Ritual

Originally published 2/18/08, 12:54 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
So many people like to express their tolerance of Orthodox Jews. They will go out of their way to ensure that kosher food is available for them or to ensure that they are able to observe Shabbat -- and on a certain level that has to to appreciated -- but I am always somewhat surprised by where the line is drawn on that tolerance. In ritual matters, or what is often referred to as ritual matters such as Kashrut and Shabbat, tolerance does indeed seem to be the order of the day -- but what about other issues. I find it interesting how people who would never expect an Orthodox Jew to eat non-kosher and, as such, will do everything to respect this aspect of Orthodoxy, will simply expect Orthodox Jews to violate other aspects of Halacha that, for some reason, these people do not define as essential.

Another example seems to have surfaced in the Israel military as presented in
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3508063,00.html. I don't get it. The Israeli military will ensure that Orthodox Jews have kosher food, so why can't they ensure that these soldiers will not have female instructors? Is it because some Orthodox Jews would not insist on an absence of female instructors? Does tolerance only exist with a monolithic vision of others? There are differences within Orthodoxy, doesn't each vision, with their distinctions, deserve tolerance? For these individuals, regardless of the opinion of others within Halacha, have a right to follow their view. Is it because the military is concerned with poskim having more authority than military commanders, the concern that existed at Gush Katif? That is a most complex issue and when entering a communal structure there is a problem of differing views of Halacha circumventing the action and goal of the collective -- but that should only concern us when the actions of the collective are indeed challenged. In this case, what could be the problem with meeting the religious perspective of these individuals and ensure that their company only has male instructors?

In the end, I think that problem is in how people see Orthodoxy. As long as we are keeping kosher or privately observing Shabbat, there is tolerance. But bringing Orthodoxy to the world, voicing opinions that touch upon the general issues and ways of the world, as tolerance seems to be a forgotten value.

RBH

Baseball and Congress: Truth and Loyalty

Originally posted 2/17/08, 4:50 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
We may first wish to ask if the present Congressional investigation of steroids use in baseball is a Jewish issue. I am sure that many will say no. On the other hand any issue that involves an consideration of our values, especially when values are in conflict, must call upon us to investigate the Torah perspective on a matter. Such is the case here -- and as often the case the Torah perspective truly highlights the complexity of human life and our need to render appropriate valued decisions.

Last week, I was listening to the radio as a I drove and heard people voicing their opinion on whther Andy Pettit was right in fingering Roger Clemens on the latter's use of steroids. Many argued that Pettit was absolutely correct in telling the truth. Others argued that Pettit even should have lied to maintain his loyalty to a friend. The ones who felt that the truth was most important basically argued that morality must be maintained and lying was wrong. The ones who felt that Pettit sold out his friend basically responded that even though it may be more moral to tell the truth, you sometimes have to lie for a friend. It was at this point that I truly felt that this was a Torah issue for the Torah argument is not that you must break with morality to lie for a friend but rather that morality itself is often hard to define. Sometimes lying is the moral choice. The complexity of a situation is lost in a non-Torah perspective of the moral universe. In the Torah laws of testimony, lying is not condoned but the restrictions on testimony in various situations are intended to highlight this issue. If a testimony will not accomplish a conviction, it should not be given, is one example.

I am not saying that Pettit was right or wrong. I think it is a complex issue. What I am saying, though, is that it may be worthwhile for us to look at issues in the world to see how the Torah would direct us in those situations -- and what we may find more than anything else is Halacha's sensitivity to the complexity that is life.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Respecting Other Value Systems

Originally published 2/12/08, 3:57 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. The link no longer works.
The past week was filled with comments in the National Post (a newspaper that serves all of Canada) regarding an incident where an Orthodox rabbi did not shake hands with a female deputy mayor. Columnists in the paper found the rabbi's behaviour to be disrespectful, while many responded to these critiques with the defense that the rabbi meant no disrespect and was simply following his religious principles which should be, at least, understood in light of our concept of freedom of religion.

In following this case, two issues interested me. One was the need for individuals to learn how to relate with differing, and even conflicting, value systems. One can disagree but one still has to know the specifics of another's behaviour and what is its true message. A secular person may still find difficulties with the gender distinctions of Orthodoxy specifically, as in this case, with men not shaking hands with women, but it should still not be interpreted pursuant to the secular person's value constructs. Why a secular person may not shake hands with a person of another gender has nothing to do with why an Orthodox person may not. To live in a society of individuals with differing value systems means to understand the frame of reference of the other and know the message of a specific behaviour pursuant to this frame of reference, not the interpretor's frame of reference.

This leads me to a second issue that drew my attention. I direct you to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/10/barbara-kay-responds-to-her-pro-hasidic-critics.aspx
which is a comment from one of columnists who critiqued the rabbi for not shaking hands. To defend herself she argued that, of course, it would be wrong to be upset by an Orthodox person simply following his/her religion -- but in this case the rabbi was not simply doing this. The columnist quotes a source that states that according to Halacha there is not problem with people of different genders shaking hands. That, in truth, may be a legitimate halachic position but prohibiting this shaking of hands is also a legitimate halachic position. Of course, the columnist is not knowledgeable of differences in Halacha -- but that is also a necessary knowledge for one who wishes to deal with differing value systems. How can one understand Orthodoxy without a knowledge of machloket, disagreement? To critique the rabbi for adopting a specific halachic opinion by stating that it is not a halachic opinion is absurd -- but this columnist does not know this for the columnist does not really understand Orthodoxy. This is a powerful caveat. Even when you think you understand the other, maybe you should still recognize that you do not.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Why Have Schools Dropped the Ball re: Cantillation?

Originally published 2/10/08, 3:01 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Here is my response to a provocative post from the "Leining Group"

Soap Box time for Better chinuch:

• Why don't teachers of Humash and Tanach simply insist on reading the words with the trope from day one and teach the trope as part of the language of the Tanach?
• I think Sephardim and Teimanim do this already. FWIW, Moslems would never cite a verse from the Qur'an without its cantillation.  It's a shame we don't insist on this in our educational systems
• Also, many older editions of Siddurim and Machazorim USED to have verses from Tanach with their trope. Why was this dropped? Espeically as printing became CHEAPER
• Somewhere along the line, excellence in cantillation and diction has been dropped as priority. Why? And what can we do about it?

By way of background here is the original post:

On Feb 10, 2008 10:43 AM, myappel <myappel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Shalom Leining Group Members,

I imagine that I am not alone in thinking that the trope is really an intrinsic part of proper k'riah. There have been numerous discussions on this list regarding its role in directing proper word pronunciation, and phrase parsing. What seems to happen though, is that in the emphasis on proper k'riah and understanding, trope is deemed to be extra, and is often not taught until kids are preparing to become b'nai-mitzvah. Having taught the parasha to a number of b'nai-mitzvah, I can say that the introduction of trope at that point portrays it as a new, additional element to learn besides the actual words. I think it would be much easier if trope were taught earlier,
so children could appreciate that it really is an organic part of k'riah. I have a 6 year old son who is able to read, and has just started his study of Chumash. (He had a Chumash receiving party in school just last week.) I am inclined to start working with him on identifying trope, and showing its role in the understanding of the pesukim. Clearly though, I would approach the teaching differently than I would for a bar-mitzvah age child. My current idea is to show how the Etnachta and the Sof Pasuk, are major pauses, how that affects the meaning, and how the meshartim that lead up to these notes fill in the phrasing. This would be done with the pesukim that are being learnt in school. Any comments on this approach? Does anyone have any experience in working with early grade school-age children in teaching trope? If so, are there any other ideas that you might have about how to approach it?

Thanks,
Michael

KT,
RRW

A Funny thing Happend Today @ Lunch

Originally posted 2/7/08, 11:04 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

While lunching and munching at my food - while on the job as mashgiach - a lady entered our restaurant and asked for the rabbi. She had already tried to get the rabbi of the local shul but at about 2:00PM he was not to be found. Instead she requested of me:
"Do you know the rabbi in Monsey how heals the sick?"
I replied: "I'm afraid I do not. Have you tried calling any of the local rabbis?..."

After a brief chat it turned out that I could not help her either. It seems that her husband is very ill and no one so far has been able to help HIM.

As she exited the door I made one last suggestion: "Have you tried asking help from God directly?"

Who knew -such a novel thought!

Good Shabbos,
RRW

What should be the priorities of the Jewish community?

Originally published 2/7/08, 6:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. Neither of the links work.
An interesting exchange recently took place in the pages of the National Post (Canada) on essentially what should be the priorities of a Jewish community especially within the context of the greater community
in which we live and, in fact, within the world community. Please see:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/06/laura-rosen-cohen-the-problem-at-the-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx

and

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/07/sylvain-abitbol-and-rabbi-reuven-p-bulka-what-s-right-with-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx

Within the views of both presentations are the obvious political overtones that revolve around what is actually being done -- "we are doing that!" "No, you are not!" -- but there is the greater issue of the balance of being a self-interest group serving the group, and being the bastion of Jewish ethics attempting to present Jewish values to the broader society.

Was a regular newspaper the appropriate forum for this presentation?

What's your take?

Burkas and Tznios: The Challenge to Torah Thought

Originally published 2/6/08, 12:07 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
We would like to draw your attention some recent posts on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart, which discuss a group of frum women who have begun dressing in a manner that is similar to the Moslem Burka.

The Torah concept of the shvil hazahav, the Golden Mean, does not just present a value in some quantitatively middle approach to traits and values. If one views two poles of any one trait, one is often perceived to be better than the other. The result for many is a difficulty with having to incorporate any value of the extreme that is deemed to be negative. This is an example of such a problem for it we perceive value in a lack of sexuality, than any degree of sexuality would be problematic. The Golden Mean would then just be defined as what is permissible and so you would strive for the extreme to meet what is perceived to be the goal. Another example would be found in the female leader of ths group's desire to not speak. Define the world in two extremes, declare one holy and then you will move to the holy extreme.

The principle of the Golden Mean as the ideal behaviour and value within Torah thought actually challenges this perception. The Mean is not some quantitative statement of the middle but the definition of a new qualitative middle understanding of the value and trait. It demands sophistication in thought to define this value and trait and recognize a whole new way of understanding the trait, value and life. Tzniut is not the absence of any sexuality but a new Torah definition of proper sexuality in the same way that it defines proper Torah expression of self. That is why I translate tzniut as gracefulness. The sadness of these women's behaviour is what it states about how far we are from Torah thought and the true sophisticated understanding of God's wisdom. Their behaviour is sad for them but it is sad for all of us for it shows how weak our understanding of the sophistication and genius of Torah is in our generation.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishna Brura

Originally published 2/2/08, 10:12 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Dear Readers,

I have just completed reading the Biography of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Apparently Rabbiner Hirsch bemoaned the fact that the Shulchan Aruch[1] was in 4 parts and thereby people were not being holistic in that they neglected vast tracts of Hoshen Mishpat etc, in their behavior.

While the Mishna Brura pointedly commented on ONLY Orach Haim because he felt that this was the primary legal text for Jewish People [see hakdamah to the Mishna Brura.] [2]

There you have it in a nutshell. If you ever meet Jews who are meticulously observant in their observance of Davening, Shabbos and Pesach, - whilst also being boorish, dishonest, and downright sleazy in business - they are probably following the Mishna Brura.OTOH, if you meet well-rounded people who observe only the basics of Halachah, but are essentially honest, straightforward [glatt yosher] - then they probably pasken like Rabbiner Hirsch!

Notes:
[1] Although it is popular to attribute this arrangement to the Shulchan Aruch - It was actually the Tur who subdivided his work in 4 [actually 4 majors with Orach Haim sub-divided into 3] and into the the simanin later used by R. Y. Karo et. al.[2] Ironically, the MB himself was a Ba'al Musar and would probably "rue the day" that Jews went off in this mis-direction!

Mishpatim: Understanding Torah

Originally published 2/1/08, 1:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
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 Mishpatim. The topic is mitzvot we understand and mitzvot we don't understand. Most significantly, what we understand may actually change over time. Certain laws shich were presented as understandable in the past are now deemed not understandable. And other laws which were described as beyond human comprehension in the past and now seen as making sense. What does this indicate about the human interaction with Torah? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5755-13.htm.

Mardi Gras - Kosher or not Kosher?

Originally posted 1/30/08, 10: 25 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
I recently chatted with an acquaintance who told me he was headed for New Orleans. Knowing full-well that the major religious event in the USA this Sunday [02/03/08] was the forthcoming Super Bowl XLII - I was curious as to why he would head to NEW ORLEANS and not to ARIZONA!

My curiosity was soon satisfied when my compadre said that he was going to New Orleans to celebrate Mardi Gras and that in addition he he has been doing so for the past 10+ years. We digressed to discuss the impact of Katrina etc., but I was really curious as to how an Orthodox Jew - albeit a very Modern Orthodox Jew - would find it in his busy schedule to celebrate [inebriate?] Mardi Gras as an annual Chag.

Bishlama, if he went just ONCE, I could rationalize his action, and chalk it up to intellectual curiosity. But once he has been there and done that and continues to go for the next decade, is this not a true annual ritual?

Funny, methinks that I protest a bit too much but am I the ONLY Orthodox Jew in North America who suspects his fellows of engage in borderline, or even outright, Avodah Zara? [Oh yeah! So go ahead and mention my longstanding worship of the NY Yankees or of my intense loyalty and devotion to the Bobby Orr era Boston Bruins!] All kidding aside I was not close enough to this fellow to give him any kind of hochacha [and being a Mets fan he would not have listened to me anyway] but I really wonder where are our priorities! At least the Arizona Super Bowl is a secular Avodah Zara that probably could be justified

KT,
RRW

The Shaitl Controversy in Brooklyn

Originally published 1/28/08, 10:24 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
There would seem to be two issues involved in the shaitl controversy and part of the problem is that they are becoming intertwined thus confusing both.

One is the substantive issue itself. A request was made to remove certain pictures and this request was denied. The result was a call to boycott the store. One has to wonder what really is going on, as it would seem to be a poor business decision by the the owner of the store to alienate members of a potential market. I thus make any comments with a recognition that I really don't know what happened and it all seems so strange to me. I am though bothered because the substantive halachic issue has not been approached in what I would deem to be a proper fashion. There is a perception, by certain individuals, that these pictures should be removed. I perhaps disagree. There is, though, a proper way of approaching a halachic disagreement -- by investigating the substantive issue. What is the argument for removal and what is the argument for not removing? On what issue do we disagree? Of interest to me, within this halachic investigation, is not why I think these pictures should not be a problem, but, rather, the argument as to why they are a problem. As that stage I may still disagree but then there is a way to disagree -- as an argument in halacha leading to definitions of important concepts within Torah. From what I have read, there is no attempt to truly investigate this with halachic determinism. It may be that one finds the whole definiton of tznius and pritzus that is being applied here, by those requesting the pictures removed, to be faulty -- I have written on the subject and also find difficulty with many of the modern understandings of tzniut -- but there is a way of approaching it as a halachic issue leading to a discussion that furthers our understanding of Torah. It is the substantive issue that should be, at least, our first concern. What is the debate within Torah? Why the request? Why the refusal? Why the boycott? What are the issues under debate?

Then there is the second issue which is the rhetoric around the debate. Torah is lost as the issue comes down to the question of daat Torah and authority thereby hiding Torah wisdom. As I have written in regard to the Slifkin affair, Rav Moshe Feinstein in his hakdama to Iggrot Moshe says that one should respond to his ideas not his authority. Of course the reason for any action, in this case, is not presented and the defence becomes the argument of authority. What we lose is Torah. This is not to say that there is no argument of kavod HaTorah and the question of how he owner of the store should respond to a leading Rosh Yeshiva is not a further issues. But that also has to be treated as another issue in Torah demanding Torah study and investigation. Those defending the boycott in the extreme almost feel that even giving an argument for the request to remove is demeaning the kavod HaTorah that goes with accepting the authority. And those attacking the request in the extreme belittle the whole enterprise as another example of the dumbing down of the masses. And the problem is that the actual substantive issue is lost in the rhetoric and we have no idea of what really happened and the Torah arguments -- with which one may still disagree -- that led to the request for removal. And we are left with the arguments that emerged from the subsequent rhetoric which only lessens Torah knowledge.

Rabbi Ben Hecht