Reflections on Aveilus 3 - What is appropriate at the Shiva?

A Big Yasher Koach to Rabbi Laurence Rothwachs of Congregation Beth Aaron of Teaneck for allowing me to reprint this with his permission. This appeared as a reprint in the Beth Aaron Newsletter right around the time I myself was recently sitting shiva - RRW

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

The wise King Shlomo wrote: “[There is] a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Koheles 3:7). For most of us, learning to master the art of silence is no easy task. One can find numerous examples where our Rabbis have placed great value upon the acquired trait of silence, identifying it as a virtue worth aspiring towards.

If it is general truth that silence is virtuous, it is undoubtedly true in a house of mourning. Chazal teach that there is nothing of greater value in a house of mourning than silence (Brachos 6b). Thus, it is particularly disturbing that so many well-intentioned individuals fail to conduct themselves in accordance with this principle. I have decided to briefly outline the main guidelines regarding communication in a house of mourning. This is not intended to be a thorough analysis, nor will I attempt address the myriad of issues and complexities one may encounter in these situations. This brief set of guidelines is meant merely to lay out and concretize the ideal state of conduct in a house of mourning.

The halacha (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 376:1) prohibits a visitor from initiating any conversation with a mourner. This includes seemingly innocuous comments such as “how are you?” or “I am so sorry.” Rather, the visitor must wait for a cue from the mourner. Only then is he permitted to speak. Historically, it was not unusual to observe great Torah scholars (who in all likelihood possessed something substantive to say) enter a house of mourning, remain for a few minutes and leave without saying a word, other than the traditional recital of “ha-makom.” Such a visit should not be viewed as a failed attempt to console the mourner. Quite to the contrary, one’s mere presence and sincere expression of concern can be profoundly comforting (even to a total stranger!).

The following list of “Do’s” and “Do Not’s” is intended to serve as a short guide for one who seeks to comfort mourners in a proper and meaningful way. Not surprisingly, the Torah guidelines provide an excellent framework through which a mourner can experience grieving in a manner that is healthy and ultimately therapeutic.

“DO NOT’S”:

1. Do not try to distract the mourner from his/her mourning. Diverting the mourner’s attention is not the objective of a shiva visit and can often make the mourner uncomfortable.
2. Do not tell jokes or make jestful comments in an effort to “cheer up” the mourner.
3. Do not ask the mourner for details relating to the death. Despite our burning curiosities and, at times, confusion regarding conflicting accounts that we have heard, it is highly inappropriate to ask questions about the circumstances of death.
4. Do not ask intrusive questions regarding personal issues and family matters, even as they relate to the deceased.
5. Do not chastise or even mildly preach to a mourner who expresses anger at G-d or questions basics of belief. Do not offer explanations as to why (you believe) the deceased suffered in his life or why his suffering was purposeful. Similarly, one should never describe the timing, manner or circumstances surrounding the death as a “blessing.” These points, in particular, are the most difficult of all because, according to many, the visitors should ideally assist the mourners to be “matzdik es ha-din” (accept the decisions of G-d as just). More often than not, it would be best to save important thoughts and perspectives on suffering, theology, etc. for a more appropriate occasion, unless one is certain that the mourner will be comforted by his words. “When in doubt, do without.”
6. Do not discourage a mourner from crying, no matter how excessive one may feel it is. Mourners (during shiva) should never be encouraged to suppress their grief.
7. Do not tell a mourner that, with the passage of time, everything will return to normal.
8. Do not say to the mourner “I know how you feel” (even if you feel you really do). At times, the mourner may suggest an association between his suffering and yours, but that should never come from the visitor.
9. Do not carry on any side conversations with other visitors. Even the simple exchange of formal greetings with other visitors is inappropriate at a house of mourning (as well as a funeral). If others in the room are indulging in personal side-conversations, that does not warrant my participation.
10. Do not stay longer than necessary. If there is not much conversation taking place, one needn’t remain in a house of mourning for more than a few minutes.
11. Lastly, PLEASE do not enter a house of mourning with a cell phone that has an audible ring tone.

“DO’S”

1. Do LISTEN (without interruption) to whatever expressions of grief, concern, sorrow, anger, etc. are shared by the mourner.
2. Do show concern for the mourner through facial expressions that reflect the concern and sadness that you feel. It is okay for a visitor to cry along with the mourner.
3. Do allow the mourner to talk about the deceased. One may gently even initiate such conversation, but do not push too hard if the mourner does not respond to your initial cues.
4. Do speak about the deceased’s goodness and fine character and the positive traits that he possessed. Do share personal anecdotes that reflect the above points.
5. Do speak about how the deceased LIVED. All too often, a disproportionate amount of time is devoted to how the person died. Repeating these descriptions can be very taxing on the mourners. Naturally, a mourner will be more easily uplifted when the conversation deals with the deceased’s actions when he was alive and well.
6. Do attempt to tactfully restore a conversation that has been sabotaged by another visitor who has tried to distract the mourner.
7. Do remember that the purpose of a shiva visit is to comfort the mourner, not oneself. If one leaves a house of mourning saddened, that does not indicate a failed mission.

As I mentioned above, this brief set of guidelines is not meant to address every set of circumstances that may arise. I hope, however, that it does remind all of us that whereas it may be relatively easy to enter a house of mourning, properly fulfilling our mission is no easy task. May Hashem grant us the wisdom and strength to fulfill this great mitzvah in the most proper and effective manner.

Reflections Upon "NISHMA" - The Intellectual and the Emotional

Our flagship name is Nishma. Now same attribute this to the penultimate verse in Qohelles:
"Sof Davar Hakkol NISHMA! In parshas Mishpattim we encounter the singular event when the Children of Israel declared their loyalty to the Torah by declaring in unison: "Na'aseh v'NISHMA" While in Several other passages in the Torah the term Na'aseh is used in isolation.

Commentaries into Parshanut have delved into the implications of the term "Nishma" and the Midrash takes note of the the sequentce - That Israel specifically preceded Na'aseh with Nishma

Avodah's esteemed moderator Micha Berger and I had an exchange of ideas regarding this concept, with particular attention paid to the Philosophy, Hashqafa, and Weltanschauung of Rabbiner Hirsch.

As I termed it Na'aseh is the performance of the a given Mitzva. This can be dry and rote especially in those societies that perform normative Halachah by peer pressure without any internal feeling. Adding the NISHMA dimension can transform performance into a religious experience. FWIW Reform tried to capture the experience and suspend the performance. This high-minded approach was just that, it produced Jews in the Mind only at best. However, given the mindless performance of Jewish practice by Observant Societies, this over-reaction was somewhat understandable. Hirsch actually tried to restore Observant Judaism to its Sinaitic roots by a synthesis of both aspects. The narrow question of how this NISHMA experience is to be defined was the subject of our debate.

Micha:

(Re: Hirsch and "nishma"..) I also wonder how much the response is formal reflection in conscious thought as opposed to experiential.

RRW:

Both. It is aisi both intellectual contemplation like a RYDS [Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik] might do but also the touchy-feely kind that maybe someone like a R Shlomoh Carlebach might do.

Micha

Look how similar TIDE [Torah im Derech Eretz] and Slabodka are in terms of objective. The ideal Herr Rabbiner Doctor is cultured, refined, pays attention to his dress and the impression he creates. An emphasis on human dignity as part of Jewish expression. The Mensch-Israel. Ands what would I have to change of that to describe Slabodka's ideal alumnus? Less value assigned to cultural development -- although they valued personal creativity in poetry and music, secular education was relegated to satifying curiosity on the side. It was expected that you were well read; but nothing like a PhD.

There is a fundamental difference in how they define refinement. R' Hirsch speaks in terms of culture. Slabodka, unsurprisingly, in terms of middos. The overlap is large, but they are far from identical. I think that also underlies their difference in approach to taamei hamitzvos.

RSRH makes it about internalizing messages. And therefore when the message is unclear, he invokes symbology. Symbols do present messages in a manner where they can be better internalized. Thus the power of poetry over prose. (They also provide metaphor, and therefore can convey more than is explicitly stated. A symbol not only allows a message to go from mind to heart, it also allows the heart's message to be more fully grasped by the mind.)

Mussar looks to mitzvos to behaviorally change the person. Mitokh shelo lishmah ba lishmah via hergel. "Smile, and eventually you'll be happier." Therefore one needn't bring everything down to comprehensible terms. The human soul is understandably more complex than human understanding; the mind isn't big enough to contain itself.

This allows for an answer to the value of mitzvos even when you don't have the symbol key. ... I was thinking more of that dichotomy than RSCarlebach as a as a contrast.

KT

RRW

Source Reconcilliation

Perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of Talmudic learning is the ubiquitous efforts made to harmonize statements that seem. to obviously in conflict. It is perhaps a source for some of the anti-Talmudic diatribe found amongst scoffers, anti-Semites, etc. So pray tell why does this persistent effort to make conflicting voices agree still prevail after several Milennia? While studying a daily dose of Shulchan Aruch I ran across this statement in ChoshenMishpat 30:2

"Anywhere that we can reconcile the words of the witnesses, that they do not contradict each other, we do such reconciliation"

Thus, if the Oral Law is a tradition passed down as a form of testimony from one generation to the next, then each teacher is in a sense a testifier. And if the multitude of testifiers are in apparent conflict, and if we assume that they are based upon a commonly observed phenomenon, then we are really compelled to treat the conflicting testimony as different viewpoints describing the same thing.

Illustration: if an old-timer says that Babe Ruth was great and another states that he was a glutton - wouldn't it be obvious that he was a GREAT Glutton? :-). All kidding aside we would not take the two statements as conflicting, only as supplemental in that describe different aspects of the same man, and within their respective contexts are each quite accurate!

Another illustration. The Misha in Pesachim discusses conflicting customs re: candles in the home on Yom Kippur: In some places it is required and in others it is forbidden. Yet the commentaries agree that the motivating concern is the same: the Prohibition of marital relations on YK. Only the method of manifesting this principle differs, the application can vary according to context.

Now indeed there are times when this principle of reconciliation is out-of-bounds. And any worthwhile idea may be overused at times. Nevertheless, the essential approach is sound: that we presume that

1. The testifiers are likely to be honest
2. That differences may be attributed to how something is described but the facts described are presumed to be identical.

KT
RRW

The "Assumption" Divide

Recently, I was drawn into a discussion, over at Garnel's blog (http://www.garnelironheart.blogspot.com/), specifically at the post on Goodness and Righteousness, that developed into a dialogue (or, rather, mutual soliloquies) on the issue of science and religion or rationalism and religion. The dialogue reminded me of a paper that a friend of mine, with a Ph. D. in Philosophy, once submitted a paper to Nishma for publication which we, unfortunately, did not get a chance to yet publish.

In it, he proceeds to describe the distinction in frame of reference between the Greek perspective on life and the Jewish one. What I found most significant in his presentation was his perception that never or rarely the two shall meet. What he argued was that someone with a Greek perspective just simply cannot accept answers or ideas that are based upon the acceptance of the Jewish perspective. And similarly, those with a Jewish perspective simply cannot accept a similar insistence on the Greek perspective. Perhaps, using the terminology of Rabbi Sholom Carmy, there is a secular bias and a religious bias -- and this bias should be recognized in any discussion that brings those with differing frames of reference together.

Let me give an example. One may look at something in the Torah and argue that this clearly proves the Torah's Divine origin. This argument is then presented to someone with a secular bias -- and it goes nowhere. What may ensue is a fight over the specific issue -- but that is not really the point in conflict. The one with the secular bias just simply cannot accept the conclusion of the one who maintains that this statement in the Torah proves the Torah's Divine origin because he inherently rejects that assumption. Any real discussion must therefore focus on the realm of the assumption and why one is insistent on it. That actually may yield an interesting dialogue and discussion.

This is similar in regard to someone arguing that something in the Torah proves that the Torah (chas v'sholom) is not of Divine origin. The argument is really not going to get anywhere because the one that this person may be trying to convince already accepts this position inherently and as an assumption. So the argument may surround this particular area of the text but that really doesn't accomplish anything. The real focus should be on the assumption -- not just why it is made but its repercussions. I, for example, recognize that in accepting the Divine origin of the Torah I am also accepting a presentation of a world with very different rules of nature that would seem to apply. Maybe this historical world had the same basic rules that we have today but clearly there was much more Divine intervention and open miracles. As such, the world, practically, functioned within a very different perspective. The result for me is that while I may not fully understand what a specific text may be saying as I don't really understand this perspective found in the ancient world, I also cannot deny that something unique may have happened. The point, as my friend put it, was that I accept a view of time and history that maintains that different epochs may have different basic rules. This is why I can believe there was a Sinaitic Revelation thousands of years ago while any open Revelation is not existent today. The secularist, though, accepts, as my friend put it, a democratic view of time and thus cannot accept that one period in history or time is fundamentally different in natural laws from another. With such and assumption. no arguments of Sinai effectively would work. You have to go back to the assumption.

I invite you to view the discussion over at Garnel's blog but I also invite you to comment on this, what I term, The "Assumption" Divide. Its not the arguments nor the conclusions that is at the essence of many debates but the assumptions that are not even articulated. Can you articulate yours?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Let's Face it -- We are different

Something just dawned on me. We always speak in awe and praise of the Jewish nation for having survived for close to 2000 years without a land. What other nation has even been able to survive outside their land for a minimal amount of time? But has it ever occurred to us that this very anomaly of our existence may also be the reason the other nations of the world cannot understand us? What kind of nation is it that can survive 2000 years without a land? To the nations of the world, this ability to survive without a land may only be seen as an indication of something quite abnormal about us. It may actually be the reason that the other nations just can't seem to understand us. We are different -- and this difference may be the seed of what is not liked about us.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

A Qabbalistic Prayer for Forgiveness Before Bedtime

Introduction to Qri'as Shema al Hamittah - The prayer Before Sleeping

Master of the Universe!
I hereby Forgive all who those who:

• Angered me or
• Anteganoized me or
• Who sinned against me -

Whether Against:

• My body or
  
• My property or
• My honer or
  
• Anything else that is mine

Whether:

• Against his/her will or
• Wilfully, or
• Negligently or
• Wantonly,

Whether via:

• Speech or
• Deed or
• Deliberation or
  
• Fleeting Though - Passing fancy

Whether during:

• this incarnation or
• another incarnation

On behalf of any Fellow Human Being.
And May no one be punished on my account...

-RRW

The Two Faces of Alien Worship Pt. 2

RRW:
: OTOH alien worship in terms of a "HOW" to worship is not directly or
: so obviously prohibited. Yet the torah unambiguously condemns such
: a practice.

Micha Berger:

This is the whole issur of derekh emori, no?

One can say that conceptually it's a subspecies of AZ, but it's a
different one of the 613.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

FWIW Three other mitzvos come to mind

1. Matzeiva
   Even maskis
   Asheira

Which are all prohibited EVEN in the worship of HKBH. That is the form is tainted regardless of the Target - Similar to "Eish Zara" IOW the HOW is rejected even if the WHO is Kosher.

-RRW

What's New in Nishma Cyberspace - May 28/09

In addition to the blog, you may also wish to look at these other items from Nishma in the world of the web.

On the Website
http://www.nishma.org

1) New
Hollywood and Sinai
Star Trek

Elsewhere in Cyberspace

1) www.Koshertube.com

Videos of Rabbi Aaron Selevan's recent shiur on Shavuot

Part One
http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&Itemid=1&id=2212

Part Two

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=4&task=videodirectlink&id=2213

Don't forget Rabbi Hecht section
in Koshertube's Rabbis We Like

2) Avrum's blog

Rabbi Hecht has a guest post on Capital Punishment
http://avrum.net/2009/05/15/a-must-read-judaisms-take-on-capital-punishment-by-guest-author-rabbi-benjamin-hecht/

***************
Don't forget to join the new Nishma-Minhag
a Yahoo advanced group discussing Jewish customs

with Rabbi Wolpoe

Last 10 posts by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

Some of Rabbi Wolpoe's Posts on the Web

Last 10 posts by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

• Is Pesach “Passover” or Something Else? - April 28th, 2009
• Fifteen Steps to the Seder - April 24th, 2009
• How could we STILL be Slaves to Pharaoh in this Day and Age? - April 21st, 2009
• Psak from Primary Vs. Secondary Sources - April 12th, 2009
• Purim And Tisha b’Av - The Liturgical Parallels - April 5th, 2009
• Eizehu Meqoman – A Centrist Solution - March 29th, 2009
• Labeling Rabbis by Affiliation - March 13th, 2009
• The Legacy of Demonization - March 3rd, 2009
• Siyyum Ta'anit - July 1st, 2007
• Sukkah Sensitivity - June 29th, 2007

Cigarettes and Shabbos - Humour

Cantor Richard Wolberg:

"I have seen very frum smokers who claim that they are addicted and cannot stop. Then, like magic, as soon as Shabbos arrives, they put down the cigarettes "

RRW:
That's easy to explain: Shabbos brings with it a neshima yesiera! :-)

-RRW

Mishnah, Braisso, and Tosefta - Pt. 1

I recently chatted with R Hillel Danziger at a reunion of "Hartford" people

I posited this model: AIUI before Rebbe there was a "Sea of Tannaitic statements" Rebbe (OK his predecessors ;-) redacted these statements into a coherent whole. Rebbe organized them by seder, maseches, and chapter. One of his biggest tasks was to decide what NOT to include.

After Rebbe finished, Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi (H)Oshiya said: "wait a minute! A LOT has been left out!" And so they gathered alternate or supplementary collections of their own. And thus we have different anthologies of Tannaitic material

-RRW

A Black Woman's Journey to the Rabbinate...

The title of this post is the title of an article on CNN.com at http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/21/north.carolina.black.rabbi/index.html
and it is worth looking at -- but maybe for different reasons than one might at first think.

What hit me about the article is this woman's statement that while she was not born to a Jewish womb, she was born Jewish. I am sure we have all met a ger, a convert, who has made this type of statement -- and in many ways we find the events of this person's life intriguing and even mysterious. It just seems that there are some people who, almost from the point of birth, are searching to be Jews. They talk about how they gravitated towards Jewish friends even as a child and that the stories and lessons of Judaism touched them right from the beginning. Many of us see such individuals as Jewish souls born into non-Jewish bodies who have found their way home.

The fact is, though, the people who we define within this mold are, basically, gerim k'Halacha, converts who converted according to Halacha who are personally observant of Halacha. What is to be said in the case of this woman. Without entering into the question of whether her conversion would be accepted by Halacha (of course, applying lenient standards that, while often ignored today as a legitimate position in gerut, nonetheless are within the spectrum of halachic opinion)m how do we respond to her view of herself as a person who seems to always have been searching for Judaism, of course her view of Judaism? Is there something in a specific soul that could attract a non-Jew to Reform Judaism? And how would we look upon such a non-Jew? While maybe not technically Jewish, would this person not still meet the standard of a righteous Gentile?

I have always found these stories, of individuals who have felt that they were Jewish before even knowing what Judaism is, to be most interesting. I must admit my initial reaction is inherently one of skepticism -- yet when I hear the details of their lives, I often find myself amazed by their uncanny inherent connection to Jewishness that seems to be within them before they even could articulate the concept of Jewishness. What can I now say about this woman? She seems to have also exhibited a similar attraction to Jewishness -- yet this attraction has left her outside the pale of Torah. Did she just miss the mark in following this innate feeling inside her? Is the feeling truly real? Or was her feeling actually some type of inner motivation that took her to something that, although not truly Torah, would be a fine lifestyle for someone not really Jewish -- even as she might think it is?

I have always found the stories of non-Jews, who seem to have been internally motivated to become Jews, fascinating. Now I am wondering how to look at this story. I would appreciate some ideas.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Is Sefirat Ha'Omer 1 Mitzva or 2

Here is what I posted several years ago :

The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as 1 Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. ... Case Closed.

http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/search?q=sefirat

But it is NOT closed Here is more information gained with a bit of persistence and a lot of assistance!

See Sefer Hamitzvot of the Rambam Mitzva 161 and his reference to Mitzva 140.

Kol Tuv,

Yitzchok Zirkind

And From Micha Berger

See

http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav67-mt.htm and
http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav68-mt.htm

It's a machloqes. Rabbeinu Yerucham says that the qorban and counting weeks is one mitzvah, and counting days another. Therefore, counting weeks today is a derabbanan zeikher lamiqdash. The Rambam (asei 161) refers back to asei 140, counting yoveil, as well as points to the fact that there is only one berakhah to show that it's one mitzvah. He also notes that we do mention the weeks daily, unlike the Baal haMaor who only required numbering the week weekly.

In either case, R' "Meish" (Moshe) Taragin discusses it at length. Ayin sham.

The Rambam assumes that tefillah shel rosh rosh einah me'aqeves es shel yad and v.v. proves that they are separate chiyuvim. (Tekheiles and lavan within a single mitzvah of tzitzis is the exception.) I know this is the converse aand not the contrapositive, but does holding that counting days and counting weeks are mutually me'aqvos force one to count them as a single one of the 613?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

And so the Beat goes on. The Count goes on, Too

-RRW

Reflections on Aveilus 2 - Mourning and Comfort - Mixed Messages?

Getting up from Shiva and reflecting...

• Is Shiva about healing the wound?
• Is it about mourning?
• Is it about adding suffering to the bereaved?
• Is it about processing grief?
• Is it about exacerbating a tough time?
• Is it about the mourner?
• Is it about the deceased?
• Is it about the comforters?
• Is a mourner pampered?
• Is the mourner entertainer-in chief?

How is a mourner after shiva to feel? Relieved? Or once the comforters leave is the letdown provide even more intense grief - lacking the well-wishers?

Should the mourner discuss:

• The deceased?
• The relationship WITH the deceased?
• The mourner's feelings of shock and grief?
• The kindness of the consolers?

...

• If a mourner needs to be comforted then why does halachah oppose virtually every creature comfort?
• If a mourner has lost joy why is joy restricted?
• How come a consoler can bring the mourner joy via his favorite meat balls but the simple joy of bathing is restricted?

-RRW

Varikra and Catholic Israel

See Leviticus 4:13
"When the entire congregation errs..."

Hazal equate the following :

• "The entire congregation errs" ==> The Sanhedrin errs.

Now, In the absence of any Sanhedrin it makes sense to go back to the original text. And it follows now to imply the converse - Viz.

• The Sanhedrin ==> The entire Congregation of Israel.

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

Illustration:
In the USA Congress - or in Canada the Parliament - Represents all of the people. In the absence of such a representative body then all of the people represent themselves.

RRW

Sefer Shmiras Halashon - A Protoype for Other Works?

Originally posted on Avodah during Hol Hamoed Passover

Shmiras Halashon deserves a longer review, but on Chol Hamo'ed I'll be briefer...

The sefer Shmiras Halashon is a tremendous compendium of machshava on why NOT to speak lashon hora, motzie sheim ra, and rechilus. Many may criticise it as "over-the-top" but when taking in small daily chunks as recommended by the limud yomi it makes a profound impact upon one's Machshava

I would likve to divert attention from the MAIN and most obviosu thrust of the work to two "fringe benefits" that imho make this Sefer a real treasure and a pardigm.

Treasure: Aside from the mussar and preaching against gossip, etc. I found the author's Call for Ahavas Yisroel even MORE compelling. It is really difficult to be 100% vigilant in our speech yomam volayla. However, we CAN turn our hearts around and learn to love our fellow Jew and to give him/her the benfit of the doubt "betzedek tishpot amisecha" As such this work's exhortations to love each other strikes a resonatn chord with me

Paradigm: This sefer is a treasury of Aggadah, Midrash, and Zohar on its topic. Bialik's Sefar Ha'Aggadah attempted to do the same for a number of subjects. However, it is quite limited in depth. The Shimras Halashon is a re-arrangement and a re-sequencing of classic Midrashic style texts the way the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch did a resequencing of Talmudic and Halachic Texts.

I would therefore love to see more sefarim based upon this model addressing different topics. The number of topics coulb bes nearly infinte but here are some
anyway:

1. Iyyun Tefillah
2. Chaggim
3. Business ethics [eg Moznei Tzedek, fair treatment of customers]
4. Managment Ethics [lo sallin p'ulas sachi, fair treatment of employees]
5. Bikku Cholim
   
6. Nichum Aveilim
   

Just to name a few. And the Halachos need not be repeated. The ikkar goal would be to produce a systematic, and topical compendium of Aggadah, Midrash and Zohar in the same mold as the Shemiras Halashon, only the topics would differ.

The Sefer Mishnah Brurah has set a paradigm in designing modern Halachic comentaries [e.g. Badei Hashulchan] The Shmiras Halashon could do the same for machshava

Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Bike Riding on Yom Tov - A Halachic Perspective

For a fascinating article on Bike Riding on Yom Tov see

http://www.judaic.org/halakhot/yomtob_bicycle.htm

Avot DeRabbi Reuven - Four Halachic Perspectives

There at least 4 perspectives on how to view a halachic norm:

1. The Rationalist
2. The Fundamentalist
3. The Consensus-Finder
4. The Rebel

The Rationalist sees everything as either making sense or as nonsense. He tends to see that Halachah should not play dice (similar to Einstein - G-D does nto ply dice with the univserse)

The Fundamentalist sees Halachah as a fixed target. Stable, but rigidly unyielding. He sees Halachah as another set of Tablets written in stone.

The Conscensus-Finder relies on peer review. He takes a wait-and-see attitude. Like R Joshua at Tanur Achnai, proofs don't matter, votes do.

The Rebel takes an ipcha mistavra point of view. He sees everything opposite of the common wisdom. He is creative and stimulating, but also divisive and needing to call attention to himself.

Let's play this game with a recent query regarding riding a bicycle on Shabbat:

Rationalists will concur that this is a close analogy to existing principles and equate it to musical instruments: Just as guitars are forbidden lest they be adjusted, so too with bicycles.

Fundamentalists will protest against anything but a rigid narrow construction of the text no matter how mindless. So musical instruments set no precedent re: bicycles even if the analogy were otherwise perfect

Consesus-seekers will see which team above wins the vote and follow THAT. They defer their ego reasoning to the greater whole (somewhat analogous to Catholic Israel). Therefore, If most posqim agree with the Rationalists, so do they.

Rebels will do the exact opposite of consensus seakers no matter how unreasonable that position might be in order to be "original". They will make convincing cases to show that the conventional wisdom is "wrong". Sometimes they serve as a check and balance. At other times they seek attention. Therefore, If most posqim agree with the Rationalists, so they protest it and find the few dissenting voices.

Eclecticism

Someone suggested that Qitniyyot was a foolish custom day one so why bother? OK if Rema is in error let's ask the following questions re: deviations from Talmudic fundamentals:

1. Why mourn during Sefira?
2. Why observe Lag Ba'omer?
3. Why prohibit polygamy?
   

• Why do we not follow Talmudic mores in mourning e.g.
• Covering the head
• Turning over the bed
• Baring one's shoulder.

The Rema says that nonGlatt is acceptable. The mechabber R Y Karo who permis Qitniyyot has a very strict version of GLATT. Much stricter than American Glatt

So are those kvetching re: the "humra" of Glatt the same ones kvetching re: Qitniyyot? If so do they look for eclectic leniencies and favor every lenient position?

The Dialectic of Capital Punishment

Avrum's blog recently had an interesting discussion/debate on capital punishment and Nishma's Rabbi Hecht was asked to submit a guest post on his view of the Torah's view. This post is available at :

http://avrum.net/2009/05/15/a-must-read-judaisms-take-on-capital-punishment-by-guest-author-rabbi-benjamin-hecht/

Reflections on Aveilus 1 - The Holocaust

In learning Hilchos Aveilus I came accross sh'mua q'rova and r'choqaHow was this manifest at the end of the Holocaust? Unknown yahrzeit's were assigned to existing fast days. But how about K'ria following the news that a parent had perished? How was this accomplished?

-RRW

The Spirit and the Mind

I just again heard a case of this dilemma of choice. I remember when a close friend of mine mentioned this to me over twenty years ago. He had a choice. He was a relatively new ba'al teshuva and he was at a crossroads. Should he join the charedi world or the modern Orthodox world? He knew the latter was more intellectually challenging and even more intellectually honest but the former had a spirit that was not found in the world of MO. He chose to enter the charedi world. I keep hearing this issue arise again and again. Intellectually, people like my friend recognize the intellectual correctness of the thoughts of Modern Orthodoxy -- yet they still become members of the charedi community, knowing full well that they are thereby compromising the intellectual backbone of their commitment to Torah. Yet they feel that they must do so -- for they need a spirit in their Torah observance that is just generally not found in the world of MO. And this keeps happening again and again.

To be honest, I have met charedi individuals that do meet the highest standards of intellectual struggle, curiousity and honesty. There are possibilities of intellectual heights in the charedi world -- but it is not forthcoming. Any system that places great restrictions of the permitted conclusions must, by definition, restrict intellectual movement. The truth is that these charedi individuals who meet these high intellectual standards somewhat are restrained in their world. They have their reasons for their viewpoints and often it also a result of their intellectual honesty.

Yet finding this elusive spirit that attracts many individuals into the charedi world, even at the expense of their intellectual honesty, is elusive in the MO world -- and the question must be: why? One problem is that while many know what is being alluded to, this spirit is hard to define. Still is it inherent in MO that there be this lack of spirit or is there a problem within the practice of MO that yields this lack of spirit? And if it is the latter, how do we correct it? Do we want to correct it?

Last year, Nishma published an article that, to some extent, dealt with this problem. The article can be seen, on line, at the Blog of Garnel Ironheart at http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-approach-to-modern-orthodoxy.html
The fact is that this issue keeps arising again and again. It is time to start thinking about this lack of spirit in the world of Modern Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Changing Religions

It seems that many people are now "changing religions." See, for more details,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/27/changing.religion.study/index.html.

The real question is, though: what does it mean? We are told that Yitro went through every religion in his world before he found Torah. That, though, was because he was in search of the truth. Is the truth also what all these people changing their religion searching for? Or is it something else? And then what is it that they are looking for? And is their goal a good one or not?

There are people who may argue that change reflects instability. There are those who would argue that it actually reflects a dynamic personality. The point is that the phenomena of changing religion is not as isolated as one might think. The question, though, is what does it all mean?

Getting closer to home, how much does this national phenomena impact on the movement of individuals both into Orthodoxy and out of Orthodoxy? When I read this article, I wondered what it meant -- but not in terms of the general community but regarding phenomena that we face in the Jewish world.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

What Happened to Hakeret HaTov?

Recently someone asked me the following question. In a discussion with a major Rabbinical figure from the Charedi world, he noted how much significance this individual gave to the concept of hakeres hatov, acknowledging the good that has been done for you. This individual thus wondered why that Charedi world, as such, did not demonstrate hakeres hatov to the State of Israel, and especially its soldiers, for protecting them and assisting them in the furtherance of their Torah lifestyle. If the value was so significant to them, and it would seem to be from the views expressed by the Rabbinic individual in regard to another issue, why was it not applied by the Charedi world towards Eretz Yisrael? Its one thing not to celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut but wouldn't they at least integrate into their lives some aspect of hakeres hatov? (I would direct you also to http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2009/04/unfair-compariso.html which raises the problem within, albeit, somewhat of a different context but further indicates the problem in regard to Yom HaZikaron.)

I should, perhaps, point out that the person who raised this issue is not one who is totally unconnected to the Charedi world. He, in many ways, is supportive of it. Nevertheless, he is bothered by this question especially in that he heard a major figure express the significance of this concept albeit in a different context. I wonder, though, about the matter more generally. I find that hakeres hatov is generally not really stressed not only in the Charedi world but in the general Torah world. Its not only in regard to Israel but in general why is hakeres hatov not stressed? I see people doing almost everything to lessen their school tuitions or their synagogue dues and then extend themselves to give tzedakah to some institution to which they have no connection. Not to take away from the value of tzedakah but why aren't they thinking of hakeres hatov and extending themselves in regard to tuition, dues and other matters from which they benefit? I am not commenting on the final conclusion of such a process but simply the absence of this very process.

So my question is broader. If this Rabbi maintains the significance of hakeres hatov, why isn't he getting it out to his community in general? Why, in general, is this value not truly stressed? But then there is the specific question that I was asked, why is it not expressed towards Israel? I look forward to your comments -- in regard to all aspects of these questions including its assumptions.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Baruch Dayan HaEmet

It is with deep sadness

that we inform everyone

of the passing of

Ronald Wolpoe a"h

brother of Nishma Blogmaster,

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

HaMakom yenachem etchem b'toch shaar avelei Tzion v'Yerushalayim

Review of Koren-Sacks Siddur

A review, by Rabbi Hecht, of the recently published Koren-Sacks siddur appeared this week in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto). The review can be accessed at
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200904281582/New-Koren-Sacks-Siddur-has-many-innovations-but-is-it-for-you.html

Can't call it swine flu?

I was watching the CBC Evening News tonight, a major newscast in Canada, and they had a segment on how different countries around the world are responding to this potential global outbreak of swine flu. There is real concern. In Honk Kong, they are wearing masks at the airport. In Great Britain, there seem to have been cases in England and Scotland already. And then came the final report from a correspondent of the CBC in Israel. In a certain way, I felt it was nice to see Israel included, in such a report, like any other nation. There have been two individuals quarantined in Israel but health officials do not really think it is swine flu -- but that is not why Israel was included in this global report. The report was about how the big issue in Israel seems to be what to call this disease. The pig is "unclean" and, as such, the deputy health minister has asked that this flu be referred to as Mexican Flu, given that the preponderance of cases are now in Mexico.

I thought that perhaps this reference to Israel was going to have something to do with an advancement in treating this disease -- but no -- the issue in Israel was what to call it. And what anyways is the problem of referring to a disease through a reference to its origin in pigs? Here is a world joining together to combat a disease that potentially can be very dangerous -- even China has stated that its going to play ball unlike previous situations of global health concern -- and the issue that the world sees halachic Jews concerned about -- and don't worry, the world recognizes that not all Jews share this concern, only the crazy religious ones -- is what to call this disease because we can't call it swine flu because pigs are tamei, unclean. Gee, I would think that we would want to call it swine flu because doesn't naming a disease this way really show that the pig is tamei?

Do we have another name for chilul Hashem? The world is suppose to see us as an am chacham v'navon, a wise and understanding nation. Maybe we should act that way.

This is simply embarrassing!

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Two Faces of Alien Worship Pt. 1

Some phrases can be quite ambiguous E.G. Slow Children at School
Does this refer to children who attend a school for the intellectually challenged?
Most likely it means X go SLOWly! - CHILDREN are attending or leaving SCHOOL

When in English we say "alien worship" We may imply two different points

1. Worshipping Aliens (I.E. alien gods) which makes the Alien the Object of worship
   Or
   
2. Worshipping in an Alien-matter which means alien is an Adverb describing HOW we worship.

Both aspects are discussed in the Torah

In the Ten Commandments we are admonished not to worship anyone but GOD alone. "Thou shalt have no other gods before ME." Thus the proscription for alien worship known in rabbinical literature as Avodah Zarah. AKA Avodat Ellillim / Gellilim / Kochavim flows from basic Torah principles. - And as we see zara means alien.

OTOH alien worship in terms of a "HOW" to worship is not directly or so obviously prohibited. Yet the torah unambiguously condemns such a practice.

The first condemnation is in the passage describing the terrifying and tragic
Deaths of Nadav and Avihu (Lev. Ch. 10). They were burned in front of THE LORD by bringing in an "eish Zara" an alien fire

Now there is no question they were worshipping the ONE TRUE GOD. This is confirmed and reconfirmed 3 more times in the Torah itself!

The point was the how, the nature or the technique of their worship was "alien". This alien worship is termed "eish zara" worshipping GOD by the same means
As idol worshippers.

In Deut. 12:30 we are admonished not to investigate and pursue the techniques of the surrounding pagans. It can mean not worshipping idols. I prefer to read this as not using idolotrous techniques to worship GOD. The very next verse actually describes their TECHNIQUES as abominations.

How does this map out in reality?

• Worshipping hare krishna would be avodah zara.
• Worshipping GOD using hare krishna chants would be "eish zara"
  
  
• Worshipping Buddha with Tibetan Chimes - Avodah Zara
• Worshipping GOD with Tibetan chimes -Eish zara
  
  
• Christians worshipping Jsus of nazareth using an organ - Avodah zara
• Jews worshipping GOD with an organ (and thereby emulating Chrisitans) - [you fill in the blank]

WHOM we worship is prime.

But the ends don't justify all means. HOW we worship the TRUE GOD has also halachic (and possibly aggadic) boundaries.

KT
RRW

Beliefnet

As I often do, I took a look today at the news sources mentioned to the left on the blog. One caught my eye -- an article, I thought, on the Torah view of torture. This subject actually came up recently in my conversation with someone and the conversation touched upon many topics dealing with the extent that one can force another to act in a proper fashion (obviously as the one applying the force defines it). The question touched upon the rights and power of the individual and those of a beit din and discussed many different cases from the extent that one can be forced to eat matzah on Pesach night to methods that can be applied to extract information that could be life saving, the present general case where torture is applied. So, knowing the extent of the issue, I was interested in what this article would say.

To my surprise, I found myself directed to a blog dealing with Jewish issues on a website entitled Beliefnet, which offers something touching upon nearly all religions including, it would seem, secularism. The actual piece to which I was directed presented a short section from a greater article on the topic by Rabbi Michael Broyde. As such, what was presented obviously reflected much thought -- as do all of Rabbi Broyde's articles -- yet the synopsis presented in the blog did not give the topic its true justice. All we read were Rabbi Broyde's broad conclusions without the full presentation of the thought that must have led to these conclusions. Neither did we have the chance to see the many sub-issues and permutations of the topic that Rabbi Broyde, no doubt, had considered.Well, its only a blog you might say. But what really got me was the way that the author of this blog described Rabbi Broyde. No mention of him being a Chaver of the Beit Din of America, remarkable talmid chacham and posek but rather he is just mentioned as a member of the faculty of Emory Law School. This secular position is also clearly an achievement but, in regard to question of Torah law and ethics, is that the description that you most care about? I would want to know his status in Torah.

I then decided to take a short trip around this website. I am not sure how I feel about a multi-faith website even thought the Jewish parts of it seem to be independent. Of course, Judaism is also bundle together into one platform and anyone who knows my views on the subject knows that I am adamant about the need to defined the different denominations of Judaism as independent entities with their own parameters. Otherwise one has confusion. One doesn't expect a Methodist and a Catholic to be similar so why is there this assumption that there must be some common link between the views of Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism? But isn't this the whole problem with this type of website in general. By grouping all religions together, there is this impression that all religions really share some common point, be it a common desire for spirituality or some common ethic. The differences between the religions is thus only in some method of presentation or in other minor issues. Viewing Judaism from the perspective of generic religion creates a parameter on its teachings and theories. To truly understand Torah it must exist within its own perspective. That is a problem I have with sites that try to group all religions together and then with sites that try to group all branches of Judaism together. Am I against all unity? Of course not. But everything has to be seen and understood within its own world -- and tying Torah to all religions limits it.

And a further example of this is describing Rabbi Broyde solely by his secular credentials. I really don't care what a professor at Emory Law School has to say about the Torah view of torture. I do, though, have an interest in hearing what Kvod Harav Michael Broyde shlita has to say.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Tazria/Metzorah: Childbirth and Circumcisions

Originally published 4/24/09, 11:34 am.
To many, the insertion of the mitzvah of mila, circumcision, in the presentation of the laws of the yodedet, the woman who gave birth, may just seem to be a narrative coincidence. Once the Torah was taking about the birth of a boy, it also mentioned mila. The commentators, however, find it bewildering. What does one have to do with the other?
Rabbi Hecht addresses this issue in an Insight from 5756 available at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-14.html.

13. The Phylactery of the Arm

The question is the same in both cases: “If a man does not have an arm, is he still obligated to wear the teffilin of the head?”

But in the first case, the question is asked by a student in his yeshiva’s beit midrash.

In the second case, the question is asked by a man whose son lost his arm in a car accident.

In the former case, the student will be directed to the first mishna in the fourth chapter of Menachot. He will read that the teffilin of the head and the teffilin of the arm stand alone as separate entities. If he is interested, he will pursue the matter further. He will look at TB Menachot 44a and, most likely, will be intrigued by the gezeira presented there by Rav Chisda. He may consider looking at 36a, which discusses a connection between the teffilin of the head and the teffilin of the arm, and Rashi and Tosfot there. He will see that Sefer HaChinuch (421, 422) and Sefer HaMitzvoth (12, 13) count two separate Biblical obligations. This should be enough for the student: he has his answer.

In the latter case, the question is asked not out of curiosity but out of necessity. A practical issue has presented itself. The father would much rather not be asking the question. He gains no joy from the process of the investigation, feels no pride in finding an interesting Tosfot on 36a, no satisfaction in the hunt. When the answer is given to him, he does not bask in the sensation of a completed circle, a mystery solved. Instead he asks a follow-up question that the student did not ask:

“Can I help him?”

When you think about the case in real terms, this corollary halachic question flows naturally from the previous question. With only one arm, the process of putting on, taking off and wrapping the teffilin of the head could be challenging; what, if anything, must be done exclusively by the wearer of the teffilin to fulfill the mitzvah and permit the recitation of the bracha? When presented with this question, the student might ask, “How did I miss that?” But, unsolicited, will such a question be asked in the world of the modern beit midrash? (I refer to the ‘modern’ beit midrash not to intimate a study hall decorated with state-of-the-art computers or flat-panel television screens, but to distinguish between the beit midrash I have witnessed in reality and the longed-for beit midrash of the gemara and Jewish lore.)

And even if the question is asked, will it contain within it the emotion evident in the father’s question? Will it be weighed down by the density of human frailty and mortality? Will it press forth from the mouth of the student solemnly, directly, quickly? Will the student know the relative insignificance of this one question in the face of all that is lost, will be lost, cannot be regained? And will the student recognize the importance of this question, its essentiality? Will the student ingest this duality and breathe it?

Or will the student hide behind the walls, tables, books and see only a game, a Mensa challenge of the mind, a contest to determine who is wisest, who is sharpest, who belongs and who does not?

We have a religion now that is so largely untouched practically: we do not have a Sanhedrin; we do not offer sacrifices to God, neither daily nor as a means of individual penitence nor on holidays; we cannot observe the majority of the laws pertaining to ritual purity; et cetera. How can we study the minutia of tzara’at or the idiosyncrasies of Pesach Sheini and feel involved? How can we expect that this detachedness won’t infiltrate even the most practical matters of Halacha today?

There is a contention that a person cannot attain knowledge of something until he/she has experienced it. There is, obviously, some validity to this argument. But it can also serve to excuse indolence or cowardice in thought. No one can experience everything. But the brave, steadfast soul will know far more than can be marked by its experiences.

There is no need to disregard the aspects of Judaism that now appear irrelevant. The opposite: to ignore these significant facets of Orthodoxy is to consciously dismiss crucial parts of a unified system. But we have a tendency to allow the ‘dead’ parts of our religion to remove the life from the ‘living’ parts when in fact it should be the reverse.

In every halacha, every moral lesson, every story in the gemara, there is life—tragedy and ecstasy—but it’s our choice whether and to what extent we choose to experience this life. If we choose to avoid the reality of what we study, if we turn Halacha into a theoretical exercise, we do a disservice to the system. It is not designed to exist, certainly not designed to thrive, isolated from nature and society. But even more so, we do a disservice to ourselves. If we avoid the truth of what we learn while we are in the holy structure of the beit midrash, we will form a disconnect between the (apparently) abstract world of the study hall and the concrete world outside. The beit midrash should prepare us for existence but it is powerless to do so if we do not let the words of Torah enter and affect us.

Torah can be used to uplift or distract or, even, to entertain. But to use Torah in this manner shows a great disrespect for the Halachic system. It is not meant to provide us with a world to turn to when the world we live in proves difficult. If you cannot bring your shoes with you into the beit midrash, there is something wrong with your shoes. And if you have encountered something distressing, sit it next to you while you learn. Perhaps you will find that you have been investigating that very issue in the gemara you are studying. And you will wonder, “How did I miss that?”

A New Response to "Kosher Sex"

When Rabbi Shmuely Boteach's book "Kosher Sex" hit the stands, it raised a commotion. Most people thought the problem many rabbis had with the book was the content. Yet when many rabbis were asked the question of what bothered them about the book, their main problem was not the content but the form. This is not to say that every rabbi agreed with Rabbi Boteach's views but rabbis are familiar with arguments -- and the question of halachically proper sexual conduct is just another question in which machloket, as we often find within the Halacha is to be expected. What bothered many rabbis, though, was the form. A book about proper sexual conduct is simply just not within the realm of tzniut. This is a topic, as the gemara informs us that is to be discussed in private. A public discussion of the topic through a book is a problem.

The only problem with this, though, is that many are not receiving proper Torah teachings on this important subject. Even in private, people are reluctant to talk about sex with their rabbis or Torah teachers, be them male or female. A book, for many, is the only way that they will broach the subject -- in the privacy of their own readings. This, of course, is still not the best way to learn but from a book, one can also learn an attitude that will possibly lead to being able to discuss this subject with another. Notwithstanding this problems with Rabbi Boteach's book, there are reasons for why a book on the subject is necessary. Was it possible for Rabbi Boteach to have written the book in another way that would have made it more acceptable?

Well it seems that there are individuals who believe that the answer to that question is yes -- and the result is new works in Israel on the subject of proper halachic sexual conduct in marriage, with the involvement of poskim. See
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562897794&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. The only problem I still have is I am still not sure if these new works really tackle the issue that people had with the form of Rabbi Boteach's book. As I have not seen these new works, I cannot really answer that question but there would seem to be indications in this article that they may not have. The only problem with evaluating the new works based on this article, though, is that the article -- much like Rabbi Boteach's book -- was written for the general audience and thus may have tried to be more risque than needed. This, I think, was also the problem with Rabbi Boteach's book -- he was trying to show that Torah Judaism is 'with it' and is the best sexual morality for everyone -- based upon the yardstick that everyone wants to apply. The demand should be how to meet the ideals of Torah regardless of whether everyone likes these ideals or not. For that there is a need for a book -- but specifically for the frum who simply want to know what the Torah wants. In this regard, these new works may be exactly what is necessary -- and the fact that they are sold in sefarim stores and not large, commercial bookstores may be the best indication that they are a solution because they were written for us.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Psak from Primary Vs. Secondary Sources

The idea of midgets on the shoulders of giants goes back at least to medieval times. In a monograph by R. Dr. E. Kanarfogel [RDEK] on Progress and Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz, this topic came up several times.

I want to focus on a Ri Migash. The Ri Migash is quoted as recommending that rabbis are better served by using Gaonic works [iow secondary sources] than by going back to the Talmud itself. This is a classic “midgets on the shoulders of giants” argument. The problem: The Ri Migash disregarded this rule himself.

Well, as the article goes on to say, such programmatic or formulaic statements are meant to be disregarded at times at the very outset. In other words, no one takes such generalities as absolutes.

What was the Ri Migash REALLY saying? One explanation is simple, unless one is a master of the entire Talmud, it is better to use secondary sources. Secondary sources have already pre-digested the entire corpus and can provide a more holistic point of view on any issue.

As such, only the GREAT masters of Talmud have the right [maybe the obligation at times] to go back to the Talmud to render Halachah.

The Rosh seems to recommend that approach for everybody. In my humble opinion, the Rosh simply over-estimated the gravitas of the average or mediocre rabbi. Few of them are CAPABLE of using this methodology. Many that do, are likely subject to errors of omission or perhaps even hubris.

I would posit that even for masters of Talmud, it is a slippery slope to go back to the Talmud if it overturns precedent. That is because once a GREAT rabbi uses this method to overturn Tradition, it becomes fair game for other rabbis - of admittedly lesser stature - to follow suit. Given that a certain Poseik has the RIGHT to go back to the Talmud does not mean he should exercise that right. Why? He is opening up a Pandora’s box for other rabbis. Hachamim hizaharu b’divreichem or in this case be careful of what techniques you use lest you send others on a problematic path.

Now I can think of two caveats where going back to the Talmud is desirable:

1. New case law. Issues that have little “common Law” type precedent.
2. Urgent issues or Hora’as sho’ah issues. E.G. to help out Agunos.

And in fact most Poskim do factor in Rishonim and Acharonim even when they do go back to the Talmud. It is always a good idea.

The Aruch Hashulchan limits himself in p’sak. Re: the issue of al nekiyyus Yadyayim he favors the logic of the Rashba to use the original formula of al netilas Yadayim and not to be meshaneh the matbie’a to al nekiyyus. But he submits himself to the rulings of the Rosh and Tur. This might be due to his down-to-earth humility. Or perhaps he sees precedent as binding in a way analogous to that of Common Law. This is the technique favored by Ashkenazim for through the period of Rema.

Shach YD 1:1 ratifies this. Lo Ra’inu IS a Raya in the realm of Minhag. Introducing new practices problematic is contra-Tradition. The fact that women Halachically are ABLE to slaughter does not mean we should change the Minhag to allow them to slaughter. Why not? Since it is a time-honored tradition it would be a break with common Law Precedent and a repeal of settled case law “to do so.”

If you were to ask why did Ashkenazim refrain from permitting women to slaughter? Was this due to some misogynist agenda? The answer is according the Levush - it is due to women being subject to fainting. This kind of G’zeria is common to the Talmud. Something goes wrong, the Hazal see it as a potential problem in the future and they make a g’zeira not to do it in the future [e.g. see Hullin re: omitting Mayyim aharonim might lead to eating hazir]. Primary sources would have ignored this g’zeira. So did Bet Yosef - probably because they did not have this as a precedent in Sephardic communities.

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

Mendel Hirsch on the Jewish State

Forwarded with permission
Sobering thoughts about the condition of the SPIRITUAL State of Israel Today.

"The following is from Dr. Mendel Hirsch's commentary on the Haftoroth. Dr. Hirsch was the eldest son of RSRH. The selection below comes from his commentary of the Haftorah for Shabbos Chol Moed Pesach pages 592 - 593. ( Written in 1896 I.L.)

"So that even if to-day, through some miraculous chain of events, Palestine were to be placed at the unconditional disposal of the Jews, and they could return to the "Land of their Fathers" and found an independent state there: nothing, nothing at all, would be gained as long as the causes have not disappeared which once brought about the downfall of the state and the destruction of the Temple, yea which made that downfall unavoidably necessary for the preservation of Judaism and thereby Jewry.

A Jewish National body without Jewish spirit would be, and remain, dead; a Jewish State, that does not, in making the laws of the Torah a reality, present a picture of the realisation of the eternal laws of justice and love of one's neighbour based on the sound foundation of purity of morals, would be a still-born creation, and irretrievably doomed, to dissolution, even as it was thousands of years ago. But this is just by way of parenthesis!

Gutn Mo'ed
RRW

Rabbi Hecht: Guest Post for Garnel Ironheart

We invite you to look at a guest post, entitled The Two Loci of Orthodoxy, by Nishma's Rabbi Hecht on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart at http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2009/04/guest-post-by-rav-benjy-hecht.html

The Challenge of Kitniot

Let me first say that I am not, by presenting a link to this article, advocating this position of kitniot. While I understand why many people find the halachic insistence on following the minhag of kitniot problematic, I still feel bound by halachic requirement to observe this minhag. Yet, at the same time, I also recognize that there is a process for change, albeit slowly and over an extended time, within certain parameters within the halachic system. To me this process begins with radicals who when they first present their viewpoint are not of the mainstream -- but whose viewpoints over time may eventually extend to the mainstream. That may be what is happening with the minhag of kitniot. I cannot be one of these readicals for I do not believe that the minhag can be easily dismissed and do not share the halachic arguments of these individuals who do believe that the minhag can be dismissed within the guidelines presented. But they do. And that is how Halacha works. Over time the new viewpoint may gain more backing but that is not to mean that one originally opposing the new viewpoint is simply to be dismissed for not being responsive to a problem or accepting a new view. One must do what one feels is right. Change starts with people who really believe that this new view is the proper halacha. It is only when more people accept the feeling that this is the proper halacha, not simply that it is the halacha they wish, that halachic movement occurs. I cannot allow kitniot because that is not the way I understand the halacha but I can believe that some people believe it is -- and I can recognize that over time more people may think like that and this new viewpoint will spread.

On the new view in Israel regarding Ashkenazim who eat kitniot, see http://www.forward.com/articles/104483/

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Kadesh u'R'chatz - 14 steps or 15 steps?

At the beginning of the Seder, we chant Kadesh uRchatz. Many Haggadot have this arranged as 14 steps and others have 15 steps. The key difference is: Motzi-Matzah? Are they two separate steps or one compound yet single step?

Arguing the merits of Motzi-Matzah as either a single compound step or as two distinct steps has some value. However, I will ignore the intrinsic aspect of Motzi-Matzah and come up with a completely extrinsic reasoning. How is the number 14 significant vs. the number 15?

The number 14 has its merits. 14 is the Gematria of Yad - Hand - it could correspond to mighty Hand. However I can think of no connection to "steps." Can you? How about the number 15?

Well,

1. the Temple of Old in Jerusalem had 15 steps.
   
2. For each step we have a special Psalm hence ther are 15 Shir Hamaalot- song of ascents or steps
3. The same term - Ma'alot - are used in the preface to the song Dayenu. "Cama Ma'alot Tovot Aaleinu!" This indicates that each step from Ilu hotzianu is mentioned. There are actually 14 verses in Dayeinu, however there are 15 separate steps enumerated in the summary that follows. The last step an allusion to the Temple i.e. the Bet Habechira.
4. There are 15 terms of praise in Yishtabanc [Source: Tur]
   

It is clear to me that the number 15 is magical this night - and indeed in general - as a significant number of steps in ascending.

This leads me to believe that the number must be 15, not because I am convinced that Motzi and Matzah are definitely two separate steps, but rather that it is highly suggested by the entire structure of the Seder that steps would match some magical number. In this case that magical number is most likely to be 15.

True, 14 can be made into a special number. The echod mi yuodei'a ends at 13, and therefore perhaps making 14 a special number would add to it a bit of symmetry or completion. However, it is far more likely that the concepts of steps requires 15. This theme recurs too often and is to entwined and enmeshed within the haggadah itself to ignore. While the eating of Motzi and Matza does take place concurrently, the separate, individual brachot suggest TWO separate steps - albeit accomplished simultaneously.

Conclusion:
There are 15 steps to the Seder, Motzi and Matzah are therefore separate.
QED

First Posted on the Avodah list @ Aishdas.org on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:46:27 -0500
(c) 2001 Richard Wolpoe

Join new Nishma-Minhag

Click to join Nishma-Minhag

Seder Strategy - Getting There without Dragging

Every family has different goals for their seder. Some want to stay up late some want to eat early. Some want in depth discussion. Most focus on kids, but many have few kids in attendance.

Briefly here is my strategy.

1. Keep the Seder moving.
2. Have everyone take turns reading
3. Liberally translate key passages
4. Sing as much as possible. - Keeps people awake and adds energy.
5. Limit in depth discussions to 1 or 2 key points per seder
6. Yet still allow kids to ask a lot of questions.
7. Ask a few difficult questions to ponder w/o necessarily resolving them
8. We go fast through Hallel and Nishmas while reciting but singing whenver possible.
9. Aim to get to 4th kos by about 12:30 am and sing the songs at the end as we start drifting off into sleep.
10. "Rotate" singing echod mee yodei'a and chad gadya by going in a form of round
    

Zissen Pesach
RRW

If 80% of Israelites died in Egypt then...

If 80% of Israelites died in Egypt during makkas hosech... Then How did Hashem let wicked people like Dassan and Aviram survive?

The simplest answer is:
Hashem didn't smite all wicked Israelites per se. Rather HE smote those who were so immersed in Egypt (mitzrayim) that they wouldn't leave for Israel.

Thus the chessed n'urayich of Yormiyahu is "Lechteich acharai bamidbar". The zechus was the willingness to forgo Egypt and follow Hashem into the wilderness. It did not preclude that amongst those who left there were those with OTHER character flaws.

Sometimes in a crisis it is that ONE essential character trait that overshadows other failings to the point that one earns redemption. And conversely, one fatal flaw may way heavier in a given context. Those Israelites not ready to leave Egypt might have been left alone had the Exodus not forced the issue!

Zissen Pesach
RRW

Sefira and Temimot - Back to Front

Note this post has been moved to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/message/16

Zissen Pesach!
RRW

How can we make a blessing on the counting of the Omer?

Following the destruction of the Temple, the Counting of the Omer is Rabbinic in nature. This can be deomonstrated as follows:

The Torah states to count following the offering of the Omer. Since there is no offering anymore there cannot be a Torah Level obligation to COUNT days following an event that no longer takes place!

Nevertheless, even many Rabbinic rituals do trigger a blessing. Therefore, there would be every reason to count with a blessing EVEN nowadays.

However, outside Israel every day is construed as doubtful. And when in doubt we do NOT bless (S'feik brachot lehaqeil). This is because the commandment to "NOT take the NAME of thy GOD in vain" any doubtful blessing is verboten. So even when you see the Talmud itself requiring us to bless on the Omer, then logically we would have to presume that this requirement is tied to Israel or any land in its environs that has no doubt. And therefore we, in North America for example, remain in doubt, and when in doubt don't bless?!

Zissen Pesach!
RRW

How is Psaq defined In the Absence of the Sanhedrin?

There are many models on this. Best resource books is Menachem Elon's "Mishpat ho'Ivri" As best I understand Professor Agus's approach; post hurban halacha is analogous to "Common Law" iow based upon legal or judicial precedent. Therefore any decision without providing reasoning behind it carries little weight AS PRECEDEMT. My experience is that most posqim subscribe to this Agus Common Law Model - some to a greater degree than others. My favorite posqim - viz. Beth Yosef, Rema, kaf haChayyim and Aruch haShulchan predominantly use this method.


But of course this is more complex because sources include Talmud etc. Which is not exactly Common Law. There is also "minhag" which has a big impact in certain areas of Hoshen Mishpat.

When I was @ Ner Israel in Baltimore some talmiddim of Rav Ruderman ZTL stated that his beqius in Teshuvos was advantageous in Psaq based upon his ability to cite precedent; - as opposed to other posqim who relied upon their interpretations of Talmud which often may be speculative or debatable. And FWIW - many codes are laden with Shu"T. The Sha'arei Tehuva, Pischei Teshuva, Darchei Teshuva and Bar Ilan CD are all products of this methodology.

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

Es Hashem ...Tira - Es llerabbos Talmidei Hachamim

A while ago I suggested on the Aovdah list that we should revere "gdolim" collectively and not so much individually. Baruch. Shekivanti! Read on.

Source: En Yaqov hamefoar pesachim 22a pp. 53-54

Shimon/Nehemyah ho'Amsoni arrived at es Hashem Elokecha Tira and gave up on darshening "etin" Odd sheba R Akiva lerabbis talmidei hachamim.

The peirush states that due to k'vod shmayyim hoKamsani stopped. R Akiva includes Talmidei Hachamim as follows

1. Yehi k'vod rabcha k'mora shamayim.
2. Power of missa: viz. she'nechishasan neshichas nachash.
3. Yeish meforshim that this drasha led to R Akiva's brutal martyrdom! (Besheim Iyyun Ya'aqov)
4. Rebbe Akiva was talking about the general category of Talmidei Hachachamim and not regarding any individual talmid Hacham! (Implying that is OK) said in name of Hasam Sofer!
   

This last peshat dovetails with my statement on G'dolim; respect that class of people but we may legitmately quibble with any individual Talmid Hacham (respectfully!) on any given opinion.

Zissen Pesach
RRW

Applying Shared Fate and Shared Destiny

A few months ago, Rabbi Hecht wrote an article, in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto), regarding Jews who protested again Israel's recent intervention in Gaza. (This article can be seen at http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/1285/53/.) In response, Jews who did protest challenged his assertions against them, arguing that anti-Zionist views have always been prevalent within the Jewish People and that they are no different than their predecessors who identified strongly as Jews yet were anti-Zionist. Zionism and Anti-Zionism though, Rabbi Hecht responds in his latest article in the Jewish Tribune, is not the issue. The issue, applying the words of the Rav, is shared fate and shared destiny.

To view this latest article on line, go to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200904011515/Applying-shared-fate-and-shared-destiny.html

Parshah: Leviticus, Sacrifices, and Dialectic

Perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of the Torah is the qarbanot - the sacrificial cult. The Rambam champions a rationalistic approach very in vogue with most moderns. OTOH The Ramban has a multi-level approach that includes a massive dose of spiritual symbolism very popular with Mystics. RSR Hirsch embraced this symbolic approach in his own commentary and modernized it to the sensibilities of the 19th Century. The Ritva defends Rambam from attacks by Ramban. This is most fascinating because Ritva was the key student of Ramban's most famous student. He goes on to show that Ramam was not as "anti-sacrifice" as he appears to be at first glance.

Thus the dialectic is thus:

• Thesis: Torah/Ramban pro-sacrifice
• Antithesis: Prophets/Rambam questioning the sacrificial cult
• Synthesis: Ritva answering Rambam's attacks.

This fascinating overview is culled from the opening article by the late great Nechama Leibowitz OBM On Vayikra/Leviticus. I highly recommend this give and take as she cites original sources. Note: This Ritva is in the further study section.

Zissen Pesach
RRW