R Mordechai Breuer on Adar-time Repetitions

מרדכיברויאר

מקראותשיש להם הכרע

א
מנהג מקובל בקהילות האשכנזים לקרוא שתי פעמים את הפסוקים שבמגילת אסתר,
שנוסחם נחשב ' מוטל בספק'. קוראים "להשמיד להרג ולאבד", וחוזרים וקוראים
"להשמיד ולהרג ולאבד ")אסתר, ח,' יא(; קוראים " ואיש לא עמד בפניהם", וחוזרים
וקוראים " ואיש לא עמד לפניהם ")אסתר, ט,' ב.
( בכך מבקשים לצאת ידי הספק
שנתעוררביחס לשני הפסוקים האלה: כי הסופרים האשכנזים כותבים במגילה "להרג",
"בפניהם"; אולם כבר הורה בעל מנחת שי, שהנוסח הנכון הוא "ולהרג ","לפניהם." משום
כך קוראים את שני הנוסחים האלה בבחינת " הילכךנימרינהו לתרווייהו:" קוראים את
מהשכתוב במגילה וחוזרים וקוראים את מה שראוי היה להיות כתוב במגילה.
מקורו של הנוסח האשכנזי המוטעה - "להרג ","בפניהם "- הוא במקראות גדולות
דפוסויניציאה רפ"ד-רפ"ו. מהדורה זו הוגהה בידי יעקב בן חיים בן יצחק בן אדוניהו,

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

mega10_broyer.pdf

http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega10_broyer.pdf

Shalom,
RRW

Tz'ni'ut re: a Woman's Niddah Status

It seems a davar pashut that nowadays we bend over backwards to avoid revealing a woman's Niddah status.

Yet in the days of the Mikdash, her status had to be public knowledge, in order to avoid contaminating Hallah, for example. Kohanim to know her status re: mishkav and moshav.

So when did this attitude change? How?

Shalom,
RRW

Jews Play Texas Hold 'em in "Court" Battle

Playing For A Higher Authority: The Inside Story Of Beren Hoopsters' Kiddush Hashem | JewishPress

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/playing-for-a-higher-authority-the-inside-story-of-beren-hoopsters-kiddush-hashem/2012/03/07/

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

Jews sometimes play better IN court than ON court <LOL>

Shalom,
RRW

What Kind of Uncle was Mordechai after all?

Ask anyone, How were Mordecai and Esther related, and the answer you are sure to get is: they were uncle and niece. However, a look at the relevant verse in the Megillah (2:7) shows that they were cousins ("his uncle's daughter"). Whence did this misconception arise? How did it develop? Does it have any foundation in the sources? These are the questions we shall address below.

Indeed, this misconception is very widespread. ..

Dr. Ari Zivotofsky
Gonda Brain Research Center


http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/purim/ziv.html

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

The Text of Esther tells us that Mordechai and Esther were first cousins.

Josephus, etc. Suggest an uncle and niece relationship

The Talmud states they were husband and wife.

Shalom,
RRW

Reflections upon an Overlooked Chapter

Guest Blogger Doug Aronin

*****

The chapter we usually overlook: a pre-Purim reflection

The chapter we usually overlook: a pre-Purim reflection Because most of us enjoy the satiric genre commonly known as "Purim Torah," we too seldom have the opportunity to engage in serious study of the Book of Esther, usually called simply the Megillah (though in fact there are four others).  That's too bad, because the Megillah, studied carefully, has a great deal to teach us.   When we think of the story recounted in the Megillah, our attention naturally turns to the dramatic course of events leading up to the climactic confrontation between Queen Esther and the wicked Haman, which ends with Haman's execution (Esther 7:10).  But Haman's death does not end the Megillah's story.  We still have three chapters to go.   In Chapter 8, Mordecai and Esther appear before King Ahasuerus, reveal their relationship and enlist his aid in preventing the scheduled extermination of the Jewish people. The king cannot annul the decree permitting their enemies to attack them, but he allows them to attack their enemies in turn, and his officers aid them in the ensuing battles.  Chapter 9 tells the story of the Jewish victory in those battles and of the consequent establishment by Mordecai and Esther of the holiday of Purim as a perpetual celebration of that victory.   End of story, right?  Not quite.  We still have Chapter 10.  Its three verses make it one of the shortest chapters in all of Tanakh.  (Off hand I can think of only one chapter -- Psalms 117 -- that is shorter.) And the reason for including it in the Biblical text is not immediately apparent.  As translated by JPS [except for the words in brackets], that chapter reads as follows:     

1. King Ahasuerus imposed tribute on the mainland and the islands [of the sea]. 2. All his mighty and powerful acts, and a full account of the greatness to which the king advanced Mordecai, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia. 3. For Mordecai the Jew ranked next to King Ahasuerus and was highly regarded by the Jews and popular with the multitude of his brethren [Heb. rov echav]; he sought the good of his people and interceded for the welfare of all his kindred. 

This chapter seems out of place.  It's not part of the Purim story, so what's it doing here?  The third verse, the last in the Megillah, could be read as a sort of "happily ever after" line, but what about the first two verses?  Why do we need to know that the king's mighty acts were recorded in the Annals (more familiarly translated, by Artscroll among others, as "chronicles") of his kingdom?  And what possible purpose is served by the chapter's first verse, which tells us of the tribute [Hebrew mas, which can also mean tax] the king imposed on both the land and the islands?   The third verse, though it seems less out of place than the first two, appears to be telling us more than we need to know in this context.  At least one of its phrases, moreover, if translated correctly, seems at first reading to detract from Mordecai's stature rather than enhance it.  The Hebrew phrase rov echav (somewhat ambiguously translated as "the multitude of his brethren" by both JPS and Artscroll) is translated more precisely though less commonly, as "most of  his brethren".  That translation is consistent with the view of the classical commentator Ibn Ezra, who explains that no one in a leadership position will be accepted by everybody, since some are likely to be jealous; and with the Midrash, brought down by Rashi, which asserts that some of his contemporaries criticized Mordecai for spending time with the affairs of the kingdom when he should have been devoting that time to the study of Torah.   It seems to me that these three verses may be a little easier to understand if we contrast them with the story of another Biblical figure who had earlier found himself in a similar position.  Mordecai was not, after all, the first Jew to become the most powerful courtier of a Gentile king; that distinction belongs to Joseph, who was appointed to a similar position by Pharaoh (Gen. 41:37-46). Even if we hesitate to accept at face value the Midrashic depiction of Mordecai as the preeminent Torah scholar of his generation, it is reasonable to assume that any Jew of his time would have known the story of Joseph.  When he found himself unexpectedly promoted to the second most powerful position in the Persian empire, Mordecai might well have looked to Joseph's experience for guidance as to the best way to conduct himself in such a position.   If Mordecai indeed sought guidance in the story of Joseph, he most likely would have focused on the cautionary tale at the end of Parshat Vayigash (Gen. 47:13-27).  Having stored up for Pharaoh during the years of plenty all the surplus grain in Egypt, Joseph had secured for Pharaoh what amounted to a monopoly on bread.  At first the Egyptian people could pay to receive an allotment of the stored grain, but eventually they ran out of money (47:15).  Joseph then demanded their livestock as payment until that too ran out (47:16-18).  At that point, the people offered to sell Joseph their land, which was the only possession they had left.  In return for working the land, they would receive four fifths of what they produced,but the remaining fifth of the produce would belong to Pharaoh as the owner of the land.    Joseph, apparently, was not shy about claiming credit for this arrangement: "So Joseph gained possession of all the farmland of Egypt for Pharaoh, every Egyptian having sold his field because the famine was too much for them; thus the land passed over to Pharaoh." (Gen. 47:20, JPS translation)  "And Joseph made it into a land law in Egypt, which is still valid, that a fifth should be Pharaoh's; only the land of the priests did not become Pharaoh's."  (47:26).   Joseph's ingenuity no doubt earned him Pharaoh's gratitude at the time, but rulers are notoriously fickle.  At some point after Joseph's death, the Torah tells us: "A new king arose  over Egypt who did not know Joseph." (Ex. 1:8, JPS translation)  Commentaries differ as to whether he was truly a new king or the same king going in a new direction, and whether he really did not know about Joseph or merely pretended not to know.  In either case, however, it's noteworthy that nowhere does the Torah suggest that the Egyptian people forgot about Joseph, or even pretended to forget.  It's likely, in fact, that they remembered all too well that he was responsible for their serfdom.  So when the Egyptian king decided that it was in his interest first to subjugate the Jews and later to seek to annihilate them, it was easy for him to recruit a nation of willing accomplices.   That is, unfortunately,  a story repeated many times throughout Jewish history.  Jews in exile have frequently served as middlemen of various types, standing between Gentile rulers and their peasant subjects.  Other peoples' kings have often used Jews to initiate or carry out unpopular policies, and then to serve as convenient scapegoats when popular anger at those policies passed the breaking point.  Some kings, to be sure, were grateful and did not forget their Jews' loyal service in the face of peasant rage.  But all of them were mortal, so sooner or later a new king would arise who did not share that gratitude.   In light of those experiences, some Jews contend even today that, as long as we are in exile, we should leave worldly affairs to others; Gentile politics is no place for a nice Jewish boy (or girl). It's not hard to imagine that some in Mordecai's time took a similar position. Perhaps that was the reason that it was only "most of his brethren" who approved of Mordecai's actions in his new position; there was a minority who felt that it was inappropriate, or perhaps dangerous,  for him to occupy such a position.  Maybe that minority, in an attempt to persuade Mordecai to change his mind, even pointed to Joseph's experience as a justification for their hesitancy.   If they did make such an argument, then Mordecai obviously did not accept their counsel.  By holding high office, he was able to help his people, the Megillah's last verse tells us, and most Jews approved of his decision.  The course of events leading up to his elevation, moreover, suggests another lesson as well: when decent people avoid the messy realm of public affairs, there is no obstacle to the elevation of Haman or his counterparts in other centuries.  Jews, unfortunately, have seen that scenario play itself out with depressing frequency.   I'm not suggesting that Mordecai learned nothing from the Torah's depiction of Joseph.  But what he learned was not to stay out of Gentile politics at all costs but rather to proceed with caution, and perhaps with humility (which was not Joseph's strong suit).  Joseph,  the Torah suggests, did not hesitate to take credit for initiating policies that reduced most Egyptians to serfdom.  Pharaoh was the beneficiary of those policies, but he does not appear to have had any active role in formulating them.  In the eyes of the Egyptian people, in all likelihood, their serfdom was Joseph's fault   Mordecai, according to the three verses of Chapter 10, was more careful.  When it came to imposing a tribute on the provinces and islands of the Persian empire, he stayed out of it, letting the king  take the initiative.  He pointed to the king's own chronicles, moreover, as the arbiter of achievements, perhaps relying on the typical kingly penchant for taking credit for everything that goes well.    Like Joseph, Mordecai did not hesitate to involve himself in affairs of state.  Unlike Joseph, he took some precautions to avoid becoming a lightening rod for his royal master.  With the aid of such precautions, he was able to use the influence of his office for the benefit of his fellow Jews while limiting the risks to which he and they were exposed.   On Purim we celebrate a particular victory over particular enemies at a particular point of Jewish history.  But if that were the sum total of what Purim represents, then it's not clear why we would still be celebrating it.  After all, Jewish history is full of enemies who sought to destroy the Jewish people and did not succeed.  Indeed, one such enemy rules today in the same country in which Haman came to power -- and that enemy, as this week's news reminds us, seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, the better to kill us with.   But Purim celebrates more than a single victory over a particular enemy.  It celebrates the Jewish people's survival, against all odds, through centuries of exile.  Jews survived not by indiscriminately seeking power nor by adamantly avoiding it, but by adapting, skillfully but cautiously, to the changing tides of history.  Perhaps Chapter 10 was included in the Megillah to remind us that neither a single victory, nor the holiday created to celebrate it, is the end of the story -- that the story, indeed is not yet over.    A joyous Purim to all.   

Douglas Aronin

Signs of the Times

Kitzur SA 141:8 [tr: Goldin]

At night it is forbidden to read the Megillah before stars appear even if one is in great distress on account of the fast.

But one may have some light refreshments before the megillah is read, such as coffee and the like, in order to alleviate somewhat the weakening of the fast

Fn 15 source: ... Magein Avraham 11

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

Local Modern Orthodox bulletin:

Wednesday March 7th - Taanit Esther:
Fast begins at 4:59AM, Fast Ends at 6:29PM
(One should not eat until after Megillah reading)

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

'Nuff said? <Wink>

Shalom,
RRW

Hiyyuv of P. Zachor for Women

Questions:
1. Do women have any obligation in Miitzvat Z'chirat Amaleiq - mid'oraitto or midrabbanan?

2. Assuming that they do, are women able to fulfill their obligation sans going to shul to hear P. Zachor? IOW would a "Z'chira b'alma" suffice?

3. Any sources that would help to clarify this one way or the other?

Shalom,
RRW

A Positive Side to Loshon Harah?

 Recently, I saw the following article on gossip on CNN
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/18/gossip-may-have-social-purpose-study-says/?hpt=hp_c3
describing the social value of gossip. I wondered what this says about loshon harah.

The fact is that this article actually just points to the inherent complexity of the laws of loshon harah and the problem in the modern day desire to simplify this complex halachic area. Gossip per se is not loshon harah. The latter is a very specific form of gossip that is forbidden. There are times where gossip, although I would not use this term, is not only permitted but mandated.

Maybe the problem is with this word gossip -- for that implies saying something just for the purpose of saying it. The reality is that information about a person that it would be necessary for another person to know -- as this lack of knowledge could be harmful -- should be shared. A hard rule never to talk about another is simply wrong. What this article may show is that that the motivations for gossip that may be inherently human, like many other human drives, has its place. Halacha just demands of us to know it.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Atheists At It Again

Remember the Battle of the Tunnel from 2010...
see http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/12/battle-of-tunnel.html
and 2011
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/11/battle-of-tunnel-part-2.html


well the Atheists are at it again, this time with a twist, targeting Moslems and Jews.

See
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/atheist-group-targets-muslims-jews-with-myth-billboards-in-arabic-and-hebrew/?hpt=hp_t3

I really don't know what to say. YKVK on the billboard clearly bothers me but how to respond?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

P. Zachor: Zecher/Zeicher

Parashat Tetzaveh - Yosef Peretz

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/tetzaveh/peres.html

To sum up:

* R. David Kimhi mentions two methods of pointing which he observes in Sephardic manuscripts: zekher and zekher

* The disciples of the Vilna Gaon disagreed about how their Rabbi used to read this word in Parshat Zakhor, whether with a tzere or a segol.

* Because of uncertainty as to which was correct, the Mishnah Berurah ruled that z-kh-r Amalek should be read twice, once with tzere and once with segol.»

-------------------
What does your shul do?
What makes more sense to you - to repeat or to NOT repeat?


Shalom,
RRW

Gesher Ha-Chaim Available On Line

Weekly Freebies: Gesher Ha-Chaim | Hirhurim – Torah Musings

http://torahmusings.com/2012/02/weekly-freebies-gesher-ha-chaim/

« I asked him whether he preferred Gesher Ha-Chaim or Pnei Barukh, which was later translated and published by Artscroll. He liked Gesher Ha-Chaim better because it doesn't just give multiple opinions (some say this and some say that) but tells you which you should preferably follow. »

Shalom,
RRW

The Dating Game - 2

Previously we wrote in
NishmaBlog: The Dating Game
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2012/02/dating-game.html


How Daniyyel claimed that 490 years will transpire from Mikdash to Mikdash. Subtracting 70 years for the Babylonian exile, that leaves 420 years. We have a firm Tradition that Bayyit Sheini lasted 420 years.

Scientific Historians tell us that about 586 years transpired

The first Temple was destroyed by
N'vuchadnezzar in 586 BCE
2nd Mikdash was erected 70 years later in 516 BCE
And
2nd Mikdash was destroyed in 70 CE

So how can 420 = 586?

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

Response -

Here is a cute model to help explain how we may view the "dichotomy" with greater flexibility

L'.mashal -
In football 60 minutes takes 3 hours

In basketball 48 minutes takes 2.5 hours

Nimshal
I'm guessing here too - that 420 of Bayyis Sheini took 580 years because it was counting ONLY the years it actually [fully] functioned. EG when the Greeks occupied it, it was a "time-out" and the clock stopped

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

There is also a hypothesis that the 480 years in M'lachim, from Exodus to Sh'lomoh's Mikdash, was about 200 years too long and had to be made up some how.


Shalom,
RRW

Love Your Students - Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran

A young teacher described this episode which occurred early in her teaching career:

"One beautiful Spring morning when I arrived at school, I was surprised to see a youngster waiting at the door. 'It's locked,' he said sadly. His expression brightened as I began to fumble for my keys. 'You're a teacher!" he exclaimed in obvious delight.

"As I slipped the key into the lock and opened the door, I looked at him and smiled. 'What makes you think that?' I asked him, amused and pleased in no small measure by his reaction.

"He looked directly into my eye and spoke softly but with respect. 'You have the key.'»


Teacher! Love Your Students! - Judaism - Israel National News

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11300


Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran serves as vice president of communications and marketing of the Orthodox Union's Kashruth Division. His most recent book is "Mediations at Sixty: One Person, Under God, Indivisible," published by KTAV Publishing House. He is the author of "Kos Eliyahu – Insights into the Haggadah and Pesach" which has been translated into Hebrew and published by Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem.

Shalom,
RRW

Massorah and Beit Din Hagadol

The power of Torah sheb'al Peh [TSBP]


הלכות ממרים פרק א

א בית דין הגדול שבירושלים--הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה, והם עמוד ההוראה, ומהם חוק ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל, ועליהם הבטיחה תורה: שנאמר "על פי התורה אשר יורוך, ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך--תעשה" (דברים יז,יא), זו מצות עשה. וכל המאמין במשה רבנו ובתורתו--חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת אליהם, ולהישען עליהן

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


R Akiva was in Yavneh. Was he on "Beis Din Haggadol"?


מסכת מכות פרק א


א,יא סנהדרין נוהגת בארץ, ובחוצה לארץ. סנהדרין ההורגת אחד בשבוע, נקראת חבלנית; רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר, אחד לשבעים שנה.

רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבה אומרים, אילו היינו בסנהדרין, לא נהרג בה אדם לעולם; רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, אף הן מרבים שופכי דמים בישראל.

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


Apparently not

Hypothesis

Only after the Hurban and the dissolution of BD Hagaddol did the need for a direct chain of individuals become important to our M'sorah. Before that it was perpetuated by the anonymous 70 Z'keinim of each generation.

EG See Iggeres deRabbenu Sh'rirah Gaon for further elaboration.

Shalom,
RRW

The marriage crisis and why singles today don't want to commit. - by Rabbi Benjamin Blech

«The simple truth seems to be that people just don't seem to want to commit. And I have my own theory for this contemporary sorry state of affair.

I know my research is only anecdotal and I have no proof to back up my claim but I think that rather than a new cultural aversion to the state of matrimony there's something else going on here.»

Too Many Options
http://www.aish.com/d/w/Too_Many_Options.html?mobile=yes

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

IMHO - This is the Nissayon of Affluence. A more depressed or repressed society would need to depend more upon marriage and companionship to make do.

Shalom,
RRW

The Dating Game

Many of us have fun on dates. Some of us have fun with dates. Some of us date ourselves - remember hula hoops?

Without using spectrometers and doing carbon-dating we still have fun with dates.

Since George Washington's Birthday is February 22, and since Lincoln's Birthday is February 12, it's only fair to mention that GW was actually born on Feb. 11. Strange date is it not?

Then again what about the Great October Socialist Revolution? It took place on November 7. This is probably because the February Russian Revolution took place in March. Now after all one needs to March to make a Revolution

«The February Revolution (March 1917) was a revolution focused around Petrograd (now St. Petersburg).»

Russian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

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

FDR declared that December 7, 1941 is a "date that will LIVE in infamy." But Admiral Yamamoto wired the Imperial Japanese Navy or the Emperor boasting about the IJN's great victory on December 8. I guess he missed FDR's speech!

John Adams presciently described how Americans would celebrate its Independence

«A day later, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail:

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.[6]"»

Yes the SECOND of July

«Adams's prediction was off by two days»

Independence Day (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(United_States)

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

So now let's see. What about the Jewish Dating game?

400-430-210

In the Brit bein Hab'tarim Hashem tells Avraham that his progeny will serve for 400 years

In Sh'mot P. Bo the Exodus took place after 430 years

And Hazal tell us that we sojourned in Egypt for RDU or 210 years

Achashveirosh and others could not quite pinpoint when the 70 year exile as foretold would actually take effect. And they were SURE that when the deadline passed it would not come again.

Now Daniyyel claimed that 490 years will transpire from Mikdash to Mikdash. Subtracting 70 years for the Babylonian exile, that leaves 420 years. We have a firm Tradition that Bayyit Sheini lasted 420 years.

Scientific Historians tell us that about 586 years transpired

The first Temple was destroyed by
N'vuchadnezzar in 586 BCE
2nd Mikdash was erected 70 years later in 516 BCE
And
2nd Mikdash was destroyed in 70 CE

So how can 420 = 586?

Stay tuned!

Shalom,
RRW

P. Trumah - Asher Yidvenu Libbo

Rabbi Yechezkel Freundlich has done it again. See and enjoy this adorable clip:

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=4&task=videodirectlink&id=10094

Shalom,
RRW

A Time to Rethink Adult-Ed

It's interesting that her work happens in the world of adult education. Americans obsess about K-12 education. The country has plenty of religious institutions. But adult education is an orphan, an amorphous space in-between. This is a shame, but it also gives Brown the space to develop her method.

This nation is probably full of people who'd be great adult educators, but there are few avenues to bring those teachers into contact with mature and hungry minds. Now you hear about such people by word of mouth.»

The Arduous Community - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21brooks.html

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

Is this Times article telling us that it's time to throw out the secular model of 12-16 model of Jewish Ed and to substitute a Halachic based model of Jewish Ed as a lifetime pursuit?

Shalom,
RRW

New Online Source for News: The Times of Israel

The Times of Israel | The one-stop site for Israel, the region & the Jewish world

http://www.timesofisrael.com/

Shalom,
RRW

JVO: Jewish Values

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: Should we look for or expect to see “Jewish values” in US presidential candidates?

Rabbi Hecht's answer

This is a most interesting question for it involves many side issues that need to be elucidated.

First, we must clarify the exact nature of the question as the two verbs that drive this question – ‘look for’ and ‘expect to see’ -- reflect two very distinct undertakings. The former is of a more active nature, asking of us, it would seem, whether we should be searching for Jewish values in the candidates. The latter would seem to be of a more passive nature, asking of us, it would seem, even if we should be able to identify Jewish values in the candidates. The further implication of this distinction could be in the role we assign to the integration of Jewish values in our evaluation of a candidate. The former, asking of us whether we should actively look for Jewish values in a candidate, would seem to imply that this should be an important criterion in our selection process. The latter, asking of us if we should even expect to see an integration of Jewish values in a candidate, would seem to imply that this, at least for pragmatic reasons, may not be a significant factor by which to render a decision. It would seem that before we even tackle what we may describe as the substantive question of the role of Jewish values in an election, we may have to consider the nature of the very relationship those outside of the Jewish world may have with Jewish values.

Second, of course, is the very issue of defining what Jewish values are. Regular readers of the Jewish Values Online website will no doubt recognize the powerful challenge this question presents for there are significant value differences between the branches of Judaism. I remember watching President Obama’s recent address to a convention of Reform Judaism, noting the powerful applause he received – and expected to receive – in response to certain comments. I also noted that if these same statements were made to a convention of Orthodox Judaism, the response to these very same statements would be the opposite and most negative. To those attending the Reform convention, the statements of President Obama would be presented as reflecting Jewish values; at an Orthodox convention they would be perceived to be attacking of Jewish values. So before we answer as to whether we should look for or expect to see Jewish values in US presidential candidates, we have to first define what we mean by Jewish values.

Continuing along this chain of thought, we may also wonder about what may even be the distinction between what we may term Jewish values and general universal values. When President Obama spoke at the Reform convention, he knew what to expect. There was no doubt that in the minds of the delegates – and perhaps even the President – there was a perception that he was maintaining Jewish values as defined within the parameters of Reform Judaism. Yet these values were not unique to Jewishness but reflected the values of many members of the general population. They could be said to reflect a certain perception of what would be a universal value consciousness. So the question is not simply what are Jewish values but also what makes these values distinctively Jewish so that they can be defined by this particular term.

It may be that we wish to describe certain values as Jewish because the root of such values emerged from the Jewish world; indeed many of the values within Western society did begin within the ancient Jewish world. Is this, though, what we now mean by the term Jewish values; they are the values that originated within the societal confines of the Jewish People? But so what? Why is it important for us to identify these Jewish values – except, perhaps, to feel the pride of being the originators? From his perspective, we may wonder why it would even be important to identify the Jewish values within a candidate. All that should really matter is whether we agree with his/her values regardless of their origin. We clearly would want to identify the values that are the basis for a candidate’s decisions – but why care if the origin is Jewish? We should just care if we agree or not.

There is, though, perhaps, another way of defining what we may mean by Jewish values that would reflect a more specific, and narrower, understanding of the term and could have a more specific relationship to the Jewish People – and thus could be of a more particular purpose to us. By the term Jewish value, we could be referring to positions that are favourable to the Jewish People. For example, in this context, the support of Israel could be considered a Jewish value. Our question in that case would then be whether we should look for or expect to see the assurance of such support in a US presidential election.

Again, in this context, the difference between ‘look for’ and ‘expect to see’ would be significant, but on the surface, we could offer a simple answer that we would clearly want a US presidential candidate to have such a value, i.e. a positive disposition toward the Jewish People. The exact nature of this support, though, may still be a question. There may be different ways by which a person could promote his/her support of the Jewish People, i.e. express such a Jewish value, with some positions expressing this stand being in conflict with others expressing this very same stand. It may actually be that two individuals, honestly declaring their support of the Jewish People, could adopt two diametrically opposite practical positions. Again we would be left with the need for us to determine our support for a candidate based upon our personal perceptions of the values maintained regardless of generic terms.

There is, however, one more point I would like to make in this regard and this is one that I offer specifically as an Orthodox rabbi. Maimonides, Shemona Perakim, Chapter 6 presents a distinction between two different types of mitzvot: Chukkot, the commandments whose sole basis is Revelation itself, and Mitzvot Sichliyot, the commandments which have a rational basis. For example, the prohibition of eating pork would be an example of the first category – the only reason we observe such a command is because God has so directed us. Maimonides goes so far as to state that we are not even to develop moral feelings in regard to such mitzvot – for example to feel that it is intrinsically disgusting to eat pork – but we are to even perceive that this action in itself is not problematic; we solely desist because that is God’s Will. An example of the second category would be the prohibition of murder. In regard to such directives, we are not only to abstain from such behaviour because God has so ordered us but we are also to feel the immorality of such an action. Unlike eating pork, we are to feel that murder is disgusting and inherently wrong.

This recognition is, in my opinion, very important in the context of this question. There are times where we, as Jews bound by Torah commandments, may share certain standard conclusions with others yet would still not share the same moral structure and thought processes. There are cases where, for example, we may observe a certain standard because it is a chok even others from a different religious perspective may believe this standard to be a correct moral outlook – a view we may even find challenging to accept. It is thus important for us to recognize that, even as we may wish to define another as having a ‘Jewish value’ because we both share the same conclusion, this may not actually be the case. There still may be a wide chasm in underlying moral concepts.

The bottom line may be that there may be a point in looking for or expecting to see Jewish values in a US presidential candidate but there may be an even further point in being able to identify and articulate how we, as Jews, do not share underlying moral and ethical concepts with someone even as we may reach, for completely different reasons, the same action conclusion.

Obama Care and the Catholic Church

Guest Blogger:
Rabbi Phil Lefkowitz

*****

Whither Ecclesiastical Abstention?

by Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz

"Indeed, it is the essence of religious faith that ecclesiastical decisions are reached and are to be accepted as matters of faith whether or not rational or measurable by objective criteria. Constitutional concepts of due process, involving secular notions of 'fundamental fairness' or impermissible objectives, are therefore hardly relevant to such matters of ecclesiastical cognizance." United States Supreme Court in McClure, in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 725 (1976)

This decision was issued in a case involving the defrockment of a Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church of Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court had ruled that the defrockment had to be set aside because it was done in violation of the Church's own procedures. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the important role of separation of church and state, even when the actions of the church "are not rational or measurable by objective criteria."

The Separation of Church and State embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution has long been a bedrock value unique to the very establishment of the United States of America. Based upon the First Amendment, the concept of Ecclesiastical Abstention was put forward; the State has no role to play in any aspect of the function of a religious institution.

And now comes Obama Care – When Obama Care was first put forward, most Roman Catholic Bishops gave it their full support. There was an "understanding" that this legislation would be tweaked in some fashion so as to avoid any impingement upon the religious values of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church today maintains or has built 625 not-for-profit hospitals in the U.S. with about 1 in every 8 hospital visits made to Catholic Hospitals. This represents the largest share of the American health care industry. Additionally, the Catholic Church plays a major role in education and in caring for the needy and underprivileged. In all of these functions many if not most of the folks utilizing these services are not Roman Catholic. In Chicago, for example, a goodly number of Jews, Orthodox Jews, use the excellent facilities of St. Francis Hospital in Evanston, Illinois even, at times, receiving financial consideration.

President Obama has now confirmed that the government will force the Church's institutions including hospitals, schools, charities to purchase insurance for their employees which includes birth control, sterilization, and drugs that act as abortifications, in opposition to Church doctrine. The Church feels that their providing, their paying for these insurance options, makes it complicit in these acts when one of their employees opts to utilize them. The Church sees this as a clear and obvious violation of separation of church and state. As I write almost 200 Bishops across the United States, with the support of other religious Faiths, have issued statements in opposition to this demand by the President.

Here in Chicago Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago's Archdiocese, the largest archdiocese in the United States, wrote in a letter read in all Catholic Churches:

… unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics must be prepared either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply. We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.

How should the Jewish community react to this major confrontation with a religious denomination that now accounts for nearly 50% of the American population?

Attacks on Jewish observance are not unknown in Jewish life. They have been couched in many forms. Several hundred years ago, in response to "swooning," the idea that people can seem to be dead but in reality are not and given time will revive, become animated once again, resulted in laws being enacted to protect individuals from being buried prematurely, while they were yet alive. Some societies required that burial not take place for a week or more. The fear of being buried alive was so rampant that individuals were buried with a string attached to a bell above ground so that, when they revived from their "swoon," they could ring the bell and be "resurrected." With Jewish tradition requiring burial as quickly as possible, these laws created tremendous anguish for the Jewish population.

In my lifetime, there have been repeated attempts to outlaw Shchita, Jewish ritual slaughter even here in the United States mounted by those claiming to protect animals from torture. In societies such as the United Kingdom, ritual slaughter, Kosher and Hallal, are allowed through a special exemption in the law providing for religious ritual. Many countries in Western Europe have totally outlawed Shchita.

A movement to outlaw ritual circumcision is now receiving new support particularly on the West Coast. Like anti-shchita advocates it is premised upon the need to protect the innocent child from a primitive rite that inflicts pain and long-term trauma upon the innocent babe. Sadly there are as well those on the left in Reform Judaism who are in support of this movement.

The issue of separation of church and state is rife with pitfalls. It is at times extremely difficult to draw that line in the sand. With the increase in our American Muslim population, with their own rites and rituals that conflict with some Americans' sensitivities, and with their own ecclesiastical authorities turned to for determinations that at times conflict with civil law, we can expect the issue of the First Amendment and its concomitant concept of Ecclesiastical Abstention to become an ever more volatile issue in American life.

The classical case generally referred to in separation of church and state is the famous peyote case. Native American religions utilize marijuana in their rituals. The peace pipe may not always bring peace but will always brings a state of euphoria. That case brought before the United States Supreme Court saw the Jewish community filing amicus briefs in support of the Native American religious rite of marijuana use. For the American Jewish community their support of the rites of a nature religion was based primarily upon the concern that, were the Supreme Court to reject the Native American appeal, such a decision would open the flood gates of attacks upon Jewish rites, i.e. shchita and circumcision.

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church's contribution to education and social welfare in America is substantial. For example, in Chicago the Catholic School system provides a wonderful education for thousands upon thousands of children in the worst of neighborhoods. The only alternative to a failing public school system, the Catholic system graduates students who go on to be reputable and contributing members of society. For many in the African American community, non-Catholics, the Catholic School is their very lifeline, their only hope for an education that will set them in good stead for a successful future.

To be sure, this confrontation by the Obama administration with the Church is a watershed moment in American history that will affect a notable change in our American way of life if allowed to stand. For years many in the religious communities have warned of an ever increasing attack upon religion in the United States. Those who are attempting to minimize this confrontation state that it is not about religion, it is about individual rights, for example in the current conflict, citing statistics that a majority of Catholic women use birth control. A false argument,, the same approach could be used against shchita citing statistics that the majority of those professing Judaism as their religious affiliation eat non-kosher meat.

The Jewish community must not remain silent on this issue. We must see this confrontation not as a Catholic issue but as a matter reflecting upon the important principle of religious freedom in America; a principle that has been of singular importance to our own community. As a matter of practicality, similar to the peyote case, we know full well the many disguises those who wish to attack our religious practices have donned in the past. I cannot help but feel that there are those advocating this demand upon the Church as a response, as pay back, for the vociferous stand of the Catholic Church on the issues of abortion and gay rights.

As the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the O.U. and Agudath Israel, the entirety of American Jewry should support the stand of the Roman Catholic Church on the importance of the First Amendment.

How a Boston Rabbi Turned the NY Knicks Fortunes Around*

*Harvard had something to do with this, too!

The odds are that Lin will never figure it out because the two moral universes are not reconcilable. Our best teacher on these matters is Joseph Soloveitchik, the great Jewish theologian. In his essays "The Lonely Man of Faith" and "Majesty and Humility" he argues that people have two natures. First, there is "Adam the First," the part of us that creates, discovers, competes and is involved in building the world. Then, there is "Adam the Second," the spiritual individual who is awed and humbled by the universe as a spectator and a worshipper.
Soloveitchik plays off the text that humans are products of God's breath and the dust of the earth, and these two natures have different moral qualities, which he calls the morality of majesty and the morality of humility. They exist in creative tension with each other and the religious person shuttles between them, feeling lonely and slightly out of place in both experiences.

NYT: The Jeremy Lin Problem

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/brooks-the-jeremy-lin-problem.xml


Shalom,
RRW

Mussar: Forget and Forgive

From - NarrowBridge.Org

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov taught...

Most people think of
forgetfulness as a defect.
I consider it a great benefit.
Being able to forget frees you from the burdens of the past.
(The Empty Chair, p. 108*)


What does this mean to me?


"If only I could forget the wrong that my neighbor did me ten years ago."

"If only I could forget all of the old baggage that I'm carrying from my childhood."

"If only I could stop reacting negatively to the situations that I face every single day. I wish I could just put all of my old patterns behind me and start fresh."

The truth is that we can, because we were given the great gift of forgetfulness. Every capacity within the human character has its potential for holy expression, and forgetting has its place too. One of the words in Hebrew for a human being is an enosh, and its root is in the Aramaic inshi—to forget. How do I learn to forget the memories and ways of thinking that harm me? First of all, I have to really want to let go of them! After that, I have to develop the habit of asking G-d to remove the memories from me whenever they come up. Little by little, I will find myself liberated.

Rebbe Nachman said, "When a person is caught in a morass of clinging mud, he can't get out all at once. He has one foot in, one foot out; one foot in, one foot; one foot in, one foot out—and then he's out!"

A prayer:


Teach me, dear G-d,
to make a fresh start;
to break yesterday's patterns;
to stop telling myself
I can't—
when I can,
I'm not—
when I am,
I'm stuck—
when I'm eminently free.
(The Gentle Weapon**, p. 101)
--------------------

When we Forget the Hurt, it is so much easier to forgive.

Shalom,
RRW

Gur

 I just want to draw your attention to these two articles written in Ha'aretz concerning Gur's highly restrictive rules for conduct between the sexes even within marriage.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/gur-hasidim-and-sexual-separation-1.410811
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/for-members-of-israel-s-ultra-orthodox-gur-sect-sex-is-a-sin-1.412153

This is not a new issue. In fact, as one of the articles points out, the Steipler already was critical of these practices within marriage and wrote a pamphlet against them (although he published  it anonymously, it was well known that it was from the Steipler). What I find interesting, though, is the underlying current, though, regarding eilu v'eilu. It would seem that there is not even the portrayal of any hint within Gur that there policies are actually critiqued by other segments of Orthodoxy. They are not looked upon as a chumrah but as wrong and kneged Torah but that is not even perceived. What does that really tell us about the world's understanding of Torah and the depth inherent in the concept of eilu v'eilu -- and perhaps why many cannot relate to this fundamental Torah concept. What we seem to further see is that those who leave Gur over this issue become totally not religious because they can't even recognize that there are those within Torah who share their grievances and concerns. Would it not be better for there to be a presentation that there is another way within Torah -- and those who wish to leave Gur do not have to leave Torah? There may be other factors in why a person totally drops Torah besides this reason -- but I do wonder about the negative consequences of trying to present this viewpoint as the sole Torah viewpoint (i.e. that it is the most righteous way) when it is in fact not and open to its own criticism within Torah.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Results of Poll on: What Would You Do Differently

In our last poll, we inquired

New Poll: What Would YOU Do Differently?

There have been several hot proposals for changes in the status quo that have been debated amongst the Jewish Blogsters during the last several months. They include:

1. That unmarried men should also wear a Tallit Gadol as men in the Eidot Mizrach and Yekkes already do. This would make amcha compliant with a Mitzvah d'Oraitto;

2. That we should restore daily Birkat Kohanim everywhere - which conforms to the presentation of the Talmud and Eidot Mizrach;

3. That we should eliminate the bracha of Shelo Assani Ishah and/or Shelo Assani Goy. This would avoid embarrassing most of the world. If we worry about the busha of challah, then koll shekein our fellow human's feelings should be factored in

4. That we make all marriages annullable so as to eliminate Agunot. The Agunah problem is obvious. Those who favour the status quo have vetoed R. Shaul Liberman's and R. Emmanuel Rackman's resolutions.

In regard to these issues, we asked the following two questions:

A) Assuming YOU had total control of the Halachic Process on just ONE of these issues, which one would you modify? Caveat: remember - you are ALSO responsible for any "un-intended consequences"

1) I’d have even unmarried men were a Tallit Gadol
2) I’d have Birkat Kohanim said daily everywhere
3) I’d eliminate Shelo Assani Ishah and/or Shelo Assani Goy
4) I’d make all marriages annullable
5) I’d maintain these four items as they are but with such a power, there is clearly something else that I would do.
6) I'd leave everything as is. Tampering with the system either might or will cause it to unravel Your Responses (total 10) Choice 1 - 00.0%  (0) Choice 2 - 00.0%  (0) Choice 3 - 20.0%  (2) Choice 4 - 50.0%  (5) Choice 5 - 00.0%  (0)   Choice 6 - 30.0%  (3)   B) Assuming, again, YOU had total control of the Halachic Process and could modify any or all of these four items, which one or ones would you modify? (not limited to one choice)   1) I’d have even unmarried men were a Tallit Gadol 2) I’d have Birkat Kohanim said daily everywhere 3) I’d eliminate Shelo Assani Ishah and/or Shelo Assani Goy 4) I’d make all marriages annullable 5) None of them.

Your Responses (total 10 / 7)

Choice 1 - 10.0% / 14.3% (1)
Choice 2 - 00.0% / 00.0% (0)
Choice 3 - 20.0% / 28.6% (2)
Choice 4 - 20.0% / 28.6% (2)
Choice 5 - 20.0% / 28.6% (2)

Comments
Rabbi Hecht
In Part A, I am not really surprised that the one item for which there was the most desire for change concerned the aguna. That is a problem that bothers almost everyone with many truly feeling the restraints of Halacha in not being able to do more.
I am not sure how to respond to Part B. The question opened the possibility of even more responses; instead we got less. I really do not know why. In that there were even less responses than the number of people who responded, we put down both figures representing the percentage for each response -- but we cannot explain this. The only thing that one may find interesting is that no one seemed concerned about Birkat Kohanim yet this was a most important concern for the Vilna Gaon.

When Democracy and Halacha Collide

There was a recent article in the Forward entitled "When Democracy and Halacha Collide" that reported that in a recent poll in Israel "44% of those questioned replied that if there is a contradiction between democratic values and Halacha (Jewish law), the latter should be upheld."
See  http://www.forward.com/articles/151052/#ixzz1mOkQajk8
The article, written by a professor of history at Ben Gurion University, expressed concern over this. Of course, others may be concerned about the opposite, that 56% of the population would favour democratic values over Halacha.

The numbers, though, are not really the issue. What this article further shows is not only the reality that there may be a conflict between democratic values and Jewish (i.e. Torah) values but the further reality that most people do not even want to confront this truth. What has emerged in Israel for years is a promotion of Israel as a Jewish state and Israel as a democratic state without actually facing the reality that these two desired definitions of the state may actually be in conflict. It is not the result of the poll that actually bothers me -- how many who responded fully understand the depth of this question? It is the article itself that is most telling about the challenge that faces us. This author decries this 44% of the population favouring Halacha because such a position challenges the very foundation of Israel -- even as a Jewish state. The real question is: how many people perceive Israel to be a Jewish state because it is democratic? Perhaps this 44% of the population is beginning to see the challenge of this definition but the author of this article -- and possibly many North American Jews -- are bothered by this response not because they favour democracy per se but because they favour a Jewish state being defined as Jewish because it is democratic. The argument against Halacha, as such, would be because it is not Jewish -- and see how this author develops such a position.

In Jewish Tribune article from Jan. 2008, I pointed out further aspects of this challenge. In the article, I wondered how many Jews in Israel favour a Jewish state because that entity would also protect Western freedoms and it is these rights that they want, not necessarily a Jewish entity. See http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349
On a certain level, it may be good that this is an issue that is finally coming out.

At the same time, though, we must also recognize that how Halacha connects with democratic rights and freedoms is a most complex issue. We have benefited from Western values so we cannot simply dismiss  these values. Rav Moshe did refer to the US as a medina shel chesed. The perceived conflict between democracy and Halacha cannot be simply answered by choosing one over another. Further on this issue, specifically as it involves Freedom of Religion, see my latest series of shiurim on this topic on Koshertube (www.koshertube.com)

Rabbi Ben Hecht

http://forward.com/articles/151052/

Putting Midrashim in their proper perspective

Guest Blogger:

Rabbi Jacob S. Jaffe

**********

I can only weigh in as a high school teacher, and not as an elementary teacher, but here it goes -
I agree that Rav Yoel Bin-nun, and Rav Yaakov Medan, have tried to develop a third approach to Midrash: They do not reject it, axiomatically, if it is not peshat. They do not accept it, axiomatically, as if it was written.

Instead, the approach is basically "Most Midrashim really reflect pshuto shel mikra, but if you can't see it - it's probably because you haven't learned the pshat correctly."
And, as a high school Tanach teacher, I think that this derech, is the single most important thing to teach HS students in the US today: All midrashim are really explaining pshuto shel mikra - but if you can't see it, its because you aren't reading closely.

How do we know Nachson jumped in first? Not from Beshalach, but from a close reading of Psalm 114.
How do we know the angels came to Lot on Pesach? Not from the Matzahs, but from the literary parallels to Makat Bechorot.
How did we know the mountains all moved to be the one the Torah was given on? From Psalm 68.
How do we know Yehudah set up a Beit Midrash in Egypt? Check a concordance for the word "lehorot."
How do we know Menashe did Teshuvah? From Divrei Hayamim, of course.
How do we know angels were created on the second day of creation? From Nechemiah

The list goes on and on.

Last year, we did a three week lesson in Maimonides school on the Gemara in Sanhedrin about Shevnah's rebellion, and after the first week, all of my students were saying "the Midrash is fabricated, where did they get that from" - until we studied all the psukim more carefully and they all recognize that the Midrash's literary, linguistic, and textual sensitivity was so advanced, that many of the 'creations' of the Midrash can be revealed as just closer readings of the text.

I think in 2012, too many of our students will go to colleges (Be them YU, or secular colleges), Yeshivot and Seminaries - where they will meet teachers who criticize Midrash Aggadah; and this will lead too many of our students to then take the next step - that if we can ignore Midrash Agaddah, then we can Midrash Halacha too - and once they make that step, we've lost the battle. Instead, I think we must reaffirm their faith in the Chachmei Ha-mesorah; but not through asserting that it is so, rather, by showing how it is so, and where the Midrash comes from.

In more than half a decade teaching this way, I have yet to find a class or a Midrash when the students did not walk away with a refined, committed embrace of Midrash after we studied them the right way - and I've challenged students to find Midrashim and we work together on them to explain how each and every one is really the pshat.

I am troubled by teachers who insist on teaching "pshat only;" because that implies that the Midrash isn't pshat when it often is. Imagine the teacher who will never refer to Bas-Paroh by name "Bitya" because 'that's a midrash' - when it's really the pshat of the passuk in divrei hayamim. I think teaching "pshat only" gives our kids a not-so-subtle message that the midrash as less authoritative, or less worthy.

So, my vote, for what it's worth - is that we continue to teach Midrash together with pshat. And when someone objects, we just show them how the Midrash is really just the pshat itself.

Yaakov Jaffe
Tanach Department Chair
Maimonides School
Brookline, Mass

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

Rabbi Jaffe's words resonate with those of my colleague R Sacha Pecaric - namely that when Midrashim are properly understood they are addressing "P'shat" issues within the text itself

If I might add, it appears that Rishonim "got it" intuitively, but we don't. That is to say we don't "connect the dots" so easily. B"H some S'farim address this, and the Torah T'mimah is one of them, because the TT often shows HOW the Midrash got there

Shalom and Regards, RRW