NYT: The Happiest Man in America - Eats Asian Food?

Originally published 3/7/11, 9:03 pm.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06happy.xml
Maybe because he eats Asian Food!

Freilichen Purim
Shalom,
RRW

Mishnah M'gilah 2:2 -Kavannah

It seems to me a pashut Hilluq.

When one is reading the M'gillah on Purim no special Kavvanah is required. Why not? Because the default presumption is one is fulfilling the mitzvah via action, therefore a lack of Kavvanah is NOT m'akkeiv.
However, when one is WRITING the M'gillah, the kavvanah is apparently not for the sake of HEARING the M'gillah - ergo a positive "kivvein libbo" is a must.
Same s'vara with mit'aseiq with Shofar.

Summary:
Any action which is manifestly and obviously fulfilling a Mitzvah -presupposes intention
And
Any action that appears to be tangential to the Mitzvah would require a positive intention to fulfill one's obligation.

Miitzot tz'richot kavvanah? Yes and no. It depends on the context.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Sh'qalim - Sh'qalim vs. T'rumah

What's the difference between Sh'qalim and the collection in Parshat T'rumah?

In T'rumah, it's "n'div libbo" a free will offering. Sh'qalim is level, "heoshir lo yarbeh..."
L'mah haddavar domeh?
T'rumah is like a building fund - everyone gives according to his/her means
Sh'qalim is like dues, each gives equally.

Please embellish this and use it to spread some good Torah.

Shalom,
RRW

The Arba Parshiot

Originally published 3/4/11, 11:19 am. Link no longer works.
As we begin the Arba Parshiot this week with, of course, Parshat Shekalim, we invite to take a look at
Insight 5756-12: From Purim to Pesach
at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-12.html 

Blogging Goals

Having just been introduced to Twitter, I've come to realize there are several disparate goals when blogging.

1. To Share INSIGHTS. R Hecht and I have this common goal, to share insights into Torah and Jewish Life in General.

2. To stimulate deeper thinking. We are so conditioned to rote performance that at times we forget the NISHMA, the reflective aspect and the analytic aspect. RBH is focused more on the analytic side, I add the experiential reflective aspect to Nishma. EG How do we feel after sitting in the Sukkah or hearing the Megillah. We've done the naaseh, afterwords can be the NISHMA in wake of the performance.

3. To share our Stream of consciousness.. Hopefully when we "think Out loud" we are sharing our techniques of HOW to think! Otherwise we could wax boring. But sharing a good Shaqla v'tarya can help people to better solve problems.
.
Shalom,
RRW

Jewish Tribune: Freedom? Democracy? Please define

The world was enthralled with the recent developments in Egypt with cries of freedom and democracy being heard throughout...the media. Although the protestors also shouted these words, was 'freedom and democracy' really what they wanted?

In my latest Tribune article, I address this question. See
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201103014039/Freedom-Democracy-Please-define.html

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Results of Poll on: Rabbinical Parameters

In our last poll, we inquired:

 Rabbi "Yosselle" is very fussy about his Baaeli Teflliah. And so he insists that the shul hire a single Baal Tefillah to lead all weekday services

What Reaction makes the Most Sense to you?

A. The Rabbi has a right to set a standard policy that offends everyone equally. Since it's fair and objective - no big deal [Objectivity is the fairest method of selection.]

B. The Rabbi's policy is intrinsically offensive. The Rabbi should be reprimanded for slighting everyone [Rabbi must bend over backward to avoid offending anyone.]

C The Rabbi should pick and choose acceptable Baalei Tefillah from his congregation and reject only those he deems unfit [Rabbinical Prerogative]

D. The rabbi should presume ALL members are fit Baalei Tefillah - unless a member excludes himself explicitly. [Hezkat Kashrut for all]

Your Responses (total 4)
Choice 1 - 00% (0)
Choice 2 - 00% (0)
Choice 3 - 67% (2)
Choice 4 - 33% (1)


Comments

Rabbi Hecht
While there was a very small response to the question, the majority gave the answer that I would also give. In my opinion, a rav's job is to set the halachic parameters for a community but it is the community itself who must implement policy within those parameters. As such, it is the kehilla's responsibility and right to choose the specific person they wish as a ba'al tefilla but it is the rav who is to set the parameters thus identify the pool of people from whom the kehilla can choose.

The Wit and Wisdom of Rav Yerucham Gorelick Z"L - 8

We were conducting an informal email chat concerning how Naftali Herz Imber has been unfairly blamed for the statement
"Lihyot am chofshi b'artzenu..."

When actually NHI wrote instead: "Lashuv el eretz avoteinu"

So one chaveir asked disappointingly - so there's no R Gorelick story?!

Then came the AHA!

Yes RYG did often similarly lament

"What did poor R Yitzchok Elchanan [Spektor] ever do to deserve naming this yeshivh after him!"

V'hameivin Yavin

Meanwhile back to Imber, tikvoseinu, Al Jolson and Rav Kook

See
Daled Amos: HaTikvah: Rav Kook and Al Jolson

http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2006/02/hatikvah-rav-kook-and-al-jolson.html


Here too there is an error:
«L'yichod Dovid, Dovid chano»


AFAIK S/B "l'ir bah" instead of "l'yichod"

Shalom
RRW

A Difference in Legal Perspective

There were two incidents that occurred in that past couple of weeks -- one in Toronto and one in Winnipeg -- that, in my opinion, clearly demonstrate to difference in perspective between Halacha and secular law.

Substantively, both incidents concerned sexual assault. In the first case, a member of the Toronto police force, in speaking to a group of university students in regard to sexual assaults on their campus, stated that a factor in this regard may be what they wear and, as such, to avoid attacks they should dress more modestly. For the details, see http://www.thestar.com/news/article/940665--cop-apologizes-for-sluts-remark-at-law-school.
As a result, this police officer was reprimanded for his comments and had to apologize. While the way he expressed himself was highly questionable, the challenge to the substance of his statement was somewhat surprising to me. There is, of course, the problem of the woman being blamed for rape because of what she was wearing -- and that clearly should not be a factor in judgement; a man has to control himself. In fact, this was the issue in the second incident that occurred where a judge gave a more lenient sentence to a man found guilty of sexual assault because of what the woman was wearing and what he described as the atmosphere in the air. See http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html. But the police officer was not discussing punishment and responsibility but rather how to accomplish a certain goal, i.e. not being a victim. Regardless of liability and who is right or wrong, he was simply saying that since dress may be a factor, one should be careful about dress. The issue is avoiding the crime, not liability for the crime.

This is exactly on point in regard to the difference between Halacha and secular law. One who asks a halachic question is asking about what to do: what is the right action? The issue in the secular legal system, though, is liability; who is responsible. The university students didn't hear advice on how to lessen your possibility of being sexually assaulted but heard the police officer saying that they are partly responsible. The reason I didn't think that the officer's words were so problematic -- although I clearly have problems with the language he used -- because I was thinking culpability but simple direction as to behaviour. This is because of my halachic perspective.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Genius and Hiddush

Originally published 2/26/11, 8:17 pm.
Doesn't it seem odd that when a scholar with an IQ of, say. 130 comes up with a mildly radical idea it seems to meet with a lot of resistance
Yet - when a scholar with an IQ of 180 comes up with a really wild radical idea, people seem to flock to it with enthusiasm.

Shalom,
RRW

Vayakhel: The Motivation for Giving

Originally published 2/25/11, 9:59 am.
In regard to this week's parsha, we invite you to look at Insight 5757-10: The Motivation for Giving, which looks at the important question of how we are to allocate our tzedaka monies. Please see: http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-10.html.

You be the Rabbi - Correcting mistakes

You are the rabbi. What do you do in the following cases?

1. Someone gives a D'var Torah. EG they say that Vayeitsei is unique in that it's without any Parshah breaks. But you know that Miqqeitz also fits this description.

2. Someone is teaching Kitzur SA and explains the Halacha incorrectly?

3. Someone publishes an article and he misquotes a source?

Shalom,
RRW

The New Definition of Chutzpa

You got to see this to believe it!
 ...And he says it with a straight face publicly.

See http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/23/iran.mideast.unrest/index.html?hpt=T2


When will the world learn what kind of person they are dealing with?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Jewish Content on Regis and Kelly's Greatest Love Stories

It seems that the Regis and Kelly tv program had a contest to find the World's Greatest Love Story and one of the finalists was an elderly, frum couple from Toronto. It really is an amazing story. To hear about the details, go to the following site
http://www.dadt.com/live/special/greatestlovestory/
and follow the story of Nancy and Howard Kleinberg who were on the Tuesday show.

All the words -- hashgacha pratit, besheirt -- really seem to apply.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Wit and Wisdom of Rav Yerucham Gorelick Z"L - 7

RYG was very frum. His observance of mitzvos and his long sh'moneh esrei revealed a passion for Piety. Yet as a Litvak, he had little use for empty piety.

In one sense he insisted that students master concepts and not be slavishly literal. He did not have much patience with mindless rote repetition of a principle that had not been properly internalized

One statement he used several times reflects this rejection of rigidity:

«Die problem mit du [eich] is ven du zogts Ashrei - du zits't!»

You're problem is that when you say Ashrei you [literally] sit! Meaning don't be so rigidly literal

It occurred to me only decades later that The Rov Z"L read this into the Rambam as normative Halachah. I still wonder today if there was a coded double entendre there somehow.?

Shalom
RRW

P. Lech L'cha - Leaving Israel During Famine

What does the Rambam mean in MT Hilchot M'lachim 5:9
That:
«Even though it was a famine and one is permitted to leave Israel [nevertheless] "Einaah middat Hassidut" ...
And because of that Machalon and Kilyon - 2 "gdolei hador" ..left and were liable to destruction by "the Maqom"»

Questions:
1. If it's Halachically permitted to leave, then who cares about "Middat Hassidut"?

2 How does being a "Gadol Hador" change their liability or obligation? Aren't ALL Jews on the same level of obligation and liability?

3. Why did the Rambam say they were punished - when even he concedes that they actually acted within the parameters of Halachah?

4. In Lech L'cha, Avraham Avinu left The Holy Land under similar circumstances - and he apparently was rewarded and NOT punished! How does this Rambam address that case?

For further sources
See Torah Temimah on Lech L'cha 12:10 quoting
Bava Qama 60b
And Note 13 quoting
Bava Batra 91a
And the aforementioned Rambam Mishneh Torah M'lachim 5:9

Shalom
RRW

Parsha: Ki Tisa, "Rashi on Ki Shicheit Amcha"

Originally published 2/17/11, 6:56 pm.
A liberal friend of mine would like to advance a correspondingly liberal conversion policy that is contrary to GPS and other more restrictive policies.

What does Rashi say about such kind-heartedness?

Ki Tisa 22:7 D"H "Ki. Shicheit Amcha"

Hashem told Moshe, "You went ahead and converted them without consulting ME, and said 'good that the converts should embrace the Sh'china' those are the ones who caused this corruption."

I'm sure that, nevertheless, Hashem does embrace Geirim. However, the context here is that Moshe accepted a mass of Geirim who were motivated by the Wonders of the Exodus and not by a solid yearning to embrace Hashem and the Jewish People - in stark contrast to Ruth! This "Erev Rav" was composed of "front-runners", not sincere proselytes.

The Road to 'H..L' is paved with Good Intentions. Moshe's Chessed lacked the necessary restriction, and his liberalism introduced a corrupting influence, that would eventually serve as an internal fifth column.

The history of the events here is not essential. What is essential is Hazal's attitude of warning us of the danger of being inclusive without weighing the potential negative consequences.

Of course, HOW restrictive we should be is a matter for discussion. It is only natural to react to a failed policy in either direction, namely either too exclusive or too inclusive

Shalom,
RRW

I Guess It Did Some Good

As many of you are aware, I signed the "Statement" regarding the treatment of homosexuals within the Orthodox community and have questioned myself since. While I basically agreed with the Statement, at least as I understood it, this document has caused much consternation especially in how it has been used by various elements to promote an agenda which is clearly contrary to the Statement 's own words. It never sanctioned homosexual behaviour; simply called upon Torah Jews to respond to individuals as the Torah itself instructs.

It was thus truly sad for me, and upsetting, to see the Statement quoted in the promotion of the recently held Shabbaton for gays. I just wanted to have my name removed from the Statement for I did not want to be part of such events that would seem to sanction non-Torah behaviour. Yet, something else recently also occurred that made me feel to some extent that there may have been a Godly reason for my signing the Statement. Due to my signature, I was asked for my opinion in regard to the investigation of an Orthodox rabbi who serves as a chaplain to the York Regional Police. Allegations were made that he was homophobic and not suitable to serve in this capacity. The police investigators asked me for my opinion on this and my input -- that he was not homophobic but simply presenting the ethical position of Torah. This seemed to have been a factor in vindicating the rabbi -- and for that I am grateful. In this regard, I have reproduced a Jewish Tribune article on the subject for your perusal -- bolding my placement in the article.

This was actually the second article in the Tribune regarding this story. The first one was simply on Rabbi Kaplan being vindicated. That is why the focus of this article is not on the vindication of the rabbi but rather the role of the general, secular Jewish community in the original charges. This a further reason for why I am reproducing this article. The gay issue has emerged as a matter of contention within the greater Jewish community and this is something that has to be considered in an overall Orthodox response to the furthering emergence of gay rights. In this regard, please see my post on the subject at Nishma: Policy at http://nishmapolicy.blogspot.com/2010/12/one-of-great-challenges-of-modernity.html

Rabbi Ben Hecht
(Tribune article to follow)

CJC CEO wanted investigation against Chabad rabbi, York Regional Police reveals

Written by Atara Beck

Tuesday, 15 February 2011

TORONTO – Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) CEO Bernie Farber took an active role in the recent challenge – initiated by a request from Kulanu Toronto – to Rabbi Mendel Kaplan’s chaplaincy role with York Regional Police (YRP), a police spokesperson revealed. After an almost-six-month investigation into claims that Rabbi Kaplan, the popular spiritual leader of Chabad Flamingo, had expressed homophobic sentiments, and therefore, was unsuitable for the position, YRP concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated (see Jewish Tribune, Feb. 10, 2010). In a back-and-forth email discussion among Rabbi Kaplan, JDL Canada head Meir Weinstein and Farber before the gay-parade last June, Rabbi Kaplan disagreed with the others, who were planning to march with Kulanu Toronto, the LGBTQ group under the UJA Federation umbrella, in support of Israel. Kulanu Executive Director Justine Apple, who saw the email exchanges, wrote to YRP Chief Armand LaBarge, claiming that Rabbi Kaplan sent a “vile” email to rabbis across the GTA that “takes our Jewish community institutions – Canadian Jewish Congress, Canada Israel Committee and UJA – to task for its support of our organization.” “The original letter of complaint was from Kulanu Toronto,” said YRP Inspector Ricky Veerappan, adding that Farber, too, “did mention it to us.” The Tribune had contacted Veerappan to confirm the facts upon hearing rumblings to that effect. “There were a number of people who felt that we should look at Rabbi Kaplan’s ability to serve as chaplain, including Bernie Farber and Len Rudner [CJC’s Ontario regional director],” Veerappan stated. Apple said when the investigation began that CJC and Federation were very supportive of her attempt to get YRP to reconsider Rabbi Kaplan’s competence as chaplain. Even after the investigation concluded, Xtra!, Canada's Gay and Lesbian News, reported: “Like Apple, Farber questions whether Kaplan is the most appropriate choice to represent YRP. ‘That's what has to be answered,’ Farber stated.” The Tribune tried unsuccessfully to contact Farber before deadline. “The allegation that Mr. Farber, CEO of an organization that purports to represent the entire Jewish community, sought to condemn an orthodox rabbi for upholding Torah values is shocking, deeply offensive and totally unacceptable,” Rabbi Kaplan commented. “We also spoke to [JDL Canada leader] Meir Weinstein and he had mentioned that he didn’t think the rabbi should be removed from the chaplaincy,” Veerappan explained, although Weinstein had disagreed with Rabbi Kaplan on this particular issue. ‘Weinstein thought that perhaps they [Farber, Rudner and Apple] should discuss it [with the rabbi], to see if there was any miscommunication.” Following the rabbi’s vindication at the end of the investigation, Apple said she would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him. Speaking to the Tribune, she acknowledged that she had made no attempt to have a meeting with Rabbi Kaplan before sending the letter to YRP challenging the rabbi’s suitability for the chaplaincy. From Weinstein’s perspective, according to Veerappan, Farber and Rabbi Kaplan “were just speaking on different levels,” in the email discussion. “In fact, he [Weinstein] was not the only person who said that. “All the people we spoke to [during the investigation] were people whose names came up when speaking with us. Rabbi Benjamin Hecht [founding director of Nishma, a Torah think tank] was highly recommended as someone who would have knowledge on [orthodox] Judaism as related to LGBTQ issues. We met with him. We examined the emails and other material. It was a lot of work. He felt the emails were not hateful or homophobic.” Weinstein told the Tribune that Farber was “livid” that Rabbi Kaplan had disagreed with him about marching at the parade. “He told me he didn’t think that the rabbi was the right person for the chaplaincy.” Weinstein led JDL in the pride march with Kulanu. “It wasn’t Rabbi Kaplan’s position not to attend the pride parade,” he said. “It’s the Torah position, and I agree with the Torah position. I went because I think it’s extremely important to confront the antisemites. “It was my first time at that event. It certainly isn’t the place to bring kids. “None of the rabbis think that individuals, gay or straight, should be discriminated against or treated disrespectfully. But the pride parade is something different, with gay strippers flaunting their bodies. What does that have to do with fighting for their rights?” Weinstein plans to continue the fight against the anti-Israel organizers, although he isn’t sure yet whether he’ll attend the parade again, considering the “abominable stuff that goes on there.”

The original article can be accessed at http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201102154006/CJC-CEO-wanted-investigation-against-Chabad-rabbi-York-Regional-Police-reveals.html

Pardon my French! "Bon Matin" and "Franglais" - 2

A follow up from R Micha Berger to my original post on this subject. (See http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/02/pardon-my-french-bon-matin-and.html)

Micha Berger:

Here is how I summarized RMK's position here in the post. This is about absorbing The language of Halachah -
"There are two ways to learn a language: The native speaker doesn't learn
rules of grammar before using them, he just knows what "sounds right". In
contrast, an immigrant builds his sentences by using formalized rules, learning such terms as "past imperfect" and memorizing the forms that fit each category. R' Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture the full right vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license. *
He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating "native speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified rules. (RMK notes in a footnote the connection between this idea and some ideas in R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik's essay "Rupture and
Reconstruction", Tradition, Summer 1994.) Earlier cited cases are the
loss of culture that occurred with Moshe Rabbeinu's death, when 300 halakhos were forgotten, and Osniel ben Kenaz reestablished them --
chazar veyasdum.
Similarly the reestablishment of numerous dinim by
Anshei Keneses haGedolah after the return from the Babylonian exile --
shakhechum vechazar veyasdum. Leyaseid, he suggests, is this codification."
Tir'u baTov!

-Micha

RRW further comments:
The difference between native speaker and rules follower is simple in practice.
*
Illustration - I have a friend who presumes that the rule of "brachah oveir la'asiyatan" is defined so rigidly that perforce he says the brachah of "al n'tillat yadayim" before washing.
That itself is not the language hangup - because some people do this His language hangup is that he cannot fathom others who DO wash before the brachah- that those people can also STILL fulfill "over la'asiyatan" - simply by means of saying the Brachah prior to drying their hands. IOW he lacks the native "halachah speaker's" flexibility of poetic license and is stuck with just the rules of grammar His insecurity with these rules triggers the kind of ambiguity intolerance native speakers don't suffer.
Therefore he is befuddled.
He would need to internalize this Halachic Language in order to be liberated from a tyranny of grammatical shoulds that are beyond normative practice.

Shalom
RRW

The Wit and Wisdom of Rav Yerucham Gorelick Z"L - 6

This post is dedicated
To R Reuven Mann,
To R Eliyahu Safran and
To Mel Reichert
whom I believe first related this story to me - enjoy!

Once Upon a time R Yerucham Gorelick [RYG] was appointed to be the young Rab in small town in Poland. RYG himself hailed from Lita and apparently the societies were different enough. And following the death of one of Poland's leaders. RYG was asked to be Maspid him. [For the sake of the simplicity - let's presume that it was Marshal Pilsudski who was the Polish leader and someone who was somewhat fair to Jews *]

Now
• RYG's Polish was weak
• His personal knowledge of the niftar was weak
• His comfort level at sharing the podium with Gentile strangers and clergy was very low

And so RYG started out by boldly proclaiming: "MARSHALL PILSUDSKI". Then he repeated it over and over as he began weeping only to finally brake down dumbfounded!

The Poles ate it up! They supposedly remarked it was the most moving eulogy they could remember.
Such a display of feelings trumped any eloquent speeches!

Shalom
RRW

* Józef Piłsudski
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski

Widely recognized for his opposition to the National Democrats antisemitic policies,[131][132][133][134][135][136] he extended his policy of "state-assimilation" to Polish Jews.[129][130][137][138] The years 1926–35, and Piłsudski himself, were favorably viewed by many Polish Jews whose situation improved especially under Piłsudski-appointed Prime Minister Kazimierz Bartel.[139][140] Many Jews saw Piłsudski as their only hope for restraining antisemitic currents in Poland and for maintaining public order; he was seen as a guarantor of stability and a friend of the Jewish people, who voted for him and actively participated in his political bloc.[141] Piłsudski's death in 1935 brought a deterioration in the quality of life of Poland's Jews.[136]