Things are not always as they seem to be!

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

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

________________________________________________________________

General: The Three Zechusim

Barry Robinson asked:

Dear Kollel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May we be Zocheh to fulfill all these Midrashim ourselves!

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

Mordecai Kornfeld,
Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Tight Clothing - You Know it when You See It

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

Cantor Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:

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

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

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

ri

Compulsary and Voluntary

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

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

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

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

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

Hint:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kol tuv,
RRW

Hagahoth, Hasgoth, and He'aroth

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

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

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

Mo'adim Lesimcha,
RRW

Lying to protect the simple of faith [From Avodah]

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

Why Do We Lean at the Seder?

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

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

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

The Chametz Battle: Policy Concerns in Halachic Reasoning

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Hasiba, the Raaviya, and a Potential Halachic Sea Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

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

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

To quote Attorney Douglas Aronin

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

And to 1uote Rabbi David Willig:

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

For full details see:

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

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

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

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

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

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

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

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

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



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe

How we argue?

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Artist and the Jew

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

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

Vayikra: Progression and Regression

Originally published 3/14/08, 12:23 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library , we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Vayikra. The topic is the movement of ethics, specifically are we becomming more or less ethical? Rambam contends that sacrifices were an allowance to past weaknesses in the human being and it is better to worship God without animal sacrifices. Ramban strongly disagrees. If sacrifices were ordained at Sinai, they are part of the perfect Torah. Is there any possible reconciliation for these divergent opinions

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

Spitzer

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Standards of Judgement

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Taking Things a Bit TOO Literally

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

Someone was asked the following question by a bride.

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

My response:

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

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


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

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

Was the Attack on Mercaz Harav Targeted?

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht