Monday, March 31, 2008

R. Aharon Lichtenstein on Reading Newspapers

R. Aharon Lichtenstein, in a recent Commentator interview with Ben Eleff, on reading newspapers (link [no ads]):
Do you know whether the Rav had any particular feelings about the Jewish press?

He followed it. I know that he read the Yiddish press and received subscriptions to their journals regularly. He was not addicted - as some people are - to journalism but I think he respected it, and he had some very favorable comments to make for the Yiddish press. Overall, he had a very positive relationship but had the same measure of wariness that I mentioned before which I think is essential...

On the other hand, keeping informed is part of what a responsible citizen should do in a democratic society. You oughtn't make hasty or unnecessary judgments. If you do want to speak out, difficult as this at times may be, before you do you should check the facts carefully. Checking them carefully very often means sifting through a lot of dirt. That brings one back, vis-à-vis the reader of journalism, to some of the issues confronting its writers' motivation, nature and level of interest and so on.


Sunday, March 30, 2008

Summaries and Notes on Emunos Ve-Dei'os III

Continued from here.

Essay 3: Chapter 4

The way to recognize a prophet is that he tells you that he is going to prove that God has sent him and then he performs a miracle -- either changing nature (preventing fire from burning or water from flowing) or changing an object's form (animal to inanimate object). If that occurs then you have to believe the prophet.

God does not change nature for no reason. If He did, nothing in the world would be certain to us because God could change it. No one would know if their family would be the same people when they returned home each day and no witness could testify that a defendant is the same person who committed a crime.

Click here to read moreProphets have to be normal people so that we know that the miracles they perform are from God and not some unknown ability of theirs. For this reason, they are not able to perform miracles or see the future all the time.

Essay 3: Chapter 5

A prophet knew that he was receiving prophecy because he saw a sign -- as a pillar of fire, cloud, or an unusual light -- only during the prophecy. While this is not mentioned regarding every prophet, that does not contradict this idea. We see nowhere in the book of Shmuel that he saw a pillar of fire during prophecy, but we know that it was the case from Tehillim 99:7.

You might ask: how could the Egyptian magicians duplicate Moshe's signs? [Why is this this question raised here? Probably because in the previous chapter we learned that you recognize a prophet by his signs.] They did it through tricks. Perhaps they colored some water red with a chemical and placed something into the river that repels frogs. But Moshe changed the entire Nile [just the Nile!] And raised frogs from the entire Nile, which could not be done with just tricks.

You might ask: why did God choose Yonah, who ran away from his mission? If you look closely, it doesn't say that Yonah failed to say his prophecy. His first prophecy was a warning, which he said. He then left Israel before he could get a second prophecy that he expected would foretell the destruction of Nineveh.


Friday, March 28, 2008

Announcements #031

  • Shabbat with Rav Amnon Bazak of Har Etzion

    The Rabbi Israel D. Rosenberg Educational Institute
    Congregation Etz Chaim of Kew Gardens Hills

    Invites you to

    Spend Shabbat with Rav Bazak in Kew Gardens Hills

    April 4-5 Shabbat Ha-Hodesh

    Click here to read moreLeil Shabbat 9:30pm – (in Hebrew) Shitat Ha-behinot B'limmud Tanakh
    At the home of Deena and Larry Rabinovich

    Shabbat morning
    10:30am –Drasha

    6:00pm – The Relationship between Mishkan and Mikdash as Paralleling that of Sukkot and Pesach

    7:00pm – The Four Sons of the Haggadah and their Biblical Sources

    Except for Leil Shabbat, Shiurim are in English at Cong. Etz Chaim 147-19 73rd Ave. Info: Azi Lipshtat or R. Moshe Rosenberg

    Yom Iyun in Sefer Shmuel

    Sunday April 6th

    Rav Amnon Bazak
    Rav David Silber

    Morning session –10:00-12:00
    Rav Bazak—Shiur on First Perek of Shmuel Alef
    Rav Silber—Shiur on Last Perek of Shmuel Bet

    Afternoon Roundtable – 12:30-2:00
    Moderated by Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg

    Chapter 15 of Shmuel Alef:
    Shaul and Amalek as a Key to the Themes of Sefer Shmuel

    $5.00 Suggested Donation

    Congregation Etz Chaim of Kew Gardens Hills
    147-19 73rd Ave Flushing, NY 11367

    Info: R. Moshe Rosenberg




  • (Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement.)


    Yahrtzeit of One of the Founders of Yeshiva University

    From the website of The Jewish Press (link):
    Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), the rabbinic affiliate of Yeshiva University, was founded in 1897. My great-grandfather, David Abramowitz, along with Rabbi Moses Mayer Matlin and Rabbi Yehuda David Bernstein were the three founders of RIETS.

    Mr. Abramowitz was the secretary of RIETS and he made the announcement of the creation of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary on January 15, 1897:

    Click here to read more“The Yeshiva of the Great Gaon Rabbi Isaac Elchanan, may his memory be a blessing, is now being organized. The purpose of the Yeshiva is (to enroll) children who can study a page of Talmud with Tosafot. A daily “shiur” will be taught by a Rosh Yeshiva (a teacher of advanced Talmudic subjects) and a teacher will give instructions in the language of the land.”

    My great-grandfather, as secretary of RIETS, was responsible for the school’s finances, and served the Yeshiva as executive director, manager, comptroller, bookkeeper, registrar, and dean of men. When a student entered the school, he would be registered and interviewed by David Abramowitz. Being a high school guidance counselor myself, I can relate to all the hard and rewarding work that must have gone into his job. My great-grandfather’s job differed from mine, however, because he was also responsible for affording entering students a stipend upon admittance to the school. He was in charge of an array of aspects that pertained to the smooth running of the school, and he showed with his undying devotion how much he yearned to provide Jewish education to create a strong generation of Jews in the future.

    Not only did my great-grandfather help establish a unique institution for Jewish education, but he also set up a home that he filled with words of torah and acts of chesed, and showed his children the path of wholly goodness. He and his wife, Sarah, had seven children. Their sixth child was my grandfather Max (Mordechai). He too was a kindhearted, hardworking, caring gentleman, and was dedicated to creating a home of ever-present learning and love of Judaism. Their seventh child, Rabbi Samuel J. Abrams, headed a congregation in Brookline, Massachusetts. Most recently, we reunited with his family after a 50-year period.

    David Abramowitz died on March 24, 1916 (19th of Adar 2).

    On his tombstone, it sums up the life of this pious man:

    “The Founder of Yeshivat Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan.

    Here is buried, a dear soul, a famous man from a respected family; his work was in charitable actions. For days and years he went in the righteous path. Tears will fall from our eyes and eyelashes. From his sons and daughters, his wife and close ones, our beauty was taken from us. The crown of our head is our father and teacher. David, son of the righteous man, Yehoshua, passed away on the 19th of Adar 2. His life should be tied to the lives of the living.”


    Thursday, March 27, 2008

    Musical Mishnayos

    There is a new music CD called "The Mishna Project" that is an interesting experiment in Torah study. The musicians (who are unnamed on the CD) put the first three chapters of Mishnah of tractate Berakhos to music. The theory is that after you study those mishnayos, your listening to it in an enjoyable format will help you memorize the words.

    I'm a big fan of the memorization of what we tellingly call the Oral Torah. I think that having the sources at your fingertips is the first step to mastering the give-and-take of talmudic and post-talmudic scholarship.

    What follows are my impressions of this particular CD:Click here to read more
    1. Overall, I like the CD, whatever criticism that follows notwithstanding.
    2. I think the instruments are too loud. The whole point is to be able to hear the words and overly loud drumming or guitar playing makes it hard.
    3. These guys can really sing and really play music. Maybe they aren't the next American Idols but, at least to this admittedly unsophisticated listener, all aspects of these songs are pleasing to the ear.
    4. Incredibly, there is a wide variety of songs for these mishnayos. And only one of them has some "nai nai nai"s to fill up space. I don't know if they can come up with new songs for the incredibly large number of mishnayos ahead of them.
    5. My third-grade son, who just started learning mishnayos and knows the first two chapters of Berakhos mostly by heart, really enjoys hearing the subject of his studies on a CD.
    6. However, I think that the CD in general fails because the songs are not singable by listeners. They are good, and I like the fact that wandering around my head is a tune to "nashim va-avadim u-ketanim peturim mi-keri'as shema", but I and my kids can't sing these songs. I think that this is a huge negative to the method.
    7. Part of that is due to these songs be very, um, trendy; very contemporary. Not necessarily in a bad way, but I can see some people over 30 being uncomfortable with these songs. Guaranteed to be called "goyish" by those who throw around such terms.
    8. That said, some of these songs are beautiful. In addition to the song mentionmed above, the song "kaveru es ha-mes ve-chazru" is just a great, slow song.
    9. There are some giggle-worthy moments when they sing songs about people who have bodily emissions, e.g. a ba'al keri. I know I'm an adult and I should get over it, but it's just weird.
    10. Additionally, these songs are too short. They vary in length, in that some go through the Mishnah once and some twice, but almost none are the length of a full song. You need instrumental parts and more repetition. If Lipa can make a full-length song out of the four words "Rabbosai mir vellen bentchen", these guys can make full songs from mishnayos. It's a real shame, because some of these are great songs but I don't think that Nachum Segal will play a 30-second song (although I could be mistaken). Regardless, I wish they were longer.
    11. From a marketing perspective, I'd recommend that they immediately proceed to Mo'ed; do not pass go or collect $200. Release each tractate before the relevant holiday -- Masekhes Sukkah before Sukkos, a funky Megillah before Purim, etc. Then do Eilu Metzi'os in Bava Metzi'a because it is very popular in elementary schools.
    12. In that spirit, quickly record a longer version of Berakhos 1:5 (which is part of the Passover Haggadah) and get it to Nachum Segal ASAP. Practically guaranteed radio time in this pre-Pesach time.
    13. In general, I look forward to the next CD but hope that the songs are more singable.
    For those who are offended by the very idea of singing mishnayos, the CD jacket lists a number of sources to defend the practice (e.g. Megillah 32a; Tosefta Ohalos 16:8).

    UPDATE: See these articles about the CD:


    Parashah Roundup: Shemini 5768

    by Steve Brizel

    Life Lessons
  • R. Zvi Sobolofsky reminds us that the lessons of the incident of the death of Aharon HaKohen's sons and Hilchos Maachalos Assuros is to teach us what is permissible and what is not in all aspects of life: link


  • Moshe Rabbeinu's Encouragement to Aharon HaKohen
  • The Baal Shem Tov, as quoted by the Degel Machaneh Efraim (as prepared by R. Eliezer Kwass), shows us that Moshe Rabbeinu assured Aharon HaKohen that he was the proper person to serve as the Kohen Gadol precisely because Aharon HaKohen was concerned about his role in the Episode of the Golden Calf: link
  • R. Yaacov Haber (Torahlab) demonstrates how the roles of both Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen were indispensable to Jewish unity: link


  • Click here to read moreThe Actions of Nadav and Avihu
  • R. Mayer Twersky suggests that the actions of Nadav and Avihu are symbolic of Rabbanim of a lesser Halachic stature who deem themselves worthy of answering Halachic inquiries that were historically reserved for Gedolei Talmidie Chachamim Poskim: link
  • R. Yissachar Frand examines the roles of Elazar and Isamar as examples of survivors of traumatic events and their responsibilities: link
  • R. Yitzchak Etshalom investigates the actions of Nadav and Avihu in light of a halacha in the Rambam (Bias Mikdash 1:3) and the role defined by the Rambam for Kohanim in that Halacha: link


  • Aharon HaKohen's Reaction to the Death of His Two Sons
  • R. Berel Wein contrasts the reactions of Aharon HaKohen and Iyov in dealing with personal tragedies: link
  • R. Asher Brander posits the difference between an active and quiet silence: link


  • The Interplay Between Moshe Rabbeinu, Aharon Hakohen, Elazar and Isamar
  • R. Ezra Bick examines the assumptions and discussions after the death of Nadav and Avihu: link


  • Tefillah, Birkas Kohanim and Karbanos
  • R. Herschel Schachter, based upon an idea developed by Rav Solveitchik zt"l in a Yahrtzeit shiur, explores the relationship between Tefillah and Karbanos and that we ask that our Tefilos should be considered as if we offfered a Karban and why Birkas Kohanim is recited at the end of Chazaras HaShatz: link


  • Kashrus
  • R. Jonathan Sacks suggests that the halachos of Kashrus represent a Divine Message that although man rules over the animal kingdom, not all animals are permitted for human consumption: link
  • R. Ephraim Buchwald explores many reasons given by the Commentators for the Halachos of Kashrus and suggests that these detailed Halachos are a means of unifying the Jewish People on both an individual and communal level: link
  • R. Baruch Simon, in his weekly shiur, explores why the Torah chose various halachos and animals were designated as signs of Tumah and Taharah: link (audio)
  • R. Shalom Rosner (may he have a successful aliyah and klitah in Israel!) discusses the Halachos and Hashkafa of Bishum Akum: link (audio)
  • R. Gedalia Hochberg discusses the requirement of Masores in identifying a kosher bird: link
  • R. Shlomo Riskin proves that Kashrus, because of its nature as a Chok, demonstrates that God is the ultimate arbiter of what is proper and improper: link


  • Parshas Parah Department
  • R. Aharon Lichtenstein emphasizes that Parshas Parah , like all Chukim and many mitzvos, teaches us that we cannot make adherence to mitzvos based on what seems like a rational basis that can be challenged on empirical evidence: link
  • R. Yaakov Haber (formerly of RIETS) explains why the Parah Adumah is an atonement for the Episode of the Golden Calf: link
  • R. Moshe Stav (KBY) explores the common denominator between Parshas Parah and Karban: link
  • R. Ari Waxman discusses the special powers of the Parah Adumah: link

  • Wednesday, March 26, 2008

    Like a Scroll or Like a Letter

    Like a Scroll or Like a Letter
    A Pictorial Note about Hilchot Sefer Torah in Contrast to Hilchot Megillah


    Michael J. Broyde

    One of the more interesting halachic discussions in the laws of megillah is the requirement that when the megillah is read in public, it is to be read not as a scroll, but as a letter. As the Shulchan Aruch states (Orach Chaim 690:17), “It is the universal practice of the Jewish people that the reader spreads out the megillah and reads it like a letter.” The Eliya Rabba notes (as do many others) that what this means is that one has to unroll the megillah from its scroll-like mode and fold it over, one page over another like a letter. Any of us who has seen this done during the reading of the megillah knows how awkward and unnatural a use of a scroll this is.

    Click here to read moreOne who looks in the Rishonim sees almost no evidence that this is in fact what was meant by the custom to read megillah as a letter. The practice is essentially unexplained in terms of its mechanics by the Rishonim. The requirement is taken verbatim from the Geonim, who use the phrase פושטה כאיגרת (poshetah ke-iggeret) as if we clearly understand that phrase intuitively; see for example Machzor Vitri 247; Shibolei ha-Leket, Purim 198; Rokeach, Purim 238; Taz, Orach Chaim 690:10. Even Mishnah Berurah (690:56) merely notes that the megillah should not be rolled. He writes: “[The megillah] should be entirely spread out and not left rolled up, but rather folded one column over another.”

    However, if one looks at the laws of a Sefer Torah in Orach Chaim 143:2, one finds an interesting halacha. Mechaber writes that “If one writes a whole book of the Torah alone, even as a scroll like a Sefer Torah, one may not read from it until all five books are bound as one.” Rama adds: “Only if they [all five volumes] are written in the form of a scroll like a Sefer Torah; but with our chumashim, even with all five volumes together, one may not recite a blessing on them.” The reason advanced by the Mishnah Berurah and others for not using “our chumashim” is that since they are not formed as a scroll, not tied with gidin, not written on parchment, and not written according to all the rules of a Torah, they may not be used. This explanation—clearly directed at explaining why our printed books known as chumashim may not be used—is absolutely true. However, after having seen a very rare megillah, I am now convinced it is not the correct explanation of the Rama.

    The Mishnah Berurah cannot conceive of a Torah written according to all the requirements of a Sefer Torah—written on parchment, by hand, with deyo, tied with gidin, etc.—save that it is not rolled as a scroll. But a Torah in such a form could certainly exist. I recently saw an old megillah that made this clear to me. It is written on parchment, ke-halacha, but folded accordion-style and can be placed inside a folded cover, which the manuscript librarians at Emory tell me is known as interleave folding of a scroll. Two photographs are reproduced below:


    The advantage of such a format is obvious, particularly for a reference text. The interleave folding makes flipping from one part to another much more convenient than using a Torah scroll, which must be rolled from one part to another. (Of course, there may be disadvantages as well: In a Sefer Torah, the written text faces a smooth, clean parchment surface, while with interleave folding, the inked “pages” face each other, allowing for the possibility of rubbing or transfer.)

    It is thus clear to me that Rama is dealing precisely with a work written by hand, on parchment, and consistent with all the other halachot of a Sefer Torah, except that it is bound in book form. Indeed, when one examines the Rishonim from where this halacha is derived (and one can find an excellent synopsis in the Darkei Moshe on Tur, Orach Chaim 143 as printed in the back of the Machon Yerushalayim edition), the crucial factor they speak of in invalidating such a chumash is that it is not rolled like a Torah even if it written by hand, with deyo, on parchment. If it is not in the form of a scroll, according to these many Rishonim, it may not be read from in public, even as all other requirements of a Sefer Torah are met.

    I also think that this halacha with regard to a Sefer Torah allows us to understand what is really meant by the word כאיגרת (ke-iggeret) in the context of megillah. A megillah need not be in the form of a scroll to be kosher, but a Torah must be.

    Thus the megillah pictured above is indeed kosher. But were a Torah to be written in such a fashion, it would be pasulaccording to Rama. Even if all the other halachot are followed, Rama and many Rishonim maintain that a Torah must be in the form of a scroll which is rolled from location to location in the text and does not have pages that can be turned. A megillah, however, need not; indeed, when read in public, it must not, according to our common custom.

    I further suspect that the Mechaber and Rambam disagree with the Rama in regard to a Torah and maintain that a Sefer Torah written on a proper parchment surface otherwise consistent with hilchot sefer torah that is merely folded in the inter-leave matter is in fact kosher for public reading. That is why Mechaber does not quote this halacha, and also why (as is widely assumed based on the omission of such in Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:1) Rambam denies the need for atzei chaim on a Torah as a matter of actual halacha, rather than logical convention. A Torah scroll folded as a book does not need such rollers. (For more on the dispute as to whether a Torah needs amudim, see Yoreh Deah 278:2 and the comments in Pitchei Teshuva 278:3.)

    These pictures provide an insight into what the Rishonim actually had in mind, I suspect, when they spoke about megillah as a scroll, and what Ramban, Mordechai, Raavan and Rama intend to prohibit when they insist that a Torah must be a scroll.

    If anyone else owns a megillah like this, or has seen one, or even knows a sofer who makes them in this way, I would appreciate being contacted at this address
    .


    Tuesday, March 25, 2008

    Thanking is More Than Saying "Thank You"

    Ever wonder why children have to be taught, sometimes with great difficulty, to say "thank you"? I think it is because they know something that we have forgotten.

    In describing the thanksgiving sacrifice (korban todah), the 19th century Italian biblical scholar Shadal (quoted by Ha-Kesav Ve-Ha-Kabbalah on Lev. 7:12 and Nehama Leibowitz in New Studies on Vayikra, vol. 1 p. 77) explains that thanking someone implies not just a feeling of gratitude but also submission. The thanker is turned into a recipient of graciousness from the more powerful provider.

    Click here to read moreShadal points to Eichah (Lamentations) 5:6: "מצרים נתנו יד We have given our hand to Egypt". This verse is describing a tragedy associated with the destruction of the Second Temple, but it is difficult to understand the incident to which it is referring. Isn't giving Egypt a hand showing our power? Rashi explains the verse as referring to someone who has fallen down and reaches out his hand to be helped out. Ibn Ezra says that it implies swearing (raising one's hand) in allegiance. Shadal, however, suggests that the word yad comes from the same root as thanking (ydh) and the phrase means that Israel has thanked Egypt, showing its submission to Egypt's greater power. Indeed, in the grace after meals we ask God not to make us dependent on other people's beneficence. Saying "thank you" implies that one is, in fact, dependent on another person's grace.

    We adults, however, tend to forget this. Words come out of our mouths without thought as to their meaning. They're just words. I suspect that children, though, understand what "thank you" really means. That is why they are so hesitant to say it. They want their independence. Perhaps in this respect, understanding the intent of words, we can take a lesson from children. Rather than refuse to say "thank you", we can say it and mean it.

    I am reminded by this of the quote from R. Shraga Silverstein that I recently posted to this blog (link):
    Some are quite willing to admit their mistakes because it really makes very little difference to them whether they are or not mistaken. In this respect one who is reluctant to admit his mistakes may have more of a respect and a concern for the truth than one who admits them freely.
    To me, this was a reminder of how easily words flow from our mouths without our thinking twice about them. We need to mean what we say.


    Announcements #030

  • Support Rabbi Horowitz

    R. Yakov Horowitz is a courageous and innovative educator, who is one of the few brave voices in the American Charedi world to call it (publicly) like he sees it. Please consider purchasing an ad in his yeshiva's upcoming annual dinner: information, purchase ad




  • (Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement.)


    Jerusalem United: Why No Ban?

    I saw a sign in Brooklyn for a concert and rally starring Yaakov Shwekey and Shalsheles (link). According to this article (link):
    The concert, "Jerusalem United", is billed as an "uplifting rally and concert" and will feature guest speakers, videos of Jerusalem and performances by top singers in the Jewish music world. It will be held Sunday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m. and is sponsored by the National Council of Young Israel, Jerusalem Reclamation Project and the Israel Solidarity Fund of America.
    On the sign I saw, it said "Separate seating available". In other words, there is mixed seating.

    To my knowledge, this concert has not been banned, unlike Lipa Shmeltzer's "Big Event". Even those signatories of the ban who are against all concerts do not seem to have become activated about this.

    Is calling it a rally the new way to get around the ban? Or is it because the National Council of Young Israel, a Modern Orthodox organization, is sponsoring it? Actually, I see here a great way for MO organizations to recruit from the Yeshiva world. Since the Yeshiva world is no longer allowed to have concerts, MO organizations should arrange for popular Yeshiva singers to entertain in their venues. The Yeshiva boys will come running.


    Birthdays

    By: Rabbi Ari Enkin


    “Most people cherish the day on which they were born and make a party on that day.”[1]

    Judaism teaches that a birthday is not just another day. The Torah even offers some insights and party tips on how a birthday is to be observed.[2] Everyone should be sure to know the date of his or her Hebrew birthday. One is advised to send a greeting card to others on the occasion of their birthday.[3] Oddly enough, the only time we find a birthday party mentioned anywhere in Tanach is in relation to the wicked Pharaoh,[4] though historically Jewish kings would celebrate their birthdays as well.[5]

    The Jewish nation as a whole celebrates its birthday every year – Pesach! This holiday of liberation and redemption has often been referred to as the birthday of the Jewish nation. Indeed, no less a personage than the prophet Ezekiel recommends that we observe Pesach as a national birthday party.[6] Rashi even suggests that we should each imagine that we’re newborn babies every year at Pesach.[7] Pesach is also the birthday of Yitzchak Avinu.[8] In fact, the inauguration of the Mishkan was delayed from it's completion in Kislev until Nissan in order that the inauguration serve as both a dedication of the Mishkan as well as a celebration in honor of the birthday of Yitzchak Avinu.[9] Similarly, Shavuot is somewhat of a birthday party for King David as well.[10] It is interesting to note that the date on which the world was actually created remains unresolved, and hence, we don’t truly know when to celebrate its birthday.[11]

    Click here to read moreWhile a birthday party should include some delicious birthday cake, one might want to consider avoiding the practice of lighting candles on the cake, as it's actually an evil pagan custom, according to Philochorus, the Greek historian. It was even believed that birthday candles have the power to make dreams come true, hence the custom of making a wish before blowing out the candles.[12] It is also worth noting that blowing out candles at any time is to be discouraged, due to the close symbolic connection between a candle and a soul.[13]

    The day of one’s birth offers that individual the mystical benefits and powers of what is known in Kabbala as “ascending fortune.” In fact, when having attacked the Jewish people, the evil Amalekites sent those soldiers who were celebrating their birthday to the front lines in confidence that the merit of their birthday would make them victorious and protect them from harm.[14] Similarly, to Haman's dismay, it was the merit of Moshe Rabbeinu's birthday that the Jewish people were saved from Haman's evil plot.[15] It is therefore considered worthwhile to seek a blessing from one celebrating their Hebrew birthday. Such blessings are said to have a better chance of being fulfilled.

    It is appropriate on one’s birthday to focus on one’s individuality and reflect on one’s personal interpretations of the Talmudic teaching that “the world was created for me.”[16] It is also appropriate to hold a celebratory meal on one's birthday. When one says Divrei Torah at such a meal, it turns the entire experience into a Seudat Mitzva.[17] We are told that even the angels celebrate the birthdays of Tzaddikim and consider the day a Yom Tov.[18]

    The acceptance of good resolutions in honor of one’s birthday contributes to the Jewish nation as a whole, and helps bring Mashiach closer. The power of change in one's behavior on one’s birthday has the potential of bringing the redemption on that very day.[19] It goes without saying that the 12th birthday for girls and the 13th birthday for boys have special significance. The Zohar teaches that from the perspective of joy and celebration, the day of one's bar mitzva is comparable to the day of one’s wedding.[20]

    Just as the birthday of our people is celebrated each year with rites and rituals, so too, the birthday of every individual Jew should be observed accordingly. In recent years, rabbinical authorities, most notably the late Lubavitcher Rebbe,[21] have compiled a number of customs to be observed in honor of one’s birthday, which include to endeavor to be called to the Torah on the Shabbat before one’s birthday (when the birthday occurs on a day that the Torah is read, one should be called to the Torah on that day, too), to dispense extra charity on one's birthday, and to throw a party with one's family and friends. Any mitzvot that one performs one's birthday, especially the giving of charity, will have a greater impact both in terms of accomplishment as well as character development.[22] Some authorities suggest making a siyum in honor of the occasion.[23]

    Additionally, in the spirit of the day, it is commendable to pray with greater intensity and concentration (especially with the recitation of Tehillim), to accept upon oneself some new act of piety or Torah observance, and to make resolutions for the coming year. One should study the Psalm that corresponds to one's age, along with the traditional commentaries, on one's birthday. For example, one who is 30 should study Chapter 31 of Tehillim. It suggested that one recite the chapter of Tehillim which corresponds to one's age every single day.[24] It may just be that one's 60th birthday celebration should be the most joyous.[25] Other sources, however, seem to suggest that it is the 50th birthday that is especially significant,[26] while other authorities list the 70th,[27] and 80th birthdays as the most significant.[28]

    It is interesting to note that there exists a view that a birthday is actually no cause for celebration at all.[29] This idea being based on the famous Talmudic dispute which concludes that it would actually have been better if man had never been created.[30] It is also noted that in light of the fact that the only scriptural mention of birthdays is in relation to Pharaoh, it may be reason to suggest some hesitation in celebrating them.[31] Other authorities consider celebrating birthdays a Gentile custom.[32] There is also a view that one should consider making the anniversary of one's bris the occasion for an annual celebration rather than one's birthday (a brisday party?).[33]

    Nevertheless, the normative Torah approach is not like these views. A Jewish birthday is indeed to be considered a very special day.[34] It is certainly not a day to be wasted, but rather a day to be maximized with Torah study and mitzvot. We must also be sure to thank God for our milestone, which some do by reciting the blessing of Shehecheyanu in conjunction with new clothing, or the like.[35] There were even great sages who celebrated their birthdays.[36] The Talmud even notes the birthdays of our forefathers which conveys to us the importance of a birthday.[37]



    NEXT WEEK: "Chazzanim / Ba'alei Tefilla". Please send me your lesser-known and obscure sources as well as anecdotes for inclusion. I truly thank and appreciate all those who sent me tidbits in preparation for this article!! rabbiari@hotmail.com

    **********


    [1] Midrash Sechel Tov, Bereishit 40:20.
    [2] Bereishit 40:20.
    [3] Iggeret Tiferet Yisrael 6, Sefer Mayim Hahalacha
    [4] Bereishit 40:20. See also Avoda Zara 10a
    [5] Hoshea 7:5;Metzudat David. Cited in "Yom Huledet L'or Hamekorot" by Rabbi Efraim Weinberger
    [6] Based on Yechezkel 16:4.
    [7] Ibid.
    [8] Bereishit Rabba 48:12, Shemot Rabba 15:11, Tosfot;Rosh Hashana. Cited in "Yom Huledet L'or Hamekorot" by Rabbi Efraim Weinberger
    [9] Pesikta 6, Midrash Rabba Pekudei 52:2. Cited in "Yom Huledet L'or Hamekorot" by Rabbi Efraim Weinberger
    [10] O.C. 490:9, Sha'arei Teshuva 494:7
    [11] Rosh Hashana 10b.
    [12] Cited in Rabbi Avrohom Blumenkrantz, The Laws of Pesach, 2001.
    [13] Mishlei 20:27.
    [14] Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana 3:8, cited in: http://www.bknw.org/pafiledb/uploads/Birthdays.pdf
    [15] Megilla 13b;Rashi
    [16] Sanhedrin 37a.
    [17] Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 217:16, Be’er Sheva 72, Kaf Hachaim 223:29, Kaf Hachaim 568:25, Yabia Omer O.C. 6:29
    [18] Sefer Hasichot 5703, p. 90 and p. 186
    [19] Based on Tehillim 95:7.
    [20] Zohar Chadash, Bereishit.
    [21] Sefer Haminhagim (Chabad) Birthdays
    [22] Rabbi Chaim Paladgi, cited in: http://www.bknw.org/pafiledb/uploads/Birthdays.pdf
    [23] Ketav Sofer Y.D. 148, Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 225
    [24] Igrot Kodesh Vol. 3, p. 451
    [25] Mo'ed Katan 28a, Kaf Hachaim 223:29
    [26] Ketav Sofer Y.D. 148
    [27] Chavot Yair 70
    [28] Beit Yisrael #32, cited in: http://dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-028.htm
    [29] Arugot Habosem 215, Sefer Divrei Torah 5:88, cited in http://www.bknw.org/pafiledb/uploads/Birthdays.pdf
    [30] Eruvin 13b
    [31] Sefer Otzar Kol Minhagei Yeshurun. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Ner Yisrael noted however that it is not foreign for the Torah to associate even legitimate ideas with wicked people. He endorsed the celebration of birthdays.
    [32] Arugat Habosem 215, Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 225
    [33] Chatam Sofer;Torat Moshe to Parshat Vayeira, Ben Ish Chai;Parshat Re’eh 17 both cited in http://www.bknw.org/pafiledb/uploads/Birthdays.pdf
    [34] Ketav Sofer Y.D. 148, Ben Ish Chai Vayera #17, cited in Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 225
    [35] Ginzei Yosef 1:4:2
    [36] Hakatan V'hilchotav 84
    [37] Rosh Hashana 11a


    Monday, March 24, 2008

    The New OU

    It seems the OU has come up with a new logo. The same U in the O will remain for kosher certification but the logo on the right will be used for all other purposes. Apparently, this is meant to show that the OU is about more than just kosher certification. This also helps the OU's legal standing in potential kosher disputes (with non-compliant companies) if the U in the O is used only for kosher certification.


    Common Ground for Jews and Christians

    R. Meir Soloveichik discusses Dr. Jacob Neusner's book on Jesus and where he thinks it misses the boat (link):
    [H]ow does Neusner see himself as responding to this man who puts himself in place of the Torah, who accords himself the authority of the Almighty? He politely voices his disagreement, arguing for the eternity of the Torah and insisting that the Torah addresses all Jews together and makes no special differentiation between a Jesus of Nazareth or a Jacob Neusner. At the same time, Benedict writes that Neusner “is constantly moved by the greatness of Jesus; again and again he talks with him.” When Neusner asserts that Jesus is mistaken, it is “only with great respect and reverence.” Again and again, Jesus and Neusner agree to disagree and part amicably. Even as Neusner feels that Jesus’ arguments are profoundly misguided, at the same time he depicts himself telling Jesus that “I honor you and wish you well”...

    Click here to read moreBut, for Jews, Neusner approaches Jesus in the wrong way, for Jesus is not someone with whom we can have this sort of “dialogue.” If we deny his divinity, then we can respond with nothing short of shock and dismay when we read the words of a man who puts himself in the place of God. Thus, in his admirable attempt to distinguish between Judaism and Christianity, Neusner elides the most important difference of all...

    [E]ven as Jews and Christians profoundly disagree about the truth, they are united in the belief that there is a truth to be sought. Moreover, Orthodox Jews and Christians share a belief in a traditional ethics that is seen today as old-fashioned and outmoded. There is much about the Church today and its leadership that I find troubling. In its attitude toward world affairs, in its statements about Israel and Palestinians, and on the war in Iraq, the Vatican often expresses an overly pacifistic European perspective. But, in an age that Benedict correctly describes as one of “relativism and creeping secularism,” one in which Orthodox Jews are often derided as fundamentalists because of their views regarding religious truth, sexuality, and medical ethics, a Jew who reads Ratzinger’s homily cannot help feeling that he has an ally in Pope Benedict XVI. ‬‪

    Does truth as traditionally understood still exist? Traditional Jews, like Catholics, know the answer to the question. In the end, this is what unites Jews and Christians. Because they believe in truth, traditional Jews cannot and will not find a friend in Jesus—but because they do believe in truth, they can find a friend in followers of Jesus such as Benedict. A friendship founded on our mutual resistance to relativism is one that can unite us despite our theological differences. That will have to do until our debate over Jesus is resolved by God himself. ‬


    Sunday, March 23, 2008

    Flipping Out? in Canada

    Research yeshivas before sending your kids, author says
    The Canadian Jewish News
    March 20, 2008 pages B10-B11
    (available online here - PDF)

    By FRANCES KRAFT
    Staff Reporter

    Rabbi Shalom Berger, co-author of Flipping Out? Myth or Fact: The Impact of the “Year in Israel,” was not partial to the proposed title of the book when his publisher, Rabbi Gil Student, first suggested it. “I wasn’t so excited about it,” Rabbi Berger told The CJN in a phone interview from his home in Alon Shvut, near Jerusalem. “I thought it would imply something I didn’t think was fully accurate.” The question mark was inserted at his request, and the subtitle was one of several considered.

    Indeed, the title and cover photo are somewhat provocative, alluding to fears among some parents of children becoming so religiously radicalized that they lose touch with the values they were raised with.

    Click here to read moreThe 218-page volume, published in December by Yashar Books, has a handsomely photographed cover featuring a black fedora and suit jacket neatly placed on a suitcase in front of the Western Wall, considered Judaism’s holiest site. The garments are symbolic of stricter Jewish ritual observance and are not typical attire for modern Orthodox students entering Israeli yeshivot.

    The book’s title, taken from Jewish rock band Blue Fringe’s song “Flippin’ Out,” is a flip take (pun notwithstanding) on the yeshiva year in Israel.

    Its lyrics address some of the same changes referred to in the book – restrictions on relationships with the opposite sex, more visibly Orthodox attire, stricter observance of religious ritual, and avoidance of secular culture including movies – and the tension such changes can cause between parents and children.

    The book’s approach, with three academics as respective writers of its three sections, is considerably more serious, but makes for an interesting read both for its lack of pedantry and its subject matter. There is little if any other current material exclusively devoted to the yeshiva year in Israel.

    Rabbi Berger, an educator, and Rabbi Daniel Jacobson, a psychologist, base their sections on their respective doctoral studies, the former looking at changes in students’ attitudes and practices, and the latter examining the underlying psychology. Sociologist Chaim Waxman, who studied at an Israeli yeshiva himself in the late 1950s, wraps things up by examining American Orthodoxy, Zionism and Israel. All three authors are Americans who have made aliyah.

    For his doctorate in education, Rabbi Berger, who works for the Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora at Bar-Ilan University, interviewed some 400 students at the beginning and end of their year in Israel. He sought them out a year later as well and was able to locate most of them, he said.

    His subjects, virtually all of whom are graduates of American Jewish day schools, were drawn from four yeshivot hesder that combine study with army service for Israeli students and three American programs.

    The term “flipping out” isn’t used in the book, and the authors do not put an explicit value judgment on the phenomenon. “It’s something that’s out there that parents express,” said Waxman. “Some modern Orthodox parents do see it as negative.”

    In a comment that could be construed as reassuring – or not, if one wonders why the issue is raised in the first place – Rabbi Berger writes in the book that yeshiva students “do not appear to be swept up by a cult-like phenomenon.”

    However, noted co-author Waxman in a phone interview, there is a process of “socialization” at yeshivot. Also, he noted, the yeshiva is a “total” environment.

    “Its aim is to mould a certain type of person, and in some cases if the students internalize things to an extreme, it might have effects similar to those of people who join cults. I don’t think it’s the intention, or what the yeshiva does, but it’s how the student absorbs it.”

    Rabbi Berger said that it’s not just the yeshiva experience that causes changes, but the age and developmental stage of the students, most of whom are just out of high school. They’re beginning to distinguish themselves from their parents. They’re developing their own identity and rebelling at some level.

    “The question is: What setting are they going to be in when they have these experiences? We all think about the ’60s when kids went off to college and came back different from their parents – an experience in which students are exposed to ideas that they find compelling and very often they [are inculcated]. This is what you expect from 18- and 19-year-olds.

    “In most cases that I’m familiar with, assuming the kids grew up in settings that are healthy and supportive, and where there is open communication, at some point they... come to appreciate their parents’ values and move back on some level in that direction.”

    Rabbi Berger expected to find changes not only in religious attitudes and practice but also in attitudes toward Israel, and “for the most part” he did.

    One finding that surprised him, however, was that students did not change in the area of ethical behaviour over the course of the year. Although his first reaction was to think that “this is something of an indictment of a program that put such an emphasis on ritual matters that interpersonal matters fell by the wayside,” he soon changed his mind.

    “It turned out there really wasn’t a lot of room for change... The students scored themselves so high at the beginning of the year on interpersonal things that there was no room to change.”

    He believes the finding is explained by the consistent support in the general community for ethical behaviour and a concomitant minimum of support for religious practice. The “overwhelming majority” of yeshiva students do not flip out, said Waxman. “Most come back and go to university, but they are affected – from my point of view very positively,” he said.

    Some do stay for a second year instead of returning home, he noted. Of those, he added, some have their parents’ blessings, and others stay on against their parents’ wishes.

    The book cited a Jewish studies principal at one student’s high school who disapproved of his former student’s decision not to attend the Ivy League university at which he had deferred acceptance.

    The principal was concerned that future students would not be allowed to defer acceptance if others did not “uphold their commitments.”

    But Paul Shaviv, director of education at the Anne and Max Tanenbaum Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto, which currently has about 20 alumni in Israeli yeshivot, disagrees with that premise. “A school’s principal’s duty is to do what is best for the student, not [worry] about their school image,” he told The CJN.

    Rabbi Berger noted that, among his research subjects who stayed for a second year, “not that many” originally planned to do so. “Clearly they were influenced, or they themselves said, ‘This is what I want to be doing.’ ”

    For parents considering Israeli yeshiva education for their children, Waxman recommends putting “at least as much time into researching the institution as you would into finding out about a new car.”

    He said parents need to know the perspective of the yeshiva – haredi, “transplanted American” or religious Zionist, for example.

    Also, he added, they need to know their own child. “There are certain youngsters who should not be sent away from home, who need their parents there. Parents have children who are struggling and they think that sending them to Israel will resolve their struggles, but frequently it exacerbates them.”

    Reflecting on the findings in the book, Waxman said he thinks “it just scratches the surface.

    “It’s such a rich area that needs to be mined. There are so many things we don’t know.”


    God versus The Gedolim

    The last verse of the book of Esther is:
    כי מרדכי היהודי משנה למלך אחשורוש וגדול ליהודים ורצוי לרב אחיו...
    For Mordechai the Jew was second to king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by most of his brothers...
    The Gemara (Megillah 16b) infers from the phrase "accepted by most of his brothers" that some of his brothers did not accept him -- a minority (מקצת) of the Sanhedrin distanced themselves from him. This is further explained by pointing out that in the first return from the Persian/Babylonian exile Mordechai is listed fifth among the returnees (Ezra 2:2) and in the second return he is listed sixth (Nechemiah 7:7). Why did he descend in the list? The Gemara quotes Rav Yosef who says that the study of Torah is greater than saving lives. After the people in the first return to Israel failed to rebuild the Temple, Mordechai returned to Persia and served in a capacity to his people of being close to the king and preventing the destruction of the Jews. However, his neglect of (public) teaching of the Torah in order to save the Jewish people is condemned by the Bible, as evidenced in his descent from fifth on the list to sixth. (Someone else should have taken the role of saving lives so Mordechai could teach Torah.)

    Click here to read moreThis bothered me, not just because of the difficulty in understanding how teaching Torah could be greater than saving thousands of lives. Let's set that aside and deal with the less obvious problem. The minority of the Sanhedrin distanced themselves from Mordechai. That means that the majority agreed with his decision! If so, shouldn't the conclusion be that saving lives is greater than the study of Torah, following the majority of the Sanhedrin who agreed with Mordechai? Why did Rav Yosef reject this majority position?

    The only answer I could find to this is given by the Rif in the Ein Ya'akov. He says that since the Bible (in Ezra and Nechemiah) disapproved of Mordechai's action, by moving him down in the list, we see that God sided with the minority view against Mordechai and the majority.

    Of course, one could object that these matters are "not in heaven". The Torah was given to us and we do not allow heavenly viewpoints to decide on matters of halakhah. However, in this case it is a biblical verse that offers the heavenly viewpoint, so I think it is admissible to the discussion.

    One could propose that both views were correct, in the spirit of "these and those are the words of the living God." But is that really a viable position against a biblical verse? And how can it be said that it was a viable position before the verse was written? Once it was true it cannot later be incorrect. Rather, it must have always been incorrect. While the verse is not explicit on this issue, there seems to be no debate on its implied meaning.

    In other words, the majority is not always right, even the majority of Gedolim that includes someone as great and holy as Mordechai. While we must still follow the majority view of a Sanhedrin when they issue an official ruling, that does not necessarily make them correct. And so it was with Mordechai, where the majority of the Sanhedrin agreed that saving lives takes precedence over the public teaching of Torah, while God, and eventually the Bible (as explained by the Gemara), disagreed.


    Welcome New Readers

    I don't know what happened, but yesterday Hirhurim had more hits than I think it has ever had on a single day -- over 10,000. On a Saturday night! And today, as of 9am EDT, the hits are over 5,000. I don't know if there is a link to the blog from somewhere popular or if something is broken.

    To all the new readers, I welcome you and recommend looking at the list of posts on the right and the archives in general. Thank you for visiting this blog.

    Link to counter


    Saturday, March 22, 2008

    Tanach Yom Iyun

    Reminder: YU Tanach Yom Iyun this Sunday. More info here: link


    Friday, March 21, 2008

    Purim Torah: Mordechai and Dating

    R. Daniel Z. Feldman from YU Torah:
    The Megilah ends with a surprising sad note: that Mordechai was "ratzui l’rov echav" (Esther 10:3). The Talmud (Megillah 16b) teaches us that he was accepted only to "most of his brothers", because some of his colleagues on the Sanhedrin disapproved of Mordechai's actions and separated themselves from him. A sad reception for a hero of the Jewish people.

    However, a closer attention to the simple meaning of the text yields another dimension to this verse.

    Click here to read more"Ratzui l’rov echav " can actually be translated as saying that Mordechai was "ratzui", was amenable, to listening to the "rov" of his brothers. Obviously, this is a reference to the verse "Vayidgo L’rov b’kerev ha’aretz" (Bereishis 48:16), which, the Talmud (Sotah 36b, etc) understands to refer to the “[many] fish in the sea”. In other words, since Mordechai was now single (Megillah 15a), they were telling him that it was time to start dating again.

    Mordechai was amenable, but had an objection as well. The Talmud (Bava Kama 27b) tells us, "ein holkhin b'mamon achar harov," literally, one does not go after 'rov', i.e., dating, with money. Since dating has become very expensive, it is functionally impossible to date within the Talmud's guideline.

    The rabbis’ response was two-fold. First, the principle is only, "ein holkhin", we do not travel with money, a reference to paying tolls, which were high even then. Since "melekh poretz geder" (Pesachim 110a), we can assume that Mordechai, as a "mishneh l'melech", certainly didn't have to pay tolls.

    Second, even if the principle refers to the date as a whole, it is not necessary for the date to be that expensive. Instead of having fleishigs, they could just go out for drinks. In fact, the rabbis actually recommended that he should give his date drinks until she can not accurately tell how worthy he is, or “until they don’t know the difference between blessed is Mordechai and cursed is Haman” (Megillah 7b).

    Mordechai, however, disputed the notion that a fleishig meal was unnecessary, citing the passage (Chullin 2a), “Rov metzuyin eitzel Shechitah, mumchim”, which is properly translated as “ ‘Rov’ is only successfully acquired through providing shechted food, you experts” (as we know, the judges of the Sanhedrin must be mumchim, Sanhedrin 2b, etc).

    The verse in the Megillah tells us that Mordechai was “doresh tov l’khol amo”. Obviously, this can only mean Mordechai continued arguing the concept of marriage – expounding (doresh) the issue of “tov” (marriage – see Berachos 8a) until the other rabbis gave up. It was only then, understandably, that they separated from him.

    This is the obvious intention of the pasuk to anyone who reads carefully.


    Thursday, March 20, 2008

    Who was Achashveirosh?

    by Rabbi Dov Kramer

    Who was Achashveirosh? For generations, scholars and historians have discussed and debated the identity of the Persian king that married Esther, allowed Haman to issue a decree to wipe out the Jewish people, and eventually allowed a counter-decree that enabled the Jews to defend themselves and kill their enemies instead. I am neither a historian nor a scholar (although sometimes I play one on the radio), but being that at this time of year "Purim Torah" is appropriate, I figured it would be okay to share some of my thoughts on the matter. (Some might say I write "Purim Torah" all year long anyway.)

    The whole premise of identifying which Persian king was Achashveirosh presupposes that we have a list of Persian kings to choose from that coincides with the Persian kings listed in Biblical and Rabbinical sources. However, there are only four names of Persian kings listed in the traditional literature. Since one of the Persian kings is Achashveirosh, (Koresh, Daryavesh and Artachshasta being the other three names) it would seem rather straightforward which king is being referred to in the Purim story. Since it is universally accepted that the name Koresh=Cyrus and Daryavesh=Darius, and almost universally accepted that Achashveirosh=Xerxes and Artachshasta=Artaxerxes, we should easily be able to identify Achashveirosh as Xerxes. If only it were that simple! There were several kings with each of those names, so matching the Biblical name with the name assigned by Greek historians cannot be enough.

    Click here to read moreThe first clue we should probably look for in order to pinpoint which king was Achashveirosh is the timing of the Purim story. Our sages (Megilah 11b) tell us that one of the reasons Achashveirosh threw the big party that opens the story was that he had miscalculated the end of the 70 year period of the exile after the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. If we count 70 years from its destruction and see who was the King of Persia, we should have found our man, right? Here's where it starts getting more complicated, as the year of the first Temple's destruction is not universally accepted. Mitchell First has written a wonderful book that discusses the issues surrounding the number of Persian kings that ruled between the Babylonians and the Greeks, the amount of years they ruled, and the year of the Temple's destruction, titled "Jewish History in Conflict." Many of these issues directly affect identifying the king in the Purim story (he discusses this as well), so there is no point in trying to figure out which of the kings listed by secular historians was Achashveirosh unless you are willing to work within their framework of history. That doesn't mean you have to necessarily accept their framework, and certainly not everything about it, but if your starting point in reconciling history is matching the names of the kings in the traditional and secular literature, you have to be willing to think it through on both terms. For those who see no point in trying to match the Achashveirosh of the Purim story with a particular Persian king, there is no problem with simply stating that Achashveirosh came between Koresh and Daryavesh, who was also known as Artachshasta. However, those who are curious about a possible connection between Achashveirosh and a king in secular Persian history, please read on, bearing in mind that we are starting from a traditional standpoint.

    The two basic timeframes given for the destruction of the first Temple are 586 BCE and 420 BCE. Seventy years after the destruction would therefore be either 516 BCE or 350 BCE. Darius I ruled in 516 BCE (from 522-486), while Artaxerxes III ruled in 350 BCE (from 358-338). However, since Achashveirosh was off by more than 10 years, as his party to "celebrate" the end of the 70 years was in his third year as king (Esther 1:3) while the decree was to be carried out in his 13th year (see 3:7), it could have been the kings that preceded them, Cambyses II (529-522) or Artaxerxes II (404-359). Although we are working within the framework of secular history, there is no reason to assume that their years are precise; it would be safe to say that even if they are in the ballpark, they are off by a few years. This would mean including Cyrus II as a possibility, as he ruled from 559-530.

    You may have noticed that none of the kings named "Xerxes" were included in that short list, as Xerxes I didn't start his rule until 485, more than 100 years after the destruction, and Xerxes II ruled for less than two months in 424. Nevertheless, there are several that suggest that Xerxes I was Achahsveirosh, mostly because of the name. Prominent among them is Daat Mikrah, which in its introduction to Esther agrees that he ruled after the 2nd Temple was already built, and associates the "animosity written against those that lived in Judah and Jerusalem at the beginning of Achashveirosh's reign" (Ezra 4:6) with the need to repair the walls around Jerusalem rather than with taking away the previously granted permission to rebuild the Temple that is traditionally associated with him. Because I am attempting to be as consistent as possible with the traditional literature, I have a hard time accepting the Daat Mikrah's substitution. There are other issues with this suggestion as well. As the Daat Mikrah points out, if Xerxes I was Achashveirosh, Mordechai and Esther would be extremely old (Mordechai was among those exiled from Jerusalem before its destruction, see Esther 2:6). Additionally, Xerxes I's rule over Egypt was tenuous at best, not the complete control "from India to Ethiopia" indicated by the Talmud (Megilah 11a). As a matter of fact, since the king in the Purim story "ruled from India to Ethiopia," meaning that Egypt had to be part of the kingdom, we can rule out Cyrus II as well, since Egypt was first captured by his son, Cambyses II, as well as ruling out both Artaxerxes II and III, since the 31st Egyptian Dynasty didn't begin until 343 BCE, 7 years after the Temple would have been rebuilt.

    There is another, more blatant, reason why Xerxes (and Artaxerxes and Cambyses) can't be the Persian king in the Purim story. Each and every one of them succeeded their father to the throne, while Achashveirosh was not of royal descent (Megilah 11a) and married Vashti, whose father had been king, in order to legitimize his ascent to the throne. As a matter of fact, every king of the Achaemenian Dynasty succeeded his father (often by killing other siblings) except for one, Darius I. Not only did Darius I rule within the time frame of 70 years after the destruction, but he became king when he murdered Cambyses' brother (or the person Darius claimed was an imposter pretending to be Cambyses' brother) and married Cambyses' sister (Cyrus II's daughter). (It should be noted that there is more than one opinion as to which king was Vashti's father; see Targum on Esther 1:1.)

    Darius I took over the Persian Empire a few years after Cambyses II had conquered Egypt, and exercised strong control over it and the rest of his empire (which stretched from India to Ethiopia), until he tried to conquer Greece (about 490 BCE). He moved the capitol of the empire to Susa (Shushan, see Esther 1:2), and among his major accomplishments was setting up a system to collect taxes from all of the provinces under his rule, which would explain why the Megilah ends by telling it (10:1). His many accomplishments would certainly justify the description of "his mighty and powerful activities" referenced as being "recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (10:2). The only aspect that would seem to be an apparent inconsistency would be his name, Darius (and not Xerxes)

    Although had his name been Xerxes there would be, in my mind, no question that he was the Achashveirosh of the Purim story, the other factors far outweigh his being known as Darius. Besides, other kings had more than one name (for example, see Ezra 6:14, where Rashi says Artachshasta is Daryavesh and Ibn Ezra says that Artachshasta is Achashveirosh). There were several kings named Xerxes (and instances where a son took the father's name, i.e. Artaxerxes II and III), and the name Xerxes was around before Darius I (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra on Daniel 9:1). For all we know, after Esther had a positive impact on "Xerxes" he changed his named to Daryavesh, the name he became known as to historians. (It should be noted that not every traditional source has Esther and Achasveirosh having a son named Daryavesh; see Torah Shelaimah 5:8, quoting the Zohar, that Esther was never intimate with Achashveirosh, rather, a demon took her form and went instead of her. Considering that students are considered like children, this could explain why the "new and improved" Xerxes, nee Darius, is considered her "son.")

    I would therefore suggest that the king referred to in the Purim story is the Persian king who took the throne by force about 60 years after the destruction of the first Temple, married Cyrus II's daughter (possibly promising that their first son together would be named successor to the throne in order to convince her to marry him), moved the capitol to Shushan, strengthened the empire built by his predecessors, and found a way to effectively collect taxes from the very ends of his far flung kingdom, i.e. the king known as Darius I.


    Wednesday, March 19, 2008

    Blessing The Second Reading

    The Blessing

    Ever wonder why we (or at least we Ashkenazim) recited the blessing "She-Hecheyanu" twice before reading the megillah, once before the reading at night and again before the reading in the day? "She-Hecheyanu" is for infrequent joyous events, like a mitzvah that is performed only once a year. It is not for the same mitzvah within a 24-hour period.

    In fact, the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 692:1) rules like the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Megillah 1:3) that the "She-Hecheyanu" is only recited on the megillah reading at night and not on the reading in the day. The Rema (ibid.) rules like Rabbenu Tam (Tosafos Ha-Rosh, Megillah 4a sv. chayav) that one recites "She-Hecheyanu" both at night and during the day. (Interestingly, Tosafos Ha-Rosh quote Rabbenu Tam's older brother, Rashbam, as having the same view as the Rambam.)

    Click here to read moreThe Two Blessings

    While the primary megillah reading is the one during the day, the Vilna Gaon in his commentary to the Shulchan Arukh points out that if the "She-Hecheyanu" is recited even long in advance then it is not repeated. For example, if one recites the blessing when building a sukkah before the holiday then it applies to the mitzvah and one does not repeat the blessing on the holiday. That is why, according to the Rambam, one does not repeat the blessing on the megillah reading in the day. However, this raises the question why Rabbenu Tam would disagree with the Rambam.

    R. Yechezkel Abramsky (Chazon Yechezkel, Megillah 2:2) defends Rabbenu Tam's position by pointing out the difference between the sukkah example and the megillah case. With the sukkah, the building of the sukkah is a preparation for the mitzvah of dwelling in it and is essentially an extension of the mitzvah. That is why the blessing recited on the building of the sukkah applies to the mitzvah as well. However, the reading of the megillah at night and in the day are two separate mitzvah activities. But this leaves the question of why the Rambam was not convinced by this reasoning.

    The Two Readings

    The Gemara (Megillah 4a) quotes R. Yehoshua ben Levi who says that we are obligated to read the megillah at night and then repeat it during the day. The language of this saying is odd because it would have been sufficient to say that we are obligated to read the megillah at night and during the day. Why the language of "repeat it"? Also, why is this the only mitzvah of Purim that applies at night?

    R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik is quoted as saying that the reading at night is solely an instrument to making the morning megillah a second reading (R. Mayer Twersky quotes others in the name of R. Soloveitchik at minute 34 of this lecture - audio). The fundamental obligation is to re-read the megillah during the day. There is, therefore, no inherent observance at night but merely a preparation for the reading in the day, although the Sages ordained that this preparation be done at night. If someone were to be unable to hear the megillah during the day, for example if he were to have to undergo a full day of surgery, then he would not be obligated to hear the megillah at night either.

    With this, we can explain Rambam's position. Just like the building of a sukkah is a preparation for dwelling in it, the reading of megillah at night is a preparation for the reading in the day. Both are extensions of the basic mitzvah and, therefore, the "She-Hecheyanu" recited on either "preparations" apply also to the basic mitzvah. That is why the "She-Hecheyanu" at night is sufficient for the day as well.

    (Note that the Magen Avraham [692:1] offers an alternate explanation for reciting the blessing in the day -- that it applies to the other commandments of the day.)


    Parashah Roundup: Tzav-Purim 5768

    by Steve Brizel

    Vayikra and Tzav
  • R. Yitzchak Etshalom examines many of the differences between the Torah's presentation and focus on Korbanos in both Parshiyos: link


  • Rashi's Comment on the Korban Olah
  • R. Yissachar Frand suggests that Rashi quotes the Tanna R Shimon's comment of Zrizus with respect to the Korban Olah because of the loss of money: link


  • Click here to read moreThe Ner Tamid
  • R. Berel Wein shows how the flame of the Ner Tamid symbolizes the light of Torah and the warmth of a traditional Torah life: link
  • HaRav Drash Viyun [the Reisha Rav, R. Aaron Levine - GS] (as quoted in Maayanah Shel Torah) and as prepared by R. Eliezer Kwass, points out that the flame of the Ner Tamid requires us to have Ahavas and Yiras HaShem even and especially in strange locales: link


  • The Korban Todah
  • R. Zev Leff and R. Jonathan Sacks explore four different aspects of the Korban Todah: link 1, link 2


  • The Issur Kares
  • R. Ephraim Buchwald discusses the various meanings of the Issur Kares in the Rishonim and suggests that its severety acts as a means to ensure that we adhere to the mitzvos: link


  • Parshas Tzav and Purim
  • R. Baruch Simon, in his weekly shiur, discusses the connections between Purim and Parshas Tzav: link (audio)
  • R. Zvi Sobolofsky discusses the halachos involved in Purim Meshulash: link (audio)


  • Purim and Shmitta
  • R. Shlomo Brin discusses the halachic issues that arise with Mishloach Manos during a Shmittah year: link


  • Purim/Shushan Purim Department
  • R. Shlomo Wolbe zt"l examines the concept of Pirsumei Nisah in an age of Haster Panim: link (RTF)
  • Dr. Boaz Spiegel discusses numerous explanations of a seemingly cryptic verse in Megillas Esther (Esther 5:12-13): link
  • R. Herschel Schachter emphasizes that the custom of wearing costumes is to remind us that we must always look below the surface and in between the lines to gain the insights of the Torah SheBaal Peh: link
  • R. Moshe Taragin provides numerous insights into the two days of Purim: link
  • R. Menachem Liebtag reveals the hidden message of Megilas Esther: link
  • R. Aharon Lichtenstein explains what was the sin of the Jewish People that led to the rise of Haman and what we learn from Esther's moral development: link 1, link 2
  • R. Mordechai Greenberg shows us how the mitzvah of destroying Amalek and the Land of Israel are integrally interrelated: link
  • R. Yaacov Haber (Torahlab) emphasizes that the message of Purim is that we should all find our place within the Jewish People and make ourselves count: link

  • Tuesday, March 18, 2008

    Solving All Of Yeshiva College's Problems In One Fell Swoop

    I'll admit that the title of this post is more than a little ambitious. Instead of attempting the impossible, let's discuss an editorial by Zev Eleff -- "Someone Stop Them, Please!" in the most recent issue of The Commentator (link) -- about the difficulties of Yeshiva College's recruiting goals. On the one hand, the school wants to grow. On the other, it seems -- according to this editorial -- to be growing through less religious and less academically capable students. As discussed in the past in the student newspaper, there is a growing group of students who fail to even wear yarmulkes on campus (outside of class).

    The comments that follow are those of an inexperienced, ill-informed backseat driver and should be taken as such. Please just consider these ideas of someone who cares that are being tossed out for discussion.

    Click here to read more1. I'm told by professors at city colleges that their schools require remedial classes in many basic subjects for students who are not prepared for college level courses. I believe that these courses are required for students who are placed in them but not credit-granting. Maybe YC should think about instituting such courses as well. Those who are unable to successfully complete these courses should be advised to find another, more appropriate school.

    2. Regarding the issue of religious observance on campus, I think that in theory this can and should be solved by instituting certain basic required behaviors at YC. These include wearing a yarmulke, attending minyan and observing Shabbos while on campus. This may already be the policy; I don't know. If it is, perhaps it should be publicized better. In practice, though, the issue of enforcement is extremely difficult. I have no idea how this can be enforced without turning the yeshiva's faculty into religious police, which is to no one's benefit. But at least establishing such a formal policy (if it does not already exist) and making it well known is a start.

    3. It seems to me, at least from where I am sitting, that YC should be recruiting from the right as well as from the left. There is a whole group of right-wing/black-hat high school students who could grow tremendously from the YC/RIETS experience as well as contribute to YC/RIETS's growth. With the shift to the right in the black-hat world (I know, it's a bad term because there are plenty of black hats in YU, but you know what I mean), there are many students who value a college education but are essentially forced to choose between a top notch college education and a top notch yeshiva education. Some manage to achieve both but a growing number do not. The recruitment effort needs to address these students' specific concerns, emphasize the unique positives of YC/RIETS, debunk the many lies told about it, and still be honest about the challenges the school poses. YC might even consider some changes to accommodate the needs of these students (e.g., see here at the bottom). I am convinced that with the right recruitment campaign, the trickle of serious students from right-wing high schools that I saw when I was a student (admittedly not that recently) can be turned into a flow. The right-wing community is changing and YU is in a position to benefit greatly from it, if it tries.


    Announcements #029

  • Rabbi Chaim Brovender on "Torah From Cyberspace"
    Sunday, March 23 at 7:30 PM at Lincoln Square Synagogue, NYC

    Live From New York...
    Join WebYeshiva's Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Brovender live in New York on Shushan Purim, Sunday, March 23 at 7:30 PM at Lincoln Square Synagogue, 200 Amsterdam Avenue at West 69th Street in Manhattan, where he'll be talking about "Torah From Cyberspace" -- a shiur followed by a discussion and demonstration of WebYeshiva.

    Explore Hilkhot Online Talmud Torah with Rabbi Brovender.

    If you can't be there live, join the event online...
    • Step #1: Go to WebYeshiva.org/lms
    • Step #2: Click on the link "Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Live and Free from NYC"
    • Step #3: Click on "Login as a guest"
    • Step #4: In the top left hand box, entitled "Next Class", please enter your first and last name in the "Name" form field and click "Join Now". This option will only appear 15 minutes before the commencement of each shiur.(Note: You must have your microphone, head phones, and web-cam plugged in before you click on "Join Class"!)
    • Step #5: If this is your first time logging in to a class at WebYeshiva you will have to go through a one-time 5 minute set-up process (click here http://www.webyeshiva.org/student/tutorial-st.pdf [PDF] for simple instructions which detail that process).
    • Step #6: Click yes when asked if you want to join the Integrated VoIP Conference.
    Contact WebYeshiva at office@webyeshiva.org or phone (+972-2-567-1719) with any questions!


  • New issue of The Commentator:




  • (Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement.)


    Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Favorites More