Soft News Musings III

Living Wage

The Conservative movement is debating whether halakhah requires employers to pay a living wage (Forward). It seems to me to be a farfetched halakhic argument but I can't really evaluate the issue because I have failed in my attempts to obtain a copy of the article under discussion.

He-Man Woman-Hater Club

An article from two weeks ago about a men's haggadah and the general lack of male participation in Reform communities (Jewish Week). This week, my old friend Dr. Judith Rosenbaum replies in a letter and states that the claim that Judaism has been feminized "has been heard in every generation since the 19th century" (Jewish Week).

It Was A Dismal Failure, So Let's Try It Again

Kibbutzim in the US (JTA). Socialism in the largest capitalist country in the world, what a great idea! Zionist settlements in the diaspora, brilliant! I applaud these young, ideological activists for trying to do something meaningful. But please, learn from the mistakes of history so you don't have to repeat them.

Left Wing Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Group

Rabbis Marc Angel and Avi Weiss start a new rabbinical group called the International Rabbinic Fellowship (Jewish Week). I said at the time when the RCA was discussing whether to recognize YCT ordination that if they failed to do so this development was inevitable. Maybe this is wishful thinking but I suspect that as long as this new organization only admits Orthodox rabbis there will be no move to force its members out of the RCA.

A Biblical Controversy

The Jewish Press notes the upcoming International Bible Contest for Jewish Youth with a touching story of romance (Jewish Press), while the Muqata blog tells us about the controversy surrounding a Messianic Jewish (i.e. Christian) contestant whose participation might lead to a boycott of the contest (Muqata). If it were up to me, I would declare the boy to be an apostate Jew who is invalid to enter the contest.

Farewell, Forward

Conservative writer David Klinghoffer offers his parting thoughts on the Forward's Opinion page (Forward).

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #036: New Shiurim and New Zman at Web Yeshiva & Yom Haatzmaut Project

New Shiurim and New Zman at Web Yeshiva

Starting this Monday (May 5th, 2008 - Rosh Chodesh Iyar) Web Yeshiva (www.webyeshiva.org) will start its second zman (semester). In addition to our regular online Torah shiurim (Gemara, Halacha, Chumash, etc.) we are happy to announce a number of new and exciting classes on a variety of topics:

• Jewish Business Ethics
• Parshat HaShavua
• Taharat HaMishpacha
• Women and Halacha
• Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim
• The Thought of Rav Soloveitchik
• Mesillat Yesharim
• The Megillot
• The Siddur
• Hebrew Ulpan

Click here to read moreAll in all, WebYeshiva will now be offering 26 different Torah classes throughout the week, ensuring that we offer a class for students of every level and learning background and at a time that is convenient for you!
For those of you interested in learning Gemara – the Yeshiva will be studying Mesechet Brachot this zman. If you want to seriously study the Chumash we offer shiurim in both Sefer Shemot and Sefer Bamidbar. And for those of you interested in an in-depth shiur in Halacha we offer classes in Hilchot Brachot and Hilchot Shabbat (in addition to the Taharat HaMishpacha and Women and Halacha shiurim mentioned above). All of these classes are offered at a variety of times throughout the week.

As always, new students can try out WebYeshiva for free with our Free 14 Day Trial (the trial begins on the first day of the term). For those of you already familiar with the Yeshiva you can register right now for the coming zman. Registration enables you to access your class archives for review and use the free 24/6 teacher meishiv hotline (in addition to attending our live, fully interactive shiurim).
For questions or further details about WebYeshiva please email us at office@webyeshiva.org or call our offices at 972-(0)2-567-1719.

We look forward to seeing you in the virtual walls of our Yeshiva!


The Yom Haatzmaut Project

Tzipiyah.com, a relatively new blog with 15 talented writers, has started a new initiative called the Yom Haatzmaut Project. The Project, already reported on Arutz Sheva, asks the bloggers of Tzipiyah.com, and bloggers all around the internet, to list the 4 accomplishments which make them the most proud of the State of Israel. The idea is that while constructive criticism is important, it is also important to look back every so often and get inspired by the positive accomplishments we have had. Through this positive outlook, Tzipiyah.com hopes to gather enough inspiration to re-energize ourselves for, at the very least, another 60 years (and much much more) of successful nation building.
Click here to read more
The first few posts have already been posted on Tzipiyah.com (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Everyone is encouraged to go read them and post their comments. You should also post your comments about the whole project (and you own top 4) on the original post. This original post details the rational behind the project and is a must read for all! http://www.tzipiyah.com/2008/03/big-project-for-israels-60th-birthday.html

If you own a blog, please participate in this project and send a link to your posts to tzipiyah@gmail.com. A special compilation of blogs which participated will be posted on Tzipiyah.com.

We invite all of you to participate in this project and also to become regular visitors at Tzipiyah.com, a regularly updated blog which regroups 15 young talented religious-Zionist writers each sharing their unique perspectives and inspiring torahs. Bookmark the blog and subscribe to the email list! You won't regret it!


(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.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Da'as Torah: A Different Approach

I spent Pesach in a house on whose bookshelves I spotted two volumes of the insights on the Torah of the recently deceased rosh yeshivah of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, R. Henoch Leibowitz. The books are entitled Chiddushei Ha-Lev (on Genesis and Exodus -- I don't know if more volumes have been published) and consist of edited notes from R. Leibowitz's weekly lectures on the Torah portion. Significantly, the books were never reviewed or approved by R. Leibowitz. Given the author's recent passing, I felt almost obligated to spend time with the books.

R. Leibowitz considers himself to be an intellectual descendant of R. Nosson Tzvi Finkel (the Alter of Slabodka), the mentor of R. Leibowitz's father. There is a good deal of similarity between the two rabbis' styles. Although, as can be expected, R. Leibowitz has somewhat refined R. Finkel's approach. Generally, R. Leibowitz finds ideas in the Torah or its associated midrashim that offer insights into otherise easily overlooked or underemphasized Torah concepts, or aspects of the human personality where we can focus our efforts for self-improvement. However, he seems to have accomplished this in a more methodical way than R. Finkel, with perhaps a bit of his talmudic methodology mixed into this mussar approach. In general, I found many of the insights in these books to be thought-provoking and inspiring.

One thing I found surprising is the introduction to the first volume. Click here to read moreIn it, the editors quote R. Leibowitz as explaining why he believes people must listen to "Da'as Torah" (the opinions of the most accomplished Torah scholars). Some people suggest that it is either because 1) the Torah obligates us to, 2) the Torah giants who have Da'as Torah have a special Divine assistance to reach the truth, 3) these people are extremely wise, or 4) their views are based on pure Torah values. These are all true but only secondary reasons. The real reason we must listen to Da'as Torah is that it is derived directly from Torah sources just like halakhic rulings are derived from Torah texts. While the details of life are too complex to be listed in a code, one can deduce the guidelines from texts such as midrash and Talmud. However, cautions R. Leibowitz, these derivations are not derush -- where an author inserts his own ideas into ancient texts. Rather, the ideas must emerge from the text itself and be definitive and unquestionable (mukhach).

This last point is quite a high hurdle for Da'as Torah and raises the obvious challenge: Do R. Leibowitz's insights in the books pass that hurdle, as the introduction continues to assert? When I was going through various essays in the books, I found it hard to accept the claim that he was not, at times, inserting his own ideas into the text. (Note that this is not meant to imply that his insights are not valuable. And compare with R. Yaakov Kamenetsky's approach, which is the exact opposite of R. Leibowitz's: link.)

Let me bring two examples, one from the beginning of vol. 2 and one from the end.

The first essay in volume 2 (on Parashas Shemos, Ex. 1:6) addresses the Gemara (Sotah 11a) that states that Pharaoh had three advisors regarding the "Jewish problem": Yisro ran away and was rewarded, Iyov was silent and was punished with suffering, Bilaam advised Pharaoh to kill Jews and was killed himself. R. Leibowitz asks: Why was Iyov punished for failing to rebuke Pharaoh when Yisro did not rebuke him either? Clearly, there was no obligation to rebuke Pharaoh. If so, why was Iyov punished? R. Leibowitz answers that Yisro and Iyov might have thought that had they stayed with Pharaoh they could have influenced him positively. Yisro, however, refused to be a partner with a wicked man and was willing to give up all of his wealth and honor to avoid being connected with Pharaoh. Iyov was punished for partnering with a wicked man.

I don't see that as emerging directly from the text. If anything, I see it as emerging from mid-twentieth century rabbinic politics. It certainly isn't definitive because there are other possible resolutions of this problem (I believe R. Chaim Shmulevitz offers a different explanation in a 5733 essay in his Sichos Mussar, and I am sure there are others.)

On Parashas Terumah (Ex. 25:15), R. Leibowitz quotes the Ralbag who says that a reason that the poles (badim) may not be removed from the ark is to show the completeness of the Torah that was inside the ark. If so, says R. Leibowitz, it seems that without this command to maintain the poles on the ark the generation of the Desert might not have fully believed that the Torah is entirely complete. Because of this mitzvah, they believed fully. How can it be that they did not fully believe? It must be that they believed it but did not completely feel it in their hearts. This mitzvah reminded them about it and helped them feel it in their hearts. We see from here that there are things we can know intellectually but not feel it in our hearts. We must use visual representations to help us internalize these beliefs.

This is a wonderful thought but I find it extremely difficult to believe that it is unquestionably proven from the texts. The basic deduction that without this mitzvah the generation of the Desert would not have fully believed is, I think, questionable.

An interesting discussion is in Parashas Shemos (Ex. 2:2) about Yocheved hiding her infant son Moshe. R. Leibowitz deduces from the Ramban's comments to that verse that he believes that people must always make effort (hishtadlus), rather than sitting back and relying on God taking care of things, even if the the positive results seem highly unlikely. With this, R. Leibowitz explicitly disagrees with the view of the Chazon Ish, that one should not put in an effort if the positive results seem unlikely.

The question that rose in my mind is: Who has Da'as Torah, R. Leibowitz or the Chazon Ish? If Da'as Torah must be proven, has either truly proven their points? According to R. Leibowitz, the Chazon Ish has not. And I assume that according to the Chazon Ish, R. Leibowitz has not. From my perspective, I don't think that either has proven their points although both have made good arguments. R. Leibowitz, it seems to me, is insufficiently discussing the Ramban's complex view on this matter (which is disputed -- see R. Shlomo Wolbe's discussion in vol. 2 of Alei Shur) and making a deduction from the Ramban's comments in this verse that I just don't see in the text. On the other hand, the Chazon Ish asserts his approach without unequivocably proving it. There's nothing wrong with that but it fails R. Leibowitz's hurdle of Da'as Torah.

I hope that two things have emerged from this discussion. The first is that R. Leibowitz has a unique if debatable view on Da'as Torah. The second is that his insights on the Torah are fascinating and worthy of study and discussion.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nechama Leibowitz Online

At last, all the "Gilyonot Parashat Shavu'ah" that Nechama Leibowitz taught have been collected onto one website, together with references, commentaries and more.

In this website you will find the complete collection of weekly lessons, wrapped in up-to-date technology.

The Nechama website:
www.nechama.org.il

Read the rest of this entry »

Counting the Sefira

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

It seems that it is primarily the Rambam who is of the opinion that the Sefirat Ha’omer count is required by Torah law today, despite the fact that we lack a functioning Temple in Jerusalem. Most other authorities rule that Sefirat Ha’omer has the status of a rabbinical mitzva. There’s even a third opinion that tries to reconcile this dispute and suggests that the counting of the days is a biblical mitzva, while the counting of the weeks is a rabbinical one.[1]

In the event that one counted only the days of the Omer and made no mention of the weeks, one still fulfills the requirement to count.[2] One does not fulfill the mitzva, however, if one only counted the weeks.[3] It is commendable to repeat to oneself the day's Sefira count numerous times throughout the day.[4]In most communities that Chazzan or Rabbi is the first one to recite the blessing and count out loud, while in others it is the congregation that counts first and only then the Chazzan or Rabbi.[5] One who arrives late for Ma'ariv should count the Sefira along with the congregation and only then begin to daven Ma'ariv.[6]

Click here to read moreIt is a matter of dispute as to when those in the Diaspora who have to count the first Sefira as well as hold a second Seder should count on the first night. Some authorities suggest counting the Sefira after Ma'ariv before the Seder, while others suggest doing so only after the Seder.[7] It is noted that it is somewhat contradictory to count the Sefira after Ma'ariv which essentially declares that the first day of Pesach is over and then hurry home to go conduct a Seder as if it is the first night of Pesach all over again. Notwithstanding the apparent contradiction, common custom is to count the Sefira at Ma'ariv,[8] though one will find Haggadas that print the counting of the Sefira towards the end of the evening.[9] Furthering the case that one should count after the Seder, it is noted that in the Beit Hamikdash it is likely that everyone counted late the first night anyways. This is because they were required to wait for the holiday to end in order to cut the Omer offering. Both approaches are grounded in halacha and kabbala.[10]

Although one often recites a "Shehecheyanu" blessing before performing an infrequent mitzva, a Shehecheyanu is not recited before counting the Sefirat Ha'omer for the first time. Among the reasons cited for this oddity, is that the Shehecheyanu blessing is only recited prior to performing an infrequent mitzva that is both an action and pleasurable. The counting of the Sefira is not deemed a pleasurable mitzva per se, and speaking/counting is not considered an "activity" in halacha.[11] Some suggest that the Shehecheyanu recited at the start of Pesach serves as the Shehecheyanu for Sefirat Ha'omer as well.[12]

While women are permitted to count the Sefira if they choose to do so,[13] they are not obligated to count and in fact, many authorities encourage them not to do so for Kabbalistic reasons.[14] After one has counted the Sefira, one should recite a prayer that God speedily rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.[15] Some individuals recite a "L'shem Yichud" before counting Sefira and some have the custom to recite the Scriptural passages dealing with the Omer offering as well.[16]

One who is unsure whether to count 'x' or 'y' knowing that one of them is right and one is wrong, should count them both without reciting a blessing and continue this way until one has become sure of the day's true count. One can continue counting thereafter with a blessing, as a day has not truly been missed.[17] In Syrian and Lebanese communities there is a custom to open the Aron Kodesh when counting the Sefira in order that it serve as a reminder that we are counting down (up?) to "Kabbalat Hatorah". There is also a Sefardic custom to ensure that one is holding a grain of salt when counting the Sefira each night. This salt should then be kept in one's pocket or wallet all year long as a segula for success.[18]

NEXT WEEK: "Restrictions During Sefira". Please send me your lesser-known and obscure sources as well as anecdotes for inclusion. rabbiari@hotmail.com

***************

[1] Rabbeinu Yerucham.
[2] Mishna Berura 489:7
[3] Mishna Berura 489:7, though some poskim suggest that if one counted only the weeks at a full week (i.e. "Today is three weeks of the Omer) then one discharges one's obligation.
[4] Minhag Yisrael Torah 589:5
[5] Nitei Gavriel 23:3, Kaf Hachaim 489:14, Minhag Yisrael Torah 489:4
[6] Mitei Gavriel 23:6
[7] Minhag Yisrael Torah 489:2
[8] O.C. 589:2
[9] See Kaf Hachaim 489:2 who resolves the apparent contradiction
[10] Kaf Hachaim 489:6, Minhag Yisrael Torah 489:1
[11] Be'er Heitiv 489:5
[12] Kaf Hachaim 489:2
[13] Mishna Berura 489:3
[14] Magen Avraham 489, Rav Pealim 1:12. See also Minhag Yisrael Torah 489:2
[15] Mishna Berura 489:10
[16] Kaf Hachaim 489:7. See there for elaborate prayers to be recited before and after counting. Highly recommended for the kabbalistically inclined.
[17] Piskei Teshuvot 489:17
[18] Nitei Gavriel 23:9

Read the rest of this entry »

The Challenge of Fairness

R. Aharon Lichtenstein, in a recent Commentator interview with Ben Eleff, on the problem of being overly positive or overly negative in a review (link [no ads]):

Lashon ha-rah is one means of undermining a person's career, but there so many other things, problematic aspects to it. The institution of journalism has regarded itself - defined itself -as the watchdogs of the public arena. If you want to be a judge or a watchdog, you are by definition assuming a certain mantle on the one hand. On the other hand, then you should feel yourself subject to strictures such as fairness and objectivity. You may be very unfair not just by writing negative things, but by writing positive things, as well. A person could be an am ha-aretz and be described him as being a gaon olam. If you flatter a person, the issur of chanufah can be the flip side of lashon ha-rah. Chazal in Sotah had very stern things to say about chanufah...

Click here to read moreWe don't have a serious tradition of criticism in much of our Jewish world. In certain areas you could very easily say that it is more important not to embarrass this person than to be concerned. For example, maybe people will buy a sefer which is not at all what the reviewer says it is. In very many instances, with many journalists that you read, someone will have written a poor sefer, and the reviewer won't say it's a poor sefer. They say: "Well, this person is a fine talmid chacham, he has six children he needs to support." It becomes a mitzvah rabah to buy this sefer! This enables flooding the market, the Torah market, with second or third grade quality goods - something we can ill-afford.

See also this column by Dr. Asher Meir: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Soft News Musings II

Talking Charity

An Op-Ed in the Forward advocates imitating the Christian practice of tithing. While the essay raises the biblical commandments of tithing produce and animals, it inexplicably fails to mention the rabbinic commandment (or custom) of ma'aser kesafim -- tithing one's income -- that is prevalent in at least the Orthodox communities with which I am familiar. However, I fully agree with the following statement that we should be discussing it even more: "Synagogues need to start talking tithe — not as a threat or as a demand, but as a goal. Talking tithe increases the chances of a person giving accordingly; discussion of tithing alone can greatly increase membership support."

Subways on Shabbos
Click here to read more

In a recent column in The Jewish Press, R. Gershon Tannenbaum discusses the implications of a proposal to abolish subway fares (link). What would that imply about riding the subway on Shabbos? He writes:

In the past, the majority of poskim has leaned towards disapproval... Overwhelmingly, past questions of subway, train, or locomotive usage on Shabbos were inhibited by such considerations as techum (measured distances prohibited outside a city) and ma’aris ayin (appearance of transgressing Shabbos). Should the entire NYC subway system become automated and fare-free full-time, the question of subway usage on Shabbos would be more clearly defined.

I'm not sure that his evaluation is correct. The Chasam Sofer has a much-quoted responsum (6:97) in which he prohibits riding a train because of the issue of "shabbason". See a discussion of the literature surrounding this in R. Reuven Singer's article in The Edah Journal 3:1 (link) and my response in issue 3:2 (link). I don't see the Chasam Sofer's conclusion being revised by a contemporary authority.

Spies Like Us

The Jewish Week and The Forward ask some important questions about the recent charges of espionage against Ben-Ami Kadish, chief among them: "Why now, after all these years?" Why arrest an 84 year old man for alleged espionage some 25-30 years ago?

Read the rest of this entry »

Was Willy Loman Frum?

Was Willy Loman, the main character in Arthur Miller's classic play Death of a Salesman, an observant Jew? No, but recent interpretations suggest that other characters in the play were. From the Forward (link):

Arena [Stage in Virginia] creates a gulf between the two families. “We speculated that Willy might be Jewish but is not a practicing [Jew]. But Charley and his family are,” said Mark Bly, senior dramaturg at Arena... Bernard and Charley wearing yarmulkes “shows their observance of their religion in contrast to Willy’s assimilation,” Bond said. “In the mid-20th century, part of the American Dream was losing one’s ethnicity and religion to become just American. Through Bernard and Charley, I wanted to show that they are American because of their cultural and religious identity.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Nachum Segal Mystery Solved

What is the most mysterious thing about Nachum Segal's JM in the AM radio show? According to some people with whom I've spoken, it is when Nachum davens in the morning. During some times of the year, the show begins before the earliest time to pray and ends after the latest time. Suggestions about what he does include his reciting Shema during songs and then praying after the show, praying during the show, and pre-recording some parts of the show so he can pray. However, the truth has finally come out.

In last month's issue of The Jewish Voice and Opinion (link - PDF, pp. 8, 10), we find out the secret:

He uses his time creatively, sometimes managing to daven before the show; sometimes having to wait until it’s over. Sometimes, a long continuous stretch of music gives him time during the program.

Mystery solved.

UPDATE: I was informed that Nachum now catches a very late minyan in a shtieble.

Read the rest of this entry »

Slipping One Past

I'm looking at the 2003 translation of R. Marcus Lehmann's Akiva (link). Here is how the bio in the book describes him:

Rav Meir (Marcus) Lehmann zt"l, the remarkable, talented, and prolific Rav of nineteenth century Germany [1831-1890] remains famous for his scholarly works and for his unique adaptation of the secular to serve our Creator...

Rav Lehmann received Rabbinical ordination from HaRav Shlomo Yehuda Leib Cohen Rappaport, Rav and Rosh Beis Din of Prague, in 1852. He also received a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Berlin. Thus he had attained the perfect prerequisites for authoring the numerous inspiring historical novels which he wrote over a 23-year period.

Heh, heh, heh. Note that:

• He is called Meir instead of the name he was commonly called, Marcus.
• The implied apology for his accomplishments in secular studies.
• R. Shlomo Rapoport is referred to as "HaRav" and "Rav and Rosh Beis Din of Prague". All true, but he was extremely controversial because of his noted maskilic tendencies. In the entry on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia, he is described as having an "Orthodoxy" similar to Zecharias Frankel, the father of what we call Conservative Judaism.

No objections on my part. I just find it humorous.

Read the rest of this entry »

Styles of Haggadah Commentaries

The Pesach Haggadah is generally considered to be the Jewish text with the most commentaries written on it. J.D. Eisenstein wrote around the year 1900 that over 1,500 commentaries have been published. By now it is probably well over 2,000.

In R. Gidon Rothstein's doctoral dissertation, he analyzed commentaries on Pirkei Avos and noted a significant change in styles in the late fifteenth century (link-PDF). I was wondering over Yom Tov whether anyone had conducted a similar analysis of Haggadah commentaries. Not being aware of any such study I spent time going through a number of medieval Haggadah commentaries with particular appreciation of style.

Click here to read moreThe text I used was Mossad Ha-Rav Kook's Toras Chaim Haggadah. The commentaries in the book are a bit of a hodge podge. There is an anonymous early French commentary, two commentaries from Rashi's school (French), a commentary attributed to Rashbam (French) and the commentary of the Ra'avan (German). The first four of these commentaries overlap a good deal but often shed light on each other. The book also contains the commentary of the Rid (later, Italian) and a commentary extracted from Orechos Chaim (later, French). The book also has the Spanish commentaries of the R. Yehudah ben Yakar (mentor of the Ramban), Ritva, Abudraham and Shibbolei Ha-Leket, and the Algerian commentary of the Rashbatz. I can't really understand what the editorial thinking was that put all of these very different commentaries on the same page, but there they are.

In the earlier, French (and German and Italian) commentaries I found the following types of comments:

1. Connecting the text of the Haggadah to biblical verses and talmudic instructions.
2. Explaining the simple meaning of the Haggadah's text.
3. Discussing the connection between discrete passages.
4. Resolving glaring contradictions within the text (e.g. the difference between the questions of the wise and wicked sons).
The later, Spanish commentaries added:
5. Multiple explanations of passages.
6. Midrashic background of points raised in the text.
7. Resolving contradictions of the text with external sources.
The Rashbatz, in a manner similar to his unique commentary to Avos, added:
8. Historical background about the Mishnaic characters mentioned in the text.

Like everything on this blog, this is all preliminary and the work of an amateur. The divisions are not as neat as I suggest, e.g. the Rid and Ra'avan are somewhere between the two groups. It would be interesting to read the results of a methodical, comprehensive study of Haggadah Parshanut (commentary).

Read the rest of this entry »

Praying For Rain

The general custom outside of Israel is to follow the practice of talmudic Babylonia to mention rain ("mashiv ha-ru'ach u-morid ha-geshem") in the "mechayeh meisim" blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer from Shemini Atzeres until the first day of Pesach, and to ask for rain ("ve-sein tal u-matar") in the "barekh aleinu" blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh from December 4th or 5th until the first day of Pesach. If you make a mistake then you may have to repeat either the blessing or the entire prayer, depending on the details of what you missed and when you realized it.

The Rosh, R. Asher ben Yechiel, questioned this practice in a responsum (4:10). He argued that since in Germany they needed rain more in the month or two after Pesach than before, they should continue praying for rain until Shavuos. He advocated doing similarly in every place in which the entire country requires rain -- adding those insertions at that time.

Click here to read moreInterestingly, there seems to be a general agreement in later literature that the Rosh's view makes sense but that it has nevertheless not been accepted into practice. Even in his day, the Rosh tried to convince rabbis in Germany, Provence and Spain to change their practice, but to no avail. The Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 114, 117) writes that his view was not accepted and the entire world does not follow it. He adds (in 117) that the Mahari Abuhab rules that bedieved, if someone mistakenly prayed for rain at a time when according to the Rosh he should but according to common practice he should not, he need not repeat his prayer. However, the Beis Yosef is not entirely comfortable with this. Therefore, he rules that someone who lives in a country that needs rain in the summer and mistakenly adds the insertion "ve-sein tal u-matar" should repeat the shemoneh esreh as a voluntary additional prayer (tefillas nedavah; Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 117:2).

However, the Rema was less dismissive of the Rosh than the Beis Yosef and rules that bedieved we rely on the Rosh and you do not have to repeat shemoneh esreh (ibid., 117:2; Darkhei Moshe 117:2). However, there remain a few open questions:

1. What constitutes a country requiring rain at any particular time? The Magen Avraham (117:4) writes that the country must have a drought, and that it seems a little like that in the Rosh's responsum. I found the Rosh's responsum to be ambiguous on this. He writes that when he presented his arguments to the rabbis of Germany they were convinced but did not change their practice because 1) they did not have droughts often and 2) rain sometimes destroys crops. Which one is decisive, the former reason or the latter? The Bi'ur Halakhah (117 sv. ha-tzerikhim matar) quotes authorities on both sides of this issue and leaves it as a matter of doubt.

[There also seems to be a difference regarding countries in the souther hemisphere, where the seasons are the opposite of those in Israel and Babylonia. See Shevet Ha-Levi (vol. 1 Orach Chaim no. 21), Minchas Yitzchak (vol. 6 no. 171), Yalkut Yosef (vol. 1 pp. 266-269).]

2. Is this only with ve-sein tal u-matar or also with morid ha-geshem? From the Rosh's discussion and the Beis Yosef's citations, it seems like it applies to both. However, the Shulkhan Arukh (114:4) says that it does not apply to morid ha-geshem. The Bi'ur Halakhah (114 sv. ve-afilu be-makom) seems to think it applies to both but quotes the Peri Megadim (114:6) and Chayei Adam (24:6) who say that it only applies to ve-sein tal u-matar. The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 18:7; gloss to Mishnah Berurah 114), the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 114:3) and R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Edus Le-Yisrael no. 10) also say it only applies to ve-sein tal u-matar. R. Yitchak (ben R. Ovadiah) Yosef says that it applies to both, although he assumes the Sephardic custom to say "morid ha-tal" when not saying "morid ha-geshen" (Yalkut Yosef vol. 1 p. 266).

3. When do we need rain in the US? All of the literature seems to tie prayer for rain with crops. While nowadays we need rain all year round for drinking and other usage, does that matter? R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim vol. 2 no. 102) assumes that we need water all year round in regards to these laws. I'm not sure when the harvest times in the US are and when rain is desirable.

Interestingly, R. Chaim Lindenblatt directed me to a passage in R. Baruch Epstein's Mekor Barukh, adapted into English by R. Moshe Dombey in Recollections: The Torah Temimah Recalls the Golden Age of European Jewry (pp. 98-99), in which R. Epstein tells that his father (the author of Arukh Ha-Shulchan) heard from his mentor that R. Chaim Volozhiner thought that the practical ruling was in accord with the Rosh and not the Shulchan Arukh but refused to issue a ruling directly contradicting the Shulchan Arukh; instead he simply refrained from responding to questions on this issue. However, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan himself writes (117:4) that "it is as if a heavenly voice issued that we must follow the Babylonian practice... and whoever questions this is worthy of punishment."

Read the rest of this entry »

Working on Chol Hamoed

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

Perhaps the least understood aspect of the Torah-mandated holidays is their Chol Hamoed component. Chol Hamoed, translated as “the secular [days] of the festival,” refers to the intermediate days between the first and last day(s) of the holiday. It is interesting to note that although there are three pilgrimage festivals (Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot), Shavuot does not possess a Chol Hamoed component of its own.

Contrary to popular belief, work is actually forbidden on Chol Hamoed,[1] although not in all forms, for as we will see below, the regulations regarding work on Chol Hamoed are unlike those of Shabbat and festivals. Although strictly speaking, work is indeed forbidden on Chol Hamoed, there are however five specific circumstances in which it is permitted.[2] These five circumstances are:

1. Davar ha’aved

2. Tzarchei hamoed

3. Bishvil poel she’ein lo ma l’echol

4. Tzarchei rabim

5. Ma’asei hedyot


Davar ha’aved refers to work needed in order to avert a financial loss. This clause is often cited as a dispensation that allows individuals to work at their jobs as normal, if they would be fired or otherwise lose much-needed income by missing eight days of work.

Tzarchei hamoed refers to work needed for the sake of the festival. For example, shopping for holiday clothes or cooking for any and all holiday meals would be permitted under this category. It would be forbidden, however, to bake a cake on Chol Hamoed with the intention of saving it for after the holiday.

Bishvil poel she’ein lo ma l’echol refers to work needed for sheer survival. Although somewhat related to our first category, it is a direct dispensation for anyone to work in their normal manner in order to provide for the bare necessities of life rather than having to beg for charity.

Tzarchei rabim refers to essential services needed for the public welfare. This includes all forms of communal work, from garbage collection to the distribution of charity.

Ma’asei hedyot refers to simple, unskilled labors. It is this last category that deceptively portrays Chol Hamoed as being just an ordinary day. Yes, all menial and simple activities are permissible throughout Chol Hamoed. While this category would permit turning on a light, basic writing,[3] and driving a car among many of our other routine activities, it does however exclude such skilled labors as an artist taking his palette, a scribe writing a Torah, an astronaut piloting a rocket ship, and all other activities in which specialized skill or expertise is involved.

As can be seen, while Chol Hamoed does provide a welcome and relaxed flavor to our holiday observance, it is not simply an ordinary day. The Mishna[4] teaches us that among those who lose their share in the World to Come are those who treat Chol Hamoed disrespectfully, as any other weekday.[5]

One would be well advised to bear in mind that the days of Chol Hamoed are holy in all respects. It reminds us of a fundamental idea in Judaism, namely, that everything we do, regardless of how mundane it may seem, can be used to create a link that binds the holy and the mundane as one in the service of God.

*****************************************

[1] Chagiga 18a.
[2] OC 530.
[3] Rema, OC 545:1; Mishna Berura 5:18, 35. Some are careful to avoid any writing at all on Chol Hamoed out of fear that writing on its own may be a forbidden melacha regardless of whether it is professional writing or otherwise.
[4] Avot 3:11.
[5] Rashi, Avot 3:11.

Read the rest of this entry »

Have A Kosher And Happy Passover

Read the rest of this entry »

Who Put The Ultra In Ultra-Orthodox?

In a recent opinion piece in the Forward, Abbot Katz objected to the term "Ultra-Orthodox" (link). I happen to agree that the term "ultra" has a negative connotation to it, and is therefore objectionable. However, Katz goes farther and objects to people considering R. Moshe Sofer, the Chasam Sofer, as the beginning of Ultra-Orthodoxy:

“Ultra-Orthodox” manages to presume itself into Gorenberg’s treatment rather often, most irritatingly in his citation of the great early 19th-century German-Hungarian Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, known universally in the Orthodox world as the Chasam Sofer. It is he whom Gorenberg terms the founder of ultra-Orthodoxy. But what can that mean?

Click here to read moreFollow the implied chronology: 3,000 years of Jewish tradition and rabbinic scholarship suddenly mutate in the 19th century, culminating in an ultra-Orthodox strain branded as a new, firebrand alternative to that which preceded it. That is, the Orthodox were there first.

The claim is preposterous, but durable. In fact the Chasam Sofer is very much of a piece with his rabbinic predecessors and successors. Nowhere in the yeshiva world is he credited with striking a stance at any fundamental remove from his forebears.

>I believe that Mr. Katz is not entirely correct here. A close reader of the writings of the Chasam Sofer's students will find something very new and even radical in arguments based on his statements. Yes, he was a traditional Torah scholar; a brilliant one who earned a place as a leading decisor throughout the generations. However, there are some decisions that he made, or that are extrapolated from his positions, that are startling.

A few years ago, I was learning at night in a small but fairly Charedi synagogue and we only had nine men for a minyan. Then the principal of a local (Charedi) elementary school walked in for some reason and did not have a hat with him. We wanted him to stay and pray with us but he objected that he did not have a hat. The rabbi of the synagogue, a world-class scholar, told him that it is not an issue and he completed our minyan. After services, I went up to the rabbi and asked him why he was not concerned with the position that a custom is considered a vow and therefore has biblical force. If so, a man who has the custom to wear a hat during services must--biblically--wear that hat or he is violating a vow. The rabbi waved it away and said it cannot be correct because then a custom would have more force than a rabbinic obligation.

Setting that argument aside, because there are always counter-arguments (cf. the commentaries to Yoreh De'ah 214, Orach Chaim 468, 690)*, the point I am trying to emphasize here is that the Chasam Sofer, according to some of his students, raised the status of customs to a much greater level of obligation than previous. There was a concerted effort to martial various traditional arguments that result in giving every minor custom the force of a biblical obligation. This is discussed at length in Prof. Michael Silber's classic essay "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition" (in Jack Wertheimer ed., The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era). Prof. Silber is arguably the leading historian of the Jewish community in 19th century Hungary. According to Silber, the Chasam Sofer and (particularly) his students believed that the nature of the times required being extremely stringent in halakhic matters. This is not a particularly radical suggestion by Silber because it is all explicit in the writings of these Torah scholars.

However, and this is something that Silber discusses explicitly, there was to some degree a battle for the legacy of the Chasam Sofer. His son, the Kesav Sofer, and the Maharam Schick were what Silber calls "Mainstream Orthodox" while other students, such as R. Chaim Sofer and R. Hillel Lichtenstein (and particularly R. Lichtenstein's son/brother-in-law R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger), were more extreme. For example, in the Maharam Schick's critique of the famous 1865 Michalowicz ban, he pointed out that it portrayed customs as being biblically prohibited. It was this latter group who portrayed the Chasam Sofer as being a radical and who continued this legacy, which was widely accepted among Hungarian Chasidim. They do, or at least many of them do, continue the tactics made popular and can, I believe, be justly called "Ultra-Orthodox".

Therefore, when Mr. Katz states that "Nowhere in the yeshiva world is he credited with striking a stance at any fundamental remove from his forebears", he is probably correct because the yeshiva world did not generally adopt the approach of R. Lichtenstein or other Hungarians on the far right. But in the Chasidic world, and the segment of the yeshiva world that has partly merged with it, I believe that he is incorrect because they accept that far-right legacy of the Chasam Sofer. Furthermore, it was not any contemporary writer who claimed that the Chasam Sofer was uniquely radical but some of his own students (particularly R. Schlesinger).

Additionally, that is only regarding the Chasam Sofer. There is an element of what can be called Ultra-Orthodoxy in the yeshiva world that takes its cue from the (alleged) legacies of other figures. It would make for an interesting study to treat the legacies of (for example) the Chafetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish and R. Aharon Kotler for similar trends as can be found with the Chasam Sofer. I believe that a case can be made that they have also been used to create a culture of intense closed-ness (if there is a such a term) and stringency in the same way that some of the Chasam Sofer's successors used his legacy, which may or may not be what they intended themselves and which other followers of theirs might dispute.

---

* This issue is further complicated by questions regarding the relative halakhic value of prayer with a minyan and preparation for prayer.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Challenge Is Back

The second edition of Rabbi Natan Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation is now available in stores and online (link). For those who already own the book, you can download a list of the significant changes here: link - PDF

Read the rest of this entry »

Why Pesach?

R. Gersion Appel explains the different approaches of the Chinukh and the Rambam to the Passover commandments in his newly republished book, A Philosophy of Mitzvot (pp. 171-172):

Apart from consideration of the patently rational elements and effects of a given mitzvah, the Hinnukh also considers certain emotional impulses, which are at times key factors in determining its meaning, as in his appraisal of the laws which hold a woman to be unclean in her menstrual period and following childbirth.[2] He likewise takes note of the psychological impress of a mitzvah on a man’s character and mode of thought, as in his discussion of the effects of the specific laws pertaining to the Passover offerings.[3]

Click here to read moreThere is an evident disposition on the part of the Hinnukh to view the mitzvot symbolically, highlighting in particular their religious and nationalistic aspects. A striking example is his midrashic exposition of the prohibition of eating the sinew of the thigh vein,[4] wherein he reflects upon its eschatological meaning and the deeper symbolism of the mitzvah with respect to the historical fate and destiny of the Jewish people. This is in marked contrast to the literalism of Maimonides in this instance who, while surely aware of the midrashic allusions regarding the mitzvah, nevertheless chooses to disregard them.[5] A further example is to be found in their divergent approaches to the meaning of the laws of Passover. While both view these mitzvot initially in the role assigned to them in the Bible, as evoking a remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage, Maimonides proceeds to stress the moral lesson “that man ought to remember his evil days in his days of prosperity,” so that he will learn humility and gratitude to God, thus investing the Passover theme with a universal, ethical character.[6] The Hinnukh, on the other hand, emphasizes the special significance of the Passover festival for the Jewish people, relative to its religious beliefs and national aspirations, underscoring its exclusive message to Israel regarding its freedom, its nobility, and its status as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.[7]


[2] Mitzvah 166. See chapt. VII.
[3] See Mitzvah 16.
[4] Mitzvah 3. See chapt. III.
[5] Moreh Nebukim III, 48.
[6] Ibid., III, 43.
[7] Cf. Mitzvot 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 298.

Learn more about the book here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #035: WebYeshiva Offers Online Hebrew Ulpan and Torah Tutoring

WebYeshiva is offering two completely new programs to help students of Torah improve their learning. The first is an online Hebrew Ulpan and the second is an One-On-One Torah Tutoring program. Both programs will begin on Monday, May 5th with the start of our new semester. These programs are open to the general public (i.e., you do not have to be a member of WebYeshiva to join either of these programs).

Introducing Hebrew Ulpan at WebYeshiva
WebYeshiva is excited to offer a new course on the Hebrew language given by Rabbi Shlomo Eitan, founder of "Ulpan Eitan". Learn to read the Tanach, Siddur and Mishna in the original Hebrew and experience the joy of understanding the beauty of the original text first-hand, without the crutch of translations.

Learn more about the Hebrew Ulpan at WebYeshiva

Introducing One-on-One Torah Tutoring
Beginning Rosh Chodesh Iyar, May 5, WebYeshiva will be offering a tutoring/chavruta service. Students decide the topic and time to learn, with any of WebYeshiva's renowned Rabbis and teachers. Our tutoring service is designed to help students prepare for their next WebYeshiva shiur, review current shiurim, prepare for a test in school, work on Hebrew, or study a subject not offered in the current WebYeshiva curriculum.

Learn more about WebYeshiva's One-On-One Torah Tutoring Program

Summer Zman
Registration for WebYeshiva's next semester has begun. You can now view next semester's shiurim as well as register for the coming zman or sign-up for our Free 14-Day Trial.

(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.)

Read the rest of this entry »

The Greatest Threat to Judaism?

The complete letter by R. Yaakov Horowitz about whether hotels on Pesach are the biggest threat to Judaism (discussed in this post) is now on his website: link

UPDATE: I should add that I've never been to a hotel for Pesach, have no desire to go to one, and can't imagine what the experience is like. While it is expensive, people often pay that much money for a good vacation. As a working man who saves all of his vacation days for Yom Tov and Chol Ha-Mo'ed, and doesn't get holidays, summers or mid-winter vacation off like many educators and rabbis, I can understand why people might want to spend the only vacations they have during the year (Pesach and Sukkos) away from home. I have always gone to family for some if not most of Yom Tov.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Periodical: RJJ Journal no. LV

A new issue has been published of The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society:

• Shemittah by R. Dovid Cohen (of the CRC, not Cong. Gevul Yaabetz) -- General overview of the issues surrounding contemporary shemitah, quoting almost exclusively from Charedi sources.
• Co-education -- Is It Ever Acceptable? by R. Aryeh Lebowitz -- Very comprehensive discussion of the halakhic issues.
• Spousal Emotional Stress: Proposed Relief for the Modern-Day Agunah by R. Dr. A. Yehuda Warburg -- Arguing that a religious court may impose financial penalties on a recalcitrant husband for inflicting emotional stress on his wife.
• Triage in Halacha: The Threat of an Avian Flu Pandemic by R. David Etengoff -- Reviews the positions of the Chazon Ish, R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Tzitz Eliezer regarding who is given medical treatment first when there are multiple patients (cohen before levi?, man before woman?, etc.)
• Making Berachot on Non-kosher Food by R. Elli Fischer -- Surprising conclusion that most situations today would require reciting the blessing.
• Cherem Rabbenu Gershom: Reading Another Person's Email by R. Alfred Cohen -- Discusses various permutations and the publication of private correspondence of Torah scholars, but surprisingly not the forwarding and bcc'ing of e-mails. Two recent and relevant sources are R. Aaron Levine, Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law, pp. 358-365 and R. Asher Meir, The Jewish Ethicist, pp. 217-219 and here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barukh Dayan Ha-Emes

The funeral for R. Henoch Lebowitz, rosh yeshiva of Chofetz Chaim, will take place at Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim at 12 noon tomorrow (Wednesday): 76-01 147th Street in Kew Gardens Hills.

hat tip

UPDATE: The funeral has been moved to 1:30pm.

Read the rest of this entry »

Online Passover Guides

Passover guides by major kosher supervision organizations:

• OU Passover website
  - PDF of guidebook


• Star-K website
  - PDF of guidebook


• CRC website

Here are the rulings on paper towels:

Click here to read more
• OU (link): The consensus of the OU's Poskim is that the following may be used on Pesach without certification:
  31. Paper cups, plates and towels


• Star-K (link-PDF): Paper Towel Rolls – Any brand may be used in the following manner: the first three sheets and the last sheet attached to the cardboard should not come into direct contact with food since a corn starch based glue may be used. The rest of the roll may be used with hot or cold.


• CRC (link): Paper Goods: All are acceptable, including all paper plates, bowls and cups, all paper and plastic table cloths, as well as all paper towels. It is suggested to not use hot foods or drinks on starched paper goods. Styrofoam products may be used instead.

Here is what they have to say about using bread products for the meals on Shabbos Erev Pesach (heavily edited for space purposes):

• OU (link): One may use bread for "lechem mishnah" and general consumption on Friday night and Shabbat morning provided that the morning meal is eaten and finished before the end of the first four hours of the day ("sha'ot zemaniyot") . Therefore, one should rise early on such a Shabbat and pray with an early minyan. The service should be conducted with dignity, and conclude early enough to eat the second Shabbat meal before the time when the chametz is prohibited.
  
  If one does not wish to use bread on Shabbat and has removed all chametz from the house before Shabbat, then he can use egg matzah ("matzah ashira") for the first two Shabbat meals provided that the second meal is finished before the time when the chametz becomes prohibited. Although "matzah ashirah" is not chametz, it is our custom not to eat it during that time period when we may not eat chametz...
  
  One may use cooked matzahs for they are not included in the prohibition against eating matzah on erev Pesach...
  
  Bread can be used for the third meal in the following manner: Immediately after the morning prayers, one washes, recites the "beracha" over "lechem mishnah" and eats the proper "shi'ur" for "birkat hamazon". He then recited the "birkat hamazon". He has thus eaten the second Shabbat meal. After waiting a short while, he commences the whole procedure again, this time eating a whole meal. This is his third Shabbat meal. This third meal must be finished before the end of the fourth hours into the day. In this manner, one fulfills the mitzvah of the three Shabbat meals "bedi'avad" since only some authorities allow the third meal to be eaten in this manner.
  
  The third meal may consist of fruit or fish or meat to the exclusion of bread, for there are some authorities who state that these foods fulfill the requirement for the third meal. These foods can be eaten after the beginning of the 10th hour of the day provided that one partakes of then in moderation.



• Star-K (link): The procedure for hamotzi for all Shabbos meals is as follows: Use small fresh rolls for lechem mishnah (there are less crumbs with fresh rolls)... Because the brocha on egg matzoh is a matter of dispute, adults should use rolls for lechem mishnah. After making hamotzi and eating a k'zayis of the roll, adults may eat egg matzoh until the sof zman achilas chometz. On Shabbos Erev Pesach, regular matzoh may not be eaten by anyone except children under six...
  
  Shacharis on Shabbos morning should be scheduled earlier than usual because one must recite hamotzi on lechem mishnah before the sof zman achilas chometz (end of 4th halachic hour of the day)...
  
  During Seudah Shlishis on an ordinary Shabbos one must have lechem mishnah and l'chatchila eat more than a k'baya (more than two k'zaysim) of bread after the time of mincha gedola (1/2 halachic hour after chatzos/midday). On this Shabbos, one may not eat bread or matzoh at this time. What is the solution? One must eat "other foods" during the afternoon including fish, fruit or potato starch cake any time between mincha gedola and sunset...
  
  If time permits, it is preferable to also "split the morning meal" in the following manner: Recite hamotzi and eat rolls, recite Birchas Hamazon and take a walk outside. Then, wash for Seudah Shlishis and recite hamotzi. One must be careful to finish the bread and dispose of the crumbs by the times indicated above. If one does this, one should still eat something after mincha gedola as described above.



• R. J. David Bleich's Halochos of Erev Pesach Which Occurs on Shabbos (link-PDF): Challah or bread should be eaten as part of the Shabbos meal on Friday evening and preferably Shabbos morning as well...
  
  It is proper to eat two meals on Shabbos morning before the time during which chometz may be eaten has elapsed. In this way the mitzvah of sholosh se'udos may be fulfilled as on every Shabbos. One may not, however, simply recite the Grace after Meals and then wash a second time. There should be an "interruption," between the two meals. A period of time between the two meals may be devoted to Torah study or to a Shabbos stroll...
  
  If the second meal cannot be completed within the prescribed time, sholosh se'udos should be eaten after noon in the form of meat or fish (preferably) or fruit. Since many authorities maintain that sholosh se'udos must be eaten after mid-day, a meal in the form of meat, fish or fruit should be eaten in the afternoon even if two meals were previously eaten during the morning hours. According to some authorities, those who do not have a custom to the contrary may use kneidlach (matzah balls) or cake made of matzah meal and a generous amount of sugar and oil, for sholosh se'udos...
  
  No foods containing matzah meal should be eaten after the beginning of the 10th hour...
  
  If for any reason it is feared that the use of chometz on Shabbos will in any way lead to inadvertent transgression of the laws of Pesach, egg matzah should be substituted for challah or bread... Even if egg matzah is used rather than challah or bread the meal should be completed before the period during which chometz may be eaten has elapsed...
  
  If for some reason it is impossible to complete the chometz meal within the prescribed time, some authorities permit the meal to be eaten at a later hour using egg matzah instead of bread. The use of egg matzah after the time during which chometz may be eaten has elapsed is, however, to be discouraged since egg matzah is ordinarily permitted only to the sick and infirm.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Five Mitzvot of the Seder (Part II)

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin


Four Cups of Wine

The most prominent rabbinical mitzva[1] of the Seder evening is the requirement to drink four cups of wine at specially ordained points in the Haggada. These four cups of wine represent the four different expressions used by the Torah to portray our redemption.[2] All wine glasses must hold at least 3.3 ounces, though widespread custom is to ensure that glasses hold at least 4.5 ounces of wine. Some authorities even require 5.5 ounces.

While it is preferable to drink the entire cup,[3] it suffices to merely drink the majority of the cup.[4] Using white wine at the Seder is acceptable, but red wine is to be preferred.[5] It is considered preferable to use non-mevushal wine, wine which was not cooked, for the four cups of the Seder.[6] The four cups must be drunk in the order and at the points in the Haggada that they were instituted.[7] Drinking the four cups of wine at the Seder is one of those few mitzvot which are considered pirsumei nisa – publicizing the miracle of the Exodus.[8]

Click here to read moreOne should make great efforts to use wine rather than grape juice for the Seder even if it means some physical discomfort,[9] though one need not make oneself sick.[10] Even mixing some wine into grape juice is to be preferred before choosing to use exclusively grape juice for the four cups. In an emergency, one can use any chamar medina, any beverage that it is customary to drink or serve others even when one is not thirsty, for the four cups of "wine".[11] The first of the four cups of wine is the first mitzva of the evening which formally opens the Seder proceedings. As such, one must be sure not to commence even the Kiddush before dark.[12] It is customary to arrange that Seder participants do not pour their own wine, but rather have it poured by someone else as a display of freedom and royalty.[13]


Marror

Eating marror/bitter herbs is one of the rabbinical mitzvot of the Seder which is intended, of course, to remind us of the bitter life while under Egyptian bondage.[14] One should proceed to the marror right after having eaten the matza without delay.[15]

Marror is one of the more enigmatic mitzvot of the Seder in terms of which vegetables are acceptable to be used in fulfillment of the mitzva.[16] The Talmud and codes list five acceptable species of vegetables which qualify as marror, however the modern-day identification of these vegetables remains in doubt.[17]

Although horseradish is certainly[18] one of the valid species for use as marror, many people mistakenly use the commercial white or red horseradish that comes in a glass jar for this purpose. While eating this form of horseradish is truly a grueling and bitter experience, one actually does not fulfill the mitzva at all with these products because a) they are not 100% pure horseradish, often including beets and sugar and b) the ingredients in these jarred horseradishes include preservatives and the like.[19]

The mitzva of marror may only be fulfilled with raw vegetables, nothing processed or preserved. The consensus of most authorities is that one should ideally use carefully washed, insect-free romaine lettuce for marror.[20] Although romaine lettuce is not particularly bitter, the Talmud seems to prefer it from among the other acceptable species of marror.[21] Some rabbis were known to use even the sweetish iceberg lettuce for marror.[22] There are authorities who sanction the use of endives for marror as well.[23] Those who seek a truly gruelingly bitter experience may, of course, use the raw horseradish root, an option favored by many authorities as well.[24]

One must eat a minimum of a kezayit, 1.33 ounces of marror[25] which can be made up of a combination of lettuce and horseradish.[26] One who is simply unable to acquire any of the vegetables suitable for marror should at least eat any bitter vegetable at the Seder, though the accompanying blessing recited upon eating marror is omitted.[27]

The marror should be dipped in the charoset mixture before eating it, though one should be sure to shake off any charoset remains.[28] Contrary to popular misconception, there does not seem to be a mitzva to eat Charoset at any time.[29] The entire kezayit of marror should be eaten at once if possible.[30] One does not recline while eating the marror.[31] One should have in mind when eating the marror that it serve to atone for any forbidden foods one has eaten throughout the year.[32]


Hallel

The recitation of the Hallel is another rabbinical mitzva of the Seder.[33] In what is a break in common practice, the Hallel is divided up, with some of it being recited before the meal, and the rest of it being recited after the meal. These special prayers focus on praise and thanksgiving to God for having taken us out of Egypt. It is important that one understands the words of the Hallel in order to properly fulfill the mitzva and it should be sung or at least recited out loud.[34] It is permitted to recite the Hallel in a place other than where the Seder was held.[35] Along with the eating of the Afikoman, one is advised to complete the recitation of Hallel before midnight as well.[36] Three or more people reciting Hallel together should appoint one person to lead those sections which are customarily recited responsively.[37]

There you have it. A Seder that is experienced and fulfilled in its traditional way will truly allow us to feel the Talmudic outlook that “every person is obligated to see himself as having personally left Egypt.”[38]


(For the first part of "The Five Mitzvot of the Seder" see: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/04/five-mitzvot-of-seder-part-i.html)

NEXT WEEK: A review of "Working on Chol Hamoed". 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] Pesachim 108b.
[2] Shemot 6:6.
[3] Shulchan Aruch Harav O.C. 472:19
[4] Shulchan Aruch O.C. 472:9
[5] OC 472:11.
[6] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 77:6
[7] O.C. 472:8
[8] Maggid Mishna to Hilchot Chanuka 4:12
[9] Nedarim 49b, O.C. 472:10
[10] Mishna Berura 472:35, Teshuvot V'hanhagot 2:243
[11] Mishna Berura 472:37, Igrot Moshe O.C. 2:75
[12] O.C. 472:1, Mishna Berura 472:5
[13] O.C. 473:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 119:2, Kaf Hachaim 473:31
[14] The mitzva of marror is a Torah level mitzva when eaten together with the Korban Pesach. Since the Beit Hamikdash is no more, and sacrifices have ceased, eating marror is only required by rabbinical law today.
[15] O.C. 475:1
[16] Pesachim 39a.
[17] O.C. 473:5
[18] It is interesting to note that Rabbi Herschel Schachter subscribes to a view that horseradish is not one of the five vegetables that are acceptable for maror. He notes that the other vegetables on the list are green leafy vegetables and are bitter rather than "sharp" (an entirely different sensation). This seems to be a da'at yachid.
[19] O.C. 473:5
[20] Shulchan Aruch Harav 473:30
[21] Mishna Berura 473:34.
[22] The practice of Rabbi Aharon Kotler, cited in Rabbi Shimon Eider, Halachos of Pesach (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1998).
[23] Chacham Tzvi 119
[24] Pesachim 39b, Magen Avraham 473:12
[25] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 119:7
[26] O.C. 473:5
[27] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 119:7
[28] O.C. 475:1, Mishna Berura 475:17
[29] Pesachim 114a, Pesachim 116a. See also: http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/charoset.htm
[30] Magen Avraham 475:4
[31] O.C. 475:1
[32] Nitei Gavriel 54:19
[33] Pesachim 116b.
[34] Nitei Gavriel 102:4
[35] Rema O.C. 480:1
[36] O.C. 477:1, Mishna Berura 477:7
[37] Rema O.C. 479:1
[38] Ibid.

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #034

Pre-Pesah Mishmar

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School is pleased to invite the community to an end of the zman Pre-Pesah mishmar at the YCT Beit Midrash this Tuesday evening, April 15 beginning at 7:00 PM. There will be shiurim delivered by Rabbis Dov Linzer, Nathaniel Helfgot, and Ysoscher Katz in areas of Halakha and Mahshava related to Pesah. The evening is free and open to the public. For more information please go to www.yctorah.org.

In addition YCT is pleased to announce the publication of the most recent volume of its student journal Milin Havivin for more information on ordering a hard copy or to view it on line please go to www.yctorah.org.

(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.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Top Rabbis

Newsweek has compiled this year's list of the 50 most influential rabbis in the country (link) and the 25 leading pulpit rabbis (link). The Orthodox have 20% of the pulpit spots and 30-35% of the influential rabbis, depending on whom you consider Orthodox. I've got to say, those lists have a lot of surprising (or bizarre) names on them.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Much Matzah?

R. Mordechai Willig calculates the preferred minimum amount of matzah to eat, i.e. the size of a ke-zayis (link - audio). This is, by necessity, based on approximations and averages. Here is how I understand his steps:

1. According to measurements in Israel, the average size of a contemporary egg is 50 ccs. (The majority of classical authorities do NOT double this size.)
2. Measurements have shown that an egg's volume decreases by 10% when the shell is removed, which leaves us with 45 ccs.
3. The strict view is that a ke-zayis is half of an egg's volume, which is 22.5 ccs.
4. Measuring the required volume of a matzah should be done on the matzah as it is, not by crushing it into crumbs. The weight of 22.5 ccs of water is 22.5 grams.
Click here to read more
5. Experiments show that the equivalent volume of matzah has half the weight of water. This means that a ke-zayis of matzah weighs approximately 11.25 grams.
6. 11.25 grams is about 0.4 ounces.
7. There are on average 7.5 handmade matzos per pound (16 ounces) and 15 machine-made matzos per pound, which means that an average handmade matzah is 2.13 ounces and an average machine-made matzah is 1.07 ounces.
8. Therefore, a ke-zayis is less than 1/5th of a handmade matzah and less than 2/5th of a machine-made matzah.

R. Willig emphasizes that matzah at the seder is the only biblical obligation to eat a specific food and that, according to R. Soloveitchik, the Rambam is of the view that you fulfill a voluntary mitzvah for eating more than a ke-zayis of matzah. The minimum here should not be mistaken for the maximum.

For those of us who have the custom of eating horseradish as marror, this might help. For a few years, I would not recite the blessing over marror because I did not think I would eat a ke-zayis. Even though now I can eat plenty of horseradish, I think these measurements might be useful sometime in the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

Matzot Emunah

From R. Shmuel Jablon (lightly edited):

Last week there was a notice on the internet (I, II), including something from the Rabbanut HaRoshit from Israel, that Matzot Emunah from Hevron are not under the Hashgacha of HaRav Dov Lior shlit"a from Kiryat Arba-Hevron. Upon further investigation, I was provided with two new letters from HaRav Lior that they are indeed under his hashgacha. I also confirmed with Mrs. Ateret Levinger (daughter in law of HaRav Moshe Levinger shlit"a) that he indeed wrote and signed these letters. I also asked HaRav Shlomo Aviner shlit"a who told me that: אם הרב ליאור שוב אישר ,אפשר לסמוך עליו לגמרי (if HaRav Lior returned his "permission"," it is possible to rely on him completely).

Below is the typed text of HaRav Lior's letter on this subject. His handwritten letter can be found here (PDF):

יום חמישי ה' ניסן תשס"ח

לאחינו בני ישראל,

בימים האחרונים התפרסם שאין הכשר שלי על מצות "אמונה" מעיר חברון. לאחר בדיקה חוזרת ומעמיקה התברר שהייתה אי הבנה בנושא מסוים והכשרות הוחזרה למקומה. הכשרות בתכלית ההידור "יאכלו ענווים וישבעו", וכל מי שקנה יכול בלב שקט להשתמש במצות למהדרין.

בכבוד רב,

הרב דוב ליאור

UPDATE: The Rabbanut agrees: link (PDF)

Read the rest of this entry »

ORA Rally in Marine Park

Cancelled for now. Contact Jeremy for more information.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Book: A Philosophy of Mitzvot

Now available from Yashar Books:

A Philosophy of Mitzvot: The Religious and Ethical Principles of Judaism, their Roots in Biblical Law and the Judaic Oral Tradition

by Rabbi Dr. Gersion Appel


What divine purpose do the mitzvot, the Biblical commandments, serve? What moral and spiritual goals do the mitzvot envision? In a book made newly available to the reading public, Rabbi Dr. Gersion Appel presents a comprehensive view of the structure and meaning of the Torah’s commandments.

The Sefer ha-Hinnukh, one of the principal works in Jewish ethical and halakhic literature, is a primary source for ta’amei ha-mitzvot, the reasons and purpose of the divine commandments in the Torah. In A Philosophy of Mitzvot, originally published in 1975 and revised for this second edition, Rabbi Dr. Gersion Appel sets forth the Hinnukh’s objectives and his approach to revealing the religious and ethical meaning of the mitzvot.

In this wide-ranging study that is ideal for school courses, the author presents a comprehensive view of Jewish philosophy as developed by the Hinnukh and the classical Jewish philosophers. The Hinnukh emerges in this study as a great educator and moral and religious guide, and his classic work as a treasure-trove of Jewish knowledge, religious inspiration, and brilliant insight in the molding of human character.

“Appel’s study is a definitive evaluation of the Hinnuk’s approach. But, more than this, it is an exploration of significant perspectives and new directions for further studies of the meaning of the commandments. The book is comprehensive, informative and authoritative. It is a work of immense scholarship and deserves to be widely read.” —The Jewish Law Annual

Learn more about the book at http://www.yasharbooks.com/Mitzvot.html
Buy the book at http://www.yasharbooks.com/shop

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Mitzvot: Their Nature and Import in Jewish Philosophy
1. The Taryag Mitzvot
2. The Quest for the Meaning of Mitzvot
3. The Divine Purpose
4. The Preamble of Faith
5. A Rationale of Mitzvot
6. Man's Ethical Duties
7. The Individual and Society
8. Man's Spiritual Dimension
9. The Service of God
10. The Divine Imperative
11. Perspectives on the Mitzvot
12. Conclusion: The Continuing Quest
Excursus: The Sefer Ha-Hinnukh: Authorship & Sources

About the Author
Rabbi Dr. Gersion Appel is Yeshiva University Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Jewish Studies, and formerly Adjunct Professor of Graduate Hebrew Studies in New York University. He received his Torah education in Yeshiva and Mesivta Torah V'Daas and Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, where he received his Rabbinic ordination (Semicha - '41). He graduated Yeshiva College ('38) and has a Doctor of Hebrew Literature degree from Yeshiva University ('45) and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University.

Read the rest of this entry »

Striving For Tzara'as

Ever wonder why we no longer experience the malady called tzara'as? Tzara'as is a spiritual illness often mistranslated as leprosy, and the laws regarding this disease are treated in great detail in last week's and this week's Torah portions (Tazri'a and Metzora). According to rabbinic tradition, tzara'as is a divine punishment for malicious gossip. Yet, probably all of us know people who are terrible gossips who never seem to suffer the symptoms described in the Torah. Why is that?

The Ramban (commentary to Lev. 13:47) answers this question based on a verse in Metzora (Lev. 14:34). According to his understanding, the Torah states that tzara'as only afflicts those in the land of Israel. The reason for this, explains the Ramban, is that divine punishment is a gift -- "God rebukes those whom he loves" (Prov. 3:12). God punishes people in order to direct them to fix their broken ways, to repent and better themselves.

Click here to read moreThose who live outside the land of Israel are distant from God's presence. Those (we) people, and others who are distant from God, do not have the privilege of direct messages from Him and therefore do not merit tzara'as. I know, some might be thankful not to have such gifts. But the result is that many people who lack this guidance end up living out their lives as spiritually immature and incomplete beings. Their souls suffer greatly because of this hidden face of God.

This is analogous to other areas in life where those who are distant from God suffer in their lack of direct connection to the divine. The Haggadah, at the beginning of Maggid immediately before the list of the four sons, praises God: "Barukh Ha-Makom barukh hu" God is referred to as Ha-Makom. Why is this specific name used? The same name is used elsewhere in the Haggadah as well: "Ve-akhshav kirevanu Ha-Makom la-avodaso", "Kamah ma'alos tovos la-Makom alenu" Why specifically the name Ha-Makom?

In R. Yosef Adler's recently published Haggadah for Passover with Commentary Based on the Shiurim of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (pp. 32-33), R. Adler quotes R. Soloveitchik as explaining that Ha-Makom is a name that refers to a hidden God. The prophet Yechezkel, who lived in Babylonian exile, praised God with "Barukh kevod Hashem mi-mekomo." This directly contrasts with Yishayahu's praise of God, "Kadosh kadosh kadosh melo kol ha-aretz kevodo." Yechezkel, living in exile where God is more hidden from Jews, spoke of a hidden God, the God of Hester Panim (hidden face).

R. Soloveitchik explained that this is why we wish mourners "Ha-Makom yenachem eskhem..." (may God -- Ha-Makom -- comfort you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem). In their time of sorrow, when in their pain they cannot see God's plan for the world, we use the name Ha-Makom to comfort them and not a name that implies closeness to God.

Similarly, our text of the Haggadah, which was intended for the exile (see the Netziv's Haggadah commentary on ke-ha lachma), emphasizes the name Ha-Makom to refer to His hidden face, which is the reason for the many troubles of exile over the centuries. (Until here is the explanation in R. Adler's Haggadah.)

Why did the Holocaust happen? R. Soloveitchik states (Reflections of the Rav, p. 37):

The Holocaust, in contrast, was Hester Panim. We cannot explain the Holocaust but we can, at least, classify it theologically, characterize it, even if we have no answer to the question, "why?" The unbounded horrors represented the tohu vavohu anarchy of the pre-yetzirah state. That is how the world appears when God's moderating surveillance is suspended.

On an individual level, the Rambam famously writes in Moreh Nevukhim (3:17) that the reason many people suffer in this world is that they only merit a lesser degree of God's individual providence. Essentially, God hides his face from them as individuals. If that is the case, how should we personally respond to crises? How do we react to suffering the brunt of God's hidden face? R. Soloveitchik (Halakhic Man, p. 128) suggests that we should see the trouble as a challenge. Our reaction should be to strive to achieve the level that merits individual providence. If God hides His face from us because of our lackings, we need to resolve those flaws and achieve a closer divine relationship.

In the same way, the foreign nature of tzara'as and the exilic nature of our Haggadah text should serve to remind us of our need as individuals and a community to reach for a higher degree of closeness with God.

Read the rest of this entry »