The Ordination of Women II

Modern Orthodox leaders face a dilemma right now. As a blogger, I engage in the occasional armchair quarterbacking of the Jewish people. Allow me to sketch out the perplexing problem that I see facing our communal leaders.

On Sunday March 21st, 2009, Rabbi Avi Weiss conferred Yoreh Yoreh ordination on his congregational intern, Ms. Sara Hurwitz. The official certificate does not use the term rabbi but instead Rabbi Weiss invented a new term for this occasion – Maharat (Manhigah Hilchatit Ruchanit Toranit). Note also that Ms. Hurwitz has served for the past five years as a congregational intern and not as a rabbinic intern – the term rabbi is once again not being used. However, ordaining a woman in any way, even if not under the title rabbi, is a significant step in the Orthodox world. This is even more so the case when the ordainee serves in a synagogue pulpit.

Click here to read moreI don’t know Rabbi Weiss or Ms. Hurwitz, and my thoughts here are not aimed at them personally but relate to the direction of the segment of the Orthodox community of which they are a part. What I see is support for the role of a woman in being ordained in rabbinic fashion and serving as a rabbi. This is a radical break with Jewish tradition. It is an intentional deviation from Minhag Yisrael, from the unanimous Orthodox view just 25 short years ago (and certainly prior to that). Regardless of what halakhic arguments can be offered on the relevant technical issues (on these issues, see this post: link which will be published in a revised and updated form in my forthcoming book, Posts Along The Way), we must remember that the Conservative movement also has halakhic arguments for its positions. In terms of Jewish law rather than theology, what distinguishes the Orthodox from the Conservative is our allegiance to precedent and tradition. This latest deviation is part of a recent trend among self-identifying Orthodox Jews of deviating from traditional synagogue practices (why is the synagogue always first?).

Like the Reform in the nineteenth century and the Conservative in the twentieth, these recent deviations are accompanied with detailed halakhic justifications. But that does not mean that they are correct when they act to alter the fabric of religious society in ways that had previously been unthinkable. Nowhere to be heard are concerns about communal unity, misperceptions about halakhic malleability and the effects of this decision on the non-Orthodox. Nor is there discussion about the important question – “What next?” This seems to me to be a short-sighted and historically uninformed development.

Be that as it may, the question is how mainstream Orthodox leaders should respond, if at all, to this latest development which is part of a clear trend that shows no end in sight. The way I see it, there are four options:

1. Debate

Some might seek to argue the halakhic issues but I think that this approach is a mistake. First, it is easy to get bogged down in the details and never fully conclude this important discussion. Additionally, those who focus solely on the technical points leave open the possibility for making a case for allowing women rabbis. In truth, many of the innovations of the Reform and Conservative movements were also potentially justifiable on strict halakhic grounds. Looking back, we tend to focus on the more extreme decisions, like driving a car to shul on Shabbos or eliminating circumcision, which are impossible to justify. However, other innovations – such as allowing Gentiles to play music to accompany the Shabbos service or permitting the use of a swimming pool as a mikveh – can be justified, even if debatably, on purely technical grounds.

2. Retaliate

Others might decide to quietly blacklist those involved in the process as a remedy to this development. It seems to me that this will be counterproductive. Not only are the people involved not easily removed from Orthodox organizations but I can only expect that any such type of blacklisting will be portrayed in the press as a witch hunt.

3. Silence

Perhaps the proper response is silence. The midrashic tradition tells of a single frog that started the second plague in Egypt. Every time someone tried to kill the frog, it would instead multiply. Continuous attempts to destroy it led to the deluge of frogs that was the plague. R. Itzelleh Volozhiner suggested based on this that sometimes the best advice is to do nothing. Had the Egyptians done nothing, rather than try to kill the frog(s), then they would have avoided the second plague.

Perhaps in our case too, ignoring the problem is the solution. Maybe the novelty will wear off and people will recognize that women in the rabbinate is not acceptable in the Orthodox Jewish community.

4. Protest

On the other hand, how can we stand by quietly and say nothing? The Haggadah discuses four sons and provides answers for each. It is curious that the response to the wicked son is not the verse associated with the question. The Vilna Gaon explained that we don’t answer the wicked son; anything we say to him will only make matters worse. However, we have to provide an answer to all the other people at the table who heard the wicked son ask his question. We cannot let his challenge of Jewish tradition stand without a response.

I am not trying to equate anyone with the wicked son; this is not an exercise in name-calling. Rather, I am raising the point that answering challenges to Jewish tradition is very important even outside of a debate. If community leaders say nothing, there is a risk of widespread confusion.

However, protesting in public is an option that may very well backfire. In all likelihood, the press will paint Orthodox objections to the ordination of women rabbis as a sign of fanaticism and another symptom of the much discussed “swing to the right.” Of course, this will be incredibly ironic because thirty years ago Orthodox rabbis unanimously opposed the ordination of women. But facts do not always win when confronted with press releases and talking points.

The Fifth Option: Remembering

In the end, I suspect that this time silence should win. The dangers of a public relations misstep are too great. Hopefully, our community in general has a sufficiently developed instinct for what is and is not acceptable. But that means that we, rabbis and laypeople, need to speak to each other informally and reinforce what we already know. We need to take to heart the lesson of Birkas Ha-Chamah. This is the blessing we recite on Erev Pesach this year, which is said only once every 28 years. We cannot forget what has happened since the last time we said it, in 1981.

At that time, there was widespread debate in the Conservative movement over the ordination of women. Since then, they have not only accepted women as rabbis without any halakhic limitations on their functioning but they have also accepted into the rabbinate active homosexuals, all against the recommendation of the leading Conservative talmudic scholars. Cynical Conservative rabbinic students recently jokingly adjusted a famous statement by Theodore Herzl into “Im tirtzu ein zo halakhah – if you will it, it is no law.” After witnessing the quick disintegration of the Conservative movement’s allegiance to halakhah since its acceptance of women rabbis, how can we view this development in Orthodoxy with anything but pain? Aside from the meta-halakhic issues that surround this development, how can we not look at recent history and ask whether we are seeing another descent into halakhic chaos for socio-political ends?

It is our duty to learn from the mistakes of history, for reasons that require no elaboration.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gebrokts

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

There is a well known Pesach custom is some communities, mainly Chassidic ones, referred to as "gebrokts" or "sheruya". This term refers to the practice of those to refrain from eating any matza or matza product which had come into contact with water. Among the explanations for the development of this custom was in order to ensure that one would not come to mix matza meal "flour" with real, chametz, flour.[1] Additionally, there was once a concern that there may be some flour within the body of the matza which may have not been fully baked and therefore any subsequent contact with water would cause this matza to become chametz.

Click here to read moreWhile there are those who are unforgivingly strict in their application of the gebrokts custom, there are also a number of variations of it as well. For example, in some communities matza is not allowed to come into contact with water, however, it is permitted to come into contact with other liquids, such as fruit juice or wine. There is also some discussion of differentiating between whole matza and ground matza in the application of the gebrokts restrictions.[2] Some individuals who otherwise do not eat gebrokts on Pesach will eat such mixtures Erev Pesach. [3]

In many communities the custom of not eating gebrokts is suspended on the last day of Pesach. This concession is in order to differentiate between the first seven days of the holiday which are of Torah origin and the last day which is of rabbinic origin. In some families dramatic precautions are taken in order to ensure that matza does not come into contact with water. Among these precautions are keeping the matzot on the table covered at all times as well as not pouring any beverages before any surrounding crumbs are removed.[4]

Nevertheless, the premise of gebrokts or the concern that matza which has already been baked may subsequently become chametz is somewhat far fetched and was never accepted as halacha. In fact, the Talmud explicitly states that once matza has been baked there is nothing that can cause it to become chametz.[5] The Shulchan Aruch also rules that one is allowed to wet and re-bake matza.[6] One who has difficulty chewing matza is permitted to wet the matza in water in order to soften it and this even includes the matza used for the mitzva at the Seder.[7] It is noted that historically the custom was to permit baking with matza or otherwise allowing it to come into contact with water.[8]

The Vilna Gaon was known to cook matza [9] and it is reported that the Chatam Sofer would use matza balls for the kiddush bemakom seuda requirement.[10] It is interesting to note that in the Chazon Ish’s home there was a unique method for making matza balls. The matza balls would be made from matza meal and eggs, since eggs do not cause flour to rise. [11] Furthermore, after the matza balls were ready they would be placed into boiling hot water which is known to prevent dough from possibly rising. As such, the Chazon Ish managed to enjoy matza balls on Pesach while still complying with the restriction of gebrokts! [12]

It is likely that the gebrokts custom evolved at a time when matzot were produced much thicker than they are today. As such, there may have been legitimate concern that the insides of these matzot may not have been properly baked. In our day, however, the matzot are so thin and fully baked that there is no room for this concern any more. It is also noted that even if such a concern was conceivable there would be no problem wetting one's matza (i.e. dipping it into soup) as long as one was sure to consume it within eighteen minutes. Even the toughest gebroktsers will concede that it is permitted to chew matza on Pesach notwithstanding the water content of saliva. [13]

Nevertheless, there are some insinuations within classical halachic sources which would lend support to observing the custom of gebrokts even today. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one who feels that the matza dough one has kneaded is too loose is not to simply add flour to thicken its consistency. Rather, one is to quickly make a new, thicker, dough which should then be added to the loose one in order to thicken it up. This is because if one were to simply add flour to the existing loose dough, it is possible that the newly added flour may not get fully mixed into the dough and therefore not fully bake. If this were to happen it is certainly conceivable that such matza dipped into hot soup could become actual chametz. [14]

Ultimately, however, what began as a stringency has essentially taken on the status of a custom in our day. As such, those whose custom it is to refrain from eating gebrokts are completely entitled to continue to do so and there are plenty of halachic authorities to support this. [15] It should be noted, however, that there is no reason for anyone to refrain from eating off of Pesach dishes which have been used for gebrokts.[16] Our sages say that those who keep the custom of gebrokts, as well as those who don’t, are all categorized under “Your nation are all tzaddikim”. [17]


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


1. Based on Pesachim 40b, Tur O.C. 463
2. Chochmat Shlomo 463:3
3. She'arim Metzuyanim B'halacha 115:7
4. Shaarei Halacha Uminhag Vol. 2:203
5. Pesachim 39b
6. O.C. 463:3
7. O.C. 461:4
8. Pri Chadash Y.D. 87:6, Chok Yaakov O.C. 460:16
9. Ma'aseh Rav 183
10. Maharshag 56:2, Divrei Yisrael 1:122
11. Tur O.C. 462
12. Orchot Rabbeinu II p. 52
13. Sharei Teshuva 460:2
14. O.C. 459:6, Magen Avraham O.C. 459:16
15. Beit Yosef 461 s.v. katav Harambam
16. Radbaz 4:296
17. Yeshayahu 60:21

Read the rest of this entry »

Orthodox Blogger Student

A rabbi told me today (in the name of his wife) that I was used in the NY Times crossword puzzle about two weeks ago and this comment (link) says that I was used in the Jerusalem Post. I assume that they are referring to the same thing but some details were confused. The clue, according to the comment, was: "Orthodox blogger Student".

Does anyone know which newspaper and on what day? Thank you.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why Do Gedolim Sometimes Make Mistakes?

The Torah has a special passage discussing when a ruler, a nasi, sins accidentally (Lev. 4:22). It begins, "אשר נשיא יחטא -- When a ruler has sinned." The first word, asher, is unusual in this context and Rashi quotes the Gemara's explanation that it can be understood as ashrei -- praiseworthy. Namely, "praiseworthy is the generation whose ruler takes care to acquire atonement for his mistaken sins." This is certainly unusual. Wouldn't a generation be praiseworthy if its ruler does not sin at all?

Click here to read moreI think an answer can be found in an earlier passage. At the beginning of the chapter, the Torah discusses when an anointed priest sins accidentally (Lev. 4:3): "אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם -- If the anointed priest sins, to the guilt on the people." What does it mean "le-ashmas ha-am", which I translated as "to the guilt of the people"?

I'd like to suggest that this refers to the common saying that a people gets the leaders it deserves. A religious leader, a gadol ha-dor, succeeds or does not based on the worthiness of his community. If the people are entirely righteous, then the religious leader will not err, even accidentally. But if they are not righteous, then the degree of success of their religious leader will complement their own worthiness. That is what it means "le-ashmas ha-am." The larger the guilt, the larger the mistakes of their leaders. However, the mistakes of those religious leaders do not necessarily reflect on their own shortcomings. Just like Hillel did not achieve prophecy for reasons related entirely to his community and not to himself, the same applies to accidental errors of leaders.

Perhaps the same can be said about political leaders. While the Torah only relates the above principle to religious leaders, maybe that is because it is most surprising in that context but it also applies to other types of leaders. If so, then in an unredeemed world leaders will always be making some mistakes. Even in the unusual case that they are perfect in every way, if their community is not as perfect then they will err commensurate with the worthiness of their people. If so, and it is almost guaranteed that political leaders will make some mistakes, then we can understand why the Torah praises the generation whose leaders at least recognize that they are imperfect and try to recognize their mistakes and correct them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Female Orthodox Almost-Rabbi

See the interviews with Sara Hurwitz, Blu Greenberg and Judith Hauptman in minutes 2 through 6. I'm still withholding my comments until further review:

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup XXXV

by Joel Rich

Does it take one to know one: Do religious patients require religious therapists? & Panel Discussion: (Pay - go to http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/category.asp?cat=17 and click on Panels on left hand margin product search)

Very interesting discussion of whether orthodox patients (for psychiatry, psychology, etc.) are best served by orthodox therapists. One case study of a Yeshiva boy who was thinking too much (in his opinion(?)) about sex (hmmm).

The therapist is supposed to be a "facilitating mirror" (objective). [me – and a posek is also supposed to be "objective". Question – can anyone truly be "objective"? Can an orthodox therapist ever truly avoid counter transference? Do we take medicines even though sometimes they have side effects? Are there non-orthodox therapists who view religion as an illness? Are there orthodox therapists who won’t "go there" if there involves actions that could lead to sin?]

Rabbinical role – know when to refer but it’s not a touch pass (i.e. stay involved).

Click here to read more

Panel Discussion: Rav Soloveitchik: The Complex Legacy: (Pay - go to http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/category.asp?cat=17 and click on Panels on left hand margin product search)

What were R’YBS’s true feelings on secular studies? Responses based on his shiurim, Maimonides school and suggestions to his students.

Transmitting emotional component of Judaism was viewed as key.

His "loneliness" was existential. Modern society doesn’t focus on community and sacrifice.

We shouldn’t "petrify" him but continue to think for ourselves and our times utilizing his insights and, more importantly, his approach.(my take)

Rabbi Hershel Schachter - Hilchos Bishul B'Shabbos: link

Outstanding "quick summary" of the laws of cooking (not) on Shabbat including Shihiyah (leaving on) and chazarah (returning). Interesting R’YBS on one of my imponderables – The first folks who used Shabbat clocks were probably over on marit ayin, but they made it permissible for us to use them ?!?!

Very interesting comment on appropriateness of elevators and Akum operators on an ongoing basis (Manhattanites listen at your own risk).

Rebbetzin Peshi Neuburger - Mizmor Shir Chanukas HaBayis: A Song of Dedication?: link

Why is Mizmor shir chahukat habayit l’david where it is in morning prayer? Thematic explanation of placement and meaning with regard to David’s life-bottom line – our prayer is deficient without recognition of missing temple. [me – recurring theme in many shiurim – have we been too content?]

Mrs. Chani Maybruch - Taharas HaMishpacha Review for Women-Part 1: link

Not sure if the for women applies to internet listeners?
Detailed discussion of laws of Nidah. Summary – unless you are 1,000% sure, ask – you may well be pleasantly surprised.

Interesting comment on the "don’t look then no need to tell" rule – it’s not to beat the system, it’s within the system (mmmm).

Rabbi Hanan Balk - The Notion of a Tzaddik--Do We Expect Perfection?: link

"Someone wrote" about his shiur on Amen parties (hmmm – now who could that be?). Very rational approach to our relationship with HkB"H (he must be right – I agree with him
J) and "sinning" of avot (a la R’Hirsch). We can be tzaddikim if we do Tshuva and get up after each fall. (a’la R’Hutner)

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb - Lifesaving Measures on Shabbos: link

Source of permission to violate Shabbat to save a life – "vchai bahem" vs. violate one Shabbat to observe others - and some implications.

Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff - R' MayerTwersky: link

It’s called R’Twersky but it’s really R’Rakefet’s Take (again) on feminism and YCT.

Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Alarms and Timers on Shabbos: link

Introduction to Shabbat clocks, photoelectric switches and cause and effect. Basics of psik reisha, Lo Nicha Lei and grama. When is it a result independent of your act?

Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich - Birkhat HaChammah: link

Read my book! We need to differentiate between memorization and intellectual knowledge.

The bracha of oseh maaseh breishit is said on lightening (currently created majestic experience), on grand canyon types (past created experience). We must recognize "natural" miracles.

Mentions R’Gil catching him on conflating the doctrine of natural creation and the doctrine of constant conservation (me – is that like the Monroe doctrine?)

The oseh maaseh of birchat hachama is special in that when you look at the sun, it hasn’t changed any – it’s a reflective blessing which requires you to internalize what you see and that causes feeling of need to praise the lord for continually conserving the universe.

Chazal knew calculation wasn’t exact – it was designed for ease of calculation and to cause personal reflection.

Rabbi Ariel Rackovsky - A Rose by An Other Name Shoshanat Yaakov: link

Nice explication of Asher Heni and Shoshanat Yaakov. Did you know that Krovutz stood for Kol Rina Vyishua boholei tzadikkim? R’Ariel – Interesting thought about "rules of 5" – but what is the significance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Oseh Shalom

Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks oversaw the production of this CD in honor of Israel's 60th birthday last year: link. I believe that song #4 is a Shwekey song (different singer) and the last, #22, is straight from Chevra.

Here's a video for one of the songs:

Read the rest of this entry »

Did You Lose Your Job Because God Is Punishing You?

I. Why Mezuzos?

Many people are suffering financially right now and Jews are certainly no exception. On some level, the question "Why me?" is not that applicable because just about everyone is hurting. However, the people who have been hit the most -- those who have lost their jobs and/or savings -- might very well be thinking that they have done something wrong to deserve it. Is this the right attitude to take?

There are some Jews who, when something bad happens to them, reflexively check their mezuzos. They reason that they must have had some religious failing to deserve this bad event. The introspection is praiseworthy but I'm not sure that mezuzos are always the best place to start. There are often more obvious religious failings that are better targets for improvement. For example, money problems often lead to marital stress, so maybe the original problem was with how the spouses treated each other. God might have said, as it were, "If you will treat each other poorly then I'll give you a good reason for marital tension." Or maybe there are other appropriate areas you can find for religious improvement. Frankly, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone can fail to find something.

But don't make the mistake of blaming yourself for your troubles.

Click here to read moreBut don't make the mistake of blaming yourself for your troubles. You can never know for sure the reason. It might have been a divine punishment for your own misdeeds but there are other possible explanations for it. However, as we'll see, using this unfortunate situation as an opportunity for religious growth can serve multiple purposes.

II. General Decree

As we're all aware, the current economic downturn is affecting just about everyone. If that's the case, the question "Why me?" might not be the right one to ask. Perhaps you should ask "Why wouldn't it be me?"

There are multiple approaches to deciphering the ways of divine providence, and it is not at all clear that we can ever gain a true understanding. However, let us follow down one path and see what we can learn from it.

The Kuzari (5:20), based on a verse in Shmuel Alef (1 Samuel 26:10), lists three ways a person can die -- Divine (he is punished by God), Natural (he simply reaches his time) or Accidental (he goes off to war and dies "by chance"). R. Yosef Albo, in his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim (4:21), restates this passage in the Kuzari and adds an important explanation of the Accidental category. He explains that sometimes there is a general decree that overrides an individual decree.

For example, while a person may be written for life in the year, if he goes out to battle for a country that has been decreed above to lose, this general decree (for the country) will take precedence over his individual decree. The "by chance" does not literally mean that God has no role in his fate. It means that his death is governed by global concerns that override his individual merit (cf. R. Elchanan Wasserman, Kovetz Ma'amarim, part 2 sv. ha-tzur, p. 38).

III. Avoid a General Decree

However, all is not lost. The Gemara (Ta'anis 21b) tells the story of a community that was spared from a tragedy. Why? Was it the merit of Rav, who lived there, that saved them? No, answers the Gemara, Rav's merit was too great; it was the merit of some other righteous resident who, while not great, performed wonderful acts of chesed. This is, to say the least, quite a puzzling passage. What does it mean that Rav was too righteous to save the community from tragedy?

The Maharatz Chajes (Glosses to Shabbos 55a) explains that someone great can avoid a general decree. Even if there is tragedy all around him, he will be saved because of his great merit. However, someone who is not as great is subject to a general decree. Therefore, before God administers a general decree, He has to take into account the great people who might be affected by it. Rav was so great that he would not have been affected by a general decree. The other person was not as deserving and if there had been a general decree, he would have been subject to it. Therefore, he saved the community from a general decree to prevent the negative impact to that worthy person. While that saving might not always happen, depending on the divine calculus, this time it did (cf. Malbim, Gen. 18:24).

IV. Why You?

Translating this to today's situation, according to this one of multiple possible approaches, you were may have been affected by a general decree that is impacting the world. It isn't your fault. The guaranteed way of avoiding the downturn is to look at yourself, your actions and your attitudes, and ask: Am I worthy of getting a divine exception? If not, do what you can to change that. While it is a bit much to ask anyone to become righteous, there are certainly ways that you can improve religiously to make yourself more worthy.

If that doesn't work, and to be honest it is quite a long shot that any specific person will become completely righteous, you can at least have the solace that it is not your fault. There are forces at work greater than any individual and we can only go with the flow of the larger community and do our best in those circumstances.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dr. Lamm on New Rav Soloveitchik Haggadah

Dr. Norman Lamm reviews the new Rav Soloveitchik Haggadah (link):

What a marvelous volume this is! It makes the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik come alive as he makes the Seder come alive. On almost every page you will encounter nuggets of wisdom that will undoubtedly enhance your experience of the Passover Haggadah. Thanks to Rabbi Menachem Genack, one of the leading disciples of the Rav, and his colleagues, we have this glorious opportunity to transform an old and cherished but, for too many of us, unsurprising and repetitious annual ritual, into an adventure of the heart and mind, filled with novel halachic interpretations and spiritual elevation.

An example:

Click here to read moreAn example: Hasevah, the requirement to eat while leaning on the left side, is more than the adoption of a Roman sign of nobility. For the Rav, it is “the reverse of erect posture, which demonstrates obedience and submissiveness” by soldiers who stand erect and at attention, ready to obey. “Hasevah is indicative of disobedience, a courageous stand, of refusing to take orders, of rejecting the authority of man. Hasevah means defiance.”

Another of the Rav’s gems: The word Haggadah is not merely the name of the Passover booklet, or the commandment to repeat the story of slavery and redemption. The word Haggadah is similar to the term Haggadat Edut, the giving of evidence at a trial. In exercising this juridical function, the witness must give testimony based exclusively on his personal experience, not on hearsay. Thus the passage in the Seder that one must relate the story of exile and redemption “as if he [personally] experienced the Exodus from Egypt.”

In this volume the Rav both teaches and inspires. His intellectual creativity and his elegance of expression, his sophistication and the charm of his style, will make you enjoy this Pesach as an unforgettable experience.

Go out and buy this book at once!

Norman Lamm

And see Alan Jay Gerber's review in this week's Jewish Star: link.

Read the rest of this entry »

Free E-Book: A Bloggers' Guide to Birkas Ha-Chamah

Ezzie and I put together posts from a few different blogs into the following 38 page e-book about Birkas Ha-Chamah.

Click here to read morebirkashachamah

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Uncategorizable-Unca

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Vayikra 5769

by Steve Brizel

A Calling From Affection

R. Berel Wein and R. Shlomo Riskin remind us that God's call to Moshe from the inner recesses of the Mishkan was a personal call for Moshe to transmit a message that would underscore the fact that the Torah was no longer in heaven and that his job would be to teach Torah in a world that was not familiar or even seemingly inhospitable to its teachings: link 1, link 2

R. Yissocher Frand tells us why Moshe's career continued as the leader of Klal Yisrael despite all of his past efforts and successes: link

R. Avraham Gordimer discusses the unique nature of Moshe's leadership and the fact that every Jew has the potential to emulate this relationship and develop into a Torah personality: link

Click here to read moreThe Leader With The Small Alef

R. Herschel Shachter urges us to emulate the humility of Moshe in finding leaders with the capacity to say “I don't know” and in recognizing that someone who is humble in spirit stands a better chance in clarifying the truth of the Torah: link

R. Aryeh Lebowitz reminds us that humility is one of the keys to success in Chinuch: link (audio)

The Structure of Sefer Vayikra

R. Mordechai Sabato and R. Dovid Horwitz analyze the structure of Sefer Vayikra: link 1, link 2

R. Yitchak Etshalom surveys the differences in the means of the presentation of Karbanos between Parshiyos Vayika and Tzav: link

R. Yaakov Haber (formerly of RIETS) explains how Karbanos serve to elevate the physical world: link

The Olah and the Shelamim

R. Asher Brander suggests why only a Jew could bring a Shelamim: link

The Olah and the Mincha

R. Yonatan Grossman, based upon the Abarvanel, asks why the Mincha follows the Olah before the Shlamim: link

Chametz, Honey and the Mincha

R. Yitzchak Adlerstein, based upon the Nesivos Shalom, explains why Chametz and Honey are antithetical to a Mincha: link

Giving With a Full Heart

R. Ephraim Buchwald uses the Karban Mincha to show that Judaism is not reserved for the wealthy, but for those with a full heart: link

R. Baruch Simon explores the relationship between performing an act out of one's free will and coercion as it relates to all mitzvos: link (audio)

The Sin Offering of the Leader

R. Jonathan Sacks emphasizes that the Jewish approach to leadership is based upon an unusual combination of realism and idealism, as well as honesty to admit one's mistakes: link

Special Section-Coping With the Economic Crisis

R. Herschel Schachter discusses current challenges of the family and community in crisis and the tuition crisis: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R. Yaakov Neuburger discusses the halachic and hashkafic issues involved in yeshiva tuition: link (audio)

Shloshim Yom Kodem HaChag Department

R. Dovid Miller discusses maintaining Shalom Bayis during the days leading to Pesach: link (audio)

R. Daniel Z. Feldman discusses the Mitzvah of Tashbisu: link (audio)

R. Yonasan Sacks discusses a Machlokes Rashi and Tosfos with regards to Bitul, Bedikah and Tashbisu: link (audio)

R. Josh Flug discusses the halachos of Bdikas Chametz: link (audio)

R. Mordechai Willig discusses the background and halachic issues involved in Mechiras Chametz: link (audio)

R. Baruch Simon discusses the prohibition of eating Chametz on Erev Pesach: link (audio)

R. Shmuel Maybruch explores some of the lesser known Halachos of the Seder: link (audio)

R. Josh Flug discusses the halachos of Hasebah: link (audio)

R. Baruch Simon, based on a famous question of the Maharatz Chayos, discusses why R Eliezer was in Bnei Brak on the night of the Seder: link (audio)

Hilchos Yom Tov

R. Hershel Schachter discusses various halachos of Yom Tov: link (audio)

R. Josh Flug analyzes the various Halachic views regarding Yom Tov Sheni: link (audio)

Last year's roundup: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #091: Rabbis Without Borders Fellowship

Announcement of CLAL Rabbis Without Borders Fellowship

Rabbis Without Borders is a new initiative of CLAL -The National Center for Learning and Leadership. A leader in religious pluralism, CLAL uses wisdom to deepen people’s civic and spiritual participation in American life. The mission of Rabbis Without Borders (RWB) is to nurture and develop a network of rabbis and rabbinical students who have a common vision to make Jewish wisdom an accessible resource to help people across religious and cultural borders enrich their lives. Given the current openness in American life, the time is ripe for rabbis to take a more active role in developing and disseminating Jewish wisdom to anyone who wants to enhance his or her life.

To help rabbis to lead the way in bringing Jewish ideas to the widest possible audiences, Rabbis Without Borders (RWB) is inviting applications for its first Rabbinic Fellowship Program. The Fellowship Program will bring together rabbis from across the country and across the ideological spectrum to study with leading thinkers, authors, and influential people working in the fields of media, politics, public policy, American religion, and contemporary spirituality. (*See below of a list of possible presenters.) These are the experts who spot the trends and identify the modalities through which Americans make meaning in their lives and use their religious/spiritual/ethnic identities to do so. By learning with these experts, rabbis will be better able to appreciate and contribute to the American religious landscape, especially beyond the borders of their respective denominations, institutions and communities.

Click here to read moreThe Rabbinic Fellows will gather six times in New York City over the course of one year beginning in June 2009 for a daylong seminar, which will include a presentation by a leading thinker, interactive discussion among the participants, text study in light of the topic presented, and time to network. Participants will also be expected to read selections in order to prepare for the seminars and interact between seminars by continuing conversations online. Attention will be devoted to concrete measures of how to incorporate our study into your work.

All travel costs will be covered, and participants will receive a stipend of $300, per visit, to offset any other costs.

To apply to be a RWB Fellow please expresses why you would like to participate in this program. Responses should be no longer than one page, double spaced type. Please include your name, current position, address, and email address. Applications should be sent to Rabbi Rebecca W. Sirbu at rsirbu@clal.org no later than May 1, 2009. Space is limited.

*The list of possible presenters: Newsweek editor John Meacham, Steven Waldman, the Editor-in-Chief, President and Co-Founder of Beliefnet, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.



(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 »

Rabbi Slifkin Responds

R. Natan Slifkin adds a postscript to his article in defense of his opponents: link (PDF)

Read the rest of this entry »

Book Review II: Cassandra Misreads The Book of Samuel

Guest post by Shmuel Sofer (cross-posted to Jewish Book News)

Cassandra Misreads The Book of Samuel (and other untold tales of the prophets) is a collection of 8 short stories. The first seven are based upon or loosely connected to different books of Tanach, while the final selection is a contemporary story related to prophecy. As I read through the various stories I found myself trying to discern exactly who the authors’ intended audience was and what if any, purpose or theme he was trying to address. Author Rabbi Gidon Rothstein PhD is by profession an educator and seemingly he wants to use his literary skills to educate his readership as well. In his introduction, Rothstein states that he wanted to present these stories in a fresh manner so that the reader would be able to look at stories he or she may be familiar with but because of that prior knowledge may be “lost in the haze of familiarity... and will be able to see them again with the eyes of a first time reader.” These fictionalized stories are presented with an eye towards mining them for lessons for the contemporary reader.

Click here to read moreThe first tale is centered upon the events surrounding the egel hazahav, the golden calf and the turmoil which those sinful events brought to one imaginary family. The story is written using contemporary names and a style which might better resonate with a contemporary high school student than to the more mature reader.

Following, is the book’s titular chapter. It is based on an interesting twist requiring that the reader must be familiar to some degree with the Greek mythology of Homer’s Iliad as well as the basics of the story of Samuel and his early career as a prophet during the time of Eli HaKohen as well as Kings Saul and David. The story involves Cassandra, a mythical prophetess of ancient Troy, and her recurring visions of the story of Samuel and her perceived understanding of its impact for her and her besieged people.

The next several stories are gleaned from the latter prophets, and include Obadiah, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Malachi. They deal with themes such as how might a prophet look back on his career as it winds down, and how the people with whom a prophet interacted might have viewed his efforts and the effects on their lives. I found the stories regarding Obadiah and Malachi to be two of the most interesting and engaging tales. The Malachi story brought to mind Harry Potter as it presents the frustrations of three students Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi enrolled in a school for young, hopeful prophets in the waning years of the era of prophecy.

The final section is a contemporary tale of a modern-day prophet and his efforts to present his visions to people in a way which that they might be able to accept his message. This is not based on any particular prophet from Tanach but is an interesting story of its own.

Overall, the work is interesting although somewhat uneven in its style and the quality of its prose. Some general considerations are that readers might consider the entire endeavor to be somewhat disrespectful to Tanach. However, if one grants the author some latitude and willingness to look beyond the presentation, Rabbi Rothstein is, in fact, attempting to educate his readers in an entertaining and imaginative way. To properly understand the stories, the reader must be somewhat familiar with the basic storyline as present in the original Tanach version. An appendix or a footnote outlining some of this information would be useful. The author makes use of Chazal’s understanding and insights as he describes the various prophets identities, personalities and their times. I frequently found myself referring back to some general works on the various prophets to better understand the context of the stories. This is most certainly true for the Cassandra story, where a large portion of the story revolves around non-Jewish characters and mythology, which many may not be familiar with.

I think the author too often puts the priesthood and Temple service in a negative light, a theme I noted in his previous work, Murderer in the Mikdash, as well. His portrayal of the “business side” of the Temple and its service portrays it in a somewhat unflattering light, especially for Orthodox Jews who longingly look forward to the rebuilding of the Bais Hamikdash and reestablishing of the various sacrificial services. Overall, I think the book is an entertaining and somewhat educational work that would make a good chol hamoed read for the upcoming Pesach holiday.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nechama Leibowitz, Rav Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe

In discussing the new 600-page biography by Yael Unterman, Nehama Leibowitz: Teacher and Bible Scholar, a friend remarked that he didn't like it at all because it is just a collection of ma'aselakh, stories. I told him that this is exactly why I find it so interesting. I'm not too far into the book, and the second half is where the discussions of methodology take place, but so far I'm greatly enjoying it.

Here is what the book has to say about her interaction (or lack thereof) with R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and R. Menachem Schneerson in their Berlin years (pp. 28-29):
Click here to read more

On her way to study or teach, Nehama might well have passed on the street such figures as R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson, the future Lubavitcher Rebbe; or R. Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, scion of a brilliant talmudic family and future leader of American modern Orthodox Jewry. R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, R. Isaac Hutner, and R. Abraham Joshua Heschel all spent time there. Had all these Jewish luminaries gathered in one location, that would have been a sight to see; no doubt there would have been fierce debate, especially with the Leibowitz siblings present. Perhaps precisely because this notion is so appealing, rumors persist to this day that Nehama spoke with the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R. Soloveitchik and studied with them at university. This is not true. Once, hearing that in an American apartment three large pictures were displayed on the wall -- of the Rebbe, R. Soloveitchik and herself -- Nehama laughed, and said: "Look what company I'm in!" But this was the only time the three "met." Habad Hasidim, desirous of knowing more about the Rebbe's early life in Berlin, would call Nehama every so often. One insisted, "Everyone knows that you sat drinking coffee with the Rebbe and R. Soloveitchik in the cafes in Berlin!" "It could be that we sat at the same table for lunch," Nehama replied, "but if we did, I didn't know it." Reportedly, the Rebbe later recognized Nehama's greatness and sent her groups of Hasidim, who were highly disgruntled at being ordered to study with a woman.

Nehama also never personally interacted with R. Soloveitchik. The story goes that Nehama was told of the brilliant young Jewish scholar who sat in the library "behind the tallest stack of books." With a description like that, she located him easily, but never introduced herself. (It is a tribute to her erudition that in another version, it was he who was told to look out for here, but could not locate her because she was hidden behind her tower of books!) In later years, Nehama evinced a great respect for R. Soloveitchik, employing adjectives such as "important" and "profound" about his thinking, and enjoying tapes of his lectures in Yiddish...

You can buy the book here: link.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertising Policy

On the advice of halakhic counsel, I wish to make it clear that this blog does not necessarily endorse the services of advertisers. Books and events advertised and/or announced on this blog might not be appropriate for you and might not reflect the outlook of this blog. Please consider carefully any books or events advertised here and decide whether they are appropriate for you.

A similar statement is permanently on the top of the blog.

Read the rest of this entry »

Waiting for the Rabbi

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

In most congregations the custom is to wait for the rabbi to finish his prayers before the one leading the service proceeds to the next section of the prayers. Although in some places this is done for virtually every paragraph in the prayers, most congregations reserve this honor exclusively for the shema and the shemoneh esrei prayers. It is only once the rabbi has concluded his recitation of the shema and shemoneh esrei that the chazzan leads the congregation to the next section of the prayers. While this practice appears to be an especially courteous and respectful one, it is actually not so clear that doing so is always legitimate from a halachic perspective.

Click here to read moreThere is a fundamental concept in congregational decorum known as "tircha d'tzibura" which teaches that it is not permitted to unnecessarily delay or burden a congregation in any way. Therefore, the practice of waiting for the rabbi to conclude his prayers can often lead to some serious questions of "tircha d'tzibura". The only halachic requirement for beginning the repetition of the shemoneh esrei is that the leader and nine others have completed their prayers,[1] and in some instances, a mere majority of the minyan suffices.[2]

As such, a number of halachic authorities are of the opinion that the practice of waiting specifically for the rabbi to conclude his prayers should be abandoned.[3] In support of this view, it is noted that a congregation is always required to ensure that the Torah is rolled to the exact place from where it will be read, before services, in order that there should be no violation of "tircha d'tzibura" by forcing the congregation to wait while it is done. [4] Furthermore, even when cantorial and musical pieces are in order, the chazzan must limit his presentation and not lengthen services unnecessarily, due to considerations of "tircha d'tzibura".[5] A rabbi who wishes to pray slower than most of the congregation or otherwise intends to extend his prayers should be sure to instruct the chazzan not to wait for him.[6]

Nevertheless, common custom in most congregations today is to wait for the rabbi to finish before proceeding to the next section of certain prayers and it seems that it is even an ancient custom.[7] Supporters of this practice argue that doing so allows the congregation the peace of mind that the prayers will not be rushed and are thereby encouraged to recite their prayers slowly and with more concentration.[8] Some authorities contend that this custom is so important that any congregation which does not wait for its rabbi should not expect to have their prayers received favorably before God. It is also noted that deferring to the rabbi and waiting for him to conclude his prayers is a form of showing honor for the Torah, which he represents.[9] There are even some authorities who rule that a rabbi is not permitted to instruct the chazzan not to wait for him to finish his prayers. [10] Even so, a rabbi is not to keep the congregation waiting by reciting his prayers unnecessarily slowly. A rabbi who shows no consideration for the congregation and "tircha d'tzibura" will be punished for his conduct.[11]

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


1. O.C. 124:4
2. O.C. 69:1
3. Rema O.C. 124:3
4. Binyamin Zev 168
5. Berachot 31a, Rambam Tefilla 6:2
6. Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 124:8, Pele Yoetz;dibbur
7. Hillel Omer 48
8. Magen Avrhaham 124:7, Mishna Berura 124:13 Teshuvot V'hanhagot 1:116
9. Piskei Teshuvot 124:6
10. Machatzit Hashekel 124:7
11. Pri Megadim E.A. 124:3

Read the rest of this entry »

Ordination of Women and Converts

Ordered	69
Goal	500

On the Ordination of Women: link
On the Ordination of Converts: link

Note that updated and revised versions of these posts have been included as chapters in my forthcoming book, Posts Along The Way: Torah Insights From The Hirhurim Blog - Volume 1: Shuls.

Pre-order a copy at a 20% discount (only $17.60) here: link

Read the rest of this entry »

May a Convert Serve on a Bet Din for Conversion?

May a Convert Serve on a Bet Din for Conversion: A Short Halachic Review, Some Halachic Thoughts of My Own and a Concluding Halachic Remark

Guest post by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde


In a Op-Ed in The Jewish Week two weeks ago, R. Avi Weiss criticized the RCA for their policy regarding convert who were converted by a beis din that included a rabbi who is himself a convert (link). R. Barry Freundel and R. Shlomo Hochberg responded last week (link). The following post is R. Michael J. Broyde's discussion of the detailed halakhic side of the issue. The post was initially written for the RCA Rabbis email list and represents Rabbi Broyde's initial and tentative analysis of the question of whether a convert may serve on a beis din for conversion. Rabbi Broyde welcomes comments and can be reached at this e-mail address: link. He asked that it should be made clear that while this post addresses important matters of status le-halakhah, in truth every person's status issue should only be addressed halakhah le-ma'aseh by a competent posek and not on a blog or an email distribution. - Gil

May a Convert Serve On a Bet Din For Conversion?

This letter is intended to summarize this topic, so that we can understand the underlying halachic issue. After a summary of the poskim, I write some thoughts of my own on this issue and I conclude by noting my disagreement with the written remarks of another rabbi on this halachic matter.

Click here to read moreUnderstanding the Dispute: May a Convert Serve On a Bet Din For Conversion in the Classical Sources

The Gemara in Yevamot 102a recounts to us that as a matter of Torah law a convert may only sit as a dayan judging other converts, but not born Jews. For chalitza matters, a convert may not sit as any one of the dayanim even if the woman who is having chalitza done to her is a convert herself. Rashi (Yevamot 101 sv ger dan) understands the Gemara in Yevamot as limited to dinei nefashot, but a convert may judge on financial matters. Tosafot (Yevamot 45b sv keivan and other places) disagrees and rules that that a convert may not judge born Jews even on financial matters. As the Rosh notes (Yevamot 12:2) on financial matters, a ger may judge even born Jews if they accept him as a judge, as with kabbalah one may accept a person who is not otherwise allowed to serve.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (YD 269:11, CM 7:1) both accept that the view of Tosafot is correct and that a ger may not judge a born Jew even on financial matters (unless the Jew accepts him [as the nosei keilim note]). Rabbi Akiva Eiger (YD 269:11) advances the classical explanation, which is that judging is a form of serarah which a convert is not able to do, since judges are now like kings. The Shulchan Aruch recounts that, of course, a convert may not serve on a bet din for chalitza either and if a convert does a chalitza it is pasul even bedieved.

There is no direct discussion in the rishonim or the classical codes of the question of whether a ger may sit on a bet din panel for conversion.

The first to discuss this issue is Rabbi Shlomo Kluger in his Chochmat Shlomo (YD 268:3) who notes that whether a convert can serve on a bet din for conversion depends on the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot discussed above. What he means, I assume, is that that whether a convert can sit on a panel for conversion depends on whether a convert can sit on a panel for financial matters. This approach argues that since the halacha is established like the view of Tosafot and not like the view of Rashi, a convert must not be allowed to sit on a panel for conversion. The basic rationale is that conversion is called mishpat in the Gemara and thus is analogous to dinei nefashot. (Rabbi Akiva Eiger (cited above) seems to be quoting him and thus indicating that he agrees with this logic.)

This view is also taken by Bemareh Habazak vol. 3 at page 136 (this volume is the last one where every teshuvah published was approved by Rav Shaul Yisraeli zt”l.) That teshuvah also notes that such a conversion is valid bedieved, based on the possibility that Rashi is correct or the view that a conversion is valid min-hatorah with just one dayan. (In truth, I find this view that such a conversion valid bedieved based on these two factors to be beyond my ability to fully understand, as both Rashi’s view and the view that a conversion is valid with just one dayan are rejected lehalacha by the Shulchan Aruch and almost everyone else. Below, there are other rationales to explain such a bedieved view.)

A second approach (which seems to be adopted by Rav Elyashiv, see Hearot Lemasechet Kiddushin, page 436) argues that a conversion is closer to a chalitza in function in that the role of the bet din is not to judge anyone at all, but merely to note what is happening, and as a maaseh bet din (just like chalitza) only born Jews may serve. In this view, just like a chalitza is invalid even bedieved with a ger on the panel (even for a convert or with kabbalah), so too a conversion is invalid even bedieved with a convert on the panel. This view is suggested as well by one view in the Bet Din Shel Yerushalayim (in Dinei Mamonot Ubirurei Yuchsin 7:416). In this view, the dispute has nothing to do with whether a convert may serve on a financial bet din at all; rather all agree that since a conversion involves a status change and the bet din is serving as the gatekeepers into a status change almost in the place of God, kivayachol, a ger may not engage in that role. Rabbi Hershel Schachter adopts this view in Kol Tzvi 5762 at page 299 and this is adopted by the Shalmei Shmuel 45.

The third view is the view of Rabbi Gedalya Felder zt”l (Nachalat Tzvi 1:226-227; note, this teshuvah is only found in the second edition of this sefer and not the first). He adopts the view that a conversion is similar to a financial matter and the convert in waiting is no worse than an actual convert, and thus he may accept another convert to judge him for conversion. It is no different than any case where a convert may judge a fellow convert on financial matters. He quotes a very brief teshuvah on this in She’erit Yisrael YD 22 to that effect as well. In this view, conversions are not only like monetary matters, but they are like monetary matters involving a gentile, which a gentile may judge a fellow gentile. This view is also taken by Shut Bet Mordechai 1:81 and the Aderet’s Ma’aneh Eliyahu 81 (albeit both bedieved). As a reasonable proof to this view, I would note that both the Shach and the Taz in YD 268(9) when discussing which parts of conversion can take place at night seem to analogize conversion dinei torah to financial dinei torah as a matter of normative halacha at least bedieved.

These three views have a drastically different understanding of what a bet din for conversion is to be compared to as a matter of halacha, and then different views on how such an analogy works.

Some Final Observations Now That the Summary is Over

It seems to me [and to preempt any questions, I am speaking just for myself and for no organization that I am involved in: neither Emory University nor its law school, nor its law and religion program, nor the Beth Din of America nor the Young Israel where I am the Founding Rabbi necessarily agree with my thoughts] that given since this dispute is without clear precedent, one can say for certain that as a matter of halachic policy it is a bad idea to allow a convert to serve on a bet din.

The rationale for this seems clear. Given the fact that there are many, many eminent poskim who think such a conversion is invalid even bedieved, it would be a terrible disservice to any convert to intentionally staff their conversion panel with such a rabbi. It makes such a conversion invalid according to many poskim for no good reason. An indisputably valid panel is a wise idea in every case and for every convert lechatchila. (This is even more so true in this matter where a hachra’ah based on logical rules seems so hard.)

The intentional decision to place a rabbi who is a convert on a conversion panel is nearly a form of rabbinic malpractice in my view; since so many competent and qualified rabbis are present in our times, why staff a rabbinical court with one whose qualifications are to be questioned as a matter of halacha?

Making conversion certainly valid and not merely valid according to some authorities would seem like a wise idea whenever possible. (Indeed, I have the sense from reading even Rabbi Felder’s teshuvah, that even he would agree with this and he was writing in a time and place where finding people who were eligible to serve as dayanim was hard, and what he was saying is “better a ger than someone who is not really shomer Shabbat“.) That is certainly the view of the other poskim who adopt his logic (as cited above), as well as the conclusion reached by Rav Shaul Yisraeli in Bemareh Habazak.

To me, the proper policy is to treat the case where a convert has served on a panel for conversion as a bedieved case. A mistake happened (either because the dayanim involved did not know the halacha, or did not know that this rabbi was a ger, or both) and now, after the fact, we need to decide what to do. Of course, the first thing we should do is make sure such a mistake does not happen again.

It is my view that in such a case one ought to say two things, both correct, but at tension.

First, I think one says that bedieved this conversion is valid, and this person is Jewish bein lekula bein lechumra, since most poskim accept this view bedieved. This is the view of the majority of poskim who actually address this question, and while their logic is not provably correct, it is not provably wrong either. It seems a logical bedieved rule, as many have noted. (Let me add as a proof to this ruling the silence of the Shulchan Aruch and Tur, both of whom note that a ger may not sit on a chalitza even bedieved, but make no mention of the fact that such is true for a conversion, also.)

Second, I would also instruct this convert that there is a significant strain of thought within the rabbinic world, held by Torah giants over many centuries, that this conversion was actually invalid even bedieved, and thus this convert must re-immerse in a mikva in front of an unquestionably valid panel to eliminate any such doubt. Converts and the Jewish community as a whole are ill served by having a conversion that others will not accept (if they can have a conversion accepted by all poskim with no effort). Thus, a gerut lechumra made up of re-immersion only is highly encouraged.

I think that approach is a proper policy in such cases.

One Final Note of Amazement

I am stunned, to be honest, by the formulation of the halacha taken by my fellow RCA member, Rabbi Weiss, in his Jewish Week article. He writes in his halachic analysis of this issue:

A convert may serve on a Beit Din when the judgment is regarding another convert (Talmud Yebamot 102a, Yoreh Deah 269:11 and Hoshen Mishpat 7:1). Additionally, a convert may be a judge on a non-coercive Beit Din, i.e. one to which the person appearing before the court has willfully submitted him or herself (Shakh CM 7:1; Sema CM 7:4 and Shakh YD 269:15). A convert serving on a Beit Din of conversion should thus be valid for both of these reasons. While some halachic authorities still argue to invalidate a convert to be on a Beit Din for conversion, it is obvious that those who maintain the convert’s validity as a judge have the weight of the halachic sources behind them. It is harsh enough for the RCA to declare that henceforth, from the time of the new RCA standards, that a rabbi who has converted cannot be on the Beit Din.

From the last two sentences (“it is obvious that those who maintain the convert’s validity as a judge have the weight of the halachic sources behind them” and then his use of the words “harsh enough” to discuss the RCA policy of not allowing converts on such panels) Rabbi Weiss appears to ruling as a matter of halacha that it is lechatchila proper for a convert to serve as a dayan on a bet din panel and he disagrees with the rule that says converts should not serve on panels for conversion lechatchila. (If he agrees with the rule that they may not serve lechatchila, why would he call such a rule “harsh enough”?)

I can not understand how any rabbi could be moreh halacha lema’aseh lechatchila that a ger can sit on a panel for conversion, given the many poskim who think such a conversion is pasul even bedieved and almost all poskim think that such conduct is improper lechatchila. Such a ruling does not serve converts or Klal Yisrael well.

Read the rest of this entry »

Books Received III

I don't always have the chance to review each book, so I'll list the books that I receive. Some of them will be quoted or reviewed in future posts. Here are the books I've received in recent weeks:

• Spiritual Journey Home: Eastern Mysticism to the Westen Wall by Nathan Katz
• Faithfully Yours: Selected Rabbinical Correspondence of Rabbi Samuel S. Cohon During the Years 1917-1957 by Baruch J. Cohon
• The Sun Will Shine Again: Coping, Persevering, and Winning in Troubled Economic Times by Dr. Abraham J. Twerski

If you're an author or publisher and would like to send me a review copy, please e-mail me: link.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shacharis Tips of the Unemployed

We all know that unemployment numbers are way up and Jews are not immune to losing their jobs. I thought I would point out an important rule that might have slipped your mind.

I. Earliest Times for Shacharis

The general rule is that Shacharis can only be prayed (at or) after sunrise (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 89:1), which today was 7:01 AM in New York and 6:58 AM in Los Angeles (link). Bedi'eved, if you prayed after dawn, you fulfilled your obligation. But really you are supposed to wait until after sunrise.

Click here to read more(Dawn is calculated differently by different authorities. According to the OU Zemanim Calculator (link), dawn today was 5:51 AM in New York and 5:48 AM in Los Angeles.)

However, someone who has to leave on a trip before sunrise is allowed to pray in that period between dawn and sunrise (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 89:8). Contemporary authorities categorize a commute to work as a trip for these purposes, and when I was commuting to yeshiva from Brooklyn to Washington Heights I was told by my rosh yeshiva that this was also sufficient reason for praying before sunrise.

II. Changing Your Schedule

Because of this, many people are used to waking up early and praying before sunrise. They've done this for years, maybe decades. However, if you have lost your job and aren't commuting to work, you probably no longer have permission to pray before sunrise and you have to revert to the standard rule of praying at or after sunrise. While most people probably wake up later anyway, some maintain their previous schedules out of habit or for some other reason. This post is addressed to them.

Now, some unemployed people may have picked up other errands, such as driving carpool(s). If so, and you will not be able to attend a later minyan, this might be sufficient cause for praying before sunrise. But that is something that should be discussed with your rabbi.

III. The Dilemma

But let's say that you wake up early, according to your regular schedule, and it is after dawn but too early to leave for the post-sunrise minyan you plan on attending. There is a limit on what you are allowed to do before praying in the morning. While the guidelines are not precisely laid out, it seems that you can do small things and mitzvah-related chores but not extensive activities (see Tefillah Ke-Hilkhasah, ch. 6 and Law of Daily Living vol. 1, ch. 11). So, technically, you can't pray yet but you can't do anything else either before praying!

However, there are exceptions. You are allowed to learn Torah but only if you have a set minyan to attend (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 89:6). But what about reading the newspaper? You are allowed to have a cup of coffee before prayers (Mishnah Berurah 89:22) but are you allowed to read the news with that coffee during the few minutes you have before it is time to go to your minyan? Note that while there is a dispute about whether this rule applies before sunrise, the authorities seem to rule stringently (Mishnah Berurah 89:31).

IV. Reading the News

R. Mordechai Willig does not discuss newspapers directly, but in his Am Mordekhai (Berakhos, no. 10 p. 44) argues that the reason you aren't allowed to do things before praying is because you might get distracted and miss prayers. Therefore, just like you can learn if you have a set minyan to go to, you can also do other activities if you similarly have a set minyan. You'll know how much time you have and keep an eye on your watch. Therefore, it would seem that you would be allowed to read the news before leaving for shul.

The Piskei Teshuvos (89:14) is very strict in general about reading the news before your morning prayers because it distracts your thoughts. I'm not so sure if that is a universal concern, but regardless I'd recommend using the time to learn a little Torah and save the news for later.

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup XXXIV

by Joel Rich

Rabbi JB Soloveitchik - Moadim-Pesach Avdus Pt1: link

IIRC you can find the details of this shiur in “Festivals of Freedom” and, to a lesser extent, “Exalted Evening”. Very psychologically based analysis of the slave personality and implications in halacha (e.g. testimony). Slave state (USSR) vs. individual slave (ante bellum US), Kinyan Guf vs. Kinyan Issur as psychological archetypes.

Rabbi JB Soloveitchik - Moadim-Hagadah HaLachma Anya: link

The audio quality of the recording of the second half of this shiur is better than the first. Discussion of the meaning of Sippur Yetziat mitzrayim and the organization of the Hagadah. Great example of my earlier comment on the “Exalted Evening Hagadah” – the impact of hearing R’YBS speak of solidarity as the primary factor in our redemption from Egypt and the “current” implications for World Jewry is far greater than the excerpts captured in the commentary.

Click here to read more

The History of Jewish Theology: Must a Jew Believe Anything?Only God is be Worshiped: The Role of Angels in Jewish Thought.The Messiah: Who is He and What Will He Accomplish? Reward and Punishment: What Does This Concept Really Mean?Resurrection of the Dead: Will It Really Take Place?: link - for series page

Interesting series discussing Jewish theology. More interesting opening question – why don’t orthodox Jews discuss theology today (me – ask R’Slifkin!).

Primary focus on Maimonidean take on the various issues – ties in nicely with the previous TIM series on how up front Maimonides was in his Moreh Nevuchim vs. Yad Hachazakah vs. Iggeret Teiman…

My 2¢ - While I find this fascinating, I wonder how many orthodox Jews really care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or are rationalists or mystics “right”? Yes Avi Mori Vrabbi Zll”hh whose Yahrtzeit Shiur is next week, I understand and I try not to spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing.

Rabbi David Pahmer - Background to Birchat Hachammah: link

If you wanted to understand the astronomical background (more than twinkle, twinkle little star) to Birchat Hachama, hear (here?) it is.

Rabbi Yonason Sacks - Mismach Geula L'Geula: Perspectives on Purim and Pesach: link

Why doesn’t the Rambam list zchirat yetziat Mitzraim as a mitzvah? One answer – it’s subsumed in Kriat Shmal/Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim.

Nice insight from R’YBS that “kol pasuk dlo paskei Moshe…” (We don’t truncate any “pasuk” that moshe didn’t) means the unit of the mitzvah (e.g. by 13 middot the unit is middot, not the pasuk {which we did truncate}

One relation between Purim and Pesach is we need to recognize everyday non-obvious miracles (Purim) at the same level as obvious miracles.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter - Sichos Mussar-The Fundamentals of Limud HaTorah: link

When interviewing for YU masmidim program, everyone wanted to say pilpul! The main point of learning is to learn “aliba dhilchita” (to establish halacha) not just to quote all possible opinions (hmmm – I wonder if he had any particular approach /Rosh Yeshiva in mind).

First identify if issue is duraita or drabannan. If drabannan, what duraita pattern is followed? Your sevara (logic) must have source in Talmud (you can’t make up new stuff not mentioned or strongly alluded to in Talmud).

Then identifies my pet peeve with Talmud (or my rabbeim?) – sometimes Talmud will use different terminology in different places to refer to same thing, and sometimes use the same terminology to mean different things (me – why???)

Rabbi Daniel Feldman - Shoalim Vidorshim Hachag Shloshim Yom KodemHachag: link

Review of two Talmudic sources concerning when “we ask and explicate” about the holidays and some interesting implications – if we have so many “the halachot of….” books, maybe Rabbis should focus more on agaditah?

Not related to this: Shmuel Pfenheim, a spokesman for the Haredi Community, described the phenomenon: "Many undisciplined young women from New York and around the world study in boarding schools in Jerusalem, and they come here and crowd together with a lot of unruly American guys."

He also explained how the stench bombs were made: "Thirty days before the holiday you take from the fisherman fish skin, heads, and various other parts that cannot be used for cooking, put them in a bottle with some water and place the bottles on rooftops under the boiling sun. On Purim eve we spread the bottles in sensitive spots."

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb - The Authority and Responsibility of the Gabbai Tzedakah: link

Interesting discussion of Srarah (position of authority) definition and general rules of the position. Touched on honors and chanifa (false flattery) in fundraising. Me – Question – we know it is allowable to honor, is it lchatchila? (for individual or organization). See R’D Feldman’s book Divine Footsteps: Chesed and the Jewish Soul for much more detail.

Rabbi Y Kahn - Kriat Hatorah: link

Errors and omissions (no – not the insurance, the halachot of sifrei torah).

Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky - Mishloach Manos-Fact and Fiction: link

Mishloach Manot as a means of providing for the Purim Seudah or to spread goodwill - lots of differences based on this Chiluk (differentiation). Money story - purim chagiga concerning Posek who was so careful he didn’t accept mishloach manot of 2 stones because he was choshesh (concerned) that they may have been from an ir hanidachat!

Rabbi Allen Schwartz - Five Megillot: link

Focuses on the relationship of the megilot of Ruth and Esther. Ruth is focused on a tikkun for the brothers and Yosef not getting along; Esther is focused on a tikkun for reliance on outright miracles.

Rabbi Ian Shaffer - Nechama Liebowitz-personal reflections: link

An ode to Rn’ Nechama Leibowitz and her approach to learning. Example of analysis – why did Moshe break the luchot?

Read the rest of this entry »