Translating the Indecipherable

Most of the book of Esther is in fairly easy Hebrew. Some words, however, are quite difficult to understand. In particular, the phrase "ha-achashtranim benei ha-ramakhim" is difficult to translate. It is in Esther 8:10, which appears in the King James Version as follows: "And he wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed it with the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on mules, camels..." I omitted the difficult phrase at the end.

The Gemara (Megillah 18a) states that people who do not understand Hebrew can surely fulfill his obligation by hearing the megillah in Hebrew, since, after all, who among us understands the phrase "ha-achashtranim benei ha-ramakhim"? The plain meaning of the Gemara is that we do not understand that phrase, although Rabbenu Chananel explains it to mean that only the unlearned do not understand it (the Manos Ha-Levi, quoted in Torah Shelemah on Esther ch. 8 n. 25, quotes a similar explanation).

Click here to read moreRashi (Esther 8:1) says the phrase means a species of camels that runs quickly. Ibn Ezra (ad loc.) tries to translate it with the help of Arabic, rendering it as "mules bred of mares", which evidently are very fast. This is also the view of R. Sa'adia Gaon in his Arabic translation of the Bible. The King James Version, from above, concludes: "and young dromedaries", which seems to follow Rashi's approach. The Artscroll Tanach, translates it as "swift mules bred of mares", which follows Ibn Ezra.

R. Yaakov Emden, in his glosses to Megillah 18a, says that he saw in Persian history books that this is a unique breed of camels with two humps and eight legs, that run very quickly. I'm not sure what books he was reading.

Da'as Mikra (ad loc.) quotes studies that these are Persian words. Achashtranim means something that belongs to the king and ramakhim means stable or herd. Therefore, the phrase should be translated as "from the king's stable". The Living Nach translates the verse as: "He wrote it in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed it with the king's signet ring. Then he dispatched the letters by mounted couriers, riding thoroughbreds from the king's own stables." Similarly, the NRSV has the latter portion of the verse: "and sent them by mounted couriers riding on fast steeds bred from the royal herd."

After writing this, I came across a better article from JBQ (R. Zvi Ron, "Ha'achashtranim Bnei Ha'ramachim: Translating Esther 8:10" in Jewish Bible Quarterly 36:1, Jan-Mar 2008), available in full here: link.

Read the rest of this entry »

Weekly Links

Rules: link (Note that this post will move every day until the end of the week)

Friday

• SALT today: link
• In scandals, a wake-up call for Orthodoxy: link
• Rabbi condemned for ordaining woman: link
• R. J. David Bleich, R. Adam Mintz and R. Avi Weiss on women rabbis 12 years ago: link
• Haredi rabbis vs. the Internet, and the Internet is winning: link
• Jewish basketball team forfeits over fast day: link
• Del.'s 1st Jewish Gov. Hangs Mezuzah At Mansion: link
• R. Shmuel Goldin on women's communal roles (creating places of leadership for them within the Orthodox community that are unique and specific; we should not attempt to break down role traditions): link
• OU PowerPoint includes the whole Megillah: link
• Religion among the Millennials: link
• The ghosts of Purim past: The holiday's violent beginnings—and what they mean for the Jewish future: link

Previous days' linksThursday

• SALT today: link
• Ezras Torah calendar for Adar: link
• Megillat Esther: an online commentary by Rabbi Yonatan Grossman: link
• Rabbi fishes for ban on salmon: link
• Herman Wouk's surprising passion: link
• Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik’s Purim Question: link
• From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew: link
• Helsinki parents fined after son's circumcision without anaesthetic: link
• Dr. Alan Brill's Post-Orthodoxy Contest: link
• OU Passover Guide now available: link (PDF)
• Vigorous city council debate in front of overflow crowd: link - recap
• JTS intermarriage workshop signals change on issue: link
• Agudath Israel of America's Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah condemn Rabbi Avi Weiss over woman rabba: link

Wednesday

• SALT today: link
• For children of Russian immigrants, mainstream Jewish community remains elusive: link
• Chief Rabbis favor fur ban: link
• Dr. Lawrence Kaplan on R. Emanuel Rackman and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik: link
• Rabbis Set To Rumble Over Rabba?: link
• Tonight: Nachum Segal moderates a debate between candidates to fill Simcha Felder's position: link
• Bill goes after sexual harassment by spiritual leaders: link
• Stanley Fish: Are There Secular Reasons?: link
• R. J. Simcha Cohen: Why Can't Women Read The Megillah For Men?: link

Tuesday

• SALT today: link
• Bnei Brak launches 'no smoking on Purim' campaign: link
• Pre-nup agreements growing in popularity: link
• Tzohar to hold 60 Megillah readings around Israel in its efforts to bridge the gap between religious and secular Jews: link
• St. Louisan becomes youngest female Senior Rabbi: link
• Ask the Rabbi: The hot seat - The mixed-seating controversy was undoubtedly one of US Jewry's most controversial and divisive issues: link
• R. Yair Hoffman: Our Growing Insanity: link

Monday

• SALT today: link
• The Coca-Cola rabbi: link
• Chassidic leaders back David Greenfield for NY City Council: link
• R. Menachem Porush dies at 93: link
• Gay and Orthodox Jewish: is there a problem?: link
• Religious gays helpline flooded: link
• Free online archive of Judaism: A Quarterly Journal: link
• Free online archive of Hebrew Studies Journal: link
• God said multiply, and did she ever: link
• YU Purim To Go: link
• In 3,000-year-old wall, scholar sees proof for Biblical narrative: link
• R. J. Simcha Cohen on showering on Shabbat and Yom Tov: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Snow Day

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup LXXXII

by Joel Rich

Al Tivtichu bnidivim (place not your trust in princes)-This week not a question but a comment - Some of my friends (well maybe I should say acquaintances) think of me as a cynic (moi?). After the events of the past few weeks, at least a few of those individuals that I care about have begun to better understand kach mkublani mbeit avi abba - kavdeihu vchashdeihu (thus was the mesorah I received from avi mori vrabbi zll"hh-treat everyone with honor and respect and realize that all humans are mortal beings subject to shortcomings so place your complete trust in HKB"H and to varying degrees -usually as little as possible- in man ) or as R'Jean Sheperd titled his book - "In God We Trust, All others Pay Cash"

Click here to read moreChochma bagoyim taamin (and how does this square with our approach-from a NY Times article) -Jonathan D. Moreno, a professor of medical ethics and the history and sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania, thinks reactions have to do with a long tradition that goes back to Plato. The idea, he said, is that someone who is very intelligent is assumed to be “morally wise.” And that makes it hard to reconcile the actions of Amy Bishop, with her Harvard Ph.D., her mantle of scientific brilliance.(me -now erase Amy Bishop and substitute the scandal du jour)

Rabbi Ozer Glickman -Halachah and Human Reason-Can a Command-based Legal System: link

Accommodate Rationality-Evidence from Sugyot, Rishonim, the Rav, and the Modern Poskim
The language of law (me – and statistics) can help us articulate and communicate halachic concepts [me – unless you feel chazal were being purposefully blurry so as to maintain greater flexibility?]
2 theories of law – 1) legal positivism (because I (the lawmaker) said so – end of discussion); 2) natural law (embodiment of “natural” principles. Medrashim support both approaches (but remember according to R’OYGH aggadita is often hyperbole and not subject to the rigorous coherence requirement of halacha)
Rambam is primarily a positivist (gemara too – often asks minalan – wanting to identify command)
Discussion of how to extend positivist law to new areas. Rambam based on L. Tasur (torah tells you to listen to Rabbis) based on coherent logic (his metaphysics impacts his jurisprudence) [IMHO this latter portion needed more time – hopefully R’OYGH’s forthcoming (IIUC) article will do this].

Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff - covering the hair: link

First of two. Is Kol Isha and hair covering a subjective definition? While next week R’AR will present his view (head covering for married women required), this week he presents the case for subjectivity (worth listening to for the quotes from R’YBS and R’Yitzchak simcha halevi Horowitz) [me - A very wise man once told me “every generation thinks they discovered sex for the first time (in human history)”]

מחשבת הלכה #03, מאת הרב חיים נבון: link

Why an oral Torah in addition to the written?
1) Makes it always unique to the Jewish people
2) Flexibility for future generations/couldn’t encode everything in writing
3) Written communication is less effective than oral
4) Will require more effort to transmit/remember therefore will remember better

Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg -Hilchos Geirus: link

Very good discussion concerning the seemingly unclear Talmudic and Rishonic material on the need for a convert to accept all mitzvot. IMHO none of the approaches are so compelling as to prove the others must be wrong.
A few interesting assertions of possible positions:
1) One could argue that not accepting the mitzvot is a fatal defect, but not telling the convert is not (i.e. we accept he says I accept even if he is clueless as to what he’s accepting).
2) Bet Din doesn’t have to witness acceptance but only technicalities (e.g. immersion)
3) It’s ok as long as he doesn’t reject mitzvot (except some – like Shabbat, Kashrut!?)
4) Maybe bet din “accepts” mitzvot for a minor convert!
5) Maybe if a minor were converted and his parents weren’t frum, he needs reconversion later.
6) If minor convert rejects at bar mitzvah, it’s retroactive (I was unclear as to his position on status of converts actions between then and now – the old arrow of time dilemma)

Rabbi Mordechai I. Willig - Halacha Engages Modernity - Part 10 - Conversions: link

Review of Talmudic sources (see my note above) and 19th and 20th century psak. Why he considers this part of his “modern” series (me – modern = since the emancipation).

Rabbi Hayyim Angel -Cut the Baby in Half: Understanding Shelomo Ha-Melekh's Divine Wisdom: link

Discussion of story of splitting the baby in half and Shlomo being the wisest of all men (vs. Moshe? Did story really show so much wisdom?) R’Angel’s take – wisdom was really fairness (i.e. he heard prostitutes’ case)

Rabbi Eytan Feiner -Loving and Living Seforim - SOY Seforim Sale 5770: link

Importance of sfarim (books) and lots of nice stories about gedolim and sfarim. Importance of talmidei chachamim and need for a rebbi. Some fancy drush on R’Akiva.
He’s a big believer of nothing can stand in front of the will (IIRC so was R’YBS – till his year of triple aveilut). He says kiss sfarim but there’s an institution for those who kiss CD’s! I thank HKB”H often for my Bar Ilan CD-Rom.

הלכות בישול בשבת #03, מאת הרב יוסף צבי רימין - דוד שמש: link

Solar water heaters (dud shemesh) on Shabbat – technical discussion of physics and halacha. Summary – lenient opinion not a slam dunk but enough to rely on especially if real need.

Rav Binyamin Tabory-She'elot uTeshuvot Rav Aharon Kotler - Mishnat Rav Aharon: link

R’A Kotler history plus 3 tshuvot. 1) accepting testimony by letter from non-frum (reflects understanding of 1930’s orthodoxy – pragmatic?!); 2) striking teachers (no – but maybe short time in an emergency); 3) taking down mechitza (no) [one argument – it’s like not listening to first builders’ wishes – me – ever visit Cong Ahavas Israel in Passaic – it went the other way!?]

Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen -Remembering HaRav Yaakov Moshe Lessin: link

Remembered as a leader by example in dress, conduct and midot.

Rabbi Michael Taubes -Parshas Yisro Kiddush Bemokom Seudah: link

Kiddush bmakom seudah [in the place where meal takes place] is it a requirement grounded in Kiddush or the meal? Issues and implications.

Rav A Weiss-Prohibition of Bribery: link

Why is the halacha that a bribe (obviously illegal) must be returned by the briber to the bribee only upon demand by bribee?

Rav A Weiss-Avid Inish Din Lenafshei: link

“Avad inish dina lnafshei” (take law into one’s own hands) in monetary cases. When is this applicable according to all and when is there disagreement (if no risk of loss). A technical analysis (are you acting in the place of bet din? as their emissary?) and some applications.

Rav Menachem Ben-Ya'akov-. כוחו במותניו on גנב במחתרת, פיקוח נפש ורודף: link

Analysis of “Haba bamachteret” (one who breaks into your basement). I’ve always wondered whether the concept that one would give up his life for his money is co nsidered inherent in creation or could it vary by time and place? [AIUI – this is why you can kill intruder – it’s assumed he knows this risk and would kill you]

הלכות בישול בשבת #04, מאת הרב יוסף צבי רימון - כלי ראשון: link

Kli Rishon hussar (heated pot taken off the fire) – What is the level of prohibition on Shabbat? What if the pot is off the fire? What is the status of Irui (pouring off from heated pot)?

Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein-Q and A #5 5770: link

Covers a number of issues with nuanced responses – 1) drinking on Purim; 2) public media; 3) women/yoatzot; 4) meditation; 5) kol isha.
Note: Recorders – remember to turn off tape when the music’s over [and turn out the lights – per R’J Morrison] (although I love the R’YBS one where he is saying Kaddish)

Rabbi A Mintz-The Structure of the Shemoneh Esreh: link

Talmud brachot gives the traditional breakdown of the 18 blessings in the amidah – 3 of praise, 12 of requests and 3 of thanksgiving. But when you read them it’s not so clean.
R’Fleisher claims the amidah is a reaction to the destruction of the beit medrash.
Perhaps the first 3 brachot represent past, future and present – establishing a relationship with HKB”H.
The last bracha seems like part of birchat kohanim?
Maybe chazal were simplifying when they gave that breakdown and the real focus is acceptance of HKB”H following the “redemption” of kriat shma.

Rabbi M Taubes-Injuring With Permission Sports and Other Activities: link

Are any damages (either to property or body) payable if one suffers a loss in a consensual sports activity? Are there any generally accepted rules of the road? Would a flagrant foul be covered?

Rabbi Larry Rothwachs -Revealing the Hidden in Megillas Esther: link

First class in the Rama’s Zoharic second level of interpretation of Megilat Esther. The story took place but its writing was also constructed to provide for valuable life lessons for us all (which were inherent in the creation).

Rabbi Michael Rosensweig -From Terumah to Pikudei: The Philosophico-Teleological Template of the Mishkan and Its Relevance To Our Avodas HaSheim: link

Elements of building of Mikdash/Mishkan as lessons for building our own lives 1) Ndivat lev – giving/involvement beyond being a duty but with a full and open heart guarantees presence of shechina; 2) Lishma – doing it for the right reasons (HKB”H) and spiritual intuition/leadership and will yield positive results.

Read the rest of this entry »

Regaining Your Faith Through Philosophy

Is philosophy good for your faith or bad for it? It depends on the person and the circumstances. For some people, it adds depth and meaning to their faith. For others, it raises questions that undermine their faith. Our story tonight is about someone who fits into both categories.

Cheryl Berman, in her new book Reasonable Doubts: A Religious Skeptic Learns a Thing or Two about God, describes her own theological battle. As a philosophy major in an unnamed college on 34th St. in Manhattan, she began to doubt the existence of God. Explaining complex ideas in simple terms, she describes her travels through the major trends in Medieval Jewish philosophy. Her philosophy studies eventually led her to Kant, whose critique of philosophy up to his day demolished her religious convictions.

Click here to read moreAs she was struggling with her doubts, she was hit by a car that left her scarred -- physically, emotionally and intellectually. As she worked to regain her functions, she gained greater appreciation for the limitations of the human intellect. She also learned more about the critiques of Kant. In her eloquently simple way, she explains the different philosophical views she studied and how they reflected what she was feeling and thinking.

In the end, she finds faith in the philosophy of Henri Bergson and a moving Yom Kippur experience (pp. 94-95):

When I think back on this Yom Kippur experience, I remember the religious problems that I had encountered prior to the accident. Kant had disproved the arguments for the existence of God. I remember how distraught I had become to learn of Kant's criticisms of them. I remember how disillusioned I had been at this surgical separation of faith from reason. But I had missed the point entirely.

It suddenly occurred to me that Kant's real point when he claimed to have saved faith by getting rid of reason was simply this: Faith and reason can't occupy the same chair. And despite the fact that Kant's view of God ultimately differed drastically from a religious perspective (he believed in God as a postulate of ethics), he did religion a huge favor by cutting it free from the fist of reason. It's not that he couldn't prove the existence of God, it's that he couldn't prove it the same way he went about proving everything else.

God's realm is not in reason. It is in something deeper and more profound. It is in something I had to work a lot harder at.

The book has much more than just a discussion of God's existence. The author takes readers through different approaches to the existence of evil and a creative account of the story of Iyov. Overall, it is a touching story of religious growth, told in a light style that educates about philosophy as it applies to the human condition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Moetzes Condemns Ordination of Women

The following statement has been released by the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of Agudath Israel of America:

STATEMENT OF THE MOETZES GEDOLEI HATORAH OF AMERICA
(10 Adar 5770)

Rabbi Avi Weiss has conferred “semikha” upon a woman, has made her an Assistant Rabbi at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale where she carries out certain traditional rabbinical functions, and has now given her the title of “Rabbah” (formerly “Maharat”). He has stated that the change in title is designed to “make it clear that Sara Hurwitz is a full member of our rabbinic staff, a rabbi with the additional quality of a distinct woman’s voice.”

These developments represent a radical and dangerous departure from Jewish tradition and the mesoras haTorah, and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Any congregation with a woman in a rabbinical position of any sort cannot be considered Orthodox.

MOETZES GEDOLEI HATORAH OF AMERICA
Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld
Rabbi Yitzchok Feigelstock
Rabbi Dovid Feinstein
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Rabbi Yosef Harari-Raful
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky
Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler
Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levin
Rabbi Yaakov Perlow
Rabbi Aaron Schechter

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Tetzaveh/Purim 5770

by Steve Brizel

An Overview of the Parsha

R Ezra Bick discusses why this week's Parsha includes the Karban Tamid and the ceremonies related to the eighth day: link

The Clothes of the Kohanim

R Berel Wein explains the significance of the Bigdei Kohanim: link

R Yissocher Frand and R Ephraim Buchwald discuss why both the Urim and Tumim were necessary, and the configuration of the Urim and Tumim: link 1, link 2

R Asher Brander discusses the unique elements of the Choshen (breastplate) and the Ephod (apron): link

Click here to read moreThe Kohen and a Kingdom of Priests

R Shlomoh Riskin explains how many Halachos and Minhagim express the fact that every Jew belongs to a Mamleches Kohanim: link

The Menorah

The Nesivos Shalom, as explicated by R Yitzchak Adlerstein, explains the the hidden light in the olive tree: link

The Tzitz

R Mosheh Lichtenstein suggests why the Torah seemingly omits the Tzitz from the Bigdei Kehunah: link

Karbanos, Avos, the Kohen Gadol, the Navi and Tefilah

R Sir Lord Jonathan Sacks reminds us that Tefilah is rooted both in the spontaneous actions of a Navi and the fixed actions of the Kohen Gadol: link

Ketores

R Avigdor Nevenzal explains the unique function of the Ketores: link

The Midos of Aharon HaKohen

R Mordechai Willig urges us to emulate Aharon HaKohen and the Gdolei Yisrael who brought Torah to America , who taught and exemplified honesty and love of all people: link

Taanis Esther

R Yonassan Sacks discusses the unique nature of Taanis Esther: link

R Mordechai Willig discusses Hilcos Taanis Esther: link (audio)

Parshas Zachor

R Aaron Soloveitchik ZL discusses the connection between Parshas Zacor and Purim: link (audio)

R Herschel Shachter explores the ongoing nature of the war against Amalek: link

R Asher Weiss discusses the halachic requirement of Parshas Zachor: link (audio)

R Baruch Simon explains how we can defeat Amalek with dignity and discusses the Halachos of Parshas Zachor: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Aryeh Lebowitz discusses a contemporary application of the issue of whether we can accept Gerim from Amalek: link (audio)

R Avraham Gordimer, based on Rashi's comment to Devarim 25:17, explains why Purim serves to deny the philosophical view of “Mikreh” advanced by Amalek: link

Hester Panim

R David Horwitz discusses the impact of Hester Panim on Jewish history: link

R Eli Baruch Shulman explores the relationship between Hester Panim, Purim and Kabalas HaTorah: link

Purim

Rav Soloveitchik ZL discusses many of the halachic and hashkafic themes of Purim: link (audio)

R Hershel Schachter discusses the obligation to read Megilas Esther with a minyan: link (audio)

R Mordechai Willig suggests that by elevating the physical , acts of Tzedaka and a meal that is marked by Divrei Torah and self-restraint, Purim atones for the weakening of our hands in Refidim: link

R Michael Rosensweig discusses the Kedushas HaYom of Purim: link (audio)

Rebbitzen Smadar Rosensweig explains why Esther HaMalkah was a model of initiative, continuity and Tikun: link (audio)

R Yonassan Sacks, based on the well known comment of Ramban to Shemos 13:16, reminds us that we must recognize HaShem for both His indescribable wonders and the constant miracles with which He blesses us during every day of our lives: link

R Avishai David discusses miracles and the “way of nature” , based on a series of comments of Ramban's commentary: link

R Assaf Bednarsh explores a well known Machlokes between Rav Soloveitchik ZL and the Brisker Rav ZL with respect to Mikrah Megillah: link (audio)

R Baruch Simon explores a statement in the Talmud that reading the Megilah is analogous to reciting Hallel: link (audio)

R Aryeh Leibowitz discusses reading the names of Haman's ten sons in one breadth: link (audio)

R Shalom Rosner discusses the Halacha of drinking on Purim: link (audio)

R Josh Flug discusses the Mitzvah of Matanos LeEvyonim and the Purim Seudah: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Daniel Z Feldman and R Shalom Rosner discuss the halachic issues with respect to Mishloach Manos: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Chaim Eisenstein explains how we elevate the physical into the spiritual domain on Purim: link (audio)

Shoalim Vdorshim Department

Rav Soloveitchik ZL discusses Avdus and Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim: link (audio)

Read the rest of this entry »

Perspectives on Purim

Rav Meir Goldwicht

An unauthorized, insufficiently edited transcript of this lecture: link

The main question that most of the mefarshim ask in the beginning of Megillat Esther is: Why is it necessary to teach us about all the tension between the king Achashverosh and Vashti? What exactly happened between them? Why doesn’t the Megillah start Esther walks into the picture, after Achashverosh kills his wife and begins looking for another wife? Why is first chapter of Megillat Esther important to us? Esther said about the entire Megillah, including this chapter – “kitvuni le-dorot – write me down for generations” (Megillah 7a). To answer this question, we will look between the lines of this chapter—what is written and also what is not written. And with this we will travel be-ezrat Hashem through all Megillat Esther and will see something amazing that, I believe, will give us a completely different understanding of Megillat Esther.

Click here to read moreThe Megillah tells us in the first paragraph: “On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Bizta, Charbona, Bigta, Avagta, Zeitar, and Carcas, seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Achashverosh, to bring Queen Vashti before the king, wearing her royal crown, in order to show her beauty to the people and the officials, for she was beautiful to behold. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command brought by his eunuchs; and the king became enraged, and his anger burned inside him” (Esther 1:10-12).

Achashverosh asked to bring Vashti to his party. But when you look carefully at what he asked, and how Vashti reacted, we see immediately that he asked to bring Vashti “ha-malkah – the queen.” And the next verse is, Va-te-ma’en Vashti ha-malkah – and Vashti the queen refused. The Malbim says something unbelievable. Achashverosh had a lot of marital tension with his wife. Vashti always said to him, “You are only the king because I am the queen. My father was a king; my mother was a queen. I love you and we are married, but don’t forget that you became king because of me.” Achashverosh was clearly very upset and he wanted to change this situation. To do so, he made a party for 127 countries. The purpose of this party was solely to show everyone that when Vashti walked in, he puts a crown on her head. With this, everyone would recognize that first she was Vashti and only because of her husband she was a queen. And this is what theMegillah says, The king [Achashverosh] said… to bring Vashti the queen. And the next verse, But Queen Vashti refused. “I am sorry, I am first queen and after this Vashti. If you want to accept me in this condition, great. If not, forget about it.” And the reaction of Achashverosh, And the king became enraged, and his anger burned inside him. He became very angry and very upset. He had made a big party and everybody had waited for Vashti, but she did not walk in. As this progressed, his anger burned inside him because she destroyed the entire purpose of the party.

The Malbim explains that Vashti did not want to come because she understood that he wanted to remove her from her high status. Until then, she had thought that she had a portion of the rulership because of her inheritance from her parents. That is why it says that “she refused,” because in her understanding she was the “Queen Vashti,” that her position was was from herself. Therefore, she did not want to come for two reasons: 1) “at the king's command”—since Achashverosh ordered her to come in a way that looks like she has no portion in the rulership and will not wear the crown until she comes before him, 2) “brought by his eunuchs”—he commanded to bring her by his eunuchs, which is degrading and embarrassing to her. By refusing, she undermined his plan too acquire the rulership on his own. She stood up to him, saying that the rulership was through her. Therefore, the king became very angry. There is a difference between “rage” and “anger.” Rage is shown publicly while anger is kept inside, without revealing it to others. Here there were both: 1) the public rage was because she publicly refused to follow his command, 2) the inner anger that burned inside him was because she foiled his plans. All the work he did on this feast in order reign unconditionally was now worthless.

I would like to take this idea of the Malbim and apply it across Megillat Esther. At the moment that Vashti did not go and the king became enraged, all the advisors said to him that this is a bad example, showing all the women that it is acceptable to display disrespect to their husbands. And Memuchan answered before the king and the advisors, it was not only against the king that Vashti the queen did wrong… (1:16). Vashti the queen. He understood and was very sensitive to say that the damage was done by the queen Vashti. And then, If it pleases the king, let a royal decree go out from him, and let it be recorded in the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it will not be altered, that Vashti shall come no more before King Achashverosh. (1:19) She is no longer Vashti the queen. The Talmud Yerushalmi says that he accepted the advice and killed his wife, leaving him single. He then formed a committee to pick for him the right woman to be his wife. This committee had unbelievable power. It could take any woman whom they believe to be right for Achashverosh, and that is exactly what it did.

And Esther was taken to the king’s house (2:8). “And Esther was taken” means that she really did not want to go. She said to this committee, when they came to her door, “I’m sorry. I’m engaged. This is my husband, Mordechai.” The Megillah tells us, And when her father and her mother died, Mordecai adopted her as his daughter (2:7). R. Meir taught, don’t read “as his daughter” (le-vat) but “as his wife (le-vayit). They are engaged. What does it mean that they are engaged? Not engaged like we have it today. But he gave her a ring and said “harei at mekudeshet li be-taba’at zu ke-dat Moshe ve-Yisrael.” They had Erusin. She said to the committee’s messengers, “I really don’t have interest to go.” But nobody listened. Mordechai is completely shocked. He really did not understand but he believed that HaKadosh Baruch Hu prepared something. When she passed by the door and kissed the mezuzah, Mordechai said to her, “Promise me. When you walk into the palace of Achashverosh, answer only two questions: your name is Esther and you address is Shushan the capital. Nothing else.” And she said to him, “I promise you.” Therefore, Esther did not reveal her people or kindred, for Mordechai had charged her not to tell (2:10). At the same time, Every day Mordechai would walk around in front of the court of the harem, to learn how Esther was and how she fared (2:11). Rashi explains, “He was one of the two righteous men to whom Hashem gave a hint of salvation.” He understood that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave him some sign about his wife. Who was the other? David. TheNavi says, Your servant has killed both lion and bear (1 Shmuel 17:39). When David HaMelech killed the lion, he understood that he is not superman; he understood that HaKadosh Baruch Hu had communicated with him. In the moment, he did not understand exactly what HaKadosh Baruch Hu wanted, but later when he saw Goliath he understood that HaKadosh Baruch Hu had given him a sign: exactly as he killed the lion, he would also kill Goliath. The same happened to Mordechai. Why was Esther taken to go with Achashverosh? He thought, “I recognize that HaKadosh Baruch Hu prepared something but I don’t understand what. My job now is to go around the palace to try to get some information, to see what will happen in the future.”

When Esther walked to the palace, she continued to explain to everyone, “I really don’t want to go to Achashverosh. I am engaged to someone else. I don’t like what you are doing here. Thousands of women might want to become partners with Achashverosh but I’m sorry, this is not for me.” But nobody listened to her. And what happened? And Esther was taken to king Achashverosh (2:16). Nobody asked her if she wanted to go; she was taken. Every woman prepared for six months, doing the maximum they could to become very pretty. Esther didn’t do anything. How did she walk into the palace to talk to Achashverosh without any preparation? Very simple. If we take the incredible idea of the Malbim and continue with it, every woman, when she went to the palace, filled an application with a hundred questions to answer. Esther only answered two. Name? Esther. Address? Shushan the capital. Every woman brought a few resumes, a file. Esther’s file was empty. If Achashverosh would love this woman, they would certainly have Shalom Bayit. She would not wake up in the morning and say to him, “Look at myyichus. Who are you?” Immediately, the committee takes this file and says that she will go first. She went first and what happened? And the king loved Esther more than all the women… and he set the royal crown upon her head (2:17). The dream of Achashverosh to take the crown and put it on the head of Vashti, now will take place on the head of Esther.

Then the king made a great feast, the Feast of Esther, for all his officials and servants; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces and gave gifts according to the generosity of a king… (2:18). All the week with parties and when the parties are over. When virgins were gathered together a second time, Mordecai sat within the king's gate (2:19). A week after the marriage between Achashverosh and Esther, the committee announced that Achashverosh was looking for a new wife. Mordechai was in shock. Maybe Achashverosh killed Esther exactly the same as he killed Vashti because Esther would not divulge her secrets due to her promise to Mordechai. Mordechai could not ask about her wellbeing because people might realize that he has a connection to Esther.

After this, Haman starts and continues his final solution. To destroy, to kill, to annihilate all Jews, both young and old, children and women, in one day (3:13).To begin to explain a little what it means “final solution,” the Baal Shem Tov tells us that if you think the Megillah is telling us a story that happened hundreds of years ago, you don’t understand what Megillat Esther means. Megillat Esther is not past; it is present. What was the “final solution” of Haman? The text says, And Mordechai told him all that had happened to him, and the sum of money that Haman had promised to pay into the king's treasuries to destroy the Jews(4:7). You see that “the Jews” is written with two “yuds”. Not only this but “to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate.” What does it mean to annihilate? After they are killed, there is nothing more that can be done. The explanation is very clear. Haman in his “final solution” is saying, “I want to kill, I want to take, every kind of Jewish person.” The Jews with two “yuds”. One “yud” is the Jew whom you know is a Jew; he observes all the mitzvot. And the other “yud” is a Jew who does not observe; but he is a Jew so I put him on the train. Everybody is on the same train. “Le-hashmid la-harog—to destroy and to kill” and after that “le-abed.” What is “le-abed”? To burn. This is exactly the final solution of Haman. “All the Jews.” Completely. “I don’t care what kind of Jew. Everyone, if he is a Jew, must be on the train.” In this situation, Mordechai tore his clothes (4:1). Mordechai understood that this is an abnormal situation. Esther sent him a new suit but Mordechai refused to accept it. Esther said to Mordechai, “I don’t understand you. Why don’t you talk to Achashverosh? Why don’t you talk to any of the ministers? Start to negotiate with them.” Mordechai replied, “It’s too late for negotiations. The situation is very complicated. And now this is your moment to walk in and talk to Achashverosh.”He also gave him a copy of the written decree for their destruction, which was given at Shushan, that he might show it to Esther and explain it to her, and that he might command her to go in to the king to make supplication to him and plead before him for her people (4:8). And Esther said to Mordechai, All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know that any man or woman who goes into the inner court to the king, who has not been called, he has but one law: put all to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter, that he may live. Yet I myself have not been called to go in to the king these thirty days (4:11). “Mordechai, you need to understand, I am not the queen. I am not a partner with Achashverosh. After he picked me to become his wife, he gave me a suite in his palace with twenty slaves and maids. When he wants me he asks me to come to him. I really don’t know anything about what you say he is doing. You told me not to say anything, not to talk. And now this is the opportunity for me to tell you. You know what happened? You know why the committee announced ‘When virgins were gathered together a second time’? Because I am not a real partner with Achashverosh. When he wants me he asks me to come to him. And now, if you send me to Achashverosh at this time, he will kill me because the rule is that nobody is allowed to walk in if he doesn’t have permission from Achashverosh. I believe that if you will wait for a few days, he will anyway ask me because he hasn’t talked to me for thirty days. I am sure he will ask me to come to him soon. I will use that opportunity and I will talk to him.”

Mordechai says to Esther, “Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king's palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Why does he mention her father’s house? Who is her ancestor? King Shaul. All the problems that we have today with Haman is because of your ancestor, what we read in the Haftarah for Parashat Zachor: But Shaul and the people spared Agag (1 Shmuel 15:9). This mistake can be redeemed now. But if you find an excuse to refuse your mission, you and your father's house will perish.”

Then Esther told them to reply to Mordechai: “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” (4:16). Esther said to Mordechai, “Can you listen to me for a minute? Only one more minute, Mordechai. Look, I lost my parents. We were engaged, and I don’t have my mother or father. I’ve stayed for five years in the jail. I am not queen. I get some room in the palace of Achashverosh. Five years, five very difficult years. The reason that I have survived is you. I dream about you. I believe that one day I can come back to you. Now listen to what you are saying to me. I should go to Achashverosh. Do you know what this means? I leave when Achashverosh asks me to come to him. It is forced (be-ones). A married woman who is taken by force is allowed to return to her husband. But now that you are sending me to Achashverosh I am going to lose you also. Do you understand what this means, Mordechai? I will do everything you say to me. Now you have the whole picture.”

Mordechai agreed to listen to Esther, and she said to gather all the Jews and to fast, not to eat or drink. The Gemara asks that to fast means not to eat or drink. Why does she also have to say not to eat or drink? Because this was on Pesach. This was the one Pesach in the history of Klal Yisrael in which we did not eat matzah and we did not drink four cups of wine. So Mordechai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him (4:17). It says only Esther and not Esther the queen, because she is really not queen.

Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal [robes] and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, across from the king's house (5:1). In Hebrew, we need to say “bigdei malkhut—royal robes” and not just “malkhut—royal.” These are the clothes she had from the beginning but now, for the first time, she wants to explain to Achashverosh that she wants a partner. Esther, stood in the inner court of the king's palace, across from the king's house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house. This verse is very complicated because Achashverosh was extremely paranoid. He constantly worried that somebody wanted to kill him. When he sat in his chair in the middle of the palace, he was facing the entrance of the house because he did not want anyone to surprise him. So it was, when the king saw Esther the queen… (5:2). Wow! She felt like she was really the queen. She walked in, spontaneously. …Standing in the court that she found favor in his sight, and the king held out to Esther—he does not consider her queen, a full partner—the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther went near and touched the top of the scepter. And the king said to her, “What do you wish, Queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given to you—up to half the kingdom!” (5:2-3). “You feel like you are a queen, a partner with me? No way! “Up to half the kingdom.” Half is not a complete partner. Chazal explain “half of a half,” a quarter. So Esther answered, ‘If it pleases the king, let the king and Haman come today to the banquet that I have prepared for him.” (5:4). Amazing! This is on the third day of the fast. Chazal tell us that during these three days, she said to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, “I don’t have a mother or father. I also don’t have a husband. No one. Only you HaKadosh Baruch Hu. I am not doing this for myself. Only for You and for Am Yisrael. Please walk with me. Give me Your hand. Don’t leave me alone. HaKadosh Baruch Hu, this is for You.” And Chazal tell us, each word of “let the king and Haman come” begins with a “yud” and a “hey” and a “vav” and a “hey.” YKVK. It is very interesting that in certain communities when they come to this verse they don’t make noise when they hear this “Haman.” Instead everybody in the shul stands up. We know HaKadosh Baruch Hu what this means. It talks about You and not about anybody else.

Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly, that he may do as Esther has said” (5:5). Esther had tremendous siyata di-shmaya. She walked in without permission and said that she wants to talk to him. He said, “OK, you want to talk to me. We can meet together. Why not?” But she said, “One minute. I need somebody else.” Who is somebody else? Haman. Why Haman? Immediately, Achashverosh with his paranoia is scared that maybe she made a plan with Haman against him. What does he say? “Bring Haman quickly.” I want to see him here immediately.

She doesn’t eat or drink at this party. Why not? This is the third day of the fast. At the banquet of wine the king said to Esther, “What is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your request, up to half the kingdom? It shall be done!” Then Esther answered and said, “My petition and request is this: If I have found favor in the sight of the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my petition and fulfill my request…” (5:6-8). What did she say until now? Nothing. Now it is her turn to say something. Why did she do it in this way? She wanted to show Achashverosh the she is confused. She doesn’t really know what to say. She is worried. She will make Achashverosh more confused, more scared, and then she says, “…then let the king and Haman come to the banquet which I will prepare for them, and tomorrow I will do as the king has said” (5:8). The moment she will say “tomorrow,” the king will push the button and the security of Achashverosh will walk in. She thinks, “I am not afraid to die with Haman together because I know that if Haman dies now, Mordechai outside can change the decree. If Haman stays alive, he cannot do anything. The one way I can make this happen is if I show Achashverosh that I am confused, I am really scared, and he will see that I am trying to do something with Haman against him and he will kill us both.” This is why she talked too much. But what happened? Thank G-d, Achashverosh said, “OK.” Chazal to us the true meaning of “tomorrow I will do as the king has said.” What did Mordechai say to Hatach? And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him (karahu) (4:7). Chazal tell us, “the descendant of karahu, asher karcha ba-derech (Devarim 25:18)—Amalek, is upon us.” They spoke in code. The Torah teaches us that to win against Amalek we can never win today. We need to have patience for tomorrow. What does the Torah say? And Moshe said to Yehoshua, ‘Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand” (Shmot 17:9) Tomorrow. Esther said to Achashverosh, “tomorrow I will do as the king has said.”

So Haman went out that day joyful and with a glad heart; but when Haman saw Mordechai in the king's gate, and that he did not stand or tremble before him, he was filled with indignation against Mordechai (5:9). Haman had one problem, Mordechai. And he understood that he could not kill Mordechai with a gun. He needed to find some way to do it. He found a way—to hang Mordechai on a tree that is 50 amot high. Why he picked this is another discussion. What is relevant for us is that he was so excited that in the middle of the night he walked to Achashverosh’s palace and knocked on the door. In the middle of the night. He said to himself, “If he is asleep I will wake him up to tell him that the ‘final solution’ is done.”

In this moment, That night the king could not sleep (6:1). Achashverosh was very confused, very scared. He tried to understand if he had done something wrong, if he needed to fix something. And when Haman walked in, he said, “Great. I would like to ask him what shall be done for the man whom the king delights to honor?” Haman said, “What do we need to give him?” Let a royal robe which the king has worn, a horse on which the king has ridden, and a crown should be placed on its head (6:8). The moment that Haman mentioned the crown, he lost his career completely. The king has a few horses and a number of robes. But he has only one crown. And what did Achashverosh say to him? Hurry, take the robe and the horse, as you have suggested, and do so for Mordechai (6:10). Only the robe and the horse, but don’t give him the crown. He walked to Mordechai and “ve-nahapoch hu” happened. Esther really doesn’t know anything that happened after midnight. She returned to the suite that she has in the palace. Chazal tell us that on this night, she prayed and she cried non-stop. She said to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, “You walked with me until now, I know. Please, don’t leave me alone. Walk with me also tomorrow. It is for Your children, Am Yisrael, and not for me. I’ve lost everything. I’m not relevant. It is only for You, HaKadosh Baruch Hu.”

What happened at the second party? So the king and Haman went to dine with Queen Esther (7:1). Now she can drink because the three days of the fast are over. And on the second day, at the banquet of wine, the king again said to Esther, ‘What is your petition, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request, up to half the kingdom? It shall be done!’ Then Queen Esther answered and said, ‘If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request” (7:2-3). All the previous night, Esther said to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, “Please put in my mouth the right words to say to Achashverosh.” And she said to him, “Achasverosh, we’re married for five years. Do you remember the first time when I walked into your palace? You opened my file and what did you find? Only my name and address, nothing else. Do you remember this? Now I want to tell you something. I come from a very special nation. What we can do great is to become slaves. We have a good reputation as a nation of slaves. If somebody wanted to make my nation slaves, you would not see me here today. But somebody wants to kill us and to get tremendous power. And with this power, to kill you.” Achashverosh says, “Who is he, and where is he?” And what did she answer him? Haman. Achashverosh said, “Wait a minute. One plus one is two. Yesterday, Esther asked and I came. Today, I learn from her that Haman really wants to kill me. Yesterday, I recognized who saved my life years ago—Mordechai. Now I understand that Esther was engaged to Mordechai and also saved my life.” Look at what happened in this moment. Amazing!

The Megillah says, So King Achashverosh answered and said to Queen Esther, “Who is he, and where is he, who would dare presume in his heart to do such a thing?” (7:5). It is very interesting. What does it say? “So King Achashverosh answered (va-yomer) and said (va-yomer) to Queen Esther.” Rashi says, “Every place that it says va-yomer twice is to teach us a midrash.” Until this moment, Achashverosh never spoke directly to Esther. He sent somebody to bring Esther. Now he recognized that she saved his life; now he understands what kind of a special woman she is. From this moment she becomes Esther the queen. Only Esther the queen (except for one time when she fell on the king’s legs and asked him to change the letters and to send other letters to stop the “final solution” of Haman; it is not nice for the queen to fall on the legs of the king, so she is called just Esther). If you ask when Esther became Queen Esther, the answer is now. After the second party.

Read the rest of this entry »

Prof. Saul Lieberman on Women's Ordination

I have obtained permission to post the entire text of Prof. Saul Lieberman's responsum regarding women rabbis. The responsum in original Hebrew handwriting was first published in Tomeikh Ka-Halakhah vol. 1 (Union for Traditional Judaism, 1986), along with an English translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The following is the English translation:

With the help of God, May He be blessed,
Tuesday Evening, Rosh Hodesh Adar, 5739 [1979]

To our friends and colleagues, Rabbis Dimitrovsky, Halivni Weiss, Zlotnick, Faur, Francus, may your peace be increased:

In regard to the question that was put before you whether it is permitted to ordain a woman as a rabbi, I would have preferred not to deal with this question at all because of hidden reasons which I do not wish to disclose. I was glad that they neither asked me nor requested me to issue a legal decision. But now I am afraid that it is forbiden me to deny kindness to others, to evade and not respond.

Click here to read moreFirst, we must clarify whether a woman is fit to judge. Certainly it is an accepted teaching that women are unfit to judge, as Maimonides rules, Laws of Kings 1.4-5. This is also the ruling in the Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 7.4. Refer to the sources cited by the Vilna Gaon there, sub-paragraph 14. And even though some of the Rishonim permit [women to judge], this is only in regard to giving interpretations, but not to teach how the law should be carried into practice. And never have we found a woman judge; neither in the era of the Tanna'im, nor in the era of the Amora'im, nor in the Middle ages. Moreover, they said in Sifre Devarim, section 13, ed. Finkelstein p. 21 (in regard to the judges appointed by Moses): "Men -- and would we have ever even thought women?!" This astonishment of the Sifre proves more than the halakhic decision: never did they see or hear about a woman who judged. In any case, the ruling of Maimonides and the Shulhan Arukh is sufficient for us. There is no doubt that it is forbidden to ordain a woman to judge.

Now let us clarify what is ordination in our day. This is explained in the Book of Documents by Rabbi Yehudah Barceloni, who explains to us when an "ordination document" was used. He writes (p. 152): "But now, even outside the Land of Israel, (or) [should be: if] the elders of the city agree or the elders of the synagogue or the academy to ordain one of the students [they are ordained -- like the editor's gloss] thereby, and they write an ordination document without placing their hands on his head. Rather, they only write him an ordination document as a reminder of semikhah. Since he has this ordination document in his hand, from that day forward all men call him rabbi and they appoint him among the judges and include him in the council of his colleagues, and his appurtenances and his clothing shall be like the appurtenances of the sages and like the clothing of the sages, his colleagues, and like other ordained rabbis and not like the students not yet ordained." Later (p. 133), he writes: "This does not resemble semikhah and is not semikhah at all. Rather, it is a mere similitude and a remembrance of semikhah so that the students will pursue the ideals of scholarship about which we wrote earlier so that they will gradually increase their degree of wisdom and its application."

In Lithuania they were accustomed to ordain young men who had not yet reached the stage of being able to render legal decisions with the title "a sage when he will so desire." This has some support from Bava Metzi'a 85a that Rabbi (Yehudah haNasi) ordained the son of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon with the title "rabbi" in respect to the future. Refer there. In regard to the content of the ordination document, it is written in the Book of Documents by Rabbi Yehudah Barceloni mentioned above (p. 131) the formulation of which I do not cite "so as not to dwell on the matter because the elders individualize the language of each document according to what they agree on, etc." And in the formulation of the ordination that the author of Terumat haDeshen gave to Rabbi Yitzhaq Segal of Regensburg (according to Leket Yosher, Part II, p. 33): "and he is worthy to sit at the head and to judge and to issue legal decisions, etc., and they shall call him up to read from the Torah by the name "morenu harav" and similarly in any situation in which it is appropriate to mention him and to call him by this title, and he will issue legal decisions and serve as a judge and properly handle divorces, etc." The purpose of this semikhah is to prevent unauthorized appointments to the office of rabbi. Refer to the lengthy discussion of this matter in the responsa of Rabbi David bar Hayyim haKohen of Corfu, Bayyit 22, Chapter 3, page 4 and onward, who was very stringent against appointing a rabbi without rabbinic ordination. And refer to the responsa of Rabbi Yitzhaq bar Sheshet, nos. 271-2. And we have already seen from the statements of Rabbi Yehudah Barceloni that there was not a fixed formulation of the ordination certificate. Rather, they were accustomed to expand the wording with florid language.

In truth, these matters are clear from Sanhedrin 13b (in regard to actual "semikhah", to judge matters of monetary fines): "and he is ordained by a title and they shall call him rabbi and they permit him to judge matters of monetary fines," and there is no mention here at all of issuing legal decisions or judgment because the title "rabbi" itself means that he is authorized to issue legal decisions and to judge. And similarly see Bava Metzi'a 85a mentioned above where the title "rabbi" means semikhah.

And what they are accustomed to writing today "yoreh yoreh--yadin yadin" is merely a flowery expression. It refers to
a question and a response. that is to say, according to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 13a, it means to give permission to issue legal decisIons and to judge. And as we saw above in regard to the "semikhah" of our teacher Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein, only "yoreh yadin" is mentioned.

Thus, those ordaining rabbis who did not write "yoreh yoreh--yadin yadin" acted well because there is no granting of permission here, only certification and testimony that those ordained are worthy to issue legal decisions and to judge (provided that they continue to study) in accordance with our holy Rabbi in regard to the son of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon, and in accordance with the frequent practice of the yeshivot of Lithuania which did not mind to even write "yoreh yoreh--yadin yadin" for students who had not yet reached the stage of being able to issue legal decisions, since they relied on the fact that [calling the students "rabbi" would greatly encourage them] and, in the end, the students would thus learn and become worthy to issue legal decisions and to judge.

The end of the matter is that it is clear from the sources that being called by the title "rav" ("Rabbi he shall be called") reflects on the fitness to issue legal decisions and to judge, and we should not empty the title "rav" of its meaning from the way it has been understood by the Jewish people throughout the generations. Since a woman is not fit to judge, and she cannot become qualified for this, she cannot be ordained by this title (even if we see it as a mere expression, refer to the Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 5a, paragraph heading "Ella").

Let us not make ourselves objects of derision and jest.

Respectfully,

Saul Lieberman

Translated by Rabbi Wayne R. Allen

Read the rest of this entry »

Why I Observe Two Days of Purim

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

In most of the world, Purim is observed on the 14th of Adar. This is because in the Purim story, the vast majority of Jews were forced to go to war against their enemies on the 13th of Adar. They then enjoyed the next day, the 14th of Adar, to rest and celebrate their speedy victory. The Jews who lived in Shushan, however, continued to fight on the 14th of Adar as well, and were only victorious a day later, on the 15th of Adar. As such, Purim is observed on the 14th of Adar in most of the world, while in places which had a wall around it, similar to Shushan, Purim is observed on the 15th of Adar.[1]

Click here to read moreAlthough Mordecai and Esther only decreed that walled cities similar to Shushan were to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar, our sages saw Purim as an opportunity to bestow honor upon the Land of Israel. During the Purim era Jerusalem lay in ruins and it was felt that it would be unbecoming to highlight a Persian city as the example for which cities are to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar. As such, the sages modified Mordechai and Esther's original decree and extended the observance of Purim on the 15th of Adar to include any city which had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun, which would include Jerusalem in this distinction.[2]

I live in Beit Shemesh, and Beit Shemesh is among those cities which had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun.[3] According to halacha, any city which had a wall around it or even if it might have had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun, is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar.[4] Not only is modern day Beit Shemesh samuch and nireh to the site of the ancient city, but there is reason to believe that parts of the modern city of Beit Shemesh may have unintentionally been built directly on top of the territory of ancient Beit Shemesh.

The Chazon Ish also ruled that even a city which may have had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua should observe Purim on both the 14th and 15th of Adar.[5] In fact, the Chazon Ish, who lived in Bnei Brak where Purim was typically observed only on the 14th of Adar, would also observe Purim on the 15th of Adar due to the residential continuity from Bnei Brak right through to Biblical Yaffo, a city whose walled status is itself doubtful.[6] It is also deemed a "middat chassidut" to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar in a place whose walled status is in doubt.[7] It is worth noting that according to some authorities the reading of the Megilla has the status of a Torah based mitzva ("divrei kabbala") and therefore greater efforts to properly observe Purim are warranted.[8]

There is yet another consideration which contributes to Beit Shemesh assuming the status of a walled city: the city-wide Eruv. The Beit Shemesh community Eruv not only surrounds the entire city, but sections of the "Tel" are included within the Eruv's perimeter as well, thereby combining modern and ancient Beit Shemesh into a single domain. The ability of the Eruv to halachically unite the new city along with the ancient one for the purposes of Purim is independent of the applications of "samuch" and "nireh".[9] In fact, it might just be that the only reason the neighborhood of Ramot observes Purim on the 15th of Adar along with the rest of Jerusalem is by virtue of the municipal Eruv which connects it with the rest of the city.

Indeed, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach insisted that an Eruv which includes an area which is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar will compel all other neighborhoods included in the same Eruv to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar, as well. In fact, he himself observed Purim on the 15th of Adar in the neighborhood of Ein Karem long before it had any territorial (residential) continuity with the rest of Jerusalem.[10] He felt very strongly that since Ein Karem had been included along with the Jerusalem city-wide Eruv it assumed the status of Jerusalem for the purpose of Purim.[11] Following the same approach, Beit Shemesh would also assume the status of a city which is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar.

Furthermore, from among the many archeological excavations of biblical cities in Eretz Yisrael very few have been so positively identified as the ancient site of Tel Yarmut.[12] Yarmut was a prominent kingdom in ancient Israel and is mentioned several times in Sefer Yehoshua. It is not only mentioned in Tanach, but also in the El Amarna Tablets as a main city in the Late Canaanite period. It is also one of the largest "Tel" sites in all of Israel. Therefore, from both archeological and scriptural sources, there is no doubt whatsoever that the city of Yarmut had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua.[13]

The site of Tel Yarmut is well within one "mil" of all Ramat Beit Shemesh neighborhoods.[14] As such, Ramat Beit Shemesh should inherently assume the status of a walled city due to its adjacency ("samuch" and "nireh") to Tel Yarmut. Furthermore, construction has already begun on the neighborhood of "Ramat Beit Shemesh Gimmel" which is being built directly on top of territory belonging to the site of Tel Yarmut! In fact, it has already been reported in local and national newspapers that valuable antiquities have been found on the construction site which continues to impede the speed of the construction.

Finally, it is recorded that in ancient times, most cities in Eretz Yisrael read the Megilla on both the 14th and 15th of Adar, due to the concern that they may have had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua.[15] In fact, there was once a custom to observe Purim exclusively on the 15th of Adar in any city which is mentioned in the Tanach and its environs.[16] As a result of these precedents, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukatchinsky writes that the Megilla should be read on both days of Purim in all the [modern-day] Biblical cities of Eretz Yisrael.[17] Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv has encouraged such communities to adhere to Rabbi Tukatchinsky's ruling in a number of published forums.

As such, observing Purim on the 15th of Adar in Beit Shemesh is not a radical innovation, but rather, an application of normative halacha principles and the restoration of an original custom.[18].


“And the people of Beit Shemesh…rejoiced!” (Shmuel 1 6:13)


My position has been endorsed by a number of poskim including Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt and Rabbi Yehuda Henkin as a "worthwhile chumra that a baal nefesh should consider". My full "teshuva" (10 pp/Eng.) on the issue of Purim in Beit Shemesh and Ramat Beit Shemesh is available upon request.


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

[1] Esther 9:20-22
[2] Megilla 2b
[3] This is true based on historical, archeological, and Talmudic sources: Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1
[4] Megilla 5a,O.C. 688:4
[5] Chazon Ish 153:3
[6] Teshuvot V'hanhagot 3:235
[7] Ran;Megilla 3b s.v. "V'linyan". Though some authorities require it "mikkar hadin".
[8] Chatam Sofer O.C. 161, Pri Megadim E.A. 688:4. See also Chatam Sofer Y.D. 233
[9] Minchat Yitzchak 8:62
[10] Shalmei Mo'ed 57
[11] Halichot Shlomo 20:9 based on Magen Avraham O.C. 401
[12] http://www.iaa-conservation.org.il/Projects_Item_eng.asp?site_id=25&subject_id=6
[13] Yehoshua 10:3,5,23, 12:11, 15:35
[14] See: www.gpsupload.com/show_gallery.php?yahoo=0&route=8897&picture=6561 and http://www.gpsupload.com/show_gallery.php?yahoo=0&route=8897&picture=6562
[15] Shu"t Divrei Yosef 2, also cited in Kaf Hachaim 688:17
[16] Ran;Megilla 5, Minhagei Eretz Yisrael (Gallis) 35:2
[17] Luach Eretz Yisrael, Ir Hakodesh V'hamikdash 3:26
[18] Ran 2a s.v. "Aval", See also Dr. Yoel Elitzur's remarks on this issue in Techumin Vol. 9

Read the rest of this entry »

The Meal Of Achashverosh

The Gemara (Megillah 12a) asks what sin merited the destruction, but for their repentance, of the Jews during the time of Purim. The first answer is that they eat at Achashverosh's party (literally: they benefited from meal of Achashverosh). This is rejected for a technical reason, and replaced with the sin of idolatry under the reign of Nevuchadnezzar that was punished at that time, years after it took place.

In an earlier post (link), I discussed what the sin was in eating from Achashverosh's party. I suggested that perhaps it had to do with Achashverosh being an idolater or having debauchery occur at the party. I now think that this is incorrect.

Click here to read moreThere is a parallel to the Gemara in Shir HaShirim Rabbah (7:8) which explores when the desire for idolatry was eradicated. If, as one opinion contends, it was destroyed during the time of Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah, then what sin did the Jews of the Purim story commit that merited destruction? The Iyun Ya'akov and Maharam Shif (both on the Ein Ya'akov, Megillah 12a, the latter quoted in Ge'on Ya'akov) point out that the question is not why they were punished but what they committed to deserve such a strong punishment as annihilation.

One view in the midrash is that the Jews committed idolatry earlier, before the inclination had been destroyed, and they were being punished for it years later. That other view in the midrash is that the Jews sinned by eating from the party of Achashverosh. What was the sin? The midrash states that they ate non-Jewish food (tavshil shel nokhrim). This could mean kosher food that is non-Jewish cuisine (e.g. kosher Chinese food), but that isn't forbidden. It could also mean kosher food that was cooked by a non-Jew (bishul akum), but that is only forbidden on a rabbinic level and we are looking for a sin that merits destruction.

Therefore, the sin of eating from Achashverosh's party probably means the wide-scale eating of non-kosher food by representatives of the Jewish community.

Read the rest of this entry »

Weekly Links

Rules: link (Note that this post will move every day until the end of the week)

Friday

• SALT today: link
• Beth Din of America's ruling that was overturned by the NY State court last year (link) was reinstated: link
• R. Yuval Cherlow on soldiers disobeying orders (note the different reports): link 1, link 2
• ‘Personal mehitzas’ marketed for haredim: link
• Branching Out: A crossword puzzle celebrating Judaism’s denominations: link
• Senator Joe Lieberman supports David Greenfield in NYC Council race: link
• Despite much to kvetch about, they're happy: link

Previous days' linksThursday

• SALT today: link
• Religious leader Elon accused of inappropriate conduct: link
• R. Aharon Lichtenstein's lecture on the accusations (Hebrew): link
• Is Facebook kosher?: link
• Rabbis mull ‘Bill of Rights’ for kashrut inspectors: link
• Day school parents now getting some tuition relief: link
• Supreme Court against 'Mehadrin' buses: link
• R. Heshie Billet on women rabbis: link

Wednesday

• SALT today: link
• Vatican putting wartime archives on Internet: link
• Martin Grossman executed in Florida: link
• Agudah expresses ‘anguish’ after Grossman execution: link
• Zionist group urges students and donors to avoid UC Irvine: link
• Netanyahu lobbies Russians for ancient Hebrew texts: link
• R. Benny Lau on sexual orientation: link
• Plan would let students start college after 10th grade: link

Tuesday

• SALT today: link
• Tropper forced out of Monsey: link
• Sharansky: Jerusalem bridges time and space: link
• Rabbis call for delaying execution today: link
Rabbi rules against women's Megillah reading: link
• David Greenfield opponent drops out of race: link
• Longest ‘chained wife’ freed after husband’s death: link
• Gay with perfect faith: Dozens of Religious Zionist rabbis seek to change approach to religious homosexuals: link

Monday

• SALT today: link
• President George Washington's letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport: link
• R. Shmuel Kaminetsky: It is forbidden to get drunk on Purim: link
• Review of R. J. Simcha Cohen's recent book on Shabbos: link
• NY Times obit for R. Bernard Lander: link
• Gender-segregated sidewalks in Jerusalem: link
• 1,400-year old winepress uncovered in Israel: link
• When we pray at cemeteries, to whom do we pray?: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup LXXXI

by Joel Rich

IIUC the rule is we don't lchatchila (in the first place) accept a ger who wishes to convert to marry, but bdieved (after the fact) "kulam geirim heim" (they are all converts-language of the gemara)
1. I assume this prohibition is on a rabbinic level-is it?
2. If a beit din converts the individual, what issur(prohibition), if any are they over? are there practical implications for the beit din or its members (e.g. testify in future?)?
3.Has the ger been over an issur? is it punishable bydei adam(earthly court) or shamayim(heavenly court)?
4. What about the Jewish partner-is he culpable (e.g. msayeah?(assisting))
5. What if either of the partners has charata(remorse) - what kapparah(atonement), if any, would be recommended?

Click here to read more

Rabbi J B Soloveitchik - Hagadah HaLachmaAnya: link

The mitzvah of “sippur yetziat mitzraim” (telling story of leaving Egypt) is one of more than telling the story, it’s to learn and analyze. “Lhagid” (to tell) is more a quick summary of what you need to know.
Some suggest “Hashta hacha” (this year here, next year…) should be first was the introduction to any celebration but R’YBS felt the tradition of the text was carefully guarded. [me – it’s a great thought – why doesn’t (almost) anybody say Al Naharot Bavel anymore?]
Discussion of symbolism of matzah (slavery and redemption) – [me – surprise – a dialectic]
“Kol Dkfin” (all who are hungry) should really be at all holidays, Passover singled out – 1) karban pesach required a group together, even the poor; 2) in Egypt we were an “am” – implying solidarity. Still true today.
When we invite “Viyifsach” it’s for the lonely as well.
Apparently was first in a series.

Rav Asher Weiss - Personal Risk for the Tzibur: link

Putting oneself in danger to save another – is it required, permitted or forbidden? [me – if “permitted” what is HKB”H’s preference – or is he ambivalent?]. Factors include: How much danger is danger (me – leidat hasafek-when is a doubt a Doubt?), life vs. limb, saving a group vs. individual, short additional life).
Interesting insights – 1) IIUC chazal didn’t speak in percentages because statistics hadn’t been invented yet (hmmm – 10 stores etc.?); 2) Bar Ptorah on sharing the water bottle – it wouldn’t be an out and out miracle for both to survive and how do you “know” for sure the outcome (e.g. one hadn’t drunk anything before the trip and the other had).

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - Behavior During Chazaras Hashatz: link

A quick summary concerning behaviors during chazarat hashatz (repetition of the amida) [everyone knows these but too many are moreh heter (rationalize) for themselves]. (me-if we felt the power of chazarat hashatz [a la R’YBS] we wouldn’t have these issues. Also, I was mechadesh that just because one is permitted to talk doesn’t make it a requirement).

Rabbi Aharon Kahn -"Spontaneity and Structure in Tefila" - Avrohom Avinu and Chana sources of keva and tachnunim: link

Dialectic between spontaneity and commitment to HKB”H as seen through the prayers of Avraham and Chanah. How have tachanunim [heartfelt need and request] with a regular schedule? Tkiat shofar as words without words (me – “break on through to the other side” or as R’YBS defined “Shma Koleinu” = hear our [wordless] cry).

Rabbi Baruch Simon -Yisro 5770 - Lessons of Zerizus in our Avodas Hashem: link

Act alacritorily (my newly invented word) at appointed azimuth.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter -Remembering Rav Yeruchim Gorelik: link

R’HS remembers R’Gorelik (R’HS was in his shiur part time during HS). Major influence was R’Velvel Soloveitchik – he loved R’YBS’s torah because of the Brisker Derech, but not his hashkafah (philosophy). Great sense of humor, didn’t appreciate baseless chumrot.
Me – No mention of his Kanaut or his piercing eyes?
JP – listen for the description of how Tanaim knew how to darshen psukim – I wouldn’t say for sure it contradicts what we discussed but it probably does (For those who listen to the shiur-did scientists have a mesorah as to how to make nylon from petroleum).

מחשבת הלכה #03, מאת הרב חיים נבון: link

Discussion of “natural law” and sources which support or rebut its existence in Jewish thought. R’A Lichtenstein points out it may not be a chok (law) but mussar (good approach).
What if halacha contradicts our moral understanding? Of course halacha/torah prevails but several examples of how torah is interpreted to be consistent with such an understanding. (listen next week for a related review of a R' OY Glickman Hakohain shiur)

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Dina D'Malchusa Dina: link

I won’t spill the beans on who left his backpack with R’Aharon Soloveitchik (R’Aryeh – does he have a brother named Aron?) but it does make me think about whether the concept of chavra, chavra it lei (your friend has a friend) is now on steroids given modern technology (and are there any halachic implications?).
Still no clarity as to why Shmuel was the first to say DMD. BTW I assume that R’HS didn’t mention the partnership approach (as to why government has authority) in his early RJJ article because he hadn’t raised it yet as a model (can one of his Talmidim check?) I think R’Aryeh ran out of time but a good intro. BTW, I always heard the halacha as a minimum in the name of R’YBS, not R’Wurzburger.

Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky -Geirut Series 14 A Ger Having Positions of Authority: link

Discussion of Srarah (positions of authority) and possible exclusions. In particular Rambam on geirim and women – the latter a difference of opinion amongst rishonim. No clarity on exactly what is a position of authority.

R’Marc Shapiro -Torah Study (or Lack of It) On Christmas Eve: The History of a Very Strange Practice: link (Special Price - $3.99)
R’Marc Shapiro reviews history and sources of not learning for some or all of Nittlenacht. Most seems to be oral traditions and lots of theories.

RABBI KELEMEN-Creating the MIracle of Change in a Human Being: link

An intro to mussar study. Interesting honesty when explaining what he is teaching but does not understand. Explanation of free will vs. predestined and the “miracle” of changing midot.

Rabbi Yehoshua Grunstein -To stand or to sit during Leining, that's the question: link

Standing for Kriat hatorah (torah reading). Is it based on the concept of learning torah or reenactment of receiving torah at Sinai? Development of theories and practical implications.

Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg -The Mitzvah of Writing a Sefer Torah: link

“Kitvu lachem et hashira hazot…”. Is the mitzvah to write a sefer torah or own one? (me – process vs. result?) Rosh – mitzvah is to have sefarim to learn from. Rambam – specifically to write. Perhaps Rosh is doresh taam (uses the “reason” for a mitzvah to project halacha) since the “reason” here is in the torah (simu bphihem).
Many differences that flow from the understanding discussed (e.g. selling, giving to Shul, women’s requirement to write).
Interesting thought – does the fact that we are not clear on malei and chaser (certain vowels included or not) inform on this mitzvah?

Rav Binyamin Tabory-She'elot uTeshuvot - Rav Yaakov Breish - Chelkat Yaakov: link

Tshuvot include listening to kol isha on the radio (no). Leaving radio on over Shabbat for someone who is depressed (yes); this was controversial. Giving a pasul sefer torah to a priest helpful in saving Jews (yes), status of non – frum today.

Rabbi M Torczyner-The Importance of Trust in Building Jewish Community II: link

Fukayama and the concept of social capital (me-if you don’t trust the community/others – why would you invest in the future?!) Trust as Jewish values and sources. Areas where trust in halacha is a primary motivator – 1) Neemanut (take his word); 2) Darkei shalom; 3) marit ayin; 4) Dan lkaf zchut
To be continued.

Rabbi A Mintz-The Shema and Its Blessings: link

A study of the brachot of kriat shma. The traditional approach – the three brachot reflect the 3 paragraphs – 1) HKB”H as creator; 2) HKB”H chose us and gave us mitzvot; 3) HKB”H as creator.
However historically there was only one bracha (gemara debates what is was) – [me – “traditional” didn’t they know what they said that morning?] and asseret hadibrot said then as well. Reuvain Kimmelmans theory – shma as creed statement was more compact and thus asseret hadibrot dropped and parallel brachot added to highlight (me – unconvincing).

Rabbi David Lebor -Ayin Hara - Is It For Real?: link

Based on pirkei avot – ayin ra is someone who only sees what others have and he lacks. Somehow tied to the split second (by Bilaam) that HKB”H gets angry, this can spread. [me – not my cup of tea]

Rabbi Shalom Rosner -Oseik B'mitzah and the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah: link

Why if you’re involved in one mitzvah does it push off others (subject to restrictions – see the fine print) but not Talmud torah? R’A Weiss 1) Each second of limud is a new mitzvah (so you’re not osek) or 2) since requirement of Talmud torah is continual – you’d never be chayav in any mitzvot [we’re not torato umnato]
So why does Rambam say Talmud Torah does apply by pushing off marriage (you can, since involved in Talmud torah?). Possible answers 1) it’s unique to marriage (like ben azzai); 2) it’s really a mitzvah that you can do later (aino overet – see fine print); 2) Haosek exemption applies as long as new mitzvah will effect learning; 4) does apply but here it’s a question of learning in order to do – so it differs by stage of career.
[Side point – just because S”A doesn’t quote a reason where Rambam does, does that mean he didn’t understand the Rambam’s reason?]

Read the rest of this entry »