Parashah Roundup: Vayigash 5768

by Steve Brizel

Yosef's Reconciliation with His Brothers

The Chafetz Chaim (as prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Kwass) explains that Yosef's very clear means of identification of himself will be how God will reveal Himself in Messianic times: link

R. Michael Rosenweig looks at the process of teshuvah in the reconciliation between Yosef and his brothers: link

R. Asher Brander looks at Yehudah's actions as the reasons why all Jews, except for Kohanim and Leviim, are traced back to Shevet Yehudah: link

R. Yitzchak Etshalom analyzes Yosef's control., intent and what caused him to lose control over his emotions. This article should be read in conjunction with articles by R Yaakov Medan and R Yoel Bin-Nun: link

R. Jonathan Sacks focuses on Yehudah's process of teshuvah as a model for Baalei Teshuvah: link

R. Yaakov Medan compares Yosef and Yehudah in light of their respective roles and Moshiach Ben Yosef and Moshiach Ben David: link

R. Yaakov Horowitz explains how the brother became emotionally comfortable at speaking with and to Yosef: link

R. Berel Wein focuses on the reconciliation between Yosef and Yehudah as an integral part of a national process of reconciliation: link

R. Yaakov Haber explains that the secret of Jewish unity is diversified unity: link

R. Leibel Lopoliansky explores the way that Yosef related his role in Egypt to his brothers: link

R. Yissachar Frand explains why the reconciliation between Yosef and his brothers was incomplete: link

Dr. Gilad Sasson investigates which of his brothers Yosef took along for the meeting with Pharaoh: link

The Beginnings of Galus Mitzrayim

R. Shlomo Wolbe zt"l deciphers the meaning of Yaakov Avinu's response to Pharoh about his age: link (DOC)

R. Herschel Shachter explains the meaning of the concept that when the Jewish People are in exile, the Shechinah is also in exile: link

R. Zvi Sobolofsky discusses why Galus Mitzrayim is the model for all subsequent exiles: link

R. Avigdor Nevenzahl investigates the relationship between exodus, assimilation, redemption and large scale Torah study: link

R. Shlomo Riskin sets forth how Yaakov's departure from Eretz Yisrael fulfills the Covenant of the Pieces: link

Special Channukah Treat

R. Asher Weiss, in a shiur given at Gush, analyzes the halachic requirement of "One Light for a Man and his Household": link

Read the rest of this entry »

Reviews of Flipping Out

Two blog reviews of Flipping Out? Myth or Fact: The Impact of the "Year in Israel", a new book from Yashar (more information):

• Steve Brizel on Cross Currents (link)
• Rabbi Without A Cause (link

Read the rest of this entry »

The Future of Young Israel II

Shlomo Mostofsky, President of the National Council of Young Israel, responded to the Commentator article (link) on the Commentator's website (link):

National Council of Young Israel
111 John Street, Suite 450, New York, NY 10038
Phone: 212-929-1525 Fax: 212-727-9526

December 10, 2007

To the Editor:

I graduated from Yeshiva College in 1975 and attended what was then called the Yeshiva Program. I was involved with campus life and served as both Vice President and Treasurer of SOY. My experiences at Yeshiva helped to mold me into the person I am today.

Click here to read moreWhen I read the article about the National Council of Young Israel, I was dismayed that the editors of the Commentator would publish an article that betrayed the very values of Torah U'Mada that Yeshiva seeks to instill in its students. The article betrayed "Torah" values because it consisted almost entirely of loshon hora about the National Council of Young Israel. The article betrayed "Mada" because it was devoid of any journalistic even-handedness or journalistic integrity.

I am the president of the National Council of Young Israel. While the Commentator article mentioned a memo I wrote to Young Israel branch synagogues, the author never contacted me for my comments. My law practice is listed and the NCYI Web site has a direct link to my email address.

One must also question the absence of any comment by Yeshiva University President Richard Joel, a member of Young Israel of North Riverdale, NY. Nor, for that matter, did the article contain any comments by Rabbis Zevulun Charlap, Mordechai Willig (a member of the NCYI Vaad Halacha,) Kenneth Auman, Reuvain Fink, Shmuel Hain, Shlomo Hochberg, Ari Jacobson, Yaakov Lerner, Aaron Levine, Marc Penner, or Eliyahu Boruch Shulman who serve as Young Israel rabbis and are employed by Yeshiva University.

For the record, the impetus for the new Rabbinic Standards came solely from Young Israel rabbis, who are RIETS musmachim and/or rabbaim. They insisted that the Vaad Halacha promulgate standards to protect the integrity of the Young Israel rabbinate.

The Young Israel name is respected worldwide; we must guarantee that such respect continues. We are proud of our rabbis and of the lay leadership that have kept Young Israel on a steady upward course throughout the 96 years of our existence. We stand firm by what we feel is correct for the Young Israel movement. Synagogues and communities that have joined the Young Israel movement over the past 96 years are proud to be identified with the standards of halacha and hadracha that our founding Torah-true lay leaders and rabbis were moser nefesh to establish. It is the mandate of the elected officers and professionals of the National Council of Young Israel to uphold the legacy, community and family that defines us as Young Israel.

Sincerely yours,

Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, President

cc: Richard Joel, President, Yeshiva University

I also have possession of a letter sent to Young Israel synagogues but I do not know if I have permission to post it online.

Friends, please keep the comments polite to make R. Ari Enkin's job of moderating them easier. It might be worthwhile to review this post about lashon ha-ra regarding public figures (link).

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #015

Write for Beis Yitzchak, the YU Torah journal. Click on the image below for more details.

A website and fund have been set up in memory of Yonah Goldman, a'h, a 24-year old young man from Baltimore who was tragically killed in a car crash in Israel (to where he had made Aliyah) a couple of weeks ago. His final act was much how he lived his life: He pulled over by the side of the road to give a ride to a woman who was drenched. He took her [out of his way] to a gas station where she had shelter from the rain. As he was pulling out of the gas station, he was hit.He leaves behind a wife, Dina, and a baby boy, Benyamin Tzvi. His family and his parents' shul, Congregation Shomrei Emunah of Baltimore, have set up funds on their behalf. Please take a moment to read about Yonah and contribute if you can.There is also a Facebook group which has many pictures and stories from Yonah's life if you wish to read more about him.

OU Kosher is Coming

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

Read the rest of this entry »

The Concept of Mehadrin

In a recent essay, Jonathan Rosenblum responds to an Op-Ed that declares that "Heter Mekhirah" represents a manifestation of "religious Zionist ethos" (link). I cannot discuss the original Op-Ed because I have not seen it. Instead, I prefer to offer my perspective on why I think that "Heter Mekhirah" does, indeed, represent important Religious Zionist ideals.

The Gemara (Chullin 112a) discusses the kosher status of bread upon which raw meat was cut with a knife and the bread became red from the blood. Some prohibit the consumption of such bread because of maris ayin, it looks like one is eating forbidden blood, but others permit it. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna had such bread and gave it to his servant to eat. How could he give it to someone else if he thought it was forbidden, and if he thought it was permissible then why did he do so? The Gemara answers that he held the bread to be permitted but nevertheless chose not to eat it.

Click here to read moreR. Eliyahu Ragoler (Responsa Yad Eliyahu, 55) attempts to deduce from this Gemara that one is not allowed to issue a ruling one way for others and differently for oneself. If one would be allowed to do so, what is the question about how Rav Huna acted strictly for himself but leniently for his servant? Rather, says the Yad Eliyahu, a rabbi must rule consistently for all people and follow his own halakhic conclusions. The Kesav Sofer, in his chiddushim, disagrees and says that a rabbi is allowed to follow a strict ruling even though he tells others to be lenient. This case was different because the prohibition under discussion is maris ayin and that would apply equally to eating it or giving it to someone to eat. In respect to other prohibitions, however, a rabbi is certainly allowed to rule leniently for other people but follow stricter practices himself.

In the introduction to the Kesav Sofer Al Ha-Torah, the Kesav Sofer is quoted as explaining homiletically the reason that a king has to have two Torah scrolls, one at home and one he brings with him when he leaves home and visits with the people. One Torah represents the stringent halakhos he keeps for himself and his household and the other represents the leniencies he has for others.

The question remains: Why? What reason could a rabbi have for personally following a different practice than what he teaches to others? There are many possible answers for the widely varying situations in which such a case would be appropriate. Perhaps he has a family tradition that is strict in this area, or has personal ascetic tendencies, or has social reasons to be strict. Or maybe the person who asked the question is under severe financial stress for which halakhah occasionally calls for leniency, or is someone still struggling towards full halakhic commitment and this leniency will help him on his way. There are many other reasons why a rabbi might legitimately find himself in such a position, including the need of functioning on a national level.

In a 1952 essay "Life Problems in Light of the Halakhah" (Ha-Rabbanus Ve-Ha-Medinah, p. 53), R. Shaul Yisraeli explains that the contemporary situation of building a state in Israel requires lenient halakhic rulings. The journal he edited, Ha-Torah Ve-Ha-Medinah, offered halakhic analyses of real governing situations and proposed how a Torah-based government could function in the real world. This requires, at times, great leniencies. In a prior essay (p. 48), R. Yisraeli referred to an article by R. Yitzchak Herzog that discussed how a police force can halakhically function on Shabbos -- driving to investigate reports, traveling a "beat" to prevent crime, writing reports of incidents, etc. All of this, claims R. Herzog, can be done properly and according to halakhah but requires the use of various leniencies. In response to those who asked whether we want to create a State of Torah or a State of Heter, R. Yisraeli replied:

However, this argument, also, despite the good intentions of its proposers, is not according to the Torah view. If we accept this then we would have to follow one of these two paths, neither of which are good: either we determine our actions outside of the concerns of halakhah, thereby removing from under our legs the the traditional grounding of Torah, or we refuse [to participate in] a Jewish state entirely.

We need to become accustomed to and prepare ourselves for the path of the Torah view of the Sages and the nation throughout the generations, whose religious awareness was not diminished by the use of leniencies. This was because they knew that the path of leniency, as long as it is according to the Torah, is also Torah. However, along with this, we may not stop looking for the way to fulfill the mitzvah in its fullest way

In order for a country to function according to halakhah, we sometimes need to use leniencies like operating hospitals and police forces on Shabbos (with various limitations), utilizing a heter iska to allow lending with interest, using a heter mekhirah to sell the land and ensure that there is sufficient permissible produce, and more. We might not even be comfortable following these leniencies ourselves. However, due to the unfortunately unrighteous situation in which we find ourselves, much of this (e.g. police) is necessary. Therefore, we must continue looking for ways to improve our spiritual wellbeings to avoid the need for these leniencies as well as other halakhic ways to fulfill these national needs.

This is also, to a degree, the concept underlying the two levels of kosher certification by certain local Israeli Rabbinates, at least as I understand it. One of the levels is the plain Rabbinate certification and the other is Mehadrin. Mehadrin follows a fairly standard, albeit strict, interpretation of the kosher rules while the standard certification is more lenient than is accepted in many communities.

Why would the Israeli Rabbinate establish a kosher certification that, while in compliance with legitimate halakhic views, does not reflect standard, mainstream practice? I believe that the reason is to make kosher food as widely available as possible in Israel. Israel contains a large population that is not overtly religious but prefers kosher food when available, and a large population that is entirely indifferent to the kosher status of food. Making available food that is kosher at least according to some views enables large groups of Jews to eat kosher, even if unintentionally. The concern for the religious well-being of non- and semi-religious Jews is an important Religious Zionist ideal. I mean here not just outreach but genuine concern for the religious needs of those who are not moving in any religious direction. They, too, are Jews and we must work towards enhancing their religious lives in any way we can. This is surely a noble cause and the baseline kosher certification is a legitimate way in which to pursue it.

The same applies to Heter Mekhirah. While I and many (most?) Religious Zionist rabbis fully support alternatives to it, there currently is no other way to ensure that large groups of Jews observe the Shemitah year without utilizing the Heter Mekhirah. Abandoning the Heter Mekhirah means that many farmers and many more consumers will simply do away with Shemitah entirely and consume produce in violation of Shemitah laws. Religious Zionist ethos tell us that we should be concerned not just for our Religious Zionist community or for the Orthodox community in general, but for the Jewish community as a whole. In that respect, Heter Mekhirah is the current representation of a noble ideal.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Contras

Dr. Jonathan Ostroff wrote an Op-Ed in The Jewish Press two weeks ago in opposition to R. Natan Slifkin's views: link

R. Natan Slifkin responded with a letter which has a small extract in this
week's issue: link
His full response can be found on his website: here

Read the rest of this entry »

Menachem's Mareh Mekomos

Presenting Menachem Butler's new blog: Michtavim

Read the rest of this entry »

The Story Behind the Ri's Chanukah Innovation

Most readers of this blog are probably aware of the debate over the third level of Chanukah lights. To review briefly, there are three levels for this mitzvah: 1) the base, which is one light per house; 2) mehadrin, which is one light per household member; and 3) mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, which is additional lights for each day. The dispute regarding mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is as follows: According to the Rambam (and others), each household member lights additional lights each day of Chanukah, so that a four-member household on the second night has eight lights (excluding the shamash) on four menorahs. According to Tosafos, the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin rejects the mehadrin approach of each household member having a light and reverts back to the base of there being only one light per household, except that the number of lights increases per day, so that this same four-member household on the second night has only two lights on one menorah. Conventional wisdom has it that this is one of the few cases in which Ashkenazim follow the Rambam and Sefardim follow Tosafos (see, most recently, R. Jacob Schacter's article on the subject).

However, this view attributed to Tosafos is not really that of Tosafos. It is the view of a single, albeit important, member of the authors of Tosafos -- the Ri (R. Yitzchak) of Dampierre. This fact raises a number of questions in my mind. Here is the language of Tosafos (Shabbos 21b sv. ve-ha-mehadrin min ha-mehadrin):
Click here to read more

It seems to the Ri that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are only referring to the "one light per household" because then there is more beauty [in the mitzvah] in that it is clear that when one adds or subtracts [from the lights] that it is corresponding to the days that remain or have passed. But if one has one light for each person then even if a single person adds [lights] on subsequent days it is not clear because people might think that there are multiple people in the household.

This is the Ri speaking about a practice that is done every single year. While he was the initiator of the Tosafist method, he was not the first scholar in this school. We know that he learned the tractate Shabbos with his uncle, Rashbam (mentioned by Urbach somewhere in Ba'alei Ha-Tosafos), and generally studied under his other uncle, Rabbenu Tam. What did they do every Chanukah? What did their grandfather, Rashi, do? The Ri is suggesting something radical here. If he grew up in a home in which every household member lit their own menorah then he was breaking with this tradition of his family and teachers with his interpretation of this Gemara passage. If so, and that is how it is generally presented nowadays, then the following questions arise:

1. The passage in Tosafos, quoted above, does not present this as a radical interpretation. There is no discussion of the standard practice nor any "traditionalist" arguing with the Ri. Why not?
2. I did not have the books available for a thorough search, but a brief browse through Ashkenazic halakhic literature did not even yield a discussion of the Ri's position! They just quote the Gemara without comment. Why don't the Semag and Semak cite the Ri as representing a new position on how to fulfill this mitzvah? Why doesn't the Hagahos Maimoniyos quote the Ri as the Ashkenazic alternative to the Rambam?
3. And, of course, the standard question: Why do later Ashkenazim follow the Rambam and not the Ri?

If the Ri was not presenting a radical interpretation but was just explaining the Gemara based on standard Ashkenazic practice, then the following (generally similar) questions present themselves:

1. Why doesn't the Ri or Tosafos note that his explanation is based on the standard practice?
2. Why is the explanation attributed to the Ri when it seems fairly obvious based on the standard practice?
3. If the Ashkenazic practice changed at some point, when? Why does the Ashkenazic halakhic literature ignore this issue if there was a change?

Here is what I would like to suggest to answer these questions, keeping in mind that this is all conjecture and I did very little research in the halakhic literature, no research whatsoever in general historical literature, and did not have access to academic Jewish studies such as R. Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael. So this is all extremely tentative and I would appreciate any feedback from people who research this topic more thoroughly.

It seems consistent with the above to assume that even the leading Torah scholars of the medieval Franco-German community did not perform the mitzvah of Chanukah lights at the level of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin. Perhaps they did it mehadrin but I'd go so far as to suggest that they just performed the base level of one light per household. That is why the Ri can offer a radical suggestion regarding how to perform mehadrin min ha-mehadrin without anyone getting excited and the halakhic manuals ignoring it. He wasn't breaking with traditional practice and probably did not even put his own suggestion into practice. His comment was an entirely theoretical suggestion.

[A short and probably inconclusive deduction: I saw that in Ma'aseh Ha-Ge'onim (p. 44), which records ruling from pre-Rashi Ashkenazim, that they discuss the Chanukah lights in the singular (ner Chanukah) except when dealing with multiple householders, at which time they change to plural (neros Chanukah). Is this a hint that they only lit one light per household?]

If we want to be even bolder, perhaps we can suggest that Spanish Jews similarly did not perform the mitzvah mehadrin min ha-mehadrin. While the Spanish commentaries to the Gemara discuss the dispute between the Rambam (and others) and the Ri, it is possible that neither view was put into practice until later. The Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 671) is often quoted as ruling like the Ri but that is imprecise. What he does is simply state that the common practice is according to the Ri. How could a family-based practice like that change over time? If people followed mehadrin min ha-mehadrin according to the Rambam, why and how would they change their practice? Perhaps at some point in time there was a transition from following the base level to the mehadrin and/or mehadrin min ha-mehadrin levels, at which time families intentionally deviated from their established practices in order to fulfill the mitzvah in a better way, as discussed in the Gemara. When that happened, for whatever reason people followed the practice as explained by the Ri.

Read the rest of this entry »

Conversion for Marriage

R. Gedalia Dov Schwartz recently reached the milestone of serving as the Av Beth Din of Chicago for 20 years. The Chicago Rabbinical Council published a book in honor of this event titled Sha'arei Gedula (link, scroll down). The book has a long biography of R. Schwartz, with plenty of "color commentary" added. The next and largest section is an overview of the halakhic challenges facing the American Orthodox rabbinate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is an extremely fascinating series of essays that, while lacking some of the historical sense of a trained historian, is nevertheless an extremely valuable historical treatment and simply a fascinating halakhic study. The final section is a long list of "Ask the Rav" questions and answers, often based simply on quoting other halakhic authorities but occasionally answered with R. Schwartz's unique perspective.

Let me quote part of the section on conversion that is relevant to contemporary discussion. However, let me briefly note that this should not be understood as an endorsement of the work of the EJF because 1) it does not address their practice of reaching out to intermarried couples (link), and 2) it certainly does not justify their dismissal of the Modern Orthodox rabbinate (I, II).

Click here to read moreR. Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Sha'arei Gedula, pp. 219-221 (I am taking the liberty of omitting some footnotes and incorporating others into the text):

Naturally, while there are teshuvos regarding the practical application of conversion, the teshuvos germane to intermarriage were principal in the minds of the twentieth century Rabbonim. For example, in 1927 Rabbi Chaim Fischel Epstein wrote concerning a woman who had converted in order to marry a Jew. The question was asked to Rabbi Epstein by Rabbi Yekusiel Yehuda Greenwald, was whether one would be permitted to perform the marriage of this couple in light of the halacha that a convert is not accepted unless his or her sincerity is substantiated, which would naturally preclude conversion for marriage. Rabbi Epstein wrote that the suspicion of insincerity only applies before the conversion; once the conversion is performed the principle of "כולם גרים הם - they are all converts" [see Yevamos 24b], takes effect. In addition, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger wrote that a conversion may be performed if there is a concern that the Jewish partner may otherwise become less religious. Accordingly, Rabbi Epstein permitted Rabbi Greenwald to perform the marriage [Teshuvah Shelemah, vol. 2 Even Ha-Ezer no. 10; see below].

Rabbi Shmuel Yalow dealt with another question which arose due to a common situation in America in the early 1900s. One case in point concerned a man who married a non-Jewish woman in a civil ceremony with a Justice of the Peace. Later, he wanted his wife to convert and to hav eproper kiddushin with her. First, Rabbi Yalow wrote that the conversion could not be accepted, as it would clearly be performed with ulterior motives. Later, however, he wondered whether perhaps, since this is something that was becoming commonplace, there might be cause to be lenient in order to save the couple from transgressing. Rabbi Yalow then posed the question in the journal Hatevuna in 1922. Rabbi Yechezkel Abromsky promptly responded to Rabbi Yalow that based on a teshuva of Rambam, the conversion can be permitted. He also said that this case is not considered a conversion for the purpose of marriage, as the couple was already living together as husband and wife [Shalmei Shmuel, no. 5; see below].

Here are scans of the teshuvos discussed above (click on them to enlarge them):

Read the rest of this entry »

How Many Candles?

How many candles do we light on Chanukah? There are two ways to calculate this. One is to add up every number from 2 (1 + a shamash) through 9 (8 + a shamash) = 44. The other is to recognize that this is an arithmetic series and use the simple formula: 1/2 * n * (A1 + An) = 1/2 * 8 * (2 + 9) = 44.

Now calculate how many candles you would have to light if Chanukah was 15 days or 30 days (135 and 495).

Legend has it that the basis of this formula was figured out by an elementary school student named Carl Friedrich Gauss, when his teacher told the class to add up all the numbers from 1 to 100 and he was able to do it in a few seconds (more info: I, II).

R. Mordechai Marcus once told me that there is a Tosafos, I don't remember where but perhaps in Bekhoros [Menachos 106a s.v. she-hein elef], that offers a similar formula.

(inspired by an e-mail from Dr. Yitzchak Levine)

Read the rest of this entry »

Round Menorahs

The Terumas Ha-Deshen (105) discusses whether a round menorah is acceptable for use. He answers that if the branches are insufficiently separate then there is a problem that the flames may join and the entire menorah becomes a "torch". However, if each branch is separate then there is no problem of a "torch" and the menorah is entirely acceptable. The Rema (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 671:4) rules like the Terumas Ha-Deshen.

However, the Maharshal disagrees with the Terumas Ha-Deshen and Rema, and rules in a responsum (no. 85), while agreeing that such a menorah would be technically permissible, that it is not preferable because it is not optimal (mehudar). This ruling of the Maharshal is widely quoted by commentators, including Magen Avraham (671:4), Taz (671:2), Chayei Adam (154:10), Mishnah Berurah (671, Bi'ur Halakah sv. u-mutar), Aruch Ha-Shulkhan (671:14) and Kaf Ha-Chaim (671:31).

Interestingly, the Pri Chadash (671) also disagrees with the Maharshal and says that round menorahs are mehudar and that great sages have used them. The Pri Chadash frequently does not get respect (see the introduction to Bekhor Shor) and this ruling is not quoted by later authorities.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Future of Young Israel

This article (link) is a pretty good piece of reporting in Yeshiva College's newspaper The Commentator about the negative reactions to new rules recently announced by the National Council of Young Israel. The responses to these rules have, evidently, been quite negative.

I think what the furor over the new NCYI rules boils down to is the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the NCYI headquarters are farther to the right than their constituents and are trying to impose right wing pesak and ideology on all Young Israel synagogues. This impression is probably further underscored by the high-profile consultations between NCYI leadership and prominent Charedi Torah scholars. I can imagine that people are wondering whether the NCYI leadership's is taking its cues from Charedi leaders and whether that is really what it should be doing.

This impression is also strengthened by the new NCYI rules. While I personally don't really object to any of the new rules, I'm on the right so I shouldn't be expected to disagree with them. Here are the rules and some comments:

Click here to read more1. A committee must approve a rabbinic candidate's ideology and scholarly competence. Laypeople are often unable to judge a prospective rabbi's qualifications and as long as the national office will allow local shuls to make the final hiring decisions, I'm OK with this in theory. The problem is the context. In today's climate, the move appears--perhaps unfairly but nevertheless--to be an imposition of the right wing views of a few individuals on the entire movement. Yes, a Young Israel rabbi needs to be Orthodox. The question is whether NCYI will require that he be right wing Orthodox. Left wingers are concerned.

2. Women and converts may not serve as synagogue presidents. I think the convert issue is fairly clear cut (see this post) but there is a view among posekim that women may serve as synagogue presidents. So I'm not quite sure why the NCYI is making it official policy to follow the posekim who prohibit it, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject.

3. A ban on women's prayer services and women's megillah readings. I'm not aware of any significant halakhic authority who permits women's prayer services. Women's megillah readings are a separate issue and more halakhically defensible. Regardless, these practices are accepted by the left wing of Orthodoxy and these new rules are seen as a move against that wing.

On the one hand, I wouldn't mind if the whole world was Right Wing Modern Orthodox. On the other, trying to force the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy out of mainstream organizations seems to me to be an invitation to them to start their own organizations or increase their influence in other, existing organizations. That, I think, is a bad idea for three reasons. First, having their own institutions could actually increase their influence rather than the intended opposite. Second, I believe that Young Israel has historically tried to be inclusive of the left wing of Orthodoxy, if not its main organization. And third, we are such a divided people that I lament any additions to that fragmentation.

One important question in all of this is how strong the opposition to the new NCYI rules really is. Are the objections going to remain for the long term and cause things to change at NCYI headquarters or are they just an immediate reaction that will not be followed up with action? I don't know but I suspect the former. If that is the case, if the leaders of NCYI want to retain their positions then they will have to rethink their strategy and make some attempt to compromise.

The current scrutiny on the NCYI headquarters raises the question of what they should be doing. I think the consensus seems to be that they should be focusing on providing services to synagogues or, perhaps more accurately, explaining how they are already serving them.

If I were them, I would immediately revoke the new rules, apologize for not incorporating the viewpoints of all the synagogues before making such important steps, and go on a listening tour of Young Israel synagogues to learn what people need and how NCYI can provide it. But that's assuming that this doesn't all blow over in a few weeks.

Read the rest of this entry »

More Conversion Developments II

Following up on this post, Dr. Daniel Eidensohn has a relevant letter in this week's issue of The Jewish Press on this subject (link):

Radical Break

The Bedatz of the Eidah Chareidis has recently brought some disturbing developments to our attention. (This is the actual Bedatz, not an unofficial offshoot, as some unfounded rumors would have it.)...

Why did the Bedatz issue its protest against participation in Eternal Jewish Family (EJF) despite its being supported by many gedolei Torah? Because EJF is actively pursuing the conversion of the non-Jewish spouse. Rav Leib Tropper, the head of the organization, has repeatedly denied proselytizing because he says he is only dealing with couples referred to him by rabbis. However, it is difficult to understand his denials since proselytizing means trying to convince someone to change his or her religion, and that is clearly what EJF does, spending a considerable amount of money per convention to persuade a handful of uncertain or curious couples that they should become Jews.

In a recent intensive exchange of e-mails, I asked Rav Tropper the halachic rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein he claims as the basis for EJF’s activities. His response was, “Why do you think it is prohibited?” This is an astounding justification for a radical break with the past. While in fact it is not explicitly prohibited, devoting a considerable amount of energy and funding to convince non-Jews to convert presents, in my opinion, serious dangers to the Jewish people. It requires acceptance or rejection through scholarly discussion in peer-reviewed response – as innovations have been justified in the past.

Daniel Eidensohn, Ph.D.

Read the full letter here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #014

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School in cooperation with Congregation Ohab Zedek invites the entire community to a Hanukkah shiur on Tuesday evening, December 11, 2007 at Congregation Ohab Zedek, 8:30 PM on the topic of:

Exploring the Halakahic, Historical and Spritual Connections Between Hanukkah and Sukkot

given by Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, Rebbi, YCT Rabbinical School. For more information, please go to www.yctorah.org

Announcing the second annual OU Essay Contest for grades 4-12: link

Prizes! $50 gift certificates to Eichlers.com.
Winners will get their essays published online at www.oukosher.org.
Grand prize winners will be invited to record their essays on OUKosher Radio.

Deadline for entries: March 7, 2008.
More information here.

New issue of The Commentator:

• Leaking Ship: Young Israel On The Rocks - MUST READ
• Fifth Year Scholarship Stays Capped Despite Growing Popularity
• YU Holds Florida Conference for Rabbis, Lay Leaders
• Remembering a Friend: Mr. Joseph Ellenberg A"H
• Yeshiva University Interim Report in Response to the Middle States Commission
• Editorial: A Not-So-Yeshiva College - i.e., IBC stinks (I disagree)
• Editorial: The End Of Plausible Deniability
• Opinion: Calculating Proficiency - A student complains about not being able to use a calculator for a math test. Cry me a river!
• Opinion: Combining YU and Stern, Dr. Berger, and Torah u-Madda - Advocating listening to your opponents, an important life skill to learn.
• Opinion: A Real Yeshiva - Free speech vs. showing respect. My view: if the two are in conflict then you aren't writing with sufficient sensitivity.

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

Read the rest of this entry »

If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem!

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Michael Broyde is the Rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta, a law professor at Emory University, and a chaver in the Beth Din of America. Of course, none of these institutions neccessarily agree with the opinions expressed in this article.

This article is an elaboration on a shorter piece that was published this week in the Jewish Press by myself and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein (link). Many of the thoughts contained in this expanded version are mine only, and present an elaboration and expansion of that essay. There are also a number of new ideas. Needless to say, Rabbi Adlerstein’s intellectual hand is present in this article, too, but he has – some would say wisely – chosen not to put his name on it.


Whether the Israeli government should consider returning part of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority has become one of the hot topics of the day with many different American Orthodox organizations issuing stern pronouncements opposing even considering returning Jerusalem under any circumstances. I think many of these pronouncements and this posturing are mistakes on three different levels. The first is a matter of prudence, the second is as a matter of halacha, and the third is as a matter of American Orthodox Jewish policy.


Click here to read moreAs an opening matter, before discussing each of these three issues, it is important to frame the issue. Israel is at war in the Middle East on three different fronts, each of them undeclared, but quite real. It is at war with Hamas (and maybe even the Palestinian Authority) in the West Bank and Gaza; it is at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it is at war with Iran regarding its development of nuclear weapons. Activities completely normal and proper in peacetime are unwise in times of war. Calls for massive protests against possible Israeli decisions, no matter how compelling, have to be seen against this backdrop.

* * *

First, as a matter of prudence, American Jewry has to consistently broadcast a message of complete and total public support for the state of Israel. The Durban conference on racism in 2001 unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism that had been suppressed since the Holocaust and made the hatred of Jews fashionable once again. While Israel succeeded in remarketing itself into a biotech giant and a go-to place for venture capital, the Arabs were busy doing their own rebranding of Israel. The relentless portrayal of Israel as an occupier and an aggressor has made Israel one of the most hated and detested countries on earth. Many campus faculties, labor unions, and church groups have been enlisted in a campaign to delegitimize the Jewish State. The combined depredations of President Carter, Walt and Mearsheimers’ book on the Israel Lobby, and others brought the battle to the United States this year in a larger sense than ever before. We used to hear trenchant criticism of the actions of Israel; today the rhetoric has shifted to criticizing and demonizing Israel’s very existence. This should be a profoundly sobering realization for all of us who care about Israel.

Differences of opinion abound within the Orthodox world on a range of topics regarding Israel. During wartime, such differences need to be muted. Left, right and center – all of us within the Orthodox world should understand that, as Martin Luther King once observed, when they talk about anti-Zionism, they mean the hatred of Jews. The Government of the State of Israel, like it or not, is seen by the vast majority of the population of this planet as the government of the Jews. We must realize this and understand how our words that criticize Israel can be misunderstood by others. Public advocacy against the policies of the government of Israel confuses supporters of Israel in general who see that even Israel’s most fervent advocates do not support the government of Israel. Many of Israel’s remaining supporters are genuinely confused by the internal divisions within American Jewry and by the diminished ardor that American Jews have for Israel. The Orthodox community functions as a model of commitment to Israel by those Jews who take their tradition and history more seriously. We should not abdicate that role. As a matter of prudence, the message of American Orthodoxy has to be that we fully and completely have unqualified support for the State of Israel and the American government needs to hear that in a very loud voice. If we need to express our concerns and indignations, we need to do so quietly (but forcefully) when the cameras are not upon us, the microphones are off and only the family is listening.

Failure to act as Israel’s unqualified advocate is also a message. It is not one Israel can afford. There are still tens of millions of people who respect Jews, the Jewish message, and wish to maintain good relations with us as a people. If we want their political support, they need to see that our hearts and souls are intertwined with the wellbeing of a land that is inseparably part of us.

We should also prepare ourselves for the possibility that the government of Israel will make choices that we might not fully support. If and when the people of Israel embrace options that we disagree with we should not become victims of our own rhetoric and be any less passionate in our support of the State of Israel even if we disagree with a particular decision. This last sentence is extremely important. We ought not make the division of Jerusalem an issue within our own community that is so important that if Jerusalem is divided, we walk away from our support of the State of Israel.

* * *

Second, as a matter of halacha, we need to firmly articulate our basic principles. There is no doubt that every Jew desires that every inch of the land that God gave us ought to be under Jewish control. We yearn for such a day, and we pray for Jewish sovereignty over all of the land of Israel. That is our ideal and the dictate of Jewish law. The reality is that achieving this goal does not seem to be possible without considerable cost – and that price is paid with the death of Jewish men and women, in the army and the general population of Israel.

Someday however, perhaps in a generation or two, maybe even in 2008, the other side will tire enough to value life over death, enough to stop spewing anti-Semitism in their classrooms and their airwaves, enough to recognize Israel’s right to exist, enough so that we no longer have to worry about Israel’s nuclear annihilation -- but not enough to completely give up their struggle without some territorial compromise on our part in return for genuine peace. What might that bring? Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik z”l, said it eloquently and precisely in 1967

Indeed, we rejoice in the [capture of] the Western Wall, in the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Rachel’s tomb. I understand the holiness of the Western Wall. I want you to understand, I give praise and thanks to the Creator of the World for liberating the Western Wall and for liberating and for removing all Israel from the Arabs, so that it now belongs to us. But I don’t need to rule whether we should give the West Bank back to the Arabs or not to give the West Bank to the Arabs: we rabbis should not be involved in decisions regarding the safety and security of the population. These are not merely halachic rulings: these decisions are a matter of saving lives for the entire population. And if the government were to rule that the safety of the population requires that specific territories must be returned, whether I issue a halachic ruling or not, their decision is the deciding factor. If saving lives supersedes all other mitzvos, it supersedes all prohibitions of the Torah, especially saving the life of the community in Israel. I will say that as dear as the Western Wall is, the two million lives of Jews are more important.

We have to negotiate with common sense as the security of the Jews in Israel requires. What specifically these security requirements are, I don’t know, I don’t understand these things. These decisions require a military perspective which one must research assiduously. The borders that must be established should be based upon which will provide more security. It is not a topic appropriate for which Rabbis should release statements or for Rabbinical conferences.[1]

These remarks remain as valuable today as they were when the Rav presciently stated them forty years ago just after Jerusalem was reconquered. In the balance between settlement of the whole land of Israel and achieving genuine peace that saves Jewish lives, Rabbi Soloveitchik and many others (such as Rav Ovadya Yosef) think that long-term saving lives is more important, as a matter of Jewish law, than settling the whole land. Even those who do not agree with the fullness of this statement of halacha, agree that there is no need to endanger the whole of the state of Israel in order to seek to conquer the remaining portions. (There is clearly no obligation to conquer the whole of Israel at the cost of risking those parts that one already owns or the loss of the whole state through nuclear annihilation.)[2]

Of course, this view does not think that Israel ought to give back land NOW – and certainly not Jerusalem – without a real and tangible peace and a real partner in peace or real assurances that the concrete situation of Israel will be dramatically improved. But this view recognizes that when Israel encounters a genuine peace partner who seeks peace in the same way that we do, genuine territorial concessions, even of land that God promised us, is permitted by Jewish law in order to save lives. Thus, even if Yamit in the Sinai was part of the land of Israel’s biblical boundaries, halacha would sanction its return to Egypt as a price for peace with that neighbor. Indeed, we all see that the peace with Egypt was worthwhile and we are thankful that a successful land for genuine peace transfer took place

So too, this view recognizes that the threat of nuclear terror by Iran has to be factored into this calculus, and this calculation is exceeding complex and only for those deeply skilled and trained in this reality. Sometime a bad peace is better than a good war as a matter of tactics, timing and strategy. Very hard choices confront Israel on many different fronts and it is important that decisions that address matters of security correctly balance the many different fronts (Gaza, West Bank, Iran and Syria), along with the diverse factors (military, political, economic and social), and do so consistent with Israel’s global alliances (mostly with America).

Thus, the notion – sometimes advanced even by great Jewish organizations – that under no circumstances and no matter what the consequences, we ought never to consider returning parts of Jerusalem, is simply mistaken. On the contrary: The return of part of Jerusalem, like the amputation of the limb of a person, is mandatory when it is the best option available to preserve the state of Israel. And just as the decision to amputate is made by a doctor and not a rabbi, territorial decisions are to be made by authorized government leaders and military experts, not halachic authorities.

* * *

The third issue is as a matter of American Orthodox public policy. I am of the view that the American Orthodox community is generally best served by being publicly silent or supportive on matters of Israeli security. We are not sure of the new reality that Israel faces or the best path for its resolution. Situations that are not at all clear to most Israelis, however, seem to be obvious to the Orthodox Jews in America, and that is not the case.

In fact, if one thing is certain, it is that no one is clearly and consistently correct. No one has been shown to have an accurate predictive crystal ball that foretells the best decisions, and even the wisest of policy-makers seems to err in the Middle East. As one well-known policy advocate has stated, even a bad peace with the Palestinians will generate enough good will in the Arab world to allow military action against Iran, thus eliminating that threat to Israel’s existence. On the other hand, another astute policy advocate insists that the PA is completely incapable of making peace and no negotiations should take place, even about Ramallah, never mind Jerusalem. The variables are extremely complex and the knowledge available to the general public – even the well-informed – is very incomplete. That alone ought to cause individuals and organizations to hesitate before they issue categorical denunciations of policies and communications.

Thus, while Israelis are divided over what is best for Israel, American Jews need to recognize the inherent uncertainty in the situation and be supportive of the government of Israel on whatever it decides regarding matters of national security. Those who genuinely believe that they have a profound insight that Israeli military and political leaders have missed should contact Israel’s leadership privately and directly and not through public statements designed to coerce the Israeli government into one policy or another.

Let’s be even clearer. We American Jews live in the Diaspora as a matter of choice. Almost all of us could live in Israel if we really wished to. By staying here, we lose much of our right to advocate publicly, militantly or dogmatically against the policies of the government of Israel. Public advocacy of national security policies that are contrary to those of the government of Israel diminish us in three ways. First, it increases the likelihood that our foundational relationship with the state of Israel will be deeply eroded. Second, our own internal divisions increase the likelihood that policies that we all recognize to be bad for Israel will be adopted by the United States. Finally, it is genuinely unlikely that we outside of Israel are better able to craft policies that actually are more successful than those chosen by Israel’s own leaders. Furthermore, such conflicts confuse supporters of Israel in general who see that even Israel’s most fervent advocates do not support the government of Israel. I do not fear that American advocacy, either political or in the name of halacha, will actually sway the government of Israel on matters of national security – but I do worry that such advocacy diminishes American Jewry. What ought to be our role in America? We ought to advocate to the government of the United States – a firm and true supporter of Israel – that it should remain faithful to its historic support of Israel as America’s only true ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.

* * *

Given the clarity of the Jewish law, the obscurity of the facts, and the natural prudence present in this very complex situation, I think that the Jewish community in America – and particularly the Orthodox community in America – ought to change its policy and lower its voice.

Our first principle ought to be one of prudence, recognizing that the decisions are complex, the path uncertain, and that the duly elected government of Israel ought to be supported by the Orthodox Jewish community in America on matters of national security, once Israel makes a decision.

Our second principle ought to be that we seek policies which codify real peace, as these policies save the largest number of Jewish lives, and that we not seek policies which focus on the inherent sacredness of the land of Israel, no matter what the cost in Israeli blood.

Our third principle ought to be that to the extent that we American Jews feel a need to advocate policies, we ought to confine our advocacy to addressing the government of the United States, urging it to let Israel do as its own government thinks is wise.

As the conference in Annapolis concludes and real negotiations progress we need to recognize that the world is watching America and the people of America are watching American Jewry – and the eyes of Jewry are on the Orthodox community. We need to show our total and complete support for the State of Israel at this time with no reservations and no caveats. The State of Israel is America’s only true friend in the Middle East and if America’s Orthodox Jews do not provide Israel with its full and unqualified support, how can we ask the government of the United States to do that which we ourselves are not prepared to do?

---

[1] (I have translated the Rav’s Hebrew terms into English and the original can be found at: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n040.shtml#10 and the actual audio recording of the remarks of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik in Yiddish with simultaneous English translation can be found at http://www.yasharbooks.com/Rav_on_territories.wmv.)
[2] For a deeper review of these issues, see Rabbi J. David Bleich “Of Land, Peace and Divine Command,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 16:56 (1988) and Rabbi J. David Bleich, “Withdrawal From Liberated Territories,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 18:101 (1989). For a detailed explanation of the view of Rav Avraham Shapira, see “A Rabbinic Exchange on the Gaza Disengagement” Tradition 40:1 17-44 (2007) and part II found at Tradition 40:1 49-70 (2007).

Read the rest of this entry »

Reminder: Ve-Sein Tal U-Matar

From the Ezras Torah Luach about tonight:

At Maariv, we begin to include "ותן טל ומטר" into the Shemonah Esrei. If one became aware, after he had completed the Bracha מברך השנים, that he had omitted "ותן טל ומטר" he should wait to insert it right before "כי אתה שומע" of שמע קולנו. If he had already completed the Bracha שומע תפלה, he may insert it before saying "רצה". If he had already begun "רצה" he must return to the Bracha "ברך עלינו", which is the proper place for "ותן טל ומטר". If he had already completed the Shemonah Esrei and stepped backward, then he must repeat the entire Shemonah Esrei. In any situation in which a person must repeat the entire Shemonah Esrei, he may fulfill his obligation by listening to every word of the Chazzan's Repetition from begining to end, with the intention of thus fulfilling his obligation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are You A Hellenist?

My Op-Ed in this week's issue of The Jewish Press (link):

It is Chanukah time again and Jews who have imbibed even a bit of modern culture need to ask themselves the hard question: Am I a contemporary Hellenist?

After all, the Hellenists spoke Greek, dressed like Greeks, enjoyed Greek sports and partook of Greek culture. Are Jews today who do any of that with American culture “Hellenists” in whole or in part? Is someone who speaks English and/or dresses like an American and/or goes to baseball games and/or enjoys literature ignoring the main theme of the Chanukah holiday?

For that matter, how did the Rambam reconcile his great respect for Greek philosophers and his adoption of many Greek philosophical approaches with the apparent Chanukah message rejecting Greek ideas? Indeed, the Gemara itself (Megillah 9b) seems to praise the Greek language as a beautiful divine gift that we Jews may gladly embrace.

That seems to fly in the face of the conventional understanding of the Chanukah message as a rejection of gentile culture and thought.

To answer these questions we need to first establish the identity of the Greeks against whom the Maccabees rebelled. Rav Yitzchak Herzog (Judaism: Law & Ethics, pp. 175-176) explained that the oppressive regime under discussion did not consist of students of Socrates and Aristotle. While Alexander the Great was himself a student of Aristotle and brought with him this profound Greek culture, over a century had passed by the time of the Maccabees – and the Syrian-Greek culture in the land of Israel had degenerated into a hedonistic, self-absorbed society.

These Syrian-Greeks, the Hellenists, tried to be the spiritual descendants of the Greeks but actually regressed to frivolity and decadence. To many Jews – Hellenist Jews – this base culture superseded their religion. When we replace our religion with foreign values and abandon our covenant with God, we are acting like Hellenists. When, however, we remain firmly entrenched in our Jewish beliefs and observances but expand our horizons with additional, religiously inoffensive culture, we are not acting like Hellenists at all.

Even this, though, is somewhat beside the point. The primary offense of the Hellenists is explained by our continual anachronistic referral to them as Greeks, which they were not. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Days of Deliverance, pp. 180-184) explained that we call them Greeks because, despite their deviations from the Greek heritage, they retained the Greek desire to missionize, the call to “civilize the savages” by forcefully imposing their culture and beliefs on their subject populations. This was the crime of the Hellenists and the impetus for the Chanukah rebellion.

Relevant to this discussion are the words of the “Al Hanissim” we add to our prayers during Chanukah: “In the days of Matisyahu the son of Yochanan the High Priest, the Hasmonean and his sons, when the wicked Greek government rose up against Your people Israel to make them forget Your Torah and violate the decrees of Your will.”

The key words here are “to make them forget Your Torah and violate the decrees of Your will.” The Chanukah story is not about battling acculturated Jews or rejecting philosophy that is consistent with, but not native to, the Torah. It is about clinging to Torah and mitzvos, and rebelling against an oppressive regime that sought to force us to abandon our religion. The Hellenists passed laws forbidding Jews from observing our religion and, for that reason, we fought back and with God’s help defeated them.

This is emphasized by the Rambam in his description of the oppression (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Chanukah 3:1): “In the days of the Second Temple, when the Greeks ruled, they decreed restrictive laws against Israel in order to destroy their religion. They did not allow them to engage in Torah and mitzvos; they laid their hands on their property and on their daughters, and they entered the Temple, made breaches in it, and defiled that which was pure. Israel suffered mightily under them, and [the Greeks] greatly oppressed [Israel], until the God of our fathers took pity on them and saved them from their hands, and delivered them.”

The sin of the Hellenists was their attempt to remove us from our religion by law and by force.

There may be “Hellenists” today who try – through misinformation, intimidation and legislation – to remove Jews from their religious heritage. In my experience, however, the major Jewish movements and certainly the various segments of Orthodoxy do not conform to this description.

Chanukah is the source of many lessons about God, Torah and the Jewish people. It should be used as an opportunity to increase the love of God and His Torah, not as a weapon to denigrate Jews with different views by labeling them “Hellenists.”

The Maccabees were fighting for the survival of the Jewish people, not the division of it into tiny subgroups.

Read the rest of this entry »

Presidential Message: Hanukkah 2007

link:

I send greetings to all those celebrating Hanukkah, the festival of lights.

Hanukkah commemorates a victory for freedom and the courage and faith that made it possible. More than 2,000 years ago, the land of ancient Israel was conquered, its sacred Temple was desecrated, and the Jewish people were forbidden to practice their faith. A patriot named Judah Maccabee and his followers rose up against their oppressors to take back Jerusalem. When the Maccabees returned to reclaim and purify their Holy Temple, the oil used for dedication should have lasted only one day but burned for eight. Every year since then, Jews have celebrated this victory of light over darkness and given thanks for the presence of a just and loving God.

As Jewish Americans prepare to light the Hanukkah candles, we are reminded of the many blessings in our lives. The candles' glow has the power to lift our souls, put hope in our hearts, and make our Nation a more compassionate and peaceful place. We pray that those who still live in the darkness of tyranny will someday see the light of freedom, and we ask for God's continued guidance and boundless love and His protection of all those in need during this holiday season.

Laura and I wish all people of the Jewish faith a Happy Hanukkah.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Read the rest of this entry »

Internet Challenges

Audios now online: link

Rav Mayer Twersky
How Much is Too Much? Work/Life Balance In Today's Technologically Driven Environment

Rav Hershel Schachter
How Open Is Too Open? Halachic Guidelines For Internet Use

Read the rest of this entry »

Anti-Maccabees

Dr. Jeffrey Gurock on Maccabee sports teams (link):

The most famous figures of the Chanukah story, the mythic Maccabees, have been appropriated as symbols of Jewish sport -- no small irony considering the Maccabees rebelled against the worship of athletic prowess that characterized Hellenistic civilization...

Jeffrey Gurock, a history professor at Yeshiva University and author of a book about Judaism's encounter with sports, says that sports teams should more aptly be called the "anti-Maccabees." The shift in thinking about the Maccabees, Gurock said, is linked to the Zionist thinker Max Nordau, who sought figures in Jewish history as models for what he called "muscular Judaism."

"It was an appropriation of a particular moment in ancient Jewish history that's revived and used in modern times," Gurock sad. "Jews were fighters in the ancient world. And they want to go back to this image of Jews."

Read the rest of this entry »

Where to Light the Chanukah Candles

by Rabbi Ari Enkin

Although not too widely practiced today, the Talmud[1] clearly states that in order to properly fulfill the mitzvah of the Chanuka lighting, the menora must be lit on the outside of one's home. This is due to the requirement that the menorah must be lit in a location where it will best publicize and expose the miracle of Chanukah to as many people as possible.[2] It was only as a dispensation for those who lived in the upper floors of residential complexes that merely lighting at a window was deemed acceptable.

Nevertheless, historically Jews have often lived in countries where there was rampant anti-Semitism which made lighting outdoors extremely dangerous.[3] Indeed, the Talmud itself instructs us that in a time and place of persecution the menorah should be lit discretely in the safety of one's home.[4] It was thus dependant on the safety and security of one's individual community as to whether the menorah was to be lit outdoors, indoors, hidden from view, or as a compromise - in a window facing the main thoroughfare where passersby will be able to see one's menora.

Click here to read moreToday most Jews in western countries enjoy a relatively safe environment where religious freedom is assured. It is thanks to such an environment that we find menoras prominently displayed in residential windows as well as the public square of such countries, thereby fulfilling the mitzvah of publicizing Chanuka in its most meticulous manner.[5]

In our day in age, when most Jews live in societies where lighting outdoors would not pose any security threat or the like, why is it that the custom has still not reverted back to the way it was originally intended? It seems that there is no excuse for not lighting outdoors anymore. Nevertheless, there are a number of justifications cited in order to validate the continued practice of lighting the menorah indoors as we will see.

There exists a concept within Talmudic law[6] that once an amendment is made in the performance of a mitzva due to extenuating circumstances, the changes are to continue even when the original motive for doing so is no longer relevant.[7] For example, the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashana was originally intended to take place during the earlier shacharit service as opposed to the later Mussaf service as is the case today.[8] At one time however, much of the Jewish world lived under an oppressive non-Jewish government that used the early morning blowing of the shofar as a pretext to murder Jews claiming that it was actually a call to war. In response, the shofar blowing was deferred to the Mussaf service where it would be obvious that the shofar was merely a component of the elaborate religious services of the holiday.

There is also the constant worry for one's menora lest it be stolen[9] or vandalized.[10] This is especially true for those who have menoras that are made of gold or silver and are quite costly.

An additional legitimization for moving the lighting indoors both in our day as well as in yesteryear is the reality of the cold winter weather that is a feature of the Chanuka season.[11] Between the winds, rains, and the snow, lighting outdoors could be quite tricky. Some even suggest that the discomfort of standing outside in the cold to light the menorah is enough to warrant the move indoors.[12]

Therefore, in addition to the later ratification of lighting the menora indoors which was originally due to government persecution, we have seen some additional considerations which seem to have led to the justification of this practice in our day as well. It is also appropriate to point out that there exists a legitimate basis for the custom that when lighting the menora indoors, one is to light it at the entrance to one's home opposite the mezuzah.[13] According to this view, there is no requirement whatsoever that the indoor lighting be visible to passersby outside.

A Chassidic[14] interpretation to the still prevalent practice of lighting the menorah indoors teaches that the lights of the Chanuka are representative of the 'light' of Torah. In ancient times lighting outdoors was more appropriate when the influence of Torah was clearly felt in the world. In our generation however, where the influence and prestige of Torah has unfortunately decreased, the indoor lighting represents our hope that at least the lives of the members of our household will be inspired to follow the light of the Torah.

In conclusion, it is strongly recommended that those who live in single family homes and would be able to fulfill the mitzvah in the manner it was originally intended by lighting outdoors should definitely consider doing so.[15] Those who continue to light their menora indoors due to the considerations raised above are certainly entitled to do so as well.[16]

---

[1] Shabbat 21b
[2] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 139:7, Mishna Berura 671:20, Kaf Hachaim 671:37
[3] Rivash 111 cited in Meorot Natan 14
[4] Shabbat 21b, O.C. 671:5
[5] Igrot Moshe 4:125
[6] Tosfot Rosh Hashana 32b
[7] Minchat Yitzchak 6:66, Piskei Teshuvot 671:3n. But see Tosfot Beitza 30a
[8] Rosh Hashana 32b
[9] Darkei Moshe 671:9, cited in Piskei Teshuvot 671:3, Bach O.C. 671, see also Gittin 16b
[10] Kol Bo 44
[11] Aruch Hashulchan 671:24
[12] Ritva Hachadasha cited in Minchat Asher 1:58
[13] O.C. 671:7; Rama, Aruch Hashulchan 671:27
[14] Bnei Yissaschar cited in Piskei Teshuvot 671:3
[15] Az Nidberu 10:26, Or Zarua 323
[16] Aruch Hashulchan 671:24, Minhag Yisrael Torah 671:2

Read the rest of this entry »

Yashar Chapters 1:4 - Flipping Out In Israel

Dear Friend,

Welcome to the fourth issue of Yashar Chapters, a newsletter from Yashar Books in which we send you complete chapters from a recent book of interest. This issue's book is Flipping Out? Myth or Fact: The Impact of the “Year in Israel”, by Shalom Z. Berger, Daniel Jacobson and Chaim I. Waxman. The book presents studies and analyses of the impacts of studying in yeshiva in Israel for a post-high school year—the impact on the student and the community in general. Each of the co-authors is an expert in his own field—Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D., is well known for his work at Bar Ilan's Lookstein Center for Jewish Education; Rabbi Daniel Jacobson, Psy.D., wrote the popular guide of yeshivot in Israel for the Orthodox Caucus and currently guides students in Israel along with running a private psychology practice; and Dr. Chaim I. Waxman is one of the leading sociologists of the Jewish community. The book also includes an introduction by Richard M. Joel, President of Yeshiva University and former President of the Hillel college campus organization.

The chapter enclosed is the final chapter in Shalom Z. Berger's section “Engaging the Ultimate: The Impact of Post-High School Study in Israel”. This chapter summarizes Rabbi Berger's findings and offers his conclusions and final thoughts on the subject.

More information about the book can be found at the Yashar website. It can be purchased at your local Judaica store, on Yashar's website and on Amazon.com.

The goal of this newsletter is to spread Torah and to introduce you to books that you might find interesting, without the risk of you having to pay first. In that end, please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested or to quote it entirely or in part in your blog, newspaper or magazine. Just please be sure to note the author's name and the book's title: Shalom Z. Berger, Daniel Jacobson and Chaim I. Waxman, Flipping Out? Myth or Fact: The Impact of the “Year in Israel” (ISBN 978-1-933143-23-1, 235 pages, hardcover, $24.95).

Thank you,

Gil Student
www.YasharBooks.com

Click here to read the chapter: http://www.YasharBooks.com/Chapters0104.htm


[Note: I was asked about the wisdom of providing the conclusions to a section. The chapter obviously does not include all of the detail and insights in the preceding chapters. It is also the conclusion to only one of three sections. The thinking is that if people like what they read then they will want to see all that led to these conclusions as well as the other two sections of the book.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Miketz & Chanukah 5768

by Steve Brizel

What Yosef Learned in Jail

The Meshech Chochmah (as preprared by R. Eliezer Kwass) explains the special nature of Yosef's prison sentence and how what he learned there aided him greatly when became the Viceroy of Egypt: link

R. Yaakov Horowitz illustrates for us what Yosef learned about God's plans from the delay in his release from prison: link

R. Efraim Buchwald investigates what prompted Pharoah to appoint Yosef as Viceroy: link

The Reunion Between Yosef and his Brothers

R. Yaakov Medan analyzes why Yosef did not notify his father immediately: link

Dr. Yechiel Domb offers a new approach to the question of why Yosef did not ask immediately about his father: link

R. Jonathan Sacks points out that even if we fail to win approval from those who seek it, God will always be with us: link

R. Zev Leff explains why the full reconciliation between Yosef and all of his brethren must await another Parsha: link

R. Berel Wein elucidates why crying is such an expression of one's emotions: link

R. Yissachar Frand reminds us that we should not remind someone of a favor that we did for him: link

Shabbos Chanukah

R. Aharon Lichtenstsein discusses the obligation of women to light Chanukah candles: link

R. Dr. David Berger shows us why human initiative and Divine Providence are the keys to understanding the setting of Chanukah: link

R. Zvi Sobolofsy tells us that we should think of two victories on Chanukah: link

R. Michael Rosensweig examines why Chanukah is a time to think about maximal and ideal standards in the performance of mitzvos: link

R. Gedaliah Hochberg (formerly of Yehivas Ohr Yeruhshalayim and now a Rosh Chaburah in Mir Yerushalayim) delves into the issue of brachos and hiddur mitzvah: link

R. Shaya Greenwald discusses the basis for the conflicting minhagim as to how the menorah is placed in a shul: link

R. Yitzchak Etzshalom investigates the text of Haneros Hallalu as understood by the Rishonim: link

R. Asher Brander tells us why the Halacha is like Beis Hillel: link

R. Avigdor Nevenzahl shows us why Hakaras Hatov is is an essential element of Chanukah: link

R. Berel Wein reminds us of the true nature of the celebration of Chanukah: link

R. Shlomo Riskin shows how Yosef and Chanukah provide a similar message of redemption: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Transliteration Confusion

See the damage that varying methods of transliteration can cause:



UPDATED:

Let me break it down:

1. Academic (as per Encyclopedia Judaica) and Sephardic Hebrew have it start with an "H" because they pronounce "ח" somewhere in between a guttural "ch" and "h"
2. Ashkenazic and Modern Hebrew have it start with a "Ch" because they pronounce the "ח" the same way as the "כ"
3. There should only be one "n" because there is no dagesh in the "נ"
4. There can be two "k"s because there is a dagesh in the "כ", but some would only use one one "k" because the dagesh is already indicated in the change from "kh"/"ch" to "k" so there is no need to double the letter
5. The word should end with an "h" because it has a "ה" at the end

In other words: Hanukah, Hanukkah, Chanukah or Chanukkah. Take your pick.

(hat tip)

Read the rest of this entry »

The More Things Change...

From R. Zvi Dov Kanatopsky's sermon on Shavuos, June 10, 1951, in Rejoice In Your Festivals (link) pp. 108-109:

There is a new trend in the Reform movement to bring back ritual and ceremonials that have long been discarded. There is a definite tendency within the Reform movement to call upon our sacred rituals to save the day.

On the other hand, segments of the Orthodox community that are no less disturbed about the situation find their spiritual leadership clamoring for as many dispensations that the Law can possibly suffer without losing its very essence. It is a strange situation, indeed--what with the Reform clamoring for the renewal of ritual and some Orthodox pleading for dispensation of the legal bonds that have been hallowed by tradition.

I think I can be honest enough to admit that elu ve-elu, both groups, are missing the point. The Reform temples will not be suddenly overflowing with worshippers simply because the tallit is reinstituted into the service. And I do not think that certain Orthodox synagogues will suddenly find that they must seek larger quarters simply because a microphone has been introduced into the synagogue architecture. Neither will the Conservative movement find that their youth are flocking to the synagogues to learn Torah because they may use an automobile on Shabbat...

The problem at the outset is not one of more ritual, as the Reformers seem to imply, or of loosening the bonds of the Law, as some Orthodox leaders appear to assume. The problem is that some of our Jews are not adequately educated to the fact that we are to be a people apart, a holy people, a sacred people. The problem is first to bring from Sinai not a Decalogue but rather another way of thinking. The problem at first is not how much ritual we need to follow. The problem is not how many קולות--how many leniencies and loopholes--we can find. But rather the priority has to be the establishment of the authority of Torah over the household of Israel.

Read the rest of this entry »