The Gift of Boredom

Rabbi Besser’s post, “Over-stimulation is the enemy of imagination – we should give our children the gift of boredom”, and the article it was linked to were interesting food for thought. I certainly see the difference between the way my kids spend their free time and the way I spent mine with my siblings when I was a child. Although we had many toys, we spent more time playing imaginative games, both indoors and out of doors. My kids spend much more time watching TV and playing on the computer or video games. Their hand-eye coordination is probably better than mine was, but they don’t use their imaginations as much, and I am sorry about it.

As for the last part, “…we should give our children the gift of boredom”, well, I’ll let you know how that goes – it so happens that I just unplugged the two TV’s in our house three days ago. It was for a variety of reasons, and something that I have thought about for years, and finally decided to do. Will they think of it as a gift? Only time will tell, but my 10 year old announced at supper tonight that she likes this new policy, because she now spends more time talking to us.

One More on Dreams

I had never realized that at the end of the story, even Yosef's dream, that his father and brothers would bow down to him; the one that he went through such extraordinary measures to bring about, is never fulfilled.  At the beginning of this week's Parsha, Yaakov alone bows down to Yosef, but it is many years later and you wonder if that "counts".

Do Not Place a Pedestrian before a Driver on Shabbat

As my family and I were walking in Israel a question came up concerning driving on shabbas. Is driving one melacha that a driver would be violating or every time the driver presses on the gas or break is its own separate melacha that is being violated?If it is more than one melacha-meaning each time the driver has to stop and start again they are doing a violaton- then in a place like Israel where many of the people who may be driving on shabbas are Jewish (maybe not observant), is it a problem for observant Jews to be crossing the street against the light if it causes them to have to stop or slow down for us, causing them to violate the melacha another time?-Rebecca Schenker

It's important first to articulate the assumption behind your question - that it is wrong to cause another Jew to sin. This is in fact true, and it is based on Chazal's interpretation of "lifnei iver lo titen michshol [do not place a stumbling block before the blind]" (Vayikra 19:14), which is understood to forbid (among other things) causing someone else to commit a sin (the classic example is: giving wine to a nazir). So if starting and stopping a car is indeed melacha, it would be prohibited to cause another Jew to engage in it.

According to Rabbi Dovid Ribiat in his sefer The 39 Melochos (pages 1216-1218), one violates the melacha of mavier (lighting a fire) thousands of times a minute when one drives, because one cylinder of the engine turns approximately 1000 times per minute when the car is idling (=motor running but the car not moving), and each turn is caused by a separate spark. Engines can have 4, 6 or 8 cylinders. When the car drives at a higher speed the engine turns faster, thus increasing the number of sparks released. (Rabbi Ribiat has a fascinating - to this automotive ignoramus, anyway - diagram explaining how a car engine works.) So causing someone to slow down and speed up changes the number of sparks released and would indeed be causing melacha to be done.

And as I'm thinking about your question, it may not be a problem only in Israel. The New York area in general is populated with many Jews, most of whom are not observant, and perhaps even when we cross streets in our own neighborhoods, we should try to avoid forcing cars to stop for us.

An Interesting Article

This was linked on a Jewish Education board this morning -

Over-stimulation is the enemy of imagination – we should give our children the gift of boredom 

 What do you think?

Adoption and פרו ורבו

Tamar Novetsky writes:

If you have children and immediately give them up for adoption, have you done the mitzvah of puru urevu? 

A couple of points about פרו ורבו before I try to answer that question.  First, remember (as you learned last year) that it is a מצוה from which women are exempt, so we're only talking about the father.  The topic that is more often discussed is whether you fulfill the mitzvah with adoption.  There are opinions that you do, based on the maamar chazal that "hamegadel adam betoch beyso kieylo yilado" that someone who raises another child in his home is considered as if he fathered him.  I assume that this is not to the exclusion of the biological father, but in addition to him.  I think that once you have children (a boy and a girl in accordance with the opinion of Beis Hillel), you are yotzei whether or not you actually raise them.

Shabbos on the Boardwalk

A question from Mrs. Sinensky's 10th grade Gemara class:

Is it OK to play monopoly on Shabbos (b/c you are playing with "money," you're sort of doing business)?

The Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (as quoted in the שמירת שבת כהלכתה) allows it.  Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg does agrees that it is technically permitted, but adds that "playing a business-oriented game on Shabbat is not conducive to a proper attitude about Shabbat."

Have you been ever been stuck driving close to Shabbos? Read Further!!

Here is a straightforward overview written by Rabbi Donneal Epstein, author of "Halachos for the Traveler" which details what you should do! The summary originally appeared in the OU's Jewish Action, and can be here.

Dreams

With all of our attention on Chanuka, it's important to give some thought to פרשת מקץ as well.  To skip ahead to next week for a moment, Chazal say that the famine ended after only 2 years because Yaakov came to Mitzrayim.  I always thought that this meant that in the merit of his entry to the country, the רעב was somehow inappropriate, and therefore it stopped.  This might be true, but it seems a bit odd considering that according to the simple reading of the pesukim, he was hit by the hunger in כנען.  Maybe the reason that the hunger stopped was because Yaakov came to מצרים; meaning, the only reason that there was a famine to begin with was in order to get Yaakov and his other sons down to Mitzrayim.  This could have taken 2 years, 4 years or 7 years, but once they were there, there was no purpose in Hashem withholding food from the people. 

We see that the dreams in this story don't actually happen as foreseen - after all, Yosef predicted 7 years of hunger, 5 of which never materialized (if we were evaluating him as a נביא, would he pass?).  Similarly, the most dramatic part of פרעה's dreams was the skinny cows eating the fat cows.  Yosef interpreted this to mean that the famine would be so bad that the years of plenty would be forgotten.  In reality, due to Yosef's
plan, the opposite occurred.  The years of plenty were well remembered during the hunger years, because the people had the food left over.  The dream doesn't accurately predict the future, only the default future - what will happen if you don't alter reality, because clearly it is subject to change based on people's actions.

If so, maybe we can better understand a famous but puzzling Ramban.  He says that the reason that Yosef didn't tell his father or brothers who he was, and why he acted the way that he did is because he was trying to ensure that the dreams came to fruition.  Why?  Did he have a מצות עשה to do Hashem's bidding?  Perhaps he did he because he wanted the dreams to come true.  He knew that the fact that he dreamt them did not guarantee that the scenario will play out, but it was a result that he wanted, so he worked to make sure that it happened just as he had seen it.

(Disclaimer: Ramban uses this theory to defend Yosef for putting his father through this ordeal, so I'm not sure that this approach would work within his opinion.)

more on boy-girl friendships

Two thoughts I wanted to add to the boy-girl discussion from 2 weeks ago:

a) The questioners wrote that one of the benefits of guy friends is that they add less drama. Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I know that when I was around your age, boys were the CAUSE of all the drama. Without boys around, there wouldn’t have been much drama between the girls.

Which is why I would say that having nothing to do with Judaism or halacha, it’s important to be honest about the fact that there are emotional pitfalls to friendships with guys in high school. No matter how much one thinks that a certain friendship is purely platonic, it happens extremely often that either the girl or the guy end up developing feelings for the other that are not always reciprocated, and this usually leads to much emotional pain, confusion, and heartache. Or two girls who have been best friends since birth develop a crush on the same guy friend, and then what happens to the girls’ friendship? I just think it’s important to think about whether the upsides of the guys being part of your life exceed the downsides from a purely emotional point of view, before even getting into any potential halachic issues.

b) On a different note, I thought you might be interested to realize that the issue of the appropriateness of male-female friendships is something that is not just a high-school issue; it is a question that we, your teachers, grapple with in our own lives as well. In fact, just a few days before the question was posted on the blog, I was at my parents’ house for Thanksgiving dinner together with some extended family and close friends, and a heated debate enlivened the meal about exactly this topic, just of course related to a life stage a few (or many) years ahead of where you are now. The specific question we were all debating was the appropriateness of married couples (even with their kids) going on vacation together since the families will then obviously be spending a lot of time together and it can potentially create a certain level of closeness between the various husbands and wives. My point is this: Friendships between members of the opposite sex, even married members of the opposite sex, are never 100% platonic. God created us in such a way that we are always aware of the other person being the opposite gender, with whatever that entails. That is just the given reality. The question is how we are supposed to navigate this reality. Does it mean that one should never interact at all with members of the opposite gender? Much of the charedi world advocates exactly this type of complete separation of the genders, and I completely understand where this approach is coming from; our Orthodox community is unfortunately not immune to extra-marital affairs or teenagers engaging in pre-marital sex or (less egregious but way more common and still assur) not observing the laws of shomer negiah. However, I personally do not live my life by the complete separation approach (at least I don’t now, though I pretty much did in high school due to how much I disliked all the drama the boys caused at the end of elementary school, as I mentioned above), and that’s generally not the approach of modern Orthodoxy. But what then is the approach? Obviously, it is an absolute given that all of the halachot set up to prevent problematic relationships must be adhered to, such as negiah, yichud, etc. If not, then by definition, the relationship is a halachically problematic one. But once all of the halachot are being kept, then what? Honestly, it’s not entirely clear. I think it’s important to keep in mind the two opposing sides: on the one hand, the value inherent in the other 50% of the human population from whom we can hopefully learn and enrich our lives (and them from us), but on the other hand, the serious danger, both emotional and halachic, inherent in such friendships. Thus, my ultimate advice, both to myself and to others, is to proceed with caution; know yourself and what boundaries you need to make sure that you are living a halachic, Torah-true, emotionally healthy life.

A New Kind of Menorah?

Here's a link to an article about a couple of YU students who invented a new Eco-friendly Menorah. A pretty cool invention, plus a great example of Torah U'Maddah in action. Chag Sameach!

The Brush Off

Tziporah Herzfeld asks:

Is it assur to use a lint roller on Shabbos? On the one hand, you're supposed to look put together and presentable for shul, but on the other hand, would it be considered borer because you're taking something unwanted from something wanted?

Good, important, practical question.  While I reiterate the disclaimer that this blog is not meant (and should not be used) to establish psak,  I think the problem would be melaben.  The prohibition against cleaning would apply to any dirt or dust embedded in a garment, unless it is totally on the surface - exactly what the lint brush targets.  While you should double check your Rabbi, I wouldn't use it until you get an answer from him.

As for your other point, I think it is important to remember that while there are many ideals that are important on Shabbos (enjoying yourself, relaxing, looking nice, being comfortable etc.), with very limited exceptions, these will not permit something that is otherwise prohibited.  Always check with a posek, or at least a user-friendly sefer like Rabbi Ribiat's 39 melachos before making a calculus such as this by yourself.

A Look Back, A Look Ahead

No rest for the weary.  As we all bask in the glow of another incredible Mishmover - the biggest one ever!- we have but a few "waking" hours until Shabbos and Chanuka begin.  Yasher koach to Mrs. Kahan for her amazing shiur which had everyone captivated; Ms. Gordon for her awesome Batman session which had everybody talking long after it was done - and for sleeping over - thanks to Ms. Beiler too; the seniors for their chaburas which displayed the diverse talents of our student leaders, and provided a wonderful example for the rest of the school to learn from; Ms. F for her famous midnight shiur which I heard was huge hit as always (I had to go home at some point); the faculty who came & pitched in with sessions and "hang out" time (Ms. Wolf, Mrs. Cohen, Mrs. Feldman, Mrs. Knoll, Rabbi Prince & our annual midnight guest - Dr. Yaish); Mrs. Nadler for setting up the movie; the Torah Committee (Racheli, Daniella, Michelle, Allison, & Tamar) for making the whole thing happen; the Chessed Committee led by Mrs. Kraft for the awesome chessed project; and of course to the 100+ students whose inspiring commitment to Torah and fun brought about an unforgetable evening of learning and good times.

Going forward, after the ימים נוראים I raved here about YU's "To Go" publications.  The Chanuka To Go is available here on-line.  For those of you who have less time (or paper), this edition is once again highlighted by an article by our own Mrs. Knoll, that I can't wait to read.  She also delivered the most recent shiur at Midreshet Yom Rishon, which is available as well.  For those of you who want to brush up on the halachot of Chanuka, here is a good one.  And don't forget about Parshas Vayeshev.  Have a great shabbos and a wonderful Chanuka.

A Jewish Perspective on the Human Body

If your body is just a kli that holds your neshama, then when the neshama leaves, why is it so crucial to give so much respect for the kli that is now just ordinary because it is empty from spirit?
-Daniella Ginsberg

Guest Response from Rabbi Norman Lamm:

The halakhic view is that whatever comes in contact with kedusha and then ceases its contact, loses its original degree of holiness but does retain some element of holiness because of this original association.


Example: “sefer torah she-balah” (a sefer torah that became worn and unusable) must be treated with respect even though it is no longer at the peak of kedusha. Similarly a shul or tefillin, etc. Therefore the same mechanism applies to human beings: when alive, a person attains a certain degree of kedushah thanks to the neshama that is intimately tied up with his body. The body, after death, retains halakhic “protection” which demands that we not offend it, even though the neshama has left it.

On the Other Hand...

This entire conversation about copying music has carried the disclaimer that most of the halachik literature on the subject was written about older technology, but if the current means of distributing (and copying) music in any meaningful way, it is not reflected in the discussion.  Mrs. Rosenbaum contributes the following:

I have been reading the posts regarding copying files from iTunes and I have a few comments.


I am not versed enough to comment on the halachic issues regarding transferring music to several iPods, but I do know a few things about iTunes.

When iTunes was created, problems such as ripping off a song were issues that needed to be addressed by their own legal teams. Based on recommendations from their suppliers (the people who own the music), certain technological restrictions were placed on the music. Music bought from iTunes has a special encryption which prevents the downloaded music from being stored on more than 5 computers. They did not place restriction on the number of iPods that can download the song from any of those computers or how many times it can be burned onto a CD. The reason for this, I assume, is that the people who own the music decided that it would be fruitless to try to completely control thier music since people have been copying music illegally since records and tape recorders (if you know what those are). They decided to control the music in a limited sense, but allow users who bought the music to share it with others. They make their money with the inital purchase and the appeal of using iTunes encourages more people to buy music, even if some of the music they get for free from friends or family who purchased the music. Lately many of these restrictions have been removed. It seems that the music companies are not looking to completely control their music. For those that still control their music with sharing restrictions, it would be illegal to use programs to remove the encryption. In either case it would be illegal to make a profit from your purchase by reselling the file or a CD of the music.
Whether the intentions of the music companies helps us figure out the halachos regarding file sharing on iPods is up for debate.
I do agree that removing encryptions or burning CDs that explicitly say not to is halachicly and legally prohibited. But CDs and music without these restrictions and encryptions might not fall under that same halachic and legal status since the companies are giving you the option to share (but not sell for profit!)

More on Copying Music

Penina Cohen writes:

I have a couple of things to add to what Ms. F and Rabbi Besser said about downloading a song off of someone else's iTunes. As a Jewish music fanatic, I have seen a fair amount of CD's in my day. On most Jewish CDs it writes clearly on the front of the CD, "All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or broadcast is against Halacha and applicable laws." This means that any time someone makes a copy of any part of this Cd without the permission of the production agnecy, they are breaking Halacha. It is like the domino affect: imagine if only one person bought a certain CD, and put it on their iTunes. Her friends then come over and put the CD on their iPods. If one of these friends has software that can transfer songs from her iPod to her iTunes, then her other firends can come to her house and download the CD. Hundreds of people can end up having this CD on their iPods, and the group only got paid for one copy of the CD. Is that really fair to them? And this is without the argument that it is against American law to duplicate a product without permission from the artist. This extends to books, inventions, and music If a group owns a copyright for their product, and someone subsequently copied that product without permission from the original group, they are stealing according to American law. In Judaism, we have the concept of dina d'malchuta dina. This means that the law of the land in which the Jews are living is the law. Even if you figure out a way to say that halachikly you are not stealing, which is hard to do, we still must obey American law as well.

As you can probably tell, I am very passionate about this subject. To me, it is the same thing as a farmer who grows apples for a living. His only way to make any money after his finding a field, planting the tress, watering them, growing them, harvesting the apples and preparing them is by selling his apples, and his assumption that people will buy them. If someone decided that they do not need to pay for the apples, and to take them without payment, everyone would agree that he is stealing. Downloading music is no different. You are taking these musiciands "apples" and they are making no money from it. I think that even with Halacha and American law aside, it is a logical, moral argument that downloading music is taking something that you have to pay for without paying, thereby stealing from these musicians.

Yasher koach for your spirited and thoughtful post, and perhaps even more impressively, for using apples as your example for our conversation about iTunes - well done. 
I think that the objections that you articulated are among the very reasons why most poskim (led by Rav Moshe) agree with you - see the articles by Rabbi Belsky and Rabbi Jachter cited previously.  However, the latter article does bring some authorities who are lenient.  If it is not assur (though again, it probably is), then there is nothing hat the record companies can write on the label that will change that.

Shabbat & High Heels

Daniella Ginsberg writes:
Is it muktza to walk on the grass on shabbos in high heels if it makes holes in the ground? And if so, what malacha is it?
Thanks,
Daniella

The melacha that wearing high heels on grass, dirt, or sand might violate is choresh-plowing. Rabbi Ribiat, in his encyclopedic work, The 39 Melachot (which is an excellent resource for Hilchot Shabbat questions!) writes that there is firm basis to allow wearing high heels even when making holes and kicking up dirt or sand is inevitable. He does quote some in the footnotes who say that it might be preferable to walk slowly if you are wearing heels in this situation, as then penetrating the soil and kicking up soil might not be inevitable.

More on Copying Music

Yasher koach Ms. F, for tackling the question that many people don't want to talk about.  Rav Moshe's opinion (as explained here) is pretty absolute, as Ms. F said. It should be noted that he, of course, was addressing dubbing tapes rather than illegal downloads, and I don't know if there is any reason to distinguish between the two.  I think this is pretty mainstream, but I thought I remembered other opinions.  In a pretty comprehensive article, Rabbi Jachter brings down some opinions that if you would not have bought it anyway.  I can't find a record of it, but I think I remember Rabbi J. David Bleich that it was permitted because the seller has no halachik means to prohibit it.  Once the consumer buys the product, it is his in total, and the seller can't retain any rights.  Jewish record companies have argued that they sell the music on condition that it is not copied, but the absurd conclusion of that would be that if copied, the sale is nullified, and the consumer can return it for the purchase price.  See the Rabbi Jachter article for his analysis of the dina d'malchusa dina issue.

A quick reminder, that the fact that we can identify authorities that permit copying music in limited circumstances, does not give us the license to follow those opinions just because they exist and we like their rules.  As always, everyone should seek the ruling of her Rabbi before doind something that is halachically controversial.

Pure Chesed

Over Thanksgiving break, my husband (a rabbi, but not of a shul) was asked to perform a funeral that Friday for the 104-year-old mother of a woman in my hometown. Normally my hometown rabbi would have done the funeral, but since he was going away for Thanksgiving, and since the service and burial were to be in New Jersey, my hometown rabbi asked my husband to fill in. Some background: In order to show kavod ha-met, it is proper to have a minyan at the cemetary so the family can say kaddish, and also to have Jews do the actual physical labor of burying the dead. The woman who passed away didn't have so many relatives, and many of the male relatives were kohanim. Not so many people would be at this funeral, and those who would were either quite elderly themselves, or kohanim who could not come into the cemetary. In short, my husband needed some able-bodied men to help him, both with the minyan and with digging. Thursday, he posted a request on "Teaneck shuls," the message board for Orthodox north Bergenites. I was sure no one would respond. Who would want to give up a Friday vacation day (a gift given to spend sleeping, with family, shopping or even learning) to come to stand in a cemetary in the rain, hear speeches about a woman they didn't know, and dig dirt? But my husband was confident - and he was right! Eight people - strangers to him - emailed to offer to help! He needed 4 people in the end, and he got them. These people did not know the woman who passed away, anyone in her family, or even my husband. They weren't doing it as a favor to any person at all - just pure chesed. I couldn't believe it, but my husband said "That's what Yidden do."

Entering a Church

Rikki Novetsky asks: At the Ma'ayanot community service fair, I signed up to be a part of the Bergen County Youth Council for the Homeless -- basically a youth group that comes together around once a month to create fundraisers and food/clothing drives for the homeless people of Bergen County (apparently there's a lot of them, although coming from my Jewish bubble, I never knew). I found this group to be quite intriguing, since I've always found appeal in helping out the people closest to home. The only problem is, the first meeting is at the Central Unitarian Church in Paramus, New Jersey. Can I go to the meeting? I highly doubt it would take place in the actual chapel area, and the meeting would be to benefit the disadvantaged. I am also aware of, however, the prohibition of entering a church.

Hi Rikki, great question! The issue of entering a church depends on whether Christianity today is considered Avodah Zarah and if a church would be considered a בית עבודה זרה that one would be forbidden to enter. There is a מחלוקת over whether or not Christianity is considered idolatry forbidden for non-Jews (due to their belief in the trinity), or just for Jews. The Rambam (Hilkhot A"K 9:4) says it is, while the Rama (YD 141:1) says it is not, since Christians combine their belief in G-d with another power, something called שיתוף, which while forbidden to Jews, may be permitted to non-Jews. The Meiri has a radically different opinion, stating that when the Gemara uses the term "idolaters", it is referring to "lawless nations". Therefore, Christians today, if they follow a moral and ethical code, would not be part of this category at all.

With regard to entering a Church for non-worship purposes, I can't comment about your specific case (you should probably consult your local posek), but Rav Moshe Feinstein (YD 3:129) forbid entering a church even just to look at paintings or architecture (a question that comes up a lot when people travel to Rome). For more on his position and that of Rav Soloveichik, you can click here.

Your question reminded me of an interesting debate that came up when Rabbi Haskel Lookstein participated at a prayer service at the National Cathedral in honor of President Obama taking office. The Rabbinical Council of America criticized Rabbi Lookstein for entering a church under these circumstances. There is an interesting exchange found here and here, and also here, defending/criticizing Rabbi Lookstein's decision. Rabbi Lookstein's rationale for why he decided to participate is found here.

Copying Music that Someone Else Bought on iTunes

Question:

Dear Why-anot!
If person A bought cds or music from itunes and then person B copies that music to her computer or ipod - is transfering music halachically allowed or not?

From,
The 11th Grade Technology Class

Answer:
According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, you are not allowed to copy music that someone else bought on itunes. When you copy the song, instead of buying it yourself, you are taking money away from itunes which takes away money from the song's creator. Basically, it is stealing.

Student Reaction to Mrs. Sinensky's Post

Not the last one.

I don't think I fully understand Mrs. Sinensky's blog post. If friendships with boys are problematic because of what they may lead to, I can understand that logic (personally, I think halacha itself provides enough boundries from inappropriate activities, and drawing the line at friendship might be putting an unnecessary chumrah on ourselves. Why not say that boys and girls should never talk or see each other because we're scared of what it might lead to?)
But I'm confused about the second reason, that boy-girl friendships are bittul Torah. What's the source of the concept of bittul Torah, and where do we draw the line? If you want to say that non- Torah activities can be outside the realm of bittul Torah as long as they in some way compliment your Jewish life and your identity as an oved-Hashem (I don't know if that's a real answer), than I would think that(assuming they're appropriate), boy-girl friendships have as much potential as single sex friendships to fall into that category of non-bittul Torah things. What are the boundaries of bittul Torah?

-Rachel Friedman

Click HERE for an interesting article

Boy-Girl Friendships in High School

Question:
Some people say that from a girl’s perspective, it is in no way bad and may even be momentous for us to have a few good guy friends. When you need a friend to talk to and you know that a girl will only add more drama, its good to have a guy friend that you know will be chilled and much less likely to evoke drama on the matter. (assuming of course that the friendship remains appropriate and permissible according to halacha). While all that makes sense from our (a girl’s) perspective...we don't really then understand the mishna in Pirkei Avot which says something along the lines of a guy not being allowed to talk to a girl. Touching and other prohibitions between girls and boys are comprehensible, but talking?! Isn't that a little extreme..??
Thanks !
-Shira Westrich and Hanna Erdfarb

Response:
The Mishna in Pirkei Avot that you are referring to is:

משנה מסכת אבות פרק א משנה ה [ה] יוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים אומר יהי ביתך פתוח לרוחה ויהיו עניים בני ביתך ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה באשתו אמרו קל וחומר באשת חברו מכאן אמרו חכמים כל זמן שאדם מרבה שיחה עם האשה גורם רעה לעצמו ובוטל מדברי תורה וסופו יורש גיהנום:

A few comments: It is important to note that Pirkei Avot is not saying that it is prohibited (in the sense of mutar/assur); it is recommending that one not do so. In general, Pirkei Avot is a book of sagely advice, not a book of issur and heter. That being said, of course we should not dismiss lightly the wisdom of Chazal!! The question that we need to address, then, is what Chazal mean exactly by this recommendation. There are different interpretations of this Mishna. In surveying the opinions of Rashi, Rambam, Rabbeinu Yonah, R’Ovadiah M’Bartenura, and Tosfot Yom Tov, there are two general ways to interpret Chazal’s recommendation in this Mishna. The first is that discussions with women may lead to bittul Torah. The second is that discussions with women may cause a man to have halakhically problematic thoughts, which is an issur in its own right, and worse, may lead to halakhically problematic behavior. (Another detail of the Mishna that is debated is whether the “isha” here refers to a single woman or a married woman. According to those who think that it refers to a married woman, there is further debate regarding if the woman is a Niddah or not.)

In addressing the question about how having relationships with guys fits with this Mishna, I think it is important to consider what type of relationship we’re talking about. If it is a relationship which is built upon shared values and ideals and the pursuit of religious growth, then I think there are definitely positives to the relationship. At the same time, the consideration of bittul Torah for the man (since he has a chiyuv) is a consideration, and that needs to be worked into the equation. And even though women do not have a technical chiyuv in Talmud Torah, she also has an obligation as an eved Hashem to fill her time with meaningful and wholesome activities as well. In addition, the possibility of a relationship leading to inappropriate thoughts and actions is always a real one, even for a relationship that is centered upon the best values and ideals. We don’t know ourselves as well as we think we do, and never truly know how we will deal with situations that test our self restraint.

In short—I certainly don’t think that having relationships with guys is necessarily prohibited, yet it is clearly not looked upon by Chazal as recommended. There are definite benefits to friendships between boys and gils in high school, but whether or not to enter into these relationships is a decision that I think should be made with serious consideration of the above factors.

All-Time Monthly Blog Post High

I just wanted to announce that due to our thoughtful student body and dedicated faculty, we have reached our all-time monthly blog post high of 40 posts!! Yasher koach!

The Torah & the Environment

A freshman asks:

These past few weeks I couldn't help but notice the ad's for this new movie called "2012", it's about how the world is going to be destroyed, because of global warming and how we are all doomed. It's based on the ancient Mayan theory, and as the ad says "its confirmed by science." I know that that Mayans worshipped avodah zarah, and that their theories shouldn't be taken so seriously, but when it comes to global warming or climate changing, all I hear is the secular view, I never heard the Jewish one. Is there a Jewish view on Global warming??

For the science question, we went straight to the expert.  Mrs. Rosenbaum responds:

In short: No, there is no written Jewish view on Global Warming.


However, based on a several sources in the Torah, it seems that we are responsible for what happens to our environment.

1. There are several mitzvot that allude to an eco-conscience mindset. For example shmitta and bal tashchit are mitvot that are commonly refered to when discussing our responsibility to take care of our land. However, shmitta is a mitzvah she'teluya ba'aretz- meaning that it is only performed in Israel. In terms of bal tashchit, although the Rabbis have expanded this mitzvah to include any wasteful action (such as breaking a dish or ripping clothing), the mitzvah in the Torah is strictly a prohibition from cutting down fruit trees during war. According to the Rambam and Ramban, you are allowed to destroy something for a purpose. Whether or not it is legitimate to destroying the world in order to fuel our energy needs is debatable, but it is clear that destroying an object for no reason is prohibited.

Note: It is also worthwhile to point out that our Shalosh Regalim are heavily based on the seasonal and agricultural calendars of Israel. Our connection to the land and its yearly changes is unique.
There is also a famous pasuk in Bereishit that required Adam "to work and preserve the land." This passuk (2, 15) is about his mitzvah to preserve Gan Eden and its trees. Whether this mitzvah expands to Israel or Earth in general is also debatable.

Despite the difficulties in using these texts to absolutely prove our responsibility to nature, it seems that the issue of land frequently pops up in the Torah and therefore should be an object of interest to us.
2. There are many pesukim in the Torah (especially in the Neviim) that write about the impact of our spiritual actions on nature's behavior...that the land will go desolate and kick us out if we sin, but will flourish and produce for us if we repent.

3. The sources about Mashiach (the End of Days) are inconclusive regarding what nature will be like when Mashiach has come. According to the Rambam, the world will continue as it is ("olam k'minhago noheg") which might imply that we are responsible to take care of our world now because even when Mashiach comes G-d won't reverse the nature of the land. According to the Ramban, the world will follow a new natural order and nature will return to the way it was before Adam sinned. This is based on a literal reading of the pesukim that talk about lions and sheep living together and so forth, as opposed to the Rambam who reads these pesukim metaphorically to mean Jews and non-Jews living peacibly. The Ramban's approach might imply that even if the world is destroyed by global warming and other man-made problems that G-d will fix these issues in the coming of Mashiach.

The idea of "chishuv ha'ketz" or calculating the time of the Mashiach is prohibited by most scholars, because it is impossible to calculate, it fosters false hope in the people and opens up the possibility of false messiahs. Despite their dire warnings some scholars still venture to use kabbalistic ideas to figure out the time of the Mashiach, many of whom have been proven wrong.

We do believe (based on pesukim and other sources) that we will either deserve the Mashiach to arrive at any moment ("zachu achishena"- if we merit, it will come early) or that we won't deserve Mashiach but will come anyway at a certain point in time ("lo zachu b'ita" - if we do not merit, it will in its time).

At a certain point Mashiach will come regardless of our worthiness and I can only imagine that Mashiach will come before the disasters that science may predict come to fruition.

Aliens?? Guest Response from Rabbi Lamm

Alona Stewart asks: I know this is a bit of a weird question but I'm going to ask in anyway, in the pursuit of knowledge and whatnot. It's about aliens... I mean, the universe is enormous. Hundreds of billions of miles wide, with countless galaxies and stars and planets and other large chunks of space matter. Is it really possible or even probable that we are the only planet out there that supports life? (I'm not talking about green slimy things with big black eyes and four fingered-hands-- it could be single-celled organisms or those weird blobby things in the ocean that were apparently the first complex life forms... anyway.)

So I was just wondering if the Torah mentions anything about our planet being the only one with life or... I don't know, anything. Have any modern poskim had anything to say about this topic?...

Rabbi Lamm refers us to his article on the subject here.

Here is a condensed answer that he e-mailed in:

First, if there is intelligent life elsewhere, it is probably we who appear as ‘aliens’ to them... Second, the Torah was given to human beings, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – not to inhabitants of other worlds or universes. Since the Torah does not directly speak of “aliens,” it is safe for us to accept the findings and even well-based speculations of cosmologist and other scientists whose ideas and theories are not in contradiction to Torah. Moreover, there are views of great Torah authority which, when extrapolated, can very well support the idea of a creation of many worlds. If many worlds, why not populated worlds

One More ויצא Point...

From me, and then we move on. As I was reviewing the Parsha, I was struck by how odd some of the names were for the שבטים. I know just about all of you learn or teach this, or at least have within the last few years, so you must have some ideas. The first four - Reuven, Shimon, Levi & Yehuda, all make perfect sense. Then come the בני בלהה named by Rachel. Dan I guess is OK too, but Naftali seems very strange. "And Rachel said: 'With mighty wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed.' And she called his name Naphtali." There are other translations, but that is the basic gist. By what possible standard can Rachel claim to have "prevailed" over her sister with four sons? Because her maid-servant had a second one?

And Leah's subsequent naming is also bizarre. She names זלפה's children reflecting how lucky she feels, but then names Yissachar for the reward she got for giving זלפה to Yaakov! One answer to this question, that I'm familiar with says that really the reward was for the Dudaim, but it was unseemly to put in his name (see Moav), so she euphemistically attributed it to something else. The two rewards (שכר) are represented by the two "sin"s (שs) in his name, but one of them, the one for the Dudaim, is silent.

Any other ideas?

Dudaim

Michelle Zivari asks:

I noticed something weird while i was reading the Parsha. In the fourth aliyah it talks about the story of the dudaim. When Rachel asks Leah for the dudaim that Reuven found she unkindly answers "Was you taking of my husband insignificant? And to take even my son's dudaim?" How can Leah say that? In the famous midrash it says that Rachel gave Leah the secret signs that she had made with Yaakov so that she would not be embarrassed not only did she not have hakarat hatov she makes it seems like the roles are swapped and that she was rightfully his wife and first choice. Even not according to the Midrash it is clear that Yaakov wanted to marry Rachel and she was the one he worked for.

I agree that the story of the dudaim is a mysterious one, that bothered me for a long time, but that particular point never seemed odd to me. I think all of us can think of things that happen to us that we at first recognize as great gifts for which we are thankful, but then begin to take for granted. I would guess that at first she had great appreciation for what Rachel had done for her, but then, once she alone was Yaakov's wife, grew resentful when Rachel infringed on their relationship, and hurt and jealous when she felt like the second rate wife.

It's possible that she always felt this way. I'm no psychologist (maybe a member of the guidance team can correct me), but I think that sometimes people can almost forget something that is hard for them to live with. Maybe the way for her to come to grips with her family arrangement was to put the episode of how the marriage began out of her mind.

In general, I think that the story is a beautiful illustration of some very important lessons. What we have here are two sisters each of whom was so consumed by what she lacked, she failed to appreciate what she had. Many mefarshim explain that the dudaim were a fertility drug. If so, when Reuven brings them to Leah, Rachel understandably expects her sister to give them to her - Leah already had four sons. Leah responds by saying, it's bad enough that you took my husband, now you also want to take my dudaim? Rachel makes her crucial mistake, and tries to trade the love of her husband for the children she wants so desperately. Leah too, trivializes her child-bearing "ability" by casually exchanging the dudaim for a night with Yaakov.

We later find that each sister was punished in kind for her lack of appreciation. In this coming week's parsha Rashi quotes that the Dina episode was a direct result of Leah's action here (ותצא דינה = ותצא לאה, I assume Chazal mean that Leah's anguish over her daughter's abduction resulted from the story - not Dina's pain, similar to Yosef's 22 years away from Yaakov being a "punishment" for the 22 years that Yaakov was away from his parents). Because she denigrated the value of her children, Hashem reminded her how much they mattered to her. Rachel, Rashi quotes, was punished by not being buried with Yaakov. Because she valued her children over her husband, she spent eternity without him. But, as we know, when Bnei Yisrael needed her most, she was the one who was there to pray for them (רחל מבכה על בניה). So throughout history, both of them got there wish. Rachel was the paradigmatic mother, and Leah the enduring wife of Yaakov.

Ancient Words, Modern Messages

There is a strange portion of this week's parsha. Here's a translation I found in an essay by Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl:

The agreement between Yaakov and Lavan as stated by Yaakov was: "Let me pass through your whole flock today, remove from there every speckled or spotted lamb, every brownish lamb among the sheep and the spotted or speckled among the goats - that will be my wage" (Bereishit 30:32). The Torah then tells us "Yaakov then took himself fresh rods of poplar and hazel and chestnut ... he set up the rods which he had peeled in the runnels - in the water in receptacles to which the flocks came to drink - facing the flocks, so they would become stimulated when they drink. Then the flocks became stimulated by the rods and the flocks gave birth to ringed ones, speckled ones, and spotted ones ... Whenever it was mating time for the early bearing flocks, Yaakov would place the rods in the runnels, in full view of the flock to stimulate them among the rods" (Bereishit 30:37-42).

To summarize, Lavan was trying to pay Yaakov as little as possible, so he said that he would get, all of the spotted sheep born, though there weren't likely to be any spotted sheep. Yaakov foiled the plan by placing a stick carved with the pattern he needed their children to be, in the water where the sheep were drinking. This effectively induced the sheep to bear spotted offspring, though they themselves had no spots.

We sometimes like to think that what we can see or watch whatever we want, and we will enjoy it on a surface or intellectual level, but that it doesn't really effect us. We can learn from an unlikely source that this is not the case.

Hello from Yerushalayim!

I just wanted to share something that happened today that really made me feel uplifted and inspired.

I took a cab this morning to the seminary that I was visiting, and when we were about halfway there I realized that I had left my wallet in the hotel. I was rather embarrassed, and I asked the driver to take me back to the hotel (at my expense) so that I could get my wallet and pay him at the end of the ride. But instead of turning around, he told me that he didn’t want to waste my time or money driving all the way back again. Instead, he would take me to my destination, and when I would be ready to leave I should call him and he’d come and bring me back to the hotel, and at that point I could get my wallet and pay him.

I was taken aback by his suggestion. Granted, he would benefit from getting the second fare, but how does he know he can trust me to actually call him and pay him later? I tried to refuse, but he was adamant. Shortly before we arrived at the seminary I found 40 shekel in a separate pocket, which was 3 shekel more than the fare. It made me very uncomfortable to know that I’d have absolutely no money on me, but of course I told him that I found enough money in my pocket to pay him. Instead of taking the money, he told me that I should keep it in case I needed to buy something, and he’d wait for me to pay him later. He then handed me his card and drove off.

What are the chances of something like that happening in New York? Only in Israel have I ever experienced anything like that. Although the stereotype is always of the brusque Israeli, I don’t think it is accurate. I think that people are more connected to each other here and look out for each other more.

I can’t close my thoughts without telling you about another, similar incident. Last year on my trip here I took a cab to a seminary in Beit Shemesh. On the way there we passed the cemetery Eretz haChaim, and I mentioned to the driver that my grandparents are buried there and I haven’t been to their k’voros in 8 years. He offered to take me into the cemetery on the way back so that I could go and say some Tehillim. Sure enough, on the way back he reminded me of his offer. While I didn’t say so, I was a little concerned about how much extra he was going to charge me for the stop. So I told him thank you, but not this time; I also didn’t recall the exact location of their graves. He looked at me and said, “Don’t pass it up. We’ll go in to the office and ask where they are buried, and it will be on me – I won’t charge you anything for the stop. The important thing is that you have the opportunity to say a couple of perakim of Tehillim at your grandparents’ k’voros.” And at his insistence, I found their gravesite and with much emotion said some Tehillim. What a wonderful gift he gave me!

How lucky klal Yisrael is to have cab drivers like this. מי כעמך ישראל!

More on Wonder of Wonders...

As Rabbi Besser mentioned in his post, I did see another perush that says that the transformation of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt was not a miracle that transcended the laws of nature. (Although according to Ramban, that doesn’t mean that it is any less of a miracle!)

Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor lived in France in the second half of the 12th century. One of his teachers was Rashbam, and his commentary generally follows the peshat tradition. He explains that as Lot and his wife were leaving Sodom she kept looking backwards and lagging behind. As a result, when Hashem destroyed סדום ועמורה she was not quite out of harm’s way from the cloud of destruction, and the sulfur and salt fell on her as well. (Although the pasuk in וירא mentions גפרית ואש, Bekhor Shor says that wherever there is גפרית (sulfur) there is salt as well, and he references the pasuk in דברים כט:כב which mentions גפרית ומלח in connection with the destruction of סדום ועמורה). He mentions further that although the common opinion is that she changed into a pillar of salt, according to the peshat she was just completely covered by salt, and all one saw was a mound of salt there that didn’t especially look like a woman.

More Thanksgiving Torah

Just to quickly add to Mrs. Appel's post, there is also a more general halachik issue about celebrating Thanksgiving (to Whom are we giving thanks). Here is a very good article on the subject by Rabbi Broyde. For those who want the short version, there are different opinions, but both Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Rav agree that it is OK to celebrate, turkey and all.

Happy Thanksgiving & don't forget to infuse your weekend with a little bit of Torah at the 2nd annual Black Friday Shiur - ...אנו משכימים והם משכימים ... אנו רצים, והם רצים.

Thanksgiving Torah

Every year around this time, I am reminded of a centuries-old mahloket surrounding a subject that most of us take for granted: the kashrut status of turkey. Particularly while teaching American colonial history in whose lore this bird features so prominently, I'm tickled by this controversy that is, in some ways, a uniquely "New World" phenomenon. Because turkeys are not indigenous to most places in Europe in which Jews had lived, but on the other hand it is not mentioned specifically parashat Shemini as a bird that is *not* kosher, rabbanim were faced with the North American challenge of establishing the status of this "new" bird. I've encountered two interesting online sources that trace this discussion from Chazal and through Rishonim and Aharonim:
(article) (audio)
Happy reading, Happy Thanksgiving, and have a great Shabbos!
(And don't worry, if your family - like most who keep kosher - eats turkey, you won't have your Thanksgiving world turned upside down!)

Back to the Beginning

Many of you remember, that when this blog began, our first content was a series of suggested reading lists (see bottom half) by many of our faculty members. For the newcomers, or those who could use chazara, I highly advise checking out those earlier posts, there's a lot of great stuff there. I was reminded of them because on my second favorite blog, Rabbi Gil Student (an old shiur-mate of mine) just ran his list of suggested outreach books. While outreach is somewhat different than general religious inspiration, there is plenty of overlap, and many high school students share the same questions that potential baalei teshuva do. And really, all of us can stand to be "reached" every now and then. Some of the books are targeted at an adult audience, and might be difficult, there are some great books here that many of you will enjoy. Please feel free to approach any of your teachers for suggestions. Happy reading.

On Modern Orthodoxy

A student asks:
So, tonight, on my nightly visit to the blog, I was reviewing the articles on tzniut and college and stuff when I came across the term "Modern Orthodoxy." Now I know this term is repeated like a billion times a day but I never actually thought about it and now that I am thinking about it I realize that i have no idea what it means. And I’m trying to figure out which part is "modern" and which part is "Orthodox" and how did they chose what would be modern and what would be Orthodox? and if I’m Modern Orthodox, how do I decide what about me and my Torah observance is modern and what is Orthodox? So as a "Modern Orthodox" Jew, I'm wondering if you could tell me what Modern Orthodox is???

First of all, thank you for sharing this wonderful question. The definition of Modern Orthodoxy is a nuanced issue, and one with which you will engage seriously in different academic contexts over the course of high school. In 10th grade Jewish History and 11th grade Jewish Philosophy, for example, you will approach this question extensively from different angles, exploring sources on the topics as well as hearing from different speakers. I’d like to offer just the beginning of an answer to your question.

Modern Orthodoxy is sometimes stereotyped as simply representing a less rigorous adherence to halakha. Colloquially, people often use the phrase “Modern” to describe someone who is not fully committed to halakha. This is simply a perversion of what truly constitutes Modern Orthodoxy as an ideology. Modern Orthodoxy, in its ideal form, represents a full and passionate dedication to Torah Judaism and halakhic observance, which also incorporates certain specific values.

There are three beliefs that I view as defining Modern Orthodoxy, although others might take different positions on this. The first is a belief in the inherent value of secular knowledge. Modern Orthodoxy values intellectual engagement with general culture, not only for the purpose of earning a livelihood, but also in order to understand the world more fully. We view the study of literature, science, and other bodies of knowledge not simply as a practical necessity or a bedieved, but as an intrinsically worthwhile pursuit that enables us to be more reflective and knowledgeable people.

The second defining feature of Modern Orthodoxy, I believe, is religious Zionism. While all sectors of Orthodoxy believe that Eretz Yisrael has intrinsic kedusha, Modern Orthodox Jews also support the existence of Medinat Yisrael and believe in contributing to the protection and strengthening of the state. For example, Yeshivot Hesder provide a framework for combining yeshiva study with army service.

The third distinguishing value of Modern Orthodoxy is an openness to increased opportunities for women, particularly in the realm of Talmud Torah. For example, all Modern Orthodox schools with which I am familiar provide some opportunity for girls to learn Torah She-be-al Peh, whether as a major or minor component of the curriculum. In addition to increased opportunities for women to learn Torah, Modern Orthodoxy is fully supportive of women’s engagement in academic and professional pursuits.

Thanks for sharing this thoughtful question! I’d be happy to talk about this with you in person if you want to discuss it further.

Yawn

At the beginning of this week's Parsha, we find the famous story about Esav selling the bechora to Yaakov. While we are all familiar with the encounter, what I just noticed is that both when the passuk is describing Esav entering, and when Esav describes himself, the word עיף is used. At the time when he made the fateful decision that by the end of the parsha would have him crying bitterly, Esav was tired. This rings very true to me. Despite all of the things that we are meant to do and accomplish in this world, Hashem created us as beings that need to sleep. When we don't sleep enough, we are compromised in everything we do. I know that personally, when tired, my classes are not as good, I'm not as patient with my children, etc. The irony is that we usually sacrifice on sleep because of all of the important things we need to do, but then end up not doing them as well as we could. Even worse, we then walk around with a built-in excuse as to why we aren't at the top of our game - "it's not my fault, I'm exhausted". Esav had no idea that day that he was going to have such a crucial decision to make, and when it came along, he wasn't equipped to make the best choice he could because he was tired.

Interestingly, while I was in the middle of writing this, a student asked me what to do when you just seem to be in a constant state of fatigue. How can you effectively learn (especially first period Gemara) when it's so hard to focus. I don't have a better answer than "get more sleep," which I realize is a lot easier to say than to do.

An Age-Old Religious Question

Sophie Satloff eloquently asks:
My general question is why G-d does bad things to good people. I know that many people give answers like, "to test you" or "G-d always has His reasons and if you really believe in Hashem then just go with it." It is easy to give those answers but harder to believe them. When I hear about people who went trough the Holocaust and have survived the horrors I can't believe they are still shomrei mitzvot. I understand that the survivors are thankful for having survived, but by being thankful, they are also thanking the person who allowed this to happen.

How are you supposed to convince your friend or family member that even though they are going through an extremely hard and challenging time, that they should continue practicing Judaism? If there really was a G-d why was He doing this to you? You didn't commit murder or do some heinous crime, so why is this happening to you? What should I say to a friend that will actually make sense and that can actually explain why he/she should continue following the laws of Hashem even if it seems He has turned his back?

Mrs. Schapiro writes back:
Your question really has two parts: 1) Why do bad things happen to good people? 2) Why should people practice religion if God allows bad things happen to them? These are huge questions and I can only share with you my tentative thoughts.

1) Your first question is such a good one that the Gemara has a tradition that Moshe Rabbeinu himself was troubled by it. In Berachot 7a, the Gemara describes how when Moshe asked Hashem in Shemot perek 33 "Show me Your glory that I may know You" he was really asking about this issue – why do bad things happen to good people? The Gemara says that Hashem did indeed offer answers, but does not give a definitive one. Religious philosophers, starting with the author of Sefer Iyyov, have struggled with this issue. There is a tradition (Bava Batra 15a) that Moshe Rabbeinu himself wrote Iyyov in an effort to answer this question, and the commentaries on that sefer struggle to define what the answer offered there is. Rav Saadya Gaon (Emunot ve-Deot 5:3), Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (III:17 and further), Rav Soloveitchik (in a book called Out of the Whirlwind) and other Jewish philosophers have written on this as well. There is a book of essays edited by Rabbi Shalom Carmy called Jewish Approaches to the Experience of Suffering that discusses these and other sources in a readable way. Ultimately, the truest answer may be expressed in Hashem's words to Moshe in Shemot 33:16 "You may see My back, but My face cannot be seen": it is beyond human intelligence to understand God's ways completely.

2) I don't think we keep the mitzvot as a quid-pro-quo: only if God satisfies us do we agree to do what He wants. Each mitzvah has its own reason, or maybe even no understandable reason. Ultimately the mitzvot are a gift to us – a privilege and responsibility that we struggle all our lives to uphold. When everything goes well it may be easy (but it also may lead us to forget Hashem) and when times are challenging it may be harder (though we can also be brought closer to Hashem). There will probably be times that we fail. Indeed, a famous and fundamental idea of Rav Soloveitchik ("footnote 4" in Halakhic Man) is that religion is not meant to be soothing, happy and comforting, but an arena for struggle, difficulty and doubt. It's a hard idea to grasp, and certainly hard to live by.

Wonder of Wonders...

To follow up on the miracles discussion, I am really starting to like Jordana's theory. It really explains the pattern of ניסים in the Torah that I had found so puzzling. In ספר בראשית, where Hashem was dealing with a small group of extraordinary tzadikim, miracles were, with very few exceptions, unnecessary. The only one's who needed proof of His presence in the world were the supporting characters (Lot, Paroh, Avimelech etc.). Once you get to ספר שמות, and Hashem is dealing with two audiences who need to "know" him (the Jews and Egyptians), the miracles become more and more apparent, first punitively to Mitzrayim, then mercifully to the Jews in the desert (מן, water from the rock, עמלק etc.). Yasher koach Jordana, (and Ramban).

I had been thinking more simply, that perhaps the transformation of אשת לוט into salt was less miraculous then it seems. At the end of his commentary on the subject, the Ramban quotes an opinion that she turned around and saw Hashem's שכינה (as it were), the natural consequence of which is her physical disintegration. Mrs. Cohen mentioned that there is a ראשון (I think - I don't remember who it was), who said something similar, but different in a significant way. I'll try to find out the details.

More on Slavery

I wanted to expand on the ideas mentioned by Rabbi Besser in his post. Though I also can't claim to know what will happen in Yemot HaMashiach, I would find it very hard to believe that people will have slaves at that point in history. It seems that although the Torah does have laws concerning slavery; these laws are to limit and control slavery, not to advocate it לכתחילה. The Rambam (Hilkhot Avadim 8:9) states that although technically one can work a slave harshly, it is incorrect to do so, and one must treat a slave as a respected employee (one cannot yell at a slave, nor denigrate him, you must feed him before you feed yourself....). The Rambam concludes his comments by saying how as descendants of Avraham, we are commanded to show traits of kindness and רחמים, which do not come hand in hand with owning a slave!

Although laws controlling slavery might have been necessary for the Torah to assign (since it did exist as an institution for thousands of years - and still unfortunately exists in some countries), this doesn't mean that one must put these laws into practice in what will hopefully be an enlightened, modern age of Yemot HaMashiakh. This is similar to the laws of אשת יפת תואר- the institution exists if you need it, but there's no מצוה to initiate the process. Additionally, there seems to be a clear anti-slavery ethic being expressed in the Torah; both with the value of צלם אלוקים, and with the fact that one of the most pivotal events experienced by the Jewish people was that of being freed from the existence of slavery - יציאת מצרים. Especially with the fact that in most "first world" countries, slavery has been abolished, it seems that mankind has progressed to thankfully now view slavery as a terrible injustice.

Finally, I wanted to share an excerpt from a Dvar Torah that the Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes on this subject (found here), stating that perhaps the Torah's objective was to lead us to choose to abandon slavery of our own accord, due to viewing it as morally wrong, and not abandoning it simply because the Torah forbade it. Interesting stuff.

"...Yet the Torah does not abolish slavery. That is the paradox at the heart of Behar. To be sure it was limited and humanized. Every seventh day, slaves were granted rest and a taste of freedom. In the seventh year Israelite slaves were set free... During their years of service they were to be treated like employees. They were not to be subjected to back-breaking or spirit-crushing labour. Everything dehumanizing about slavery was forbidden. Yet slavery itself was not banned. Why not? If it was wrong, it should have been annulled. Why did the Torah allow a fundamentally flawed institution to continue?....."

"...G-d wanted mankind to abolish slavery but by their own choice, and that takes time. Ancient economies were dependent on slavery... Slavery as such was not abolished in Britain and America until the nineteenth century, and in America not without a civil war. The challenge to which Torah legislation was an answer is: how can one create a social structure in which, of their own accord, people will eventually come to see slavery as wrong and freely choose to abandon it? ....The Torah did not abolish slavery but it set in motion a process that would lead people to come of their own accord to the conclusion that it was wrong. How it did so is one of the wonders of history."

Slavery & Mashiach

Tziporah Leiser asks:

If the torah speaks about laws for freeing slaves, does that mean that when mashiach comes we will have slaves again?

Great question. The short answer is I don't think so, but I can't claim to know for sure. When it comes to the yemot hamashiach, all we really have to work with are the predictions, mostly from the Rishonim. I don't claim to be a Jewish philosophy expert, so perhaps someone else will supplement this post. I would like to start the conversation by referring you to two responses that were posted last year here and here that are relevant to your question.

Response to Miracles in פרשת וירא

An interesting theory from Jordana Wietschner:

Maybe the reason Hashem answered Lot's prayers and not Avraham's was because Hashem was afraid that if He didn't answer Lot, Lot would stop believing in Him. This was certainly not the case with Avraham because Hashem knew Avraham would continue to believe in Him no matter what and would recognize that although Hashem did not comply with this one request, He was still there.

Perhaps Hashem wanted to keep Lot's support

1- so Avraham would have a family and mortal support system, or

2- I would like to think that anyone who believes in Hashem, especially at that time, and was around Avraham, also believes in certain values like chessed.

Even if Lot wasn't a vital player in the continuity of Bnei Yisrael or spreading monotheism, he might still be able to influence those around him with the positive values he picked up from Avraham. He definitely wasn't as good as Avraham at practicing these values, but he was probably better than a lot of the people who lived at this time. Even though Lot couldn't get people to believe in Hashem, he might have somehow impacted the people around him to become better or at least realize there was such a value as chessed, which is also an important role.

I think this logic can be expanded to the second point as well. According to the Ramban, the objective of miracles is to prove to man that Hashem is present in this world. He also believes that everything that happens in this world is a miracle, and it is our job to see that. If this is true, the avot didn't need miracles! They knew Hashem was here and were able to see him in their everyday lives. Lot, on the other hand, was not at the same level as the avot. If Hashem didn't show Lot that He was here and controlling this world, maybe Lot would have stopped believing in Him. Especially at this point in Lot's life, when he might be tempted to stop believing in God, did God have to reveal Himself in a miracle to Lot so he would recognize God and continue believing in His existence. Throughout the rest of Bereshit, Hashem's people were able to recognize His presence in this world without any "miracles". They were able to recognize that everything was a miracle and an act of God. Not until later in Shemot, after Beni Yisrael were in Egypt for a long time, and did not see God as clearly anymore, did He have to reveal Himself to them in a miracle.

More on Tehillim vs. Tefillah

I just wanted to add a quick thought to Mrs. Billet's post. I think that if the "Tehillim model" of focusing on something specific during the recitation of a brief text works for us, maybe that's something we can transplant into other parts of davening as well. For example, what about taking a bracha of birkat hashachar or shmoneh esreh and planning to think of something specific for one of those as well?

Tehillim vs. Tefilla

I often find that in Ma'ayanot davening, students (including myself) will be talking with their neighbors, taking naps, study for tests, etc. During Tehillim at the end of davening, however, all of a sudden everybody gives the utmost respect towards the prayers. Mrs. Billet often even makes a special announcement to remind everyone to have special respect for these Tehillim-type prayers. So, whats the deal with this? Is Tehillim more important than actual tefillah? Why does everyone make the biggest deal out of Tehillim? I don't deny its general importance, but it's not even part of our mandatory prayers. I'm confused.
-Rikki Novetsky

A: In all my encounters with people of all ages who have trouble with focusing on Tefila, I have found that what they do connect to is davening for people. I have found in my own davening that when I focus on specific needs of others, I feel that my prayers are stronger, less given to rote, and more likely to “rise to the kiseh hakavod”, so to speak. I keep lists (hence the imitations of me at Shabbatons carrying a siddur overflowing with papers) of people who need a refuah shelaimah, singles who need to find a marriage partner, couples who need to conceive a child, families who need parnasah, who need help with a wayward child, and more, because I feel having this focus (actually throughout my tefila) gives my tefilot a sense of purpose and direction. I also have observed that when it is pointed out to them, people are more willing and find it easier to focus briefly on these Tehillim and supplications (as opposed to asking them to focus on the whole long shacharit), so at least a few minutes of the time allocated for tefila can be spent meaningfully. In the same vein, I find that when it is pointed out to people that we do so little for chayalei tzahal except pray for them, those people who are being appealed to actually take it to heart, stand for the tefila for chayalei tzahal and for the tefila for shlom hamedinah, and concentrate for the minute or two that it takes. Suggesting to people that they concentrate during the whole amidah, or say the whole kri’at shema carefully and with kavanah the way it is supposed to be said falls on deaf ears because it is too huge a project and too multi-focused for the indifferent davener to feel that this is a goal she can undertake and succeed at.

Although I clearly feel that it is important and it is the halakha to say the whole tefila each day, Rambam and others tell us that the d’oraitah commandment of tefila can be fulfilled simply by saying a few words of praise, thanks and request in our own words. Simply put, if you were to say “G-d you are my best friend, thanks for the gifts you’ve given me and please help me get through this day” you have fulfilled the minimal Torah obligation of Avodah shebalev. When we say Tehillim for a sick person, we are actually saying words of praise in the text of the Tehillim itself (lehallel means praise!), we surely are making a request for a refuah shelaimah for the sick person(s) and inevitably, we are reflective about thanking G-d for our own good health, or that of our family as we contrast our own ability to pray for someone else with the neediness of the person(s) we are praying for. So I emphasize saying the Tehillim at school because in my feelings of “kol Yisrael areivim zeh” I am happy if even for those few short minutes, the whole tzibbur stands together as one voice and appeals to Hashem for the real people in our lives who need His help and who need our compassion, caring and understanding, and who need the tefilot we are prepared to offer on their behalf.

As a strong believer in acharei hape’ulot nimshachim halevavot, that our hearts can be led and transformed by our actions, I truly think that by sharing the religious experience each day of praying for the health of others, we experience a taste of davening that may actually encourage our hearts to feel that tefila is a more compelling experience than we otherwise thought. I know that when I have attended Tehillim “rallies” in my shul when a member of the community is gravely ill, it is an exceptional experience to stand several hundred strong and focused on a refuah shelaima for the person.

So Tehillim is clearly not more important than tefila. Tehillim share characteristics with many parts of tefila, but tefila, particularly the amidah, is also different from Tehillim. Certainly, Tehillim is an important source for so many of the passages that constitute the praise portions are incorporated into tefila. What you have read above is my personal common sense reasoning for emphasizing Tehillim in the hope that a few minutes will be devoted to tefila by all, and in the sincere desire to try to help others through out prayers when this is the only way we have to demonstrate our caring, our solidarity, our love and our compassion for others.

Friday Night Tish

As you all know, at 8:00 this Friday night we are having the first Maayanot Tish at the Friedman (Aliza) home. There is a wonderful program scheduled, and you don't want to miss it. In fact, those of you who don't live in Teaneck, might want to try to go to a friend for Shabbos. I think you'll have a great time, and as a bonus you have a chavruta to help study for Monday's Gemara exams. In case some of you are still thinking about it, here are some photos of students having a blast at the Simchat Beit Hashoeva. Ask them if you should come.

Reflections on וירא

Two quick points:

• It is remarkable, that after Avraham's extended negotiation to save Sodom, or even one of the five doomed cities (see Rashi), his pleas are rejected. And yet, Lot whose every move is a negative converse to Avraham is granted this very same request at the end of the story! When fleeing the destruction, he asks to take refuge in צוער, one of the cities that had been destined for destruction, and he is granted permission. Last year, many of us learned that even according to the opinions that daily תפילה is only rabbinically mandated, תפילה בעת צרה, prayer in a time of crisis is מדאורייתא. I think this episode is a testament to the power of such a תפילה, and of desperation as a tool in our prayer arsenal.
• I was shocked to notice this year for the first time, that in the entire ספר בראשית, the biggest miracle might be the demise of Lot's wife. What a bizarre choice. Throughout the story of the אבות, and then the שבטים, Hashem pretty much stays on the sidelines (at least as reported directly in the pesukim), and the one instance that he chooses to really overrule the laws of nature are to punish a character supporting a supporting character? I have a theory, but I wonder what you all think. I often hear students & teachers of the 11th grade Jewish Philosophy course (wish I had one when I was in high school) discussing the unit on miracles, but I never actually heard what is taught. Maybe someone from there can help with this. Until the מן, I think every miracle in the תורה is punitive. Is there something we should learn from that?

One More on Ms. Gordon's Post

I just wanted to clarify something that I think might be unclear from her post. There is a fallacy out there that I noticed when marking my halacha tests that is relevant here. In response to a question asking them to practically rule on different scenarios, a number of students wrote "one opinion said it's OK, & one says it's prohibited - so it's OK". Modern Orthodoxy doesn't mean that as long there is an opinion that permits something, that is who we follow. When Ms. Gordon traced her position as relying on multiple minority opinions, she did not mean (we talked) that she just went "kula shopping", found the most lenient opinion on every issue and adopted it. She followed the proper protocol, which is the following:

Everyone should have a halachik (or at least a Torah) authority to whom they direct their significant halachik questions, and their practice should be based on those conversations. For those of you who don't yet have this figure in your life - most of you - the default posek should be your parents' posek, probably your shul Rabbi. Once you follow this procedure, there is nothing wrong with responsibly choosing a posek who tends to be lenient in most areas, just realize that he may one day surprise you.

If you are uncomfortable approaching your Rabbi, the best thing to do is get past the discomfort. Those of you who have been in my halacha class have hopefully started this process - those who I teach currently hopefully will soon. In the meantime, it's certainly OK to talk to your teachers about these issues, and if you want, to ask us to check with our halachik authorities.

Another thought on tzniut

I would like to add one idea to Ms. Gordon’s post in response to Rikki’s question. It is certainly true, as Rikki points out, that societal standards of modesty change over time, and I also agree that it is possible to preserve the general value of modesty even without adhering to a strictly halakhic dress code. However, I think that religion often operates by creating objective standards to concretize and impart a subjective value. For example, we all know that matza must be baked within 18 minutes or it becomes chametz. I sometimes wonder if all of the matza that Bnei Yisrael ate after yetziat Mitzrayim was actually baked within 18 minutes. But the point is that, whether or not all of the matza at yetziat Mitzrayim was baked within 18 minutes, our matza must be baked within that time frame because we must have an objective standard for what constitutes matza or else we would lose the concept of matza altogether. A fundamental premise of halakha is that religious values and concepts are best inculcated through adherence to a legal code, rather than remaining as amorphous values and concepts. Similarly, the halakha creates objective standards for tzniut in order to make sure that the value of modesty is real and tangible in our lives.

Another Response to Tzniut

First, yasher koach to Rikki for raising some excellent questions about tzniut and for pointing out important issues that should be discussed. I wanted to respond to Rikki's points and share my approach to this issue. It is true that modern society’s standards of modesty have changed drastically from what is reflected in the poskim. In line with that change there are sources (admittedly, in the minority) that DO reflect a more open and lenient standard of dress then the standard sources, that many halakhically committed Jews (myself included) do rely on.

For example, both Rav Ellinson in his book “HaTzneh Lechet” and Rav Henkin in his book “Understanding Tzniut” (both of which I highly recommend) show how most poskim interpret the Gemara in Brachot 24a to allow a woman to show up to a tefach of a normally covered area (which, on page 37, Rav Ellinson estimates at 9 cm for above the elbow). Rav Henkin also states that according to different estimates of how much a tefach is, today there is probably no problem with most women’s necklines (page 17). Additionally, the Divrei Hamudot on the Rosh (Berakhot 3:37) states that women’s upper arms are considered like her “face, hands and feet” which are never covered, and one can rely on local custom to determine whether or not one exposes them, as long as the majority of the arm is covered (see also pages 22-25 in Rav Henkin's book).

We know that minhag hamakom plays a role in determining what the standards of tzniut are for a community. It's used l'chumra, for example, some poskim say if one decides to live in a community where woman wear tights because they hold covering the “shok” extends to the ankle, one would also have to keep this stringency. It's also used l'kulah, for example, the Arukh HaShulkhan (OC 75:7) allowed men to pray opposite women with uncovered hair (though stating it was a very bedi’eved situation) since men were so used to seeing women’s hair, there was no longer a problem of hirhur/distraction. Although the Arukh HaShukhan is decrying this practice, we see from this precedent that standards of modesty do change over time. This principle of changing standards of tzniut can be used to support following a minority view of not covering one's elbows.

BUT, I don’t think this idea can be applied more broadly to include, as you suggested, tank tops or skinny jeans. Yes, society’s standards of tzniut have become a lot more open, but this does not mean that we accept every societal change especially when it comes to tzniut. Firstly, in the Halakhic sources, no poskim allow people to show areas of the body that are normally covered and all maintain that there is an objective standard of “hirhur” that does not change over time. Halakahic literature aside, I think we need to think long and hard about the values being reflected by a society that sets no limits on dress and allows people to wear as little as they like. Yes, “a woman’s body is her own”, but is that really the statement she is making when she walks around half dressed?

Like it or not, I think that certain parts of a woman’s body are objectively more alluring than others and need to be covered in order to create a society based on kedusha, where women are seen as more then bodies and where there isn’t an overt environment of sexual inappropriateness. Without it, as much as one can try to convince oneself that today it’s different and tank tops and short shorts are normal by today’s “tzniut standards”, in a co-ed crowd, this will undoubtedly change the appropriateness level of the group (Yes, this does have to do with men’s reactions, but that’s how women’s bodies are made. Additionally, women often dress a certain way knowing the attention it attracts).

Which bring me to my take on tzniut. Personally, the “saving yourself for your husband” argument doesn’t really speak to me. My attitude towards tzniut stems largely from my Bnei Akiva upbringing, which taught me to believe very strongly in the positive aspects of a co-ed halakhic environment (another minority view). There’s a lot to be learned from the other 50% of the population and a co-ed community (or camp) can be a very powerful resource for Am Israel. Halakhic boundaries are there not for us to lock ourselves away from situations that can be halakhically “dangerous”, but for us to know exactly how to conduct ourselves in order to succeed in them. These boundaries include negiah, yichud, and of course, tzniut.

One of our goals as Torah observant Jews is to create communities based on kedusha; where people act in a halakhically appropriate way and where sex isn’t demeaned in how people talk, joke or make comments about each other. This is very difficult to maintain even in a post-year-in-Israel co-ed society, kal vachomer with teenagers (no offense). Tzniut and our standards of dress are imperative to maintaining this atmosphere of kedusha. While I don’t think shorter sleeves are a problem, showing off more objectively alluring body parts would be counter productive to this goal, no matter what goes on in outside society. Imagine Mach Hach if everyone were in tank tops and shorts – it’s hard enough to have an appropriate avirah even with the dress code! I think there is objective tzniut that does not change with time, and it isn’t about saving yourself for your husband, it’s about creating an environment of kedusha, especially in a co-ed environment, to ensure women are being seen and treated as people and not as just as bodies, and where the environment reflects kedusha and holiness and not inappropriate behavior and lewd language.

However, as stated above, the standards of tzniut can be expanded within halakhic guidelines to include a more lenient approach of dress that in my opinion in no way compromises the kedusha of the environments we live in or are trying to create. This is also since (as has been expanded in other posts) the way we dress is only one part of what acting tzanua mandates – it is also how we talk, how we carry ourselves, and our general affect, not just our sleeve lengths, skirt lengths and necklines.