Question by Talia Stern
Hi! I'm excited to be entering my first question(s) to the blog. Here it goes:
Okay, so when we say Asher Yatzar, we begin by saying: "Blessed are You Hashem...that creates the man with wisdom", and continue on: "and created in him many, many holes/openings..." and finally, end by saying: "that if even one of those opened or closed it would be impossible to stand before You [for even a short amount of time]". I have two questions related to this bracha:
1. Firstly, is it correct (medically) that if "even one of those opened or closed" that it would actually be impossible to survive? It seems that there are many medical issues that come up nowadays with our bodies/bodily functions that can be remedied by modern medicine.
2. Secondly: When we say this bracha we thank Hashem for having created us with wisdom. Later in the bracha, we mention that there are many, many holes/openings that Hashem created and that if even one things should go wrong, then we would not survive (due to the messing up of the entire system in our bodies). In no way am I challenging the fact that Hashem DID create us with wisdom but I was just wondering: creating a large, complex system (which we know is true, because the bracha tells us that we have many openings, etc.) in such a way that if "even one" tiny thing should go wrong, somehow seems a little bit weird to me. When a complex system is created, whatever it may be, it should be created in a way that has backups. Someone would not want to build something, or create a system that could be entirely messed up by one small thing going wrong. I was wondering if you could explain to me the connection between Hashem "creating us with wisdom" and the seemingly strange way in which he created our complex bodily system.
Hi Talia
What an interesting question! I can't address your specific biological questions, but I'll give you my more philosophical take on the general question that (I think) you're asking, which is...if Hashem created humans (and really the entire world) with so much wisdom and complexity, then why isn't there a back-up mechanism to fix things when they go wrong, and more generally, how can things go wrong?
There is a famous philosophical concept called the "free will defense" which is used to address the age-old question of "why do bad things happen to good people". In a nutshell, the main idea is that human beings have free will (the ability to make our own choices). In order to always truly have that freedom, our actions must have real consequences. Therefore, even though Hashem created things with great care and wisdom, human beings have the freedom to act and therefore impact the way the world works. For example (and this is a general example...no clue if there is scientific basis for what I'm saying) temperatures are rising and we are concerned about global warming. There is a possibility that glaciers will melt, natural resources will dry up, and our environment will deteriorate. Does this mean that Hashem didn't make the world with wisdom? Of course not...the environment is in danger because human beings have been abusing it for years and years and years. Our actions have consequences, and can/should interfere with how the world works.
(This concept of the free will defense also works in the positive...we can do good things that impact the way the world functions. We can cure diseases, overcome genetic predispositions, etc.)
One important thing to note: there isn't always a direct cause and effect with the free will defense. Meaning, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but we can't necessarily say that it was any one particular action that caused a certain person to get sick. We don't know how our actions will take effect, but according to the free will defense, they certainly do make an impact (and this is a good thing, we want our actions to be meaningful!).
On a personal note, I am of the opinion that "the exception proves the rule". I absolutely think that looking around the world, at the amazing details of nature and the human body in particular, you see Hashem's hand.
I hope this is clear and am happy to discuss more in person.
Best,
Nina Bieler
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Dear Abby
Today in our JPhil class we ended up having a "Dear Abby" discussion about why our davening has not been so amazing, and ways that we can improve it. People suggested really fantastic ideas. If any other Ma'ayanoters have ideas, please send them in and we can post them on the blog!
Here are some ideas that we came up with (they were all great!)
Jennifer Herskowitz: get together with a friend and write down what you think about for each bracha of shmoneh esreh, and then exchange notes
Atara Clark: use tefllah as a way of getting through difficult times (ie-the stresses of the 11th grade workload etc.)
Rebecca Peyser: decide what you want to daven for that day, and you will find that so many parts of davening are actually perfectly matched with what you are davening for
Mrs. Sinensky: take a yellow sticky note and make a list of things that you think will help your tefillah be more meaningful. stick it in your siddur so that you can look at it throughout tefillah.
Here are some ideas that we came up with (they were all great!)
Jennifer Herskowitz: get together with a friend and write down what you think about for each bracha of shmoneh esreh, and then exchange notes
Atara Clark: use tefllah as a way of getting through difficult times (ie-the stresses of the 11th grade workload etc.)
Rebecca Peyser: decide what you want to daven for that day, and you will find that so many parts of davening are actually perfectly matched with what you are davening for
Mrs. Sinensky: take a yellow sticky note and make a list of things that you think will help your tefillah be more meaningful. stick it in your siddur so that you can look at it throughout tefillah.
Swearing in Court
Miriam Jacobson asks: If an american jew is called to court to testify or for jury duty, are they allowed to take an oath, in a secular court?
Rabbi Jachter writes: The U.S. Constitution offers the option to affirm instead of swearing. This option should be taken.
Rabbi Jachter writes: The U.S. Constitution offers the option to affirm instead of swearing. This option should be taken.
How can we thank Hashem for giving us everything we want?
Daniella Grodko asks: In Ashrei we say, "You open up Your Hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing." I have learned that this sentence is to be said with much concentration. So much so, that if one does not have Kavanah while saying this sentence, he should repeat it. I don't understand why this line is so focused on. Yes, its a nice idea about G-d but why is it THAT amazing that it should be said again if the first time wasn't so great. I also don't think I can say this sentence truthfully according to the Artscroll's definition. How can I say that G-d satisfies all desires if I don't have everything that I want?
I have also wondered about this question, so thank you for spurring me to research it.
The Shulchan Aruch 51:7 is the source for the law that you state, that one should have extra concentration on the verse "You open Your hand..." Mishnah Berurah 51:15 explains why: "The whole reason Hazal instituted the practice to say Ashrei every day is for this pasuk, where we praise Hashem that He provides for His creatures." Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch (Germany, 1808-1888), in his peirush on Tehillim (Ashrei is Tehillim perek 145), agrees: this verse, he says, sums up the theme of perek 145 as a whole (and indeed of Pesukei de-Zimra itself): the universal order of God, which provides for every living thing. Rav Hirsch, however, also asks your question: "There are many who wait in vain for the fulfillment of their desires and indeed, there are people who are in want of the basic necessities of life!"
His answer is a bit complex.
Rav Hirsch explains that "You open Your Hand..." is a general statement, that all living creatures, including people, are sustained by God. Whatever we do get comes from Him, and He is capable of providing for all. But we - humans - don't necessarily get everything we want. It's true that the world in general is sustained by God without needing to justify or deserve it, but man in particular has special circumstances. We have intellect and free will and are subject to God's judgement as to whether we deserve to have our desires and needs fulfilled. Therefore, we say the next verse, "God is just in all His ways..." If we are not getting our desires fulfilled, it is a result of God's justice. "You open Your hand ..." is praise for Hashem's ability to benevolently run the world in general, but not for giving us each our own particular desires.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tefilla Contest - Yael Herzog
Here is the submission of last month's 3rd place winner - Yael Herzog. The first two winning entries can be found here and here. They are all responding to "מודים אנחנו לך... על ניסך שבכל עמנו". Remember to work on your responses to this months passage - "קרוב ד' לכל קוראיו, לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת" - due on March 2.
MY KINDERGARTEN THEORY
The room was dark,
No light shined through
But the souls of those that stood.
They stood there still
And were not to move
For moving, not they could.
They had but one task
So tormenting, so tough,
was to travel through that door.
One tried to sit
And scootch himself,
but burned against the floor.
One lied on back
And tried to squirm
But found himself too weak.
One crouched on down
But moved not an inch,
for he did not know how to leap.
One day far off,
A lonely soul
At once began to talk.
“I did it!” he said,
and took a step.
He discovered how to walk!
What if walking didn’t come so easily? Do you think each taken step would carry a greater load of gratitude?
MY KINDERGARTEN THEORY
The room was dark,
No light shined through
But the souls of those that stood.
They stood there still
And were not to move
For moving, not they could.
They had but one task
So tormenting, so tough,
was to travel through that door.
One tried to sit
And scootch himself,
but burned against the floor.
One lied on back
And tried to squirm
But found himself too weak.
One crouched on down
But moved not an inch,
for he did not know how to leap.
One day far off,
A lonely soul
At once began to talk.
“I did it!” he said,
and took a step.
He discovered how to walk!
What if walking didn’t come so easily? Do you think each taken step would carry a greater load of gratitude?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Slavery
Each year, at פרשת משפטים, the subject of the Torah allowing and regulating slavery troubles many of us. While this issue is clearly bigger than can be adequately addressed in a blog post, here are a couple of notes. First, just because the Torah allows something, doesn't mean that it endorses it. There some things that are permitted, but are still considered to be a bad idea. For example, we all know that polygamy is permitted by Torah law, but what is its attitude towards polygamy? Being that every case in Tanach (am I missing any?) in which we learn about a man marrying multiple wives ends badly, I don't think we should consider that an endorsement.
Another idea to consider is one that I found from Rav Kook. Don't worry, it's not very long.
While neither of these fully address this complicated issue, to me they are a starting point in trying to better understand the Torah's position.
Another idea to consider is one that I found from Rav Kook. Don't worry, it's not very long.
While neither of these fully address this complicated issue, to me they are a starting point in trying to better understand the Torah's position.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Teaching Religious Zionism
Michal Novetsky, Ma'ayanot Class of 2007, asks:
Based on the statement that Zionism expressed to its full potential is Aliyah to Israel, how can the Religious Zionist community in America best teach Zionism? I ask this because in general religious people tend to teach ideals but in this specific example, in the end of the day, there are just some things that contradict. I want to be clear that I'm asking this question not to challenge in any way the community in America, I am asking because I think there is an answer: What is the best way to teach Zionism in America?
We are so pleased, Michal, that you consider yourself a blog-contributing member of the Ma’ayanot community, and we hope that other alumnae are inspired to do the same!
The core values of Religious Zionism inform aliyah, but also exist exclusive of it. They include: Israel as our *God-given*, and not just “historical”, homeland; Medinat Yisrael as the atchalta de-geula; Eretz Yisrael as the place in which we can practice all of Hashem’s mitzvot, and E”Y as not merely a State for Jews, but a Jewish State. (The practical implications of the latter are up for debate, even among the Dati Leumi sector in Israel.) I think a teacher can employ multiple pedagogical approaches in transmitting these values. This is precisely what we are aiming to do within our Modern Jewish History curriculum at Ma’ayanot – through readings, discussions, dramatizations, play-acting, debates, writing assignments, and so on. I would argue that these ideals, absorbed fully (through these various approaches, and reinforced outside of school – at home, in camp, in shul, etc.), are frequently what motivates a person to make aliyah. It seems to me that Diaspora teachers of Religious Zionism can be well qualified and passionate enough to transmit them. Indeed, I would argue that it is our job to do so, as we are the ones teaching Diaspora Jews.
I myself struggle with the reality of believing that I should express my awe of the nes of 1948 by living in Israel, but (for various reasons, as many people have) not doing so. I have no problem sharing that struggle, in broad strokes, with my students – but I also feel I have what to contribute to the Jewish community in the United States, which has, I believe, its own intrinsic value.
These are just a few thoughts, and I personally would welcome others' comments about this issue.
Based on the statement that Zionism expressed to its full potential is Aliyah to Israel, how can the Religious Zionist community in America best teach Zionism? I ask this because in general religious people tend to teach ideals but in this specific example, in the end of the day, there are just some things that contradict. I want to be clear that I'm asking this question not to challenge in any way the community in America, I am asking because I think there is an answer: What is the best way to teach Zionism in America?
We are so pleased, Michal, that you consider yourself a blog-contributing member of the Ma’ayanot community, and we hope that other alumnae are inspired to do the same!
The core values of Religious Zionism inform aliyah, but also exist exclusive of it. They include: Israel as our *God-given*, and not just “historical”, homeland; Medinat Yisrael as the atchalta de-geula; Eretz Yisrael as the place in which we can practice all of Hashem’s mitzvot, and E”Y as not merely a State for Jews, but a Jewish State. (The practical implications of the latter are up for debate, even among the Dati Leumi sector in Israel.) I think a teacher can employ multiple pedagogical approaches in transmitting these values. This is precisely what we are aiming to do within our Modern Jewish History curriculum at Ma’ayanot – through readings, discussions, dramatizations, play-acting, debates, writing assignments, and so on. I would argue that these ideals, absorbed fully (through these various approaches, and reinforced outside of school – at home, in camp, in shul, etc.), are frequently what motivates a person to make aliyah. It seems to me that Diaspora teachers of Religious Zionism can be well qualified and passionate enough to transmit them. Indeed, I would argue that it is our job to do so, as we are the ones teaching Diaspora Jews.
I myself struggle with the reality of believing that I should express my awe of the nes of 1948 by living in Israel, but (for various reasons, as many people have) not doing so. I have no problem sharing that struggle, in broad strokes, with my students – but I also feel I have what to contribute to the Jewish community in the United States, which has, I believe, its own intrinsic value.
These are just a few thoughts, and I personally would welcome others' comments about this issue.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Honesty & Mixed Messages
As we start פרשת משפטים, we we are first exposed to the civil laws that govern our personal interactions. That, as well as all of the headlines about A-Rod cheating, got me thinking about honesty and the messages we give you guys. Though I have only limited personal experience with it, every article or study I've seen says that there is probably some cheating in Maayanot. I've also heard that some students (not necessarily in our school) consider themselves perfectly honest, but think it's OK to cheat if they feel the test is unfair or stupid. (Interestingly, I recently heard of a psak - I don't remember from who - that said that if you cheat which helps your GPA which helps you get into college which helps you get a job, then a sliver of every dollar you earn forever is tainted.)
I wonder if we teachers may be inadvertently contributing to this problem. Many of my students know that a long-standing pet peeve of mine is the policy of not deducting points when I make mistakes when grading tests in the student's favor. My understanding is that most teachers don't deduct the points, presumably because we don't want to punish the student for her honesty bringing the error to our attention. Yet, until recently I always did because I'm afraid that we send the opposite message - that it's OK to only be honest when you don't have to pay a price for it. The guy at the cash register who gives you an extra $10 won't tell you to keep it when you tell him about his mistake.
I've recently changed my policy to conform with the norm, but I usually follow it up with this mussar schmooze to try to mitigate the message. What do you all think?
I wonder if we teachers may be inadvertently contributing to this problem. Many of my students know that a long-standing pet peeve of mine is the policy of not deducting points when I make mistakes when grading tests in the student's favor. My understanding is that most teachers don't deduct the points, presumably because we don't want to punish the student for her honesty bringing the error to our attention. Yet, until recently I always did because I'm afraid that we send the opposite message - that it's OK to only be honest when you don't have to pay a price for it. The guy at the cash register who gives you an extra $10 won't tell you to keep it when you tell him about his mistake.
I've recently changed my policy to conform with the norm, but I usually follow it up with this mussar schmooze to try to mitigate the message. What do you all think?
Matan Torah Musings
Some food for thought:
The Midrash tells us that at Matan Torah, all of Creation stood still. The waves stopped rolling, the birds stopped chirping, everything came to a standstill. One way of understanding this Midrash is that it is emphasizing the power of of Hashem's presence and closeness to us at the time of Matan Torah. Nature could not go on, because the experience was so overwhelming.
I think that we can learn a lesson from this Midrash as well. There are times in our lives where we are lucky enough to experience the Presence of Hashem, even if just for a moment. It may be when we are hiking up Masada on a summer trip to Israel, learning something amazing in Gemara or Tanach, or witnessing a person experience a refuah shlema. At these times, it is important to stop, recognize Hashem's Presence, and realize that this is a precious moment that we can use as an impetus for further growth in our relationship with Hashem.
The Midrash tells us that at Matan Torah, all of Creation stood still. The waves stopped rolling, the birds stopped chirping, everything came to a standstill. One way of understanding this Midrash is that it is emphasizing the power of of Hashem's presence and closeness to us at the time of Matan Torah. Nature could not go on, because the experience was so overwhelming.
I think that we can learn a lesson from this Midrash as well. There are times in our lives where we are lucky enough to experience the Presence of Hashem, even if just for a moment. It may be when we are hiking up Masada on a summer trip to Israel, learning something amazing in Gemara or Tanach, or witnessing a person experience a refuah shlema. At these times, it is important to stop, recognize Hashem's Presence, and realize that this is a precious moment that we can use as an impetus for further growth in our relationship with Hashem.
Question about sippur Yosef
Aviva Novick asks:
1) Going back a few parshiot... I still don't understand why Yosef put his brothers through the whole episode when he claims that they're spies and makes them bring down Binyamin.
i've heard 3 possible answers, none of which I like, or maybe I just dont fully understand them:
a) "Yosef was tyring to make his dreams come true." I see where they're getting this from in the text, but why would yosef have to make his dreams come true? its not a navi's job to make his nevuot come true. why is this different?
b) "He wanted to see if the brothers had changed their ways and improved." why? for personal satisfaction? Its up to them to change, why does he need proof?
c) "Yosef wanted to provide the brothers with a chance to do Teshuva in olam haZeh so that their punishment wouldn't be so harsh in olam haBa." Why is it Yosef's place to do this? Hashem will give out reward and punishment as He sees fit. If Hashem wanted to give them an identical situation to michirat yosef so that they could do teshuva, Hashem would do it. It doesn't seem right for Yosef to step in.
The way I like to think about the Yosef story is along the lines of your answer b), that Yosef accused his brothers of being spies and asked them to bring him Binyamin in order to see if they had changed their ways and improved. The reason he did so was not to satisfy his own curiosity, but because the question of whether his brothers had done teshuva would determine the correct course of action for him to take. When Yosef saw his brothers coming to Mitzrayim for food, he probably wanted to tell them who he was immediately so he could reunite with Yaakov, whom he had missed for so many years. However, if the brothers still hated him, this would be an unwise idea that would just cause more problems for the family and stir up trouble in the waning years of Yaakov’s life. Moreover, the fact that the brothers came without Binyamin might have indicated to Yosef that there were indeed still problems between Bnei Leah and Bnei Rachel—otherwise, why wouldn’t he be with the rest of his brothers? Maybe they were estranged from him too! In fact, Rav Yoel Bin-Nun suggests that Yosef may have even thought that Yaakov himself had rejected him. Yosef knew that Avraham and Yitzchak had each had one son whom they loved and another son whom they rejected. He knew that, back in perek 37, Yaakov had sent him on a long journey alone to find his brothers, and when he found them, they immediately threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery! Therefore, he may have actually thought that Yaakov had been complicit with the brothers in the plan to sell him. Since he didn’t know if the brothers still hated him or even if Yaakov had rejected him, and since Binyamin’s absence might have made him think that the Bnei Rachel really had been rejected by the family, he honestly didn’t know what to do next when he saw his brothers. He may have wanted to reveal his identity, but may not have known if this would cause more problems than it would solve.
In order to figure out whether it was safe or wise for him to reveal who he was, Yosef asked the brothers to bring him Binyamin. If they couldn’t produce Binyamin, that would be another indication that they had really rejected Binyamin also—maybe they had sold him into slavery too! When they did bring Binyamin, Yosef still didn’t know if they felt loyalty to Binyamin (and, by extension, to him) or whether they hated Binyamin the same way they had hated him. He arranged a situation in which the brothers were forced to decide whether to sell Binyamin into slavery as they had sold Yosef into slavery, in order to protect themselves. If they had decided to leave Binyamin in Mitzrayim as Yosef’s slave, Yosef would have known that it was not possible for him to reconcile with his family. When they left, he probably would have revealed his identity to Binyamin and treated him well, allowing him a good life as opposed to the life he would have endured with his brothers who hated him. However, when Yosef saw that the brothers actually cared about Binyamin and refused to abandon him in Mitzrayim, he knew that the wounds had healed and that it was safe for him to reveal who he was and to begin the process of reconciliation.
1) Going back a few parshiot... I still don't understand why Yosef put his brothers through the whole episode when he claims that they're spies and makes them bring down Binyamin.
i've heard 3 possible answers, none of which I like, or maybe I just dont fully understand them:
a) "Yosef was tyring to make his dreams come true." I see where they're getting this from in the text, but why would yosef have to make his dreams come true? its not a navi's job to make his nevuot come true. why is this different?
b) "He wanted to see if the brothers had changed their ways and improved." why? for personal satisfaction? Its up to them to change, why does he need proof?
c) "Yosef wanted to provide the brothers with a chance to do Teshuva in olam haZeh so that their punishment wouldn't be so harsh in olam haBa." Why is it Yosef's place to do this? Hashem will give out reward and punishment as He sees fit. If Hashem wanted to give them an identical situation to michirat yosef so that they could do teshuva, Hashem would do it. It doesn't seem right for Yosef to step in.
The way I like to think about the Yosef story is along the lines of your answer b), that Yosef accused his brothers of being spies and asked them to bring him Binyamin in order to see if they had changed their ways and improved. The reason he did so was not to satisfy his own curiosity, but because the question of whether his brothers had done teshuva would determine the correct course of action for him to take. When Yosef saw his brothers coming to Mitzrayim for food, he probably wanted to tell them who he was immediately so he could reunite with Yaakov, whom he had missed for so many years. However, if the brothers still hated him, this would be an unwise idea that would just cause more problems for the family and stir up trouble in the waning years of Yaakov’s life. Moreover, the fact that the brothers came without Binyamin might have indicated to Yosef that there were indeed still problems between Bnei Leah and Bnei Rachel—otherwise, why wouldn’t he be with the rest of his brothers? Maybe they were estranged from him too! In fact, Rav Yoel Bin-Nun suggests that Yosef may have even thought that Yaakov himself had rejected him. Yosef knew that Avraham and Yitzchak had each had one son whom they loved and another son whom they rejected. He knew that, back in perek 37, Yaakov had sent him on a long journey alone to find his brothers, and when he found them, they immediately threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery! Therefore, he may have actually thought that Yaakov had been complicit with the brothers in the plan to sell him. Since he didn’t know if the brothers still hated him or even if Yaakov had rejected him, and since Binyamin’s absence might have made him think that the Bnei Rachel really had been rejected by the family, he honestly didn’t know what to do next when he saw his brothers. He may have wanted to reveal his identity, but may not have known if this would cause more problems than it would solve.
In order to figure out whether it was safe or wise for him to reveal who he was, Yosef asked the brothers to bring him Binyamin. If they couldn’t produce Binyamin, that would be another indication that they had really rejected Binyamin also—maybe they had sold him into slavery too! When they did bring Binyamin, Yosef still didn’t know if they felt loyalty to Binyamin (and, by extension, to him) or whether they hated Binyamin the same way they had hated him. He arranged a situation in which the brothers were forced to decide whether to sell Binyamin into slavery as they had sold Yosef into slavery, in order to protect themselves. If they had decided to leave Binyamin in Mitzrayim as Yosef’s slave, Yosef would have known that it was not possible for him to reconcile with his family. When they left, he probably would have revealed his identity to Binyamin and treated him well, allowing him a good life as opposed to the life he would have endured with his brothers who hated him. However, when Yosef saw that the brothers actually cared about Binyamin and refused to abandon him in Mitzrayim, he knew that the wounds had healed and that it was safe for him to reveal who he was and to begin the process of reconciliation.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Kiddush Hashem in Basketball / Parsha Question
I wanted to share with you a great article that I read in last week's Jewish Week (written by Sara Noa's father). It talks about Jewish teens are "defying the norm" when it comes to sports tournaments, and how impressed other schools are with the derekh eretz that Jewish students show both on and off the court, as opposed to the violent competition usually associated with such events. I particularly liked the part about how at a recent SAR basketball tournament, each elementary school grade "adopted" a visiting team to cheer for.
I thought that this really stresses the point that being an observant Jew is not just about the external halakha that you keep, but also about developing a "religious personality". This means being conscious of the Kiddush Hashem you can make even in such ordinary events as a basketball or hockey game, and in allowing the Torah that we learn to affect how we behave even outside of the Bet Midrash. This is what being an Or LaGoyim is all about.
Finally, a question on the Parsha. Ibn Ezra asks a great question on the last of the 10 hadibrot: "Lo Takhmod". He asks (Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:14), how can G-d command us to not be jealous of other people? People naturally are jealous of what they do not have. One can command someone to not ACT upon those feelings of jealousy, but how can G-d command us to not FEEL an emotion? Isn't true strength the fact that we decide not to act on certain feelings or emotions, even we have them? You can check out his perush for his answer, but I think his question is better then the answer he provides. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this; can G-d command us not to feel an emotion? Is this within our ability to control? Or should Mitzvot ultimately only control our actions?
Shabbat Shalom!
I thought that this really stresses the point that being an observant Jew is not just about the external halakha that you keep, but also about developing a "religious personality". This means being conscious of the Kiddush Hashem you can make even in such ordinary events as a basketball or hockey game, and in allowing the Torah that we learn to affect how we behave even outside of the Bet Midrash. This is what being an Or LaGoyim is all about.
Finally, a question on the Parsha. Ibn Ezra asks a great question on the last of the 10 hadibrot: "Lo Takhmod". He asks (Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:14), how can G-d command us to not be jealous of other people? People naturally are jealous of what they do not have. One can command someone to not ACT upon those feelings of jealousy, but how can G-d command us to not FEEL an emotion? Isn't true strength the fact that we decide not to act on certain feelings or emotions, even we have them? You can check out his perush for his answer, but I think his question is better then the answer he provides. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this; can G-d command us not to feel an emotion? Is this within our ability to control? Or should Mitzvot ultimately only control our actions?
Shabbat Shalom!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
From Danielle Weitchner:
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
Two thoughts (without researching the topic)
1) You could say that the issur of "lo tikom velo titor" is directed to individuals, and not to beit din.
2) True nekama, revenge, is when a person does something to her friend just for the sake of spiting her. There is no constructive purpose to the act. However, Beit Din punishes criminals for a purpose (there are different perspectives as to what that purpose is: to get the person kapara, to prevent more crimes from happening/keep order in society, etc.) Therefore, I don't think that when Beit Din punishes people it is would fall under the category of nekama.
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
Two thoughts (without researching the topic)
1) You could say that the issur of "lo tikom velo titor" is directed to individuals, and not to beit din.
2) True nekama, revenge, is when a person does something to her friend just for the sake of spiting her. There is no constructive purpose to the act. However, Beit Din punishes criminals for a purpose (there are different perspectives as to what that purpose is: to get the person kapara, to prevent more crimes from happening/keep order in society, etc.) Therefore, I don't think that when Beit Din punishes people it is would fall under the category of nekama.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tefilla Contest Winner
The runner up submission, by Alona Stewart - responding to "מודים אנחנו לך... על ניסך שבכל עמנו":
She's sitting at her desk, slumped against the wood surface, the lesson barely registering in her mind. She laments silently that there's nothing interesting going on, nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing at all.
A bird flies by, buoyed up despite the still air, its wings creating support to hold it up on nothing.
She yawns.
When she does, her lungs contract, forcing a breath out, and it passes into the room, creating tiny disturbances in the air all around, a chain reaction. It stirs a few hairs lying over her face, but they soon settle back into place, pulled by the forces that are even now dragging everything in the room towards the center of the earth, holding everyone down.
She tucks the hair behind her ear, her muscles stretching and moving her bones, blood vessels, skin, everything. She's running low on energy, like the kind that let her move her hand, and her brain reminded her body that it was almost time for some food.
Her stomach growls.
She sighs. Fourteen more minutes and then she's free, and lunch was waiting. She looks at the clock for a few seconds, watching the hands move, excruciatingly slow. She doesn't realize what a strange thing time is, something that exists but doesn't exist, isn't something that we can see or touch- it isn't even really there.
The walls, the floor, the desks, her classmates, her- may seem still, but are all moving constantly, every second, made up of tiny particles vibrating too fast to see or feel. They are made up of millions of them, little pieces coming together to make a whole, and although the air hangs with heaviness there are even tinier particles moving frenziedly around inside them. Despite the thickness of the mood, the heaviness- they are mostly empty space.
And yet, still…
There's nothing interesting going on.
She's sitting at her desk, slumped against the wood surface, the lesson barely registering in her mind. She laments silently that there's nothing interesting going on, nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing at all.
A bird flies by, buoyed up despite the still air, its wings creating support to hold it up on nothing.
She yawns.
When she does, her lungs contract, forcing a breath out, and it passes into the room, creating tiny disturbances in the air all around, a chain reaction. It stirs a few hairs lying over her face, but they soon settle back into place, pulled by the forces that are even now dragging everything in the room towards the center of the earth, holding everyone down.
She tucks the hair behind her ear, her muscles stretching and moving her bones, blood vessels, skin, everything. She's running low on energy, like the kind that let her move her hand, and her brain reminded her body that it was almost time for some food.
Her stomach growls.
She sighs. Fourteen more minutes and then she's free, and lunch was waiting. She looks at the clock for a few seconds, watching the hands move, excruciatingly slow. She doesn't realize what a strange thing time is, something that exists but doesn't exist, isn't something that we can see or touch- it isn't even really there.
The walls, the floor, the desks, her classmates, her- may seem still, but are all moving constantly, every second, made up of tiny particles vibrating too fast to see or feel. They are made up of millions of them, little pieces coming together to make a whole, and although the air hangs with heaviness there are even tinier particles moving frenziedly around inside them. Despite the thickness of the mood, the heaviness- they are mostly empty space.
And yet, still…
There's nothing interesting going on.
Inspiring Thoughts - from Allison Alt
A while back we posted a quote from Zahava Rothschild that she found religiously inspirational. Here is a collection of quotes that Allison found at a Chabad website that speak to her. I think this is a valuable exercise for a few reasons. First, it allows all of us to see something that we might enjoy and that could effect us positively. Also, it gives us teachers insight into the different types of material that can reach different students. From the soaring rhetoric of the Rav to sharp Chasidic Mussar points, we each get closer to Hashem in our own way; that's important for us all to keep in mind. Enjoy.
- "Sometimes, when I consider what tremendous consequences result from little things, I am tempted to think that there are no little things."
- "When I start to find fault with all that I see, it's time to start looking for what's wrong with me."—Adapted from Rabbi Yisroel Baal Shem Tov
- "When you point your finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing at yourself."
The man whispered, "G-d, speak to me," and a meadowlark sang. But the man did not hear.
So the man yelled, "G-d, speak to me!" And the thunder rolled across the sky. The man still did not listen.
He looked around and said, "G-d, let me see You." And a star shone brightly. But the man did not notice.
He shouted, "G-d, show me a miracle!" And a life was born. But the man did not know.
The man cried out in despair, "Touch me, G-d, and let me know You are here!" whereupon G-d reached down and touched the man. But the man brushed the butterfly away and walked on. - Don't reject a blessing because it isn't packaged as you expect
- "A true friend is someone who knows us – and still likes us.""The best thing to do behind a person's back – is pat it!"
- A French astronomer announced, "I have swept the universe with my telescope, and I find no G-d."
A famous violinist responded to him, "That is as unreasonable as if I were to say, 'I have taken my violin apart, examined each piece with my microscope and find no music.'" - "Living in this world, we view the back of a master embroidery piece. Mismatched colored strings, knotted and twisted, overlap to form a warped pattern. But G-d views the other side. Colors blended in unity, each detail perfectly patterned forms a design of the highest quality." —Chana Burston
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tzniut in front of non-Jewish men - a response to Ms. F's query
Ms. F wrote:
May I say that I feel so validated by what Mrs. Knoll wrote! I always felt the same way, even if I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was right.
Now I have a question, I was told that I could walk around an amusement park in my bathing suit if the only men there were non-Jews? Besides the obvious point that how can one possibly be 100% positive that all males are not Jewish - does tzniut only apply in front of Jewish men?
First, I'm so glad you liked what I wrote - thanks!
Now to address your question:
At first I didn’t understand how anyone could have even suggested to you that it might be OK to walk around in a bathing suit in front of non-Jewish men. It seemed almost absurd; in fact, in some ways, it seemed even worse than wearing a bathing suit in front of Jewish men – at least a Jewish man a girl might want to attract so that she can marry him, but nothing good can come of THIS scenario! But then, through an unrelated discussion with my Seminar class (about hair covering), I realized what the question is based on and I think there actually is a very logical basis for the suggestion, even though I think it is ultimately incorrect. I think the suggestion is based on the possibility that all the tzniut prohibitions are really on the man (i.e. he is not allowed to see immodestly dressed women); a woman needs to cover up only so that she does not cause a man to see something he is not allowed to see (lifnei iveir), but there is no objective issur upon the woman herself to be dressed in an immodest way. If that were the case, then it would make sense to say that if there are no Jewish men around, then there is no one around who has the issur of seeing immodestly dressed women, and so the women can dress however they want. However, I think this is an incorrect view of tzniut. I think that tzniut is very much a woman’s mitzvah – I think that we ourselves are obligated to dress modestly in front of men, not only so as to prevent them from sinning, but b/c we are obligated vis-à-vis ourselves to carry ourselves with dignity and dress modestly in front of them. If I am correct about that (and I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to research it and find out for sure - when I do, I will hopefully add to the blog), then I think it is irrelevant whether the men around are Jewish or not Jewish –either way, we have a mitzvah upon ourselves to dress appropriately.
In addition, I agree with Ms. Hoenig/Mrs. B’s point that this is a case in which sensitivity to tzniut would hopefully lead someone to decide not to wear a bathing suit in a park full of non-Jewish men, even if it turned it out that it was technically mutar (though I really don’t think it is, as I wrote above). To me this seems significantly less tzanua than wearing sweatpants while playing basketball when a man happens to walk in or wearing a bathing suit at an all-women's beach when one man happens to show up where he doesn't belong.
May I say that I feel so validated by what Mrs. Knoll wrote! I always felt the same way, even if I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was right.
Now I have a question, I was told that I could walk around an amusement park in my bathing suit if the only men there were non-Jews? Besides the obvious point that how can one possibly be 100% positive that all males are not Jewish - does tzniut only apply in front of Jewish men?
First, I'm so glad you liked what I wrote - thanks!
Now to address your question:
At first I didn’t understand how anyone could have even suggested to you that it might be OK to walk around in a bathing suit in front of non-Jewish men. It seemed almost absurd; in fact, in some ways, it seemed even worse than wearing a bathing suit in front of Jewish men – at least a Jewish man a girl might want to attract so that she can marry him, but nothing good can come of THIS scenario! But then, through an unrelated discussion with my Seminar class (about hair covering), I realized what the question is based on and I think there actually is a very logical basis for the suggestion, even though I think it is ultimately incorrect. I think the suggestion is based on the possibility that all the tzniut prohibitions are really on the man (i.e. he is not allowed to see immodestly dressed women); a woman needs to cover up only so that she does not cause a man to see something he is not allowed to see (lifnei iveir), but there is no objective issur upon the woman herself to be dressed in an immodest way. If that were the case, then it would make sense to say that if there are no Jewish men around, then there is no one around who has the issur of seeing immodestly dressed women, and so the women can dress however they want. However, I think this is an incorrect view of tzniut. I think that tzniut is very much a woman’s mitzvah – I think that we ourselves are obligated to dress modestly in front of men, not only so as to prevent them from sinning, but b/c we are obligated vis-à-vis ourselves to carry ourselves with dignity and dress modestly in front of them. If I am correct about that (and I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to research it and find out for sure - when I do, I will hopefully add to the blog), then I think it is irrelevant whether the men around are Jewish or not Jewish –either way, we have a mitzvah upon ourselves to dress appropriately.
In addition, I agree with Ms. Hoenig/Mrs. B’s point that this is a case in which sensitivity to tzniut would hopefully lead someone to decide not to wear a bathing suit in a park full of non-Jewish men, even if it turned it out that it was technically mutar (though I really don’t think it is, as I wrote above). To me this seems significantly less tzanua than wearing sweatpants while playing basketball when a man happens to walk in or wearing a bathing suit at an all-women's beach when one man happens to show up where he doesn't belong.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Re: Pants
An additional note from my chavrusa, Rabbi Josh Weinberger:
Tell Mrs. Knoll that her mehalech (approach) on wearing pants/bathing suit in all women areas where a man comes in is very similar to R'Moshe's approach - he has a teshuva in Igros Moshe about a male lifeguard for women's swimming hours. Because it is a place designed for women, it is not considered technically assur, though he adds a baalas nefesh (one who wants to be very careful about mitzvos) could be machmir.
Baruch Shekivant!
Tell Mrs. Knoll that her mehalech (approach) on wearing pants/bathing suit in all women areas where a man comes in is very similar to R'Moshe's approach - he has a teshuva in Igros Moshe about a male lifeguard for women's swimming hours. Because it is a place designed for women, it is not considered technically assur, though he adds a baalas nefesh (one who wants to be very careful about mitzvos) could be machmir.
Baruch Shekivant!
Another thought on makkat bechorot & pidyon haben
In addition to the excellent points that Rabbi Prince made in his post, I think another way to approach Leah and Aviva's question about makkat bechorot and pidyon haben is that there is a general theme of bechora that runs through the yetziat Mitzrayim story. Before Moshe goes to Mitzrayim to first ask Pharoah to let Bnei Yisrael go, Hashem appears to him and says, "Tell Pharoah, 'So says Hashem: Yisrael is My son, My firstborn. I have told you to send out My son to serve Me, and if you refuse to send him, behold I will kill your firstborn son'" (Shemot 4:22-23). "Bni bechori Yisrael" is the thesis statement of Yetziat Mitzrayim; the purpose of yetziat Mitzrayim is to demonstrate the unique "father/bechor" relationship of Hashem and Bnei Yisrael. The pesukim in perek 4 juxtapose the warning of makkat bechorot with the statement of "bni bechori Yisrael" because the point of makkat bechorot is that it demonstrates the truth of "bni bechori Yisrael." Makkat bechorot indicates to everyone that Yisrael is Hashem's bechor, and since the Mitzriim are torturing His bechor, He strikes their bechorot. Therefore, I think the commemorations of the fact that the Jewish bechorot were saved (pidyon haben, taanit bechorim) are another way of enacting "bni bechori Yisrael"--the Egyptian firstborn were killed, while the Jewish firstborn are consecrated to God.
First Strike!
Leah Blum and Aviva Novick ask:
Regarding Makat Bechorot - we do pidyon haBen in order to make up for the fact that Hashem saved our bechorot in makat bechorot. But part of the makka was specifically to target the Egyptians, and not Bnei Yisroel. Why are we making up for something that would never have happened? And if we are supposed to do this, why don’t we dedicate our light in some way to Hashem for sparing us from choshech, (or any other of the makkot)?
Although this question is related to last week’s parsha, I felt that the issues related to answering your question are themselves timeless.
You are correct, there is indeed a connection between Makkat Bechorot and Pidyon Ha’Ben; the Torah explicitly says so:
במדבר ג:יג- כִּי לִי, כָּל-בְּכוֹר--בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה: לִי יִהְיוּ, אֲנִי יְהוָה.
The Torah’s description of Makkat Bechorot and the state of devastation it left its victims in is quite shocking:
שמות יב:כט-ל- וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, וַיהוָה הִכָּה כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם... וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת
This final blow to the Egyptians was not just meant to put an end to a very sad chapter in Jewish history, which came as a result of Hashem’s finally bringing our enemies to their knees, but this makka would literally create a new reality for those who were not even directly affected by it themselves- the Jews.
Immediately following the story of Makkot Bechorot the Torah describes the new role of firstborn Jewish male children and the role they would now have as leaders of the Jewish people:
שמות יג:א-ב- וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם, בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה: לִי, הוּא.
שמות יג:יא– יב- וְהָיָה כִּי-יְבִאֲךָ יְהוָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְךָ, וְלַאֲבֹתֶיךָ; וּנְתָנָהּ, לָךְ. וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל-פֶּטֶר-רֶחֶם, לַיהוָה; וְכָל-פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ הַזְּכָרִים--לַיהוָה.
Why though were the firstborn sons of Jewish families singled out for distinction, their lives were in no more jeopardy than any other Jew, after all, wasn’t this makka aimed at the Egyptians? It would seem though, that Jewish families were also at risk of casualties resulting from this devastating makka, why else would Jewish households be commanded to spread the blood of the Korban Pesach on their doorposts?:
שמות יב:כב- וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.
Wasn’t the purpose of this to distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors?:
שמות יב:כג - וְעָבַר יְהוָה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח יְהוָה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.
The implication seems to be that anybody who did not do so was at equal risk of a potentially fatal outcome, despite the fact that they were Jewish. After all, isn’t this why the Jewish people required extra protection on that night? It was because of this extra protection that the Jews received from Hashem on the night of Makkat Bechorot that it is referred to as "לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים":
שמות יב: מב - לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיהוָה, לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיהוָה, שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.
But why? Why did the tenth makka specifically target the entire land and not just the Egyptians, as the previous makkot had? Would the Jewish people really have fallen victim to this makka if they didn’t properly identify their homes? Did Hashem need a reminder lest he run the risk of knocking on the wrong door?!
Rashi points out, יג:ב that the reason why Hashem specifically asked the Jewish people קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם- “sanctify to me every first born” is because he in a sense “acquired” them after the tenth makka. Since He did not kill them along with the Egyptian’s firstborn they now belonged to Him. In other words, he spared them and now they owed him. What becomes clear is that the first nine makkot were targeted against the Egyptians, but the tenth was aimed specifically at bechorim everywhere, regardless of their nationality. (This is not to say that the Jews necessarily risked the same kind of casualties as the Egyptians, but rather that they too had to demonstrate that they fully understood the message Hashem was sending through makkat bechorot in order to deserve their salvation).
What was Hashem’s gripe with those who happened to also be firstborn children? Once we understand this we can also begin to understand why the decree of makkot bechorot extended to the children of slaves, captives and even animals, (ה:יא, יב:כט, יג:טו).
Egypt was a nation of slaves and there was a hierarchy there which existed amongst all classes of people. This social tiering was even present amongst the animals to some extent, and even the Jews themselves. The Talmud Yerushalmi uses this notion to explain the following possuk:
שמות ו: יג - וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶל-פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם--לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Although one would instinctively translate the phrase, “וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל” to mean that Moshe and Aharon spoke with Paaroh concerning the Jewish people, the Meshech Chochma uses this Talmud Yerushalmi to offer a novel idea. He explains that the Jewish people, like Paaraoh, were also commanded to free their slaves, and thus Paaroh was not just to be spoken to concerning them, but that the Jews themselves were to be commanded to free their own slaves!
In order for the Jewish people to prepare themselves for their new post-slavery identity, a people whose identity would now and forever be defined by their commitment to Hashem and His Torah and whose stature in the world would come only as a result of their spiritual standing, a crash course involving vivid and graphic imagery would be necessary. If they were to transcend they too had to understand that what makes one great and what defines is his spiritual strivings. Once they could demonstrate that they understood this important concept then they no longer had to worry that Hashem would confuse them with the Egyptians, a people where everyone and everything was someone else’s master, even if he did not deserve this right. This directive came from the top, from a leader who thought he was a god.
From Makkat Bechorot forward a new precedent was to be set; man would have to earn the respect of other’s because of whom he was and what he represented. No longer could he simply demand respect. From here on in it would be earned. The Torah is also clear whose initiative this would have to be “קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר.” We were told by Hashem to actively be mekadesh the firstborn because kedusha comes through effort and is neither granted nor freely possessed.
Although the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was originally reserved for bechorot, the natural leaders and those who would best be suited to inspire and help guide the Jewish people, this privilege was stripped from them after Chet Ha’Egel, (Rashi, במדבר, ג: (יג. As a result of their failure to remain apart during the Chet Ha’Egel and because they did not seize the opportunity to positively influence others, the mantle of leadership was passed on to the Leviim and the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was given to them. As a result of this transfer of responsibility, and since bechorot have an elevated status, which from then on would be supplanted by the Kohanim from the tribe of Levi, a Jewish father must redeem his firstborn son for five silver coins in a ceremony called a Pidyon Ha’Ben:
במדבר פרק ג:יב,מא - וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָיוּ לִי, הַלְוִיִּם. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל;
Regarding Makat Bechorot - we do pidyon haBen in order to make up for the fact that Hashem saved our bechorot in makat bechorot. But part of the makka was specifically to target the Egyptians, and not Bnei Yisroel. Why are we making up for something that would never have happened? And if we are supposed to do this, why don’t we dedicate our light in some way to Hashem for sparing us from choshech, (or any other of the makkot)?
Although this question is related to last week’s parsha, I felt that the issues related to answering your question are themselves timeless.
You are correct, there is indeed a connection between Makkat Bechorot and Pidyon Ha’Ben; the Torah explicitly says so:
במדבר ג:יג- כִּי לִי, כָּל-בְּכוֹר--בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה: לִי יִהְיוּ, אֲנִי יְהוָה.
The Torah’s description of Makkat Bechorot and the state of devastation it left its victims in is quite shocking:
שמות יב:כט-ל- וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, וַיהוָה הִכָּה כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם... וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת
This final blow to the Egyptians was not just meant to put an end to a very sad chapter in Jewish history, which came as a result of Hashem’s finally bringing our enemies to their knees, but this makka would literally create a new reality for those who were not even directly affected by it themselves- the Jews.
Immediately following the story of Makkot Bechorot the Torah describes the new role of firstborn Jewish male children and the role they would now have as leaders of the Jewish people:
שמות יג:א-ב- וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם, בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה: לִי, הוּא.
שמות יג:יא– יב- וְהָיָה כִּי-יְבִאֲךָ יְהוָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְךָ, וְלַאֲבֹתֶיךָ; וּנְתָנָהּ, לָךְ. וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל-פֶּטֶר-רֶחֶם, לַיהוָה; וְכָל-פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ הַזְּכָרִים--לַיהוָה.
Why though were the firstborn sons of Jewish families singled out for distinction, their lives were in no more jeopardy than any other Jew, after all, wasn’t this makka aimed at the Egyptians? It would seem though, that Jewish families were also at risk of casualties resulting from this devastating makka, why else would Jewish households be commanded to spread the blood of the Korban Pesach on their doorposts?:
שמות יב:כב- וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.
Wasn’t the purpose of this to distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors?:
שמות יב:כג - וְעָבַר יְהוָה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח יְהוָה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.
The implication seems to be that anybody who did not do so was at equal risk of a potentially fatal outcome, despite the fact that they were Jewish. After all, isn’t this why the Jewish people required extra protection on that night? It was because of this extra protection that the Jews received from Hashem on the night of Makkat Bechorot that it is referred to as "לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים":
שמות יב: מב - לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיהוָה, לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיהוָה, שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.
But why? Why did the tenth makka specifically target the entire land and not just the Egyptians, as the previous makkot had? Would the Jewish people really have fallen victim to this makka if they didn’t properly identify their homes? Did Hashem need a reminder lest he run the risk of knocking on the wrong door?!
Rashi points out, יג:ב that the reason why Hashem specifically asked the Jewish people קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם- “sanctify to me every first born” is because he in a sense “acquired” them after the tenth makka. Since He did not kill them along with the Egyptian’s firstborn they now belonged to Him. In other words, he spared them and now they owed him. What becomes clear is that the first nine makkot were targeted against the Egyptians, but the tenth was aimed specifically at bechorim everywhere, regardless of their nationality. (This is not to say that the Jews necessarily risked the same kind of casualties as the Egyptians, but rather that they too had to demonstrate that they fully understood the message Hashem was sending through makkat bechorot in order to deserve their salvation).
What was Hashem’s gripe with those who happened to also be firstborn children? Once we understand this we can also begin to understand why the decree of makkot bechorot extended to the children of slaves, captives and even animals, (ה:יא, יב:כט, יג:טו).
Egypt was a nation of slaves and there was a hierarchy there which existed amongst all classes of people. This social tiering was even present amongst the animals to some extent, and even the Jews themselves. The Talmud Yerushalmi uses this notion to explain the following possuk:
שמות ו: יג - וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶל-פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם--לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Although one would instinctively translate the phrase, “וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל” to mean that Moshe and Aharon spoke with Paaroh concerning the Jewish people, the Meshech Chochma uses this Talmud Yerushalmi to offer a novel idea. He explains that the Jewish people, like Paaraoh, were also commanded to free their slaves, and thus Paaroh was not just to be spoken to concerning them, but that the Jews themselves were to be commanded to free their own slaves!
In order for the Jewish people to prepare themselves for their new post-slavery identity, a people whose identity would now and forever be defined by their commitment to Hashem and His Torah and whose stature in the world would come only as a result of their spiritual standing, a crash course involving vivid and graphic imagery would be necessary. If they were to transcend they too had to understand that what makes one great and what defines is his spiritual strivings. Once they could demonstrate that they understood this important concept then they no longer had to worry that Hashem would confuse them with the Egyptians, a people where everyone and everything was someone else’s master, even if he did not deserve this right. This directive came from the top, from a leader who thought he was a god.
From Makkat Bechorot forward a new precedent was to be set; man would have to earn the respect of other’s because of whom he was and what he represented. No longer could he simply demand respect. From here on in it would be earned. The Torah is also clear whose initiative this would have to be “קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר.” We were told by Hashem to actively be mekadesh the firstborn because kedusha comes through effort and is neither granted nor freely possessed.
Although the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was originally reserved for bechorot, the natural leaders and those who would best be suited to inspire and help guide the Jewish people, this privilege was stripped from them after Chet Ha’Egel, (Rashi, במדבר, ג: (יג. As a result of their failure to remain apart during the Chet Ha’Egel and because they did not seize the opportunity to positively influence others, the mantle of leadership was passed on to the Leviim and the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was given to them. As a result of this transfer of responsibility, and since bechorot have an elevated status, which from then on would be supplanted by the Kohanim from the tribe of Levi, a Jewish father must redeem his firstborn son for five silver coins in a ceremony called a Pidyon Ha’Ben:
במדבר פרק ג:יב,מא - וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָיוּ לִי, הַלְוִיִּם. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל;
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Women Singing Zemirot
Chana Tolchin Asks: If I am at a Shabbat table where there is more than one family (both men and women are present), should I hesitate to sing out during Shir Hamalot/bentching? I've seen women who whisper and women who sing completely normally. Are kol isha issues different when men and women are singing together for the purposes of tefillah?
Great question. Although almost all modern poskim agree that the laws of kol isha still apply today, even though in our culture men are more accustomed to hearing women’s voices, there is controversy about whether this prohibition applies to zemirot, tefillot, and the like.
This debate surfaced in halakhic literature about 100 years ago in Germany. Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Shu”t Seridei Esh 2:8) records that on a visit to Germany, he was shocked to find religious men and women singing zemirot together. His immediate reaction was against this practice, but after finding that Rav Azriel Hildesheimer and Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, two major German poskim at this time, approved of this practice, he tried to find a basis for it.
Rav Hildesheimer and Rav Hirsch approved of this practice based on the notion of “trei kalei lo mishtamei,” or, if two voices sing at the same time, it is hard to distinguish each one. Rav Weinberg was unsatisfied with this explanation, and instead cited a different teshuva, of the Sdei Chemed who, in the name of the Divrei Cheifetz, asserts that the prohibition of kol isha does not apply to zemirot because the context is one of kedusha in which men are not thinking about deriving pleasure from the women’s voices. He supports this idea with the story of Devorah the prophetess singing songs of praise to G-d together with Barak, who, at least according to the simplest explanation of the text, was not her husband. This, says Rav Weinberg, is sufficient basis for this practice.
Rav Weinberg then goes on to address the psychological implications of this issue, pointing out that those who sing zemirot have intentions “leshem shamayim” and allowing women to participate will help them cultivate a love for Judaism. He also explores the flipside: not being allowed to participate in oneg Shabbat by singing with the group is insulting to educated women and will cause them to distance themselves from tradition. Thus, he says, even if it is a measure of tzniut to to refrain from singing zemirot, “et laasot laHashem heferu toratecha,” or, sometimes we need to take measures that seem to be against the Torah in order to actually preserve the Torah. Given the times, denying women this religious expression would alienate them, causing more harm than good. Thus, says Rav Wienberg, one can rely on the lenient opinion and allow mixed singing for zemirot. Though he does not address Shir HaMaalot or bentching specifically, these seem to be in the same category as zemirot.
There are many who oppose this leniency (see Rabbi Howard Jachter’s article at http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Parameters%20of%20Kol%20Isha.htm for sources of more stringent opinions), and in many communities and instances, women do not sing zemirot aloud out of tzniut considerations. In fact, the Sdei Chemed himself says it is fitting to be strict, even though he supports the lenient approach as halakhically acceptable. But, given that education and religious expression for women is certainly as much, if not more, of a value in our modern communities as it was a century ago in Germany, I would think that women who want to follow the lenient approach certainly have halakhic sources to rely on. I believe that in the Modern Orthodox community, women participating in zemirot on Shabbat can foster an extremely positive environment of religious growth and expression that includes all members of the community.
Great question. Although almost all modern poskim agree that the laws of kol isha still apply today, even though in our culture men are more accustomed to hearing women’s voices, there is controversy about whether this prohibition applies to zemirot, tefillot, and the like.
This debate surfaced in halakhic literature about 100 years ago in Germany. Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Shu”t Seridei Esh 2:8) records that on a visit to Germany, he was shocked to find religious men and women singing zemirot together. His immediate reaction was against this practice, but after finding that Rav Azriel Hildesheimer and Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, two major German poskim at this time, approved of this practice, he tried to find a basis for it.
Rav Hildesheimer and Rav Hirsch approved of this practice based on the notion of “trei kalei lo mishtamei,” or, if two voices sing at the same time, it is hard to distinguish each one. Rav Weinberg was unsatisfied with this explanation, and instead cited a different teshuva, of the Sdei Chemed who, in the name of the Divrei Cheifetz, asserts that the prohibition of kol isha does not apply to zemirot because the context is one of kedusha in which men are not thinking about deriving pleasure from the women’s voices. He supports this idea with the story of Devorah the prophetess singing songs of praise to G-d together with Barak, who, at least according to the simplest explanation of the text, was not her husband. This, says Rav Weinberg, is sufficient basis for this practice.
Rav Weinberg then goes on to address the psychological implications of this issue, pointing out that those who sing zemirot have intentions “leshem shamayim” and allowing women to participate will help them cultivate a love for Judaism. He also explores the flipside: not being allowed to participate in oneg Shabbat by singing with the group is insulting to educated women and will cause them to distance themselves from tradition. Thus, he says, even if it is a measure of tzniut to to refrain from singing zemirot, “et laasot laHashem heferu toratecha,” or, sometimes we need to take measures that seem to be against the Torah in order to actually preserve the Torah. Given the times, denying women this religious expression would alienate them, causing more harm than good. Thus, says Rav Wienberg, one can rely on the lenient opinion and allow mixed singing for zemirot. Though he does not address Shir HaMaalot or bentching specifically, these seem to be in the same category as zemirot.
There are many who oppose this leniency (see Rabbi Howard Jachter’s article at http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Parameters%20of%20Kol%20Isha.htm for sources of more stringent opinions), and in many communities and instances, women do not sing zemirot aloud out of tzniut considerations. In fact, the Sdei Chemed himself says it is fitting to be strict, even though he supports the lenient approach as halakhically acceptable. But, given that education and religious expression for women is certainly as much, if not more, of a value in our modern communities as it was a century ago in Germany, I would think that women who want to follow the lenient approach certainly have halakhic sources to rely on. I believe that in the Modern Orthodox community, women participating in zemirot on Shabbat can foster an extremely positive environment of religious growth and expression that includes all members of the community.
If everything is decided on Yom Kippur, why do we daven for things during the rest of the year?
Penina Cohen asks: About tefillah, we always try to daven for cholim and people in problems. If we believe in "u'netaneh tokeph" on Yom Kippur, and we think that everything is decided on yom kippur, including who will live and who will die, then what are we really davening for? If Hashem seals the book on Yom Kippur, then the person who we are davening for is going to die whether or not we pray for them. How can we reconcile our praying for the sick, with the fact that we think that it was all decided at the beginning of the year?
This is a great question. The nature of the judgment that is passed on the Yamim Noraim is difficult to understand, because in fact Tanakh and Torah she’be’al peh are replete with statements that a person can change his fate at any time by turning to Hashem in sincere teshuva and prayer--for example, see Yeshayahu 1:18, Yechezkel 33:11, and basically all the rest of Neviim Acharonim. The Gemara is also full of stories of people whose teshuva and tefilla were accepted at the last moment, and not just on the Yamim Noraim. For example, Berakhot 10a recounts that when Yeshayahu told Chizkiyahu that Hashem had decreed that he would die because he hadn’t fulfilled the mitzva of having children, Chizkiyahu davened for his life. When Yeshayahu told him that it was too late, Chizkiyahu retorted, “Afilu cherev chada munachat al tzavaro shel adam al yimna atzmo min harachamim”—even at the moment that a sword is poised over a man’s neck, he should not despair of Hashem’s mercy (and, of course, Chizkiyahu’s tefilla worked and Hashem revoked His gezeira). In fact, the passage in the davening of Yom Kippur that immediately follows Unetaneh Tokef says, “Until the day of his death You await him; if he repents You will accept him immediately.” How can this statement immediately follow the declaration in Unetaneh Tokef that everyone’s fate is decided on the Yamim Noraim?!
The Rambam explains (Hilkhot Teshuva 2:6) that “even though teshuva and crying out to Hashem are always beneficial, during the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur they are even more beneficial and are immediately accepted, as it says, ‘Seek Hashem when He is found; call out to Him when He is near.’” In other words, the way that I understand the nature of Hashem's judgment on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur is that, while we can alter the course of our destiny at any moment through teshuva, tefilla, and maasim tovim, our teshuva is more likely to work on the Yamim Noraim because the nature of these days gives our teshuva an extra measure of power and efficacy. During the rest of the year, we can still turn to Hashem through prayer, and Hashem hears and responds to our prayers at all times, but on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, our tefillot are buoyed by the power and promise of these days.
In general, it is difficult to understand why our tefillot can change the course of our lives, why we have the ability to "change Hashem's mind". The way I like to think about it is that Hashem always gives us what we need, and sometimes this may unfortunately take the form of hardships. However, we can change the reality of who we are and what we need by turning to Hashem in heartfelt tefilla. It’s just that this avoda is so difficult that we are more likely to be successful at it when Hashem gives us an extra measure of closeness to Him on the Yamim Noraim.
This is a great question. The nature of the judgment that is passed on the Yamim Noraim is difficult to understand, because in fact Tanakh and Torah she’be’al peh are replete with statements that a person can change his fate at any time by turning to Hashem in sincere teshuva and prayer--for example, see Yeshayahu 1:18, Yechezkel 33:11, and basically all the rest of Neviim Acharonim. The Gemara is also full of stories of people whose teshuva and tefilla were accepted at the last moment, and not just on the Yamim Noraim. For example, Berakhot 10a recounts that when Yeshayahu told Chizkiyahu that Hashem had decreed that he would die because he hadn’t fulfilled the mitzva of having children, Chizkiyahu davened for his life. When Yeshayahu told him that it was too late, Chizkiyahu retorted, “Afilu cherev chada munachat al tzavaro shel adam al yimna atzmo min harachamim”—even at the moment that a sword is poised over a man’s neck, he should not despair of Hashem’s mercy (and, of course, Chizkiyahu’s tefilla worked and Hashem revoked His gezeira). In fact, the passage in the davening of Yom Kippur that immediately follows Unetaneh Tokef says, “Until the day of his death You await him; if he repents You will accept him immediately.” How can this statement immediately follow the declaration in Unetaneh Tokef that everyone’s fate is decided on the Yamim Noraim?!
The Rambam explains (Hilkhot Teshuva 2:6) that “even though teshuva and crying out to Hashem are always beneficial, during the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur they are even more beneficial and are immediately accepted, as it says, ‘Seek Hashem when He is found; call out to Him when He is near.’” In other words, the way that I understand the nature of Hashem's judgment on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur is that, while we can alter the course of our destiny at any moment through teshuva, tefilla, and maasim tovim, our teshuva is more likely to work on the Yamim Noraim because the nature of these days gives our teshuva an extra measure of power and efficacy. During the rest of the year, we can still turn to Hashem through prayer, and Hashem hears and responds to our prayers at all times, but on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, our tefillot are buoyed by the power and promise of these days.
In general, it is difficult to understand why our tefillot can change the course of our lives, why we have the ability to "change Hashem's mind". The way I like to think about it is that Hashem always gives us what we need, and sometimes this may unfortunately take the form of hardships. However, we can change the reality of who we are and what we need by turning to Hashem in heartfelt tefilla. It’s just that this avoda is so difficult that we are more likely to be successful at it when Hashem gives us an extra measure of closeness to Him on the Yamim Noraim.
Response to Mrs. Sinensky's tag ripping challenge question
Rebecca Schenker writes:
Would the problem with ripping the seems in the slit of the skirt on shabbat be like taking off fringes of the garment? The skirt wasn't completed before the slit was ripped, rather after and the slit was made with the intention of being part of the skirt, making ripping the slit makeh b'patish. (according to the shulchan aruch)
Correct!! Yasher koach!! Mrs. Sinensky
Would the problem with ripping the seems in the slit of the skirt on shabbat be like taking off fringes of the garment? The skirt wasn't completed before the slit was ripped, rather after and the slit was made with the intention of being part of the skirt, making ripping the slit makeh b'patish. (according to the shulchan aruch)
Correct!! Yasher koach!! Mrs. Sinensky
Friday, February 6, 2009
Organ Donation and Tehiat Ha-Metim
Rebecca Schenker asks: What is the deal with organ donations for when Mashiach comes? How will those who have donated live if they are missing organs?
Great question! Building off of the points made already by Mrs. Herzog and Rabbi Besser concerning the controversy over donating organs (brain stem death vs heart failure to determine the point of death), there are still many problems people have with organ donation, even if one holds that a person is halakhically dead when their brain stem dies and that taking their organs is permissiable. Aren't we supposed to respect dead bodies, not desecreate them ("nivul hamet"), bury them right away, along with the question of resurrection in the messianic era if they have no organs?
The Halakhic Organ Donation Society deals with this very question of tehiat hameitim on their website, and responds that the belief that one has to be buried "whole" in order to be resurrected has no source in any classical Jewish texts. We don't know how G-d plans on bringing everyone back to life, but one can assume that He can do it, even without organs, especially since ultimately every person buried decomposes - organs and bones alike. Moreover, the vision of Yehezkel in perek 37 of that sefer depicts only dry bones coming back to life (organs not included).
Additionally, the Mishna and Gemara describe how historically when someone died, the family would put the body in a special burial cave until it completely decomposed (including organs), and then a family member would perform "likut atzamot" ("collecting the bones"), where they would collect the bones and place them in ossuaries, a special family chest where the bones would remain (for more info and pictures of ossuaries found in Israel, check out this link on the HODS site: http://www.hods.org/English/h-issues/issues.asp#Resurrection).
The final point on this topic is that all the other issues of desecrating bodies and having to bury people right away - are valid halakhic issues, but can be cancelled out due to the competing factor of Pikuach Nefesh, since through donating your organs you can contibute to saving the lives of up to 7 people (http://www.hods.org/English/activities/donors.asp), a huge and tremendous Mitzvah!!
Halakhic organ donation is an especially crucial issue today in Israel, as due to misinformation, many Jews do not donate their organs, not knowing that they are great Rabbanim who believe it to be halakhically acceptable and even a huge mitzvah! Therefore Israel as a country has developed a reputation in the world as a country that takes organs and does not give organs in return. This has led to many countries in the world calling for Israel's removal from the World Organ Bank, as well as the state receiving a terrible reputation (which is not exactly what we're aiming for with our mission to be an אור לגוים), and with many Israelis dying waiting for transplants as there aren't enough organs to go around.
Check out the HODS site, get informed and read up about this very important and crucial issue -
http://www.hods.org/.
-Ms. Gordon
Great question! Building off of the points made already by Mrs. Herzog and Rabbi Besser concerning the controversy over donating organs (brain stem death vs heart failure to determine the point of death), there are still many problems people have with organ donation, even if one holds that a person is halakhically dead when their brain stem dies and that taking their organs is permissiable. Aren't we supposed to respect dead bodies, not desecreate them ("nivul hamet"), bury them right away, along with the question of resurrection in the messianic era if they have no organs?
The Halakhic Organ Donation Society deals with this very question of tehiat hameitim on their website, and responds that the belief that one has to be buried "whole" in order to be resurrected has no source in any classical Jewish texts. We don't know how G-d plans on bringing everyone back to life, but one can assume that He can do it, even without organs, especially since ultimately every person buried decomposes - organs and bones alike. Moreover, the vision of Yehezkel in perek 37 of that sefer depicts only dry bones coming back to life (organs not included).
Additionally, the Mishna and Gemara describe how historically when someone died, the family would put the body in a special burial cave until it completely decomposed (including organs), and then a family member would perform "likut atzamot" ("collecting the bones"), where they would collect the bones and place them in ossuaries, a special family chest where the bones would remain (for more info and pictures of ossuaries found in Israel, check out this link on the HODS site: http://www.hods.org/English/h-issues/issues.asp#Resurrection).
The final point on this topic is that all the other issues of desecrating bodies and having to bury people right away - are valid halakhic issues, but can be cancelled out due to the competing factor of Pikuach Nefesh, since through donating your organs you can contibute to saving the lives of up to 7 people (http://www.hods.org/English/activities/donors.asp), a huge and tremendous Mitzvah!!
Halakhic organ donation is an especially crucial issue today in Israel, as due to misinformation, many Jews do not donate their organs, not knowing that they are great Rabbanim who believe it to be halakhically acceptable and even a huge mitzvah! Therefore Israel as a country has developed a reputation in the world as a country that takes organs and does not give organs in return. This has led to many countries in the world calling for Israel's removal from the World Organ Bank, as well as the state receiving a terrible reputation (which is not exactly what we're aiming for with our mission to be an אור לגוים), and with many Israelis dying waiting for transplants as there aren't enough organs to go around.
Check out the HODS site, get informed and read up about this very important and crucial issue -
http://www.hods.org/.
-Ms. Gordon
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Hating our Enemies?
During the Israeli war in Gaza, a student asked me how we should feel about our true enemies. One of the primary sources on the subject is a גמרא in סנהדרין דף לט עמוד ב about this week's פרשה which relates the following dialogue:
אמר רבי יונתן: מאי דכתיב [שמות י"ד] 'ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה', באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא, אמר להן הקדוש ברוך הוא: מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה לפני?
The angels requested permission to sing shira to Hashem during קריעת ים סוף, but Hashem refused, rhetorically asking "my creations (the Egyptians) are drowning in the sea, and you wish to sing shira?"
This is actually why we do not say הלל in the 7th day of פסח. Yet, this doesn't end the debate. For an alternate understanding of the גמרא, see Rabbi Meir Soloveichik's controversial article "The Virtue of Hate".
אמר רבי יונתן: מאי דכתיב [שמות י"ד] 'ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה', באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא, אמר להן הקדוש ברוך הוא: מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה לפני?
The angels requested permission to sing shira to Hashem during קריעת ים סוף, but Hashem refused, rhetorically asking "my creations (the Egyptians) are drowning in the sea, and you wish to sing shira?"
This is actually why we do not say הלל in the 7th day of פסח. Yet, this doesn't end the debate. For an alternate understanding of the גמרא, see Rabbi Meir Soloveichik's controversial article "The Virtue of Hate".
more thoughts on humility
I have found a few things to be helpful to me personally in cultivating the trait of humility:
1. Going on a hike, going to the botanical gardens, seeing the ocean, going to the zoo—any experiences in nature—really have the power to show me the greatness of Hashem as Creator, and consequently remind me of my place in the world. Often, these experiences are powerful in the moment and don’t last past a few hours or days, and we forget our place in the world soon after. Hanging up pictures of those sights or looking at your album or pictures periodically can help you “relive” that experience.
2. The Rambam counts as one of the 613 to “cling to Chachamim and their traits.” I don’t think that the Rambam is advocating stalking your teachers or Rabbis, but I think the idea is that we are influenced by the people around us. Surrounding ourselves with people who have the trait of humility can help us develop that trait within ourselves.
3. I find that if I think about the words that I say in davening, i.e. that Hashem, is a Melech, Gibor, Gadol, etc., it is helpful in reminding me of my place in the world. Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur davening are jam-packed with tefillot that discuss these themes, but if we try to stop and focus on our daily davening (definitely a struggle!!), it’s there too.
Finally: Cultivating a character trait is definitely hard work. I think that it is a lifelong endeavor, and there’s no simple “quick fix.” I do, however, believe that a person can make great strides in working on this trait (or any other) and becoming the best that she can be.
1. Going on a hike, going to the botanical gardens, seeing the ocean, going to the zoo—any experiences in nature—really have the power to show me the greatness of Hashem as Creator, and consequently remind me of my place in the world. Often, these experiences are powerful in the moment and don’t last past a few hours or days, and we forget our place in the world soon after. Hanging up pictures of those sights or looking at your album or pictures periodically can help you “relive” that experience.
2. The Rambam counts as one of the 613 to “cling to Chachamim and their traits.” I don’t think that the Rambam is advocating stalking your teachers or Rabbis, but I think the idea is that we are influenced by the people around us. Surrounding ourselves with people who have the trait of humility can help us develop that trait within ourselves.
3. I find that if I think about the words that I say in davening, i.e. that Hashem, is a Melech, Gibor, Gadol, etc., it is helpful in reminding me of my place in the world. Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur davening are jam-packed with tefillot that discuss these themes, but if we try to stop and focus on our daily davening (definitely a struggle!!), it’s there too.
Finally: Cultivating a character trait is definitely hard work. I think that it is a lifelong endeavor, and there’s no simple “quick fix.” I do, however, believe that a person can make great strides in working on this trait (or any other) and becoming the best that she can be.
The Paradox of Humility
A student asks: How does a person become humble? I honestly have no idea!
Mrs. Schapiro replies:
Humility is actually one of the most philosophically difficult character traits, and you ask an excellent question. The Torah definition of a good person is fairly clear - someome who respects Hashem and fulfills His mitzvot, learns Torah and is kind to others. The difficulty about humility is this: If you think you are reasonably accomplished as a good person (even if you recognize that you have more to work on), isn't it ga'avah to think so? But if you don't recogize your own accomplishments, aren't you lying to yourself? The Torah values honesty too!
I once read an article about humility in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought (a publication that's often worth reading) in which a rabbi and philosophy professor named George N. Schlesinger addresses this question. It's a paradox that Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest man who ever lived, was also the most humble. Professor Schlesinger writes that the solution to the paradox is to know yourself honestly, but not to give your good qualities any more importance because you possess them than you would if anyone else possessed them. Don't spend a lot of time thinking about your good qualities just because they're yours. He tells a story of an important European rabbi (whose name I don't recall) who came to an inn and found it all abuzz because a great rav was due to arrive. "Who?" the rabbi wondered. Then he realized it must be himself! But this rav was genuinely modest because though he knew he was an important rav, it wasn't the first thing he thought of all the time. He didn't dwell on it or expect kavod.
Re: Chana's response
That's a great point. Note that when Hashem tells בני ישראל to enter the ים סוף, Rashi quotes from the Mechilta that
אין להם אלא ליסע שאין הים עומד בפניהם, כדאי זכות אבותיהם והם והאמונה שהאמינו בי
ויצאו, לקרוע להם הים
That they should enter, as the sea will not stand in their way because the Zechus Avos and their own merit that they had אמונה is sufficient to split the sea.
Yasher koach.
אין להם אלא ליסע שאין הים עומד בפניהם, כדאי זכות אבותיהם והם והאמונה שהאמינו בי
ויצאו, לקרוע להם הים
That they should enter, as the sea will not stand in their way because the Zechus Avos and their own merit that they had אמונה is sufficient to split the sea.
Yasher koach.
Land for Peace
Question by Penina Cohen:
Should we be giving up land in Biblical Israel, if we know that people will die if we do not? The mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, and lo taamod al dam rayechah are very strong ones, and I was wondering if these could extend to the political issue of giving up land in Israel. If we know that people will die if they continue to live in the land, are we supposed to keep the land or give it up to save a life?
Answer:
This is a great question and hits on an issue that has been the source of much debate and controversy today in the State of Israel. To attempt to give some sort of answer to this very complex question, I'd like to look at this issue in light of three perspectives: halakhic, political and ideological.
1. Halakhic issues:
The first issue is maintaining that there is a Mitzvah to settle the land of Israel, which most Rishonim agree upon (for more info on that you can read this article: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1442)
The 2nd issue is that of (וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם (דברים ז:ב, explained by the Gemara in Avodah Zara 20a, that one is not supposed to sell land in Israel to idolators, in order not to give them a place in Israel to reside in (note: this is idolaters only, while non Jews accepting the 7 מצוות בני נח can always live in Israel as גרי תושב).
Now what happens when living in the land of Israel, or holding on to some parts of it will cause the loss of Jewish life. It's an issue of Pikuach Nefesh! And we know from the famous יהרג ועל יעבור Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a-b that one must only give up his or her life for one of the big 3 sins, none of which are settling the land of Israel.
Many poskim among them R' Ovadia Yosef (Rav Ovadia Yosef. "Ceding Territory of the Land of Israel in Order to Save Lives", Tehumim Vol. 10, 1989), Rabbi J. David Bleich of Yeshiva University, (The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Of Land, Peace and Divine Command") and others, including some say Rav Soloveichik z"l, use this argument to say that if one could maintain that trading back land for peace will save Israeli lives, then it is permissible. This was what prompted many rabbis (including R' Aharon Lichtenstein and Rav Amital of Yeshivat Har Etzion) to lend their support for the Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords), which was the first try at peace with the P.L.O. in 1993. (For a thorough discussion of this topic, you can check out an excellent book by R' Amnom Bazak, called '"That You Shall Live By Them", When Values Clash. A Study of the Sanctity of Life and the Integrity of the Land of Israel', which I'm happy to lend to you).
However there is another dissenting view, that would hold that pikuach nefesh would NOT cancel out the mitzvah of conquering the land (כיבוש הארץ). Giving away land would be יהרג ועל יעבור, and one would have to hang on to all conquered Israeli land, even if it would mean Israelis would die. This is based on the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 425) who asks how there could ever be a mitvzah to go to war (which does exist - מלחמת מצוה), when the very nature of going to war involves putting ones life at risk! Therefore pikuach nefesh does NOT cancel out a מלחמת מצוה, part of which would be conquering the land. Rabbis on this side include Rav Avraham Shapiro z"l, the late Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav, and many other rabbis in the more right wing settler movement.
(For additional sources on the Halakhic debate, you can also look at 'Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective"' and 'Rabbi Aaron M. Schreiber, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 18, "Relinquishing Yehudah and Shomron: A Response to Rabbi Bleich"').
2. The Political Question:
The political question revolves whether trading land for peace will actually result in saving lives. On one hand, before the 1993 Oslo accords, many thought that negotiating with the PLO would result in a final peace treaty, and an end to violence and terrorism. Not to over simplify the Middle East peace process, but this much anticipated result did not occur, culminating in the 2000 Intifada, where acts of terrorism only increased. So the question today is politically, will giving back land result in peace? Many feel that after the failure of the Oslo accords and the start of the Intifada that it will not.
Others view it differently. Take the pull out from Gaza. On one hand, this was an area with a huge majority of Arabs and a tiny group of settlers. Israeli soldiers were dying protecting this small group. Also, terrorism was increasing against Israel and many claimed this would stop if Israel pulled out of Gaza. Many men and women in Israel protested why they had to send their sons to fight for tiny settlements that were so vastly outnumbered and impossible to defend.
On the other hand, although Israeli soldiers no longer have to protect settlements in Gaza after the pullout, terrorists who were shooting rockets at Israel before, can now move up further to the new border with Israel, with (as we saw a few weeks ago) towns such as Sederot, Ashkelon, Yavneh, Be'ersheva...etc, etc, now getting pounded with even more rockets. And Israeli soldiers still had to risk their lives to go back in to fight these terrorists. So politically, it doesn't seem that pulling back will actually result in peace!
The pull out from Gaza in 2005 was very different as this was a unilateral pull out, where Israel pulled out and withdrew without an accompanying peace treaty or any responsibilities undertaken by the Palestinian Authority in return. What is interesting is that Rav Ovadia Yosef, who did support the Oslo accords, was very against the pull out from Gaza, as this did not come with a guarantee of peace from the other side.
Therefore the political question is up to debate, and there are many, many opinions on both sides which all have merit and validity.
(One last thing to thing about is that Israel now is in a very problematic position vis a vis the land that it conquered in 1967. Israel conquered the West Bank, including many cities that are very holy to us: Chevron, Shechem, Shiloh... etc. However, we also are now in control of the lives of thousands and thousands of Palestinians. This is unlike the Palestinians living in the Galil or in East Jerusalem, who Israel granted full citizenship to (Israeli passports, and ability to vote!) after they annexed these areas. So now, in the West Bank, Israel is in control of all these Palestinians who are in this state of limbo. Israel doesn't want to be "ruling" over such a large civilian population. But if Israel grants them citizenship and annexes this land, there will be so many new Israeli Arab citizens, with voting powers, that this could vastly affect the Jewish nature of the State. Meaning, the solution of: "let's not give back any land and just keep it all" will simply not work).
3. The Ideological Issue
I think that a lot of how one views the "land for peace" debate depends on how you ideologically view Medinat Israel today.
There are many religious-Zionist groups in Israel who subscribe to the ideology of ארץ ישראל השלימה - that G-d gave us the land of Israel and because of that, we need to conquer, settle and live in as much of it as possible, with no exceptions. This is the beginning of the Messianic era - ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, so one could never even consider giving any of this land back!
This point of view espoused by many religious rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva in Israel has led to a tremendous ideological crisis among religious Zionist youth. If you believe that the state of Israel is ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, and then you give back land, and pull out of Gush Katif, then what does this all mean? Is this no longer the beginning of Geulah? Are we moving backwards??
However there is another more balanced viewpoint which I personally think needs to be spread around a little more. One can view the state of Israel as ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, but Geulah is a process. It happens slowly but surely. It's not going to happen overnight (there's a beautiful Yerushalmi that describes the process of Geulah as a sunrise, happening slowly but surely, going from darkness to light).
This raises the question of what we need to do to "bring geulah"? Will geulah come just through focusing on the land? Or will geulah come when we work on fixing the sins that got us exiled in the first place? Much of נ"ך focuses on the values of צדק ומשפט, on social justice, and how our goal as an עם הנבחר is to act as a role model to other nations by building the ultimate society of social justice and righteousness here in Israel.
Back in the day, when I was learning in Israel for the year, one of my teachers mentioned how it is ironic that the only areas of Israel that we have complete control over are the areas of Shevet Dan and the coast line (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Herzliah, Rishon Letzion...), which in Tanakh are not really places of much Kedusha. The places which are most holy to us, where most of the "action" happened in Tanakh are Yerushalayim, Chevron, Shechem, Yehuda v'Shomron, Har HaBayit...., which we very much do NOT have control over and are contested places, usually either under Arab control, or surrounded by a large Arab population. This teacher mentioned that perhaps G-d only grants us land on the level of kedusha that we are deserving. G-d gave us the tremendous gift of Medinat Israel, but we are not deserving of certain holy places yet.
So, then, how do we get to that stage of gaining those other holy areas of Eretz Israel? Is it through moving to Chevron and raising one's family in a very dangerous area (not to negate the choice of those who do this), or is it through strengthening the צדק ומשפט of the ares that we do have and making them into the model society, showing G-d that we are willing to fix that which we were exiled for, and that we're not missing the point by focusing on the land to the exclusion of the values that our state is supposed to stand for.
And are we doing this? In Jerusalem a large number of Holocaust survivors live below the poverty line. Children of new immigrants from Ethiopia and Russia go hungry in towns in the North. There is rampart corruption and bribery taking place in all levels of the government. Perhaps it's through volunteering at soup kitchens, organizing social programs that take care of the poor, campaigning for change and the elimination of corruption in the Israeli government... maybe this is the better path to take to bring Geulah.
Again, I'm not trying to bash people who are settling the more contested areas of the land of Israel. There's also the ethical issues of evacuating settlers from their homes, especially if this will not bring peace, and even more so if the government won't take care of the evacuees afterwards! As well there are many settlements in prominently Jewish areas: Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel...., I'm saying that we still need to keep our ideological priorities in order.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to disagree!
-Ms. Gordon
Should we be giving up land in Biblical Israel, if we know that people will die if we do not? The mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, and lo taamod al dam rayechah are very strong ones, and I was wondering if these could extend to the political issue of giving up land in Israel. If we know that people will die if they continue to live in the land, are we supposed to keep the land or give it up to save a life?
Answer:
This is a great question and hits on an issue that has been the source of much debate and controversy today in the State of Israel. To attempt to give some sort of answer to this very complex question, I'd like to look at this issue in light of three perspectives: halakhic, political and ideological.
1. Halakhic issues:
The first issue is maintaining that there is a Mitzvah to settle the land of Israel, which most Rishonim agree upon (for more info on that you can read this article: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1442)
The 2nd issue is that of (וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם (דברים ז:ב, explained by the Gemara in Avodah Zara 20a, that one is not supposed to sell land in Israel to idolators, in order not to give them a place in Israel to reside in (note: this is idolaters only, while non Jews accepting the 7 מצוות בני נח can always live in Israel as גרי תושב).
Now what happens when living in the land of Israel, or holding on to some parts of it will cause the loss of Jewish life. It's an issue of Pikuach Nefesh! And we know from the famous יהרג ועל יעבור Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a-b that one must only give up his or her life for one of the big 3 sins, none of which are settling the land of Israel.
Many poskim among them R' Ovadia Yosef (Rav Ovadia Yosef. "Ceding Territory of the Land of Israel in Order to Save Lives", Tehumim Vol. 10, 1989), Rabbi J. David Bleich of Yeshiva University, (The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Of Land, Peace and Divine Command") and others, including some say Rav Soloveichik z"l, use this argument to say that if one could maintain that trading back land for peace will save Israeli lives, then it is permissible. This was what prompted many rabbis (including R' Aharon Lichtenstein and Rav Amital of Yeshivat Har Etzion) to lend their support for the Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords), which was the first try at peace with the P.L.O. in 1993. (For a thorough discussion of this topic, you can check out an excellent book by R' Amnom Bazak, called '"That You Shall Live By Them", When Values Clash. A Study of the Sanctity of Life and the Integrity of the Land of Israel', which I'm happy to lend to you).
However there is another dissenting view, that would hold that pikuach nefesh would NOT cancel out the mitzvah of conquering the land (כיבוש הארץ). Giving away land would be יהרג ועל יעבור, and one would have to hang on to all conquered Israeli land, even if it would mean Israelis would die. This is based on the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 425) who asks how there could ever be a mitvzah to go to war (which does exist - מלחמת מצוה), when the very nature of going to war involves putting ones life at risk! Therefore pikuach nefesh does NOT cancel out a מלחמת מצוה, part of which would be conquering the land. Rabbis on this side include Rav Avraham Shapiro z"l, the late Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav, and many other rabbis in the more right wing settler movement.
(For additional sources on the Halakhic debate, you can also look at 'Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective"' and 'Rabbi Aaron M. Schreiber, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 18, "Relinquishing Yehudah and Shomron: A Response to Rabbi Bleich"').
2. The Political Question:
The political question revolves whether trading land for peace will actually result in saving lives. On one hand, before the 1993 Oslo accords, many thought that negotiating with the PLO would result in a final peace treaty, and an end to violence and terrorism. Not to over simplify the Middle East peace process, but this much anticipated result did not occur, culminating in the 2000 Intifada, where acts of terrorism only increased. So the question today is politically, will giving back land result in peace? Many feel that after the failure of the Oslo accords and the start of the Intifada that it will not.
Others view it differently. Take the pull out from Gaza. On one hand, this was an area with a huge majority of Arabs and a tiny group of settlers. Israeli soldiers were dying protecting this small group. Also, terrorism was increasing against Israel and many claimed this would stop if Israel pulled out of Gaza. Many men and women in Israel protested why they had to send their sons to fight for tiny settlements that were so vastly outnumbered and impossible to defend.
On the other hand, although Israeli soldiers no longer have to protect settlements in Gaza after the pullout, terrorists who were shooting rockets at Israel before, can now move up further to the new border with Israel, with (as we saw a few weeks ago) towns such as Sederot, Ashkelon, Yavneh, Be'ersheva...etc, etc, now getting pounded with even more rockets. And Israeli soldiers still had to risk their lives to go back in to fight these terrorists. So politically, it doesn't seem that pulling back will actually result in peace!
The pull out from Gaza in 2005 was very different as this was a unilateral pull out, where Israel pulled out and withdrew without an accompanying peace treaty or any responsibilities undertaken by the Palestinian Authority in return. What is interesting is that Rav Ovadia Yosef, who did support the Oslo accords, was very against the pull out from Gaza, as this did not come with a guarantee of peace from the other side.
Therefore the political question is up to debate, and there are many, many opinions on both sides which all have merit and validity.
(One last thing to thing about is that Israel now is in a very problematic position vis a vis the land that it conquered in 1967. Israel conquered the West Bank, including many cities that are very holy to us: Chevron, Shechem, Shiloh... etc. However, we also are now in control of the lives of thousands and thousands of Palestinians. This is unlike the Palestinians living in the Galil or in East Jerusalem, who Israel granted full citizenship to (Israeli passports, and ability to vote!) after they annexed these areas. So now, in the West Bank, Israel is in control of all these Palestinians who are in this state of limbo. Israel doesn't want to be "ruling" over such a large civilian population. But if Israel grants them citizenship and annexes this land, there will be so many new Israeli Arab citizens, with voting powers, that this could vastly affect the Jewish nature of the State. Meaning, the solution of: "let's not give back any land and just keep it all" will simply not work).
3. The Ideological Issue
I think that a lot of how one views the "land for peace" debate depends on how you ideologically view Medinat Israel today.
There are many religious-Zionist groups in Israel who subscribe to the ideology of ארץ ישראל השלימה - that G-d gave us the land of Israel and because of that, we need to conquer, settle and live in as much of it as possible, with no exceptions. This is the beginning of the Messianic era - ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, so one could never even consider giving any of this land back!
This point of view espoused by many religious rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva in Israel has led to a tremendous ideological crisis among religious Zionist youth. If you believe that the state of Israel is ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, and then you give back land, and pull out of Gush Katif, then what does this all mean? Is this no longer the beginning of Geulah? Are we moving backwards??
However there is another more balanced viewpoint which I personally think needs to be spread around a little more. One can view the state of Israel as ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, but Geulah is a process. It happens slowly but surely. It's not going to happen overnight (there's a beautiful Yerushalmi that describes the process of Geulah as a sunrise, happening slowly but surely, going from darkness to light).
This raises the question of what we need to do to "bring geulah"? Will geulah come just through focusing on the land? Or will geulah come when we work on fixing the sins that got us exiled in the first place? Much of נ"ך focuses on the values of צדק ומשפט, on social justice, and how our goal as an עם הנבחר is to act as a role model to other nations by building the ultimate society of social justice and righteousness here in Israel.
Back in the day, when I was learning in Israel for the year, one of my teachers mentioned how it is ironic that the only areas of Israel that we have complete control over are the areas of Shevet Dan and the coast line (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Herzliah, Rishon Letzion...), which in Tanakh are not really places of much Kedusha. The places which are most holy to us, where most of the "action" happened in Tanakh are Yerushalayim, Chevron, Shechem, Yehuda v'Shomron, Har HaBayit...., which we very much do NOT have control over and are contested places, usually either under Arab control, or surrounded by a large Arab population. This teacher mentioned that perhaps G-d only grants us land on the level of kedusha that we are deserving. G-d gave us the tremendous gift of Medinat Israel, but we are not deserving of certain holy places yet.
So, then, how do we get to that stage of gaining those other holy areas of Eretz Israel? Is it through moving to Chevron and raising one's family in a very dangerous area (not to negate the choice of those who do this), or is it through strengthening the צדק ומשפט of the ares that we do have and making them into the model society, showing G-d that we are willing to fix that which we were exiled for, and that we're not missing the point by focusing on the land to the exclusion of the values that our state is supposed to stand for.
And are we doing this? In Jerusalem a large number of Holocaust survivors live below the poverty line. Children of new immigrants from Ethiopia and Russia go hungry in towns in the North. There is rampart corruption and bribery taking place in all levels of the government. Perhaps it's through volunteering at soup kitchens, organizing social programs that take care of the poor, campaigning for change and the elimination of corruption in the Israeli government... maybe this is the better path to take to bring Geulah.
Again, I'm not trying to bash people who are settling the more contested areas of the land of Israel. There's also the ethical issues of evacuating settlers from their homes, especially if this will not bring peace, and even more so if the government won't take care of the evacuees afterwards! As well there are many settlements in prominently Jewish areas: Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel...., I'm saying that we still need to keep our ideological priorities in order.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to disagree!
-Ms. Gordon
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Re: Parsha Observation - From Chana Tolchin
Maybe your parallel could be another indication of the role of zechut avot in the Yetziat Mitzrayim/midbar process. Avraham was thrown into the kivshan haeish immediately after he smashed the idols (publicly demonstrating his belief in Hashem), so when Hashem saved him we could see that as a reward for his emunah. Bnei Yisrael didn't really do anything to merit Kriat Yam Suf, and before Hashem split the sea Bnei Yisrael were even questioning their trust in Hashem and Moshe. Even after Bnei Yisrael doubted Hashem, Hashem gave them a nes anyway – because He wanted to fulfill the brit He made with Avraham. This idea doesn’t really take the details you pointed out into account, but I think the overall connection recalls the fact that zechut avot plays a huge part in the relationship between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Parsha Observation
I just noticed something, but I'm not sure what to do with it - all insights welcome. The mechanics of Kerias Yam Suf seem to follow the כבשן האש story. The hero demonstrates great אמונה entering what should naturally be a suicidal trip into the elements (fire/water) and is miraculously saved. The less worthy follower, assumes the נס will persist, enters, and is dramatically killed. Not sure it means anything though.
Halakha and Minhag
Leah Blum and Aviva Novick ask:
In today's times there seems to be a focus more on minhag haMakom and social Judaism more than halacha. People seem to decide what their minhag is before turning to the sources, and then try to make the sources fit with their shita. Because people make decisions about observance based on social pressures, they often end up stretching halachot. Many people and even poskim seem to have an "agenda" first and then look at the sources. How can halacha work this way?
I think this is a question that both poskim and lay people contend with on a regular basis, and that it's important for us as halakhic Jews to grapple with it. I would just point out that, as I understand it, this is not an issue related exclusively (or even mostly) to "today's times". Both Ashkenazic and Sephardic rabbis have, for many centuries, taken the idea of "ve-hayyitem ba-hem" as an important underpinning of piskei halakha, and this includes looking at minhag ha-makom and deriving certain aspects of halakha from it. In fact, I think that the significance placed on minhag is considered a hallmark of medieval Ashkenazic Jewish culture.
One source for this is the writings of the late, great Jewish historican Jacob Katz (and there are many others). Furthermore, Rav Haym Soloveitchik has a well-known article that discusses the textual focus of piskei halakha, as opposed to looking largely at minhag, as a particularly *modern* phenomenon (see the bibliographic information for his article in my "list" on this blog).
Of course, the ultimate arbiter of which aspects of minhag ha-makom are given the imprimatur of a p'sak, are rejected completely, or are modified to fit in better with the halakha as it exists has always been someone who is widely accepted by the community as a posek. I'm not sure if this answers the question of "how can halakha work this way", but I do think it's important to know that halakha has long worked this way.
Re: Pants
May I say that I feel so validated by what Mrs. Knoll wrote! I always felt the same way, even if I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was right.
Now I have a question, I was told that I could walk around an amusement park in my bathing suit if the only men there were non-Jews? Besides the obvious point that how can one possibly be 100% positive that all males are not Jewish - does tzniut only apply in front of Jewish men?
Re Medical Ethics
I just want to respond to Mrs. Herzog's excellent and insightful post about Rivka's questions. I'll repeat her disclaimer about not being a posek, and add that I also don't really get the science, so please correct me if it's appropriate. Two points: First, I think there is one major issue concerning organ donation that needs to be addressed. As many Juniors learn in Gemara class, after a person dies, his vital organs become useless very quickly. Therefore, most transplants of hearts, lungs etc. are taken from patients who are "brain-dead" - there is no more brain activity, and this is assumed to be irreversible. Much of the secular world has accepted brain death as an indicator of death, despite a functioning and beating heart. This is controversial within the world of halacha, and of course the stakes could not be higher. If brain-death is death, then pikuach nefesh would dictate that it is a great mitzvah to donate organs and for doctors to perform these potentially life saving procedures. If it is not, then donating the organs is a form of suicide, and the doctors removing them are murderers. My (limited) understanding is that there are able, responsible poskim on both sides of the issue (I think that the two poskim Mrs. Herzog mentioned at the end of her post, Rabbi Bleich and Rabbi Tendler, are on opposite sides, and vehemently so).
Donating non-essential organs (eyes, a kidney, blood, bone marrow), pose no such problem though they too are discussed in the context of endangering yourself to save another, and are generally less controversial.
The other answer I want to quickly supplement, is about stem-cell research. The Orthodox community is still in the formative stages of responding to this question. And while I think that the prevailing view is positive, as Mrs. Herzog accurately presented, there are some minority voices. I know that Rabbi Meir Soloveichik (Tradition Edition: Vol. 38 No. 1 - Spring 2004 - available by subscription only) wrote against it, making an extra-halachik argument about the value of life and experimentation.
Medical Ethics
What follows is a series of medical ethics questions submitted by Rivka Herzfeld.
1. Is IVF allowed?
Before I respond to any of this, I would like to this disclaimer to be known: I AM NOT AN HALACHIC AUTHORITY ON THIS TOPIC. I am sharing my knowledge based on research and personal experience.Yes, IVF is permitted by halacha.
a. If IVF is allowed, then is surrogacy allowed, and if so on who’s part? For example:
1. if Betty is a non-Jew, but we (somehow) are best friends and she can’t get pregnant, can she do IVF and I will be the surrogate?
2. If I am a Jew and I can’t get pregnant can I do IVF and she will be the surrogate?
3. If I am a Jew and my sister is a Jew and I can’t get pregnant can I do IVF and she will be the surrogate?
a1. The Jew/non-Jew issue is complex because it involves non-quantifiable parameters such as the kedusha of a neshama and the body in which it is housed. It seems pretty clear that the status of a non-Jew is different from that of a Jew. It also seems pretty clear that the status of a non-Jew is less "kadosh: than that of a Jew. As politically incorrect as that sounds, it is still the case. Therefore, I can imagine that to house a Jewish baby in a non-Jewish mother could be a problem. When a Jew is a surrogate for a non-Jew there may be two issues--that the Jew is housing the neshama of a non-Jew and that perhaps the "status" of that baby may be confusing because it WAS incubated by a Jewish mother.
With regard to the sister, the Jew/non-jew issue is obviously alleviated, but there may be a problem with arayot, as it is assur for a man to be married to two sisters (ever, even after one dies, except for yibum, which is no longer practiced [contrary to Hallmark movies.])
2. Is stem cell research okay with הלכה?
To the best of my knowledge, modern giants in science and halacha, including Rav Moshe David Tendler, have permitted stem cell research. The issue that troubles the "religious right" (by this I mean the Christians) is that these stem cells often come from aborted fetuses. In halacha. these are two separate things. Also, since there is clear puikuach nefesh involved, the research is encouraged. My understanding is that the research can be done and that this does NOT condone the abortion. Also, abortion is permitted under specific circumstances in halacha.
3. Can a Jew be an organ donor?
The issue with organ donation is Kavod HaMeit. The RCA has now issued "halachic organ donor cards" which (in some way, I don't know the details) instruct that the organs can be used, provided that they are 'harvested" in a manner that is in accordance with halacha. Again, the modern poskim hav e talked a great deal about this and the centrist Orthodox position is that, with kavod hameit respected, organ donation is permitted since the pikuach nefesh is also clear. a- Can a Jew be the recipient of an organ? Yes.
4. Can a Jew donate his body to science?
As far as I know, donating one's body to science is not permitted as the "pikuach nefesh " factor is not direct and the chances that the body will be improperly treated is very high.
5. I know that autopsies are not allowed, but why?
Under certain circumstance, autopsies are allowed. The issue. again, is kavod Hameit. Since the body was the "house" for the soul, it is considered sacrosanct and may not be defiled in life or in death. The process of preparing a body for burial (tahara) is very strict. Normal autopsies do not follow those guidelines. However, when there is a halachically acceptable reason for doing an autopsy (including certain criminal investigations and medical reasons) and the autopsy can be performed while adhering to halacha, then it is mutar. The Journal of Contemporary Halacha is a great resource for all of these questions, as is Tradition. Two of the major decisors of our generation is Rabbi Moshe David Tendler and Rabbi J. David Bleich.
Monday, February 2, 2009
עבודה שבלב Tefilla Contest winner!
The winners of our first contest were announced on Thursday - mazal tov to them all, and the many others who participated and received extra credit in Halacha. We are already into our second contest. This month's passage is "קרוב ד' לכל קוראיו לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת." Good luck to all.
Below, I have copied the winning poem, written by Ayala Schnaidman. I will post some other winners over the next few days. They were responding to "מודים אנחנו לך...על ניסך שבכל יום עמנו" Enjoy.
The Inquisitive Child
The inquisitive child,
A question he once asked
“Father,” he said
Why does G-d seem to be masked?
We learned in school
Of the manna the Jews ate
Why does food now
Not fall onto my plate?
And the victory of the Macabees
Who were oh-so small
Why do I see the masses
Rule over us all?
Such miracles as these
Haven’t been shown again
Does G-d not love us now
As he loved the Jews then?”
And the father looked at his son
And took his small hand
“My child,” he said
“Do you not understand?
It’s a miracle that
You can walk and play
G-d gave you muscles
So you can move today
And the fact the your brain
Has the power to learn
And you realized a problem
That gave you concern
So you may not see wonders
As those in the Holy Book
But the miracles are everywhere
If you know how to look
Must I Bless Even If I am Not Blessed?
Rivka Herzfeld asks: Must a blind person recite the beracha of poke’ach ivrim in the morning, thanking Hashem for giving sight to the blind, despite the fact that he cannot see?
Rabbi Prince responds: The Gemara Berachot, 35a, brings a source from the Torah, which obligates a Jew to recite a beracha before deriving hana’a (benefit or pleasure) from any food or other tangible (or sometimes even intangible) item. If he does not, warns the Gemara, he would be in violation of me’ila, unlawfully benefiting from something set aside for use in, or belonging to the Beit Hamikdash. Once one recites a beracha however, he is free to benefit from this otherwise permissible item. As a result of this rule, the Rabbis composed various berachot that are to be recited before different actions are preformed, such as; eating, putting on ones clothes, opening one’s eyes, etc.
The Gemara Berachot, 60b, lists 15 berachot which are to be recited by an individual as he goes about his morning routine. Theses berachot follow the order of events in a normal person’s morning schedule. So for example, when one arises he should recite, "elokei neshama" (thanking Hashem for restoring his soul); when one hears a rooster crowing- signaling the start of day, he should say, "asher noten l’sechvi (rooster) bina;" and when he straightens out his back he recites, "zokef k’fufim," and so on. Although these berachot are still recited nowadays, the custom has arisen to recite them aloud in the Beit Hakneset. This custom was instituted out of concern that one might recite them at home with unclean hands, Shulchan Aruch, 46:2.
While most everyone can find at least one thing in the Gemara’s list of 15 berachot to be thankful for, the question arises for the individual who unfortunately does not directly benefit from one or more of these things. Should a destitute person recite a beracha for the shoes he cannot afford? Can a deaf person really be thankful for the rooster he does not hear? Imagine the pain the blind person must feel every time he thanks Hashem for being a poke’ach ivrim, giving sight to the blind! For this reason, suggests the Tur, Orech Chaim, 46, if one does not have clothing to wear, or a belt or shoes to put on he should not recite the applicable berachot. This statement of the Tur is based on a Rosh, Berachot, 9: 23, which distinguishes between those things which Hashem provides for the benefit of the entire world, such as the crowing of the rooster, which signals the start of day, and those berachot which were composed for the individual to give thanks for what he has, such as his clothes, etc. These berachot, he suggests, should not be said if one does not personally have what to be thankful for. The Rambam, Hil. Tefilla 7:1 takes a similar approach to the Rosh, and did not feel it necessary for one to recite a beracha if he personally does not receive any direct benefit. The Hagahot Meimoniot (ibid.), suggests based on this Rambam that a blind person should therefore not recite the beracha of poke’ach ivrim.
The Kol Bo however, quotes a dissenting opinion of the Geonim who required that all these berachot be recited, even by those individuals who do to personally benefit. The Kol Bo argues, that even this individual must recognize that Hashem in general does provide the world with these gifts even if he personally may not be so lucky. The Ran and the Ramban, at the beginning of their commentaries on Pesachim, paskened along similar lines- obligating all fifteen berachot across the board. They cite the principle of "Minhag shel Yisroel Torah hi", once a custom has been accepted amongst the Jews it becomes as binding upon the individual as the Torah itself. Out of deference for the Rambam, yet acknowledging those Rishonim who disagree with him, the Beit Yosef, 46, recommends that if one does not benefit directly he should say the beracha leaving out the name of Hashem.
The Beit Yosef himself writes in his Shulchan Aruch, 46:8 that one who is not obligated to make a beracha, because he does not personally benefit, should still recite it but without mentioning Hashem’s name. The Rama however follows the opinion of the Ran and Kol Bo and for the same reason as them- out of recognition of Hashem’s kindness in general, even if he personally is not a direct recipient of this kindness. Although the Magen Avraham (ibid.) and others suggest that a blind person follow the Hagahot Meimoniot and not recite poke’ach ivrim, the accepted opinion seems to accord with that of the Rama: everyone, despite their situation, should recite all the birchot ha’shachar with Hashem's name.
Rabbi Prince responds: The Gemara Berachot, 35a, brings a source from the Torah, which obligates a Jew to recite a beracha before deriving hana’a (benefit or pleasure) from any food or other tangible (or sometimes even intangible) item. If he does not, warns the Gemara, he would be in violation of me’ila, unlawfully benefiting from something set aside for use in, or belonging to the Beit Hamikdash. Once one recites a beracha however, he is free to benefit from this otherwise permissible item. As a result of this rule, the Rabbis composed various berachot that are to be recited before different actions are preformed, such as; eating, putting on ones clothes, opening one’s eyes, etc.
The Gemara Berachot, 60b, lists 15 berachot which are to be recited by an individual as he goes about his morning routine. Theses berachot follow the order of events in a normal person’s morning schedule. So for example, when one arises he should recite, "elokei neshama" (thanking Hashem for restoring his soul); when one hears a rooster crowing- signaling the start of day, he should say, "asher noten l’sechvi (rooster) bina;" and when he straightens out his back he recites, "zokef k’fufim," and so on. Although these berachot are still recited nowadays, the custom has arisen to recite them aloud in the Beit Hakneset. This custom was instituted out of concern that one might recite them at home with unclean hands, Shulchan Aruch, 46:2.
While most everyone can find at least one thing in the Gemara’s list of 15 berachot to be thankful for, the question arises for the individual who unfortunately does not directly benefit from one or more of these things. Should a destitute person recite a beracha for the shoes he cannot afford? Can a deaf person really be thankful for the rooster he does not hear? Imagine the pain the blind person must feel every time he thanks Hashem for being a poke’ach ivrim, giving sight to the blind! For this reason, suggests the Tur, Orech Chaim, 46, if one does not have clothing to wear, or a belt or shoes to put on he should not recite the applicable berachot. This statement of the Tur is based on a Rosh, Berachot, 9: 23, which distinguishes between those things which Hashem provides for the benefit of the entire world, such as the crowing of the rooster, which signals the start of day, and those berachot which were composed for the individual to give thanks for what he has, such as his clothes, etc. These berachot, he suggests, should not be said if one does not personally have what to be thankful for. The Rambam, Hil. Tefilla 7:1 takes a similar approach to the Rosh, and did not feel it necessary for one to recite a beracha if he personally does not receive any direct benefit. The Hagahot Meimoniot (ibid.), suggests based on this Rambam that a blind person should therefore not recite the beracha of poke’ach ivrim.
The Kol Bo however, quotes a dissenting opinion of the Geonim who required that all these berachot be recited, even by those individuals who do to personally benefit. The Kol Bo argues, that even this individual must recognize that Hashem in general does provide the world with these gifts even if he personally may not be so lucky. The Ran and the Ramban, at the beginning of their commentaries on Pesachim, paskened along similar lines- obligating all fifteen berachot across the board. They cite the principle of "Minhag shel Yisroel Torah hi", once a custom has been accepted amongst the Jews it becomes as binding upon the individual as the Torah itself. Out of deference for the Rambam, yet acknowledging those Rishonim who disagree with him, the Beit Yosef, 46, recommends that if one does not benefit directly he should say the beracha leaving out the name of Hashem.
The Beit Yosef himself writes in his Shulchan Aruch, 46:8 that one who is not obligated to make a beracha, because he does not personally benefit, should still recite it but without mentioning Hashem’s name. The Rama however follows the opinion of the Ran and Kol Bo and for the same reason as them- out of recognition of Hashem’s kindness in general, even if he personally is not a direct recipient of this kindness. Although the Magen Avraham (ibid.) and others suggest that a blind person follow the Hagahot Meimoniot and not recite poke’ach ivrim, the accepted opinion seems to accord with that of the Rama: everyone, despite their situation, should recite all the birchot ha’shachar with Hashem's name.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Pants
Hi!! This is Daniella Grodko. so i once heard this and I wanted to know its true: If youre somewhere, for example a practice for the skirt league, where its known that only girls can be there, and a man comes in and your wearing sweatpants. Do you have to change and duck for cover or is it ok because he's the one whos 'intruding".
I (Mrs. Knoll) used to experience exactly this question all the time. Until a few months ago, we lived in Riverdale and I would go to women’s basketball night at the RJC (Riverdale Jewish Center, one of the major shuls in Riverdale) whenever I could. (I’m not any good, but it was still fun to play!) It was known that Monday was women’s basketball night, but even so, the shul custodian used to come in every so often, and worse, some of the men would sometimes cut through the gym on their way to Ma’ariv! I did play in sweatpants, and did not “duck for cover” when they came through. This was primarily because it is not clearly assur to wear sweatpants in the first place. There are two halachic issues involved with wearing pants: 1) begged ish and 2) tzniut. According to many authorities, pants are no longer begged ish now that it is clearly accepted for women in general society to wear them, and if the pants are baggy, which sweatpants are, then according to many authorities, they are not a tzniut issue either. I still do not wear pants in general, not even baggy sweatpants because a) I think once one starts wearing only baggy pants, it becomes very difficult to determine exactly what’s considered baggy or not, and one is likely to start wearing non-baggy pants, which are definitely a tzniut problem, and b) I think wearing skirts has become kind of like a woman’s way of showing that she is frum and seriously committed to halacha. However, since it’s not clearly assur to wear baggy pants in general, when a man would happen to come into the gym during women’s basketball, I would just continue playing. That being said, if someone wants to be machmir on herself and be particularly sensitive to these tzniut issues, I think that’s admirable; but she should be aware that it is a chumra and a sensitivity, not a halachic necessity.
Also, I do think the fact that the man is the one “intruding” makes a difference. In the paragraph above, I focused on the fact that wearing sweatpants is not clearly assur, and that’s why I don’t think you need to run for cover at your basketball practices. But let’s change the scenario: Let’s say you’re wearing a bathing suit at an all-women’s beach in Israel, and then a man walks onto the beach. Wearing a bathing suit in front of men is clearly assur. But I think that in this case, HE is the one doing what he’s not supposed to be doing and is where he is not supposed to be; that is his problem, his sin, not yours. Thus, even in this case, I do not think you have to run for cover. However, as above, one’s sensitivity comes into play, and one might want to cover up even if it is not her sin.
Bottom line: In your basketball example, I think there are 2 reasons why you do not have to run for cover: a) Wearing sweatpants in front of men is not clearly assur to begin with, and b) he is the one who should not be there (this assumes it is clearly known that it’s a “girl’s only” time).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
While I can't answer this question from a halachic standpoint, as I do not know the different opinions off-hand, I want to take this opportunity to suggest an opinion that simply has to do with tznius hashkafically.
I feel that the laws of tznius are not just about following the technicalities (is my skirt below my knee, is my shirt to my elbows, or whatever it is, am I wearing a skirt to play basketball, etc). I think that in no small way, the laws of tznius are geared towards helping us as Jews develop an outlook and personality of modesty.
Yes there are hard and fast halachos that we are supposed to follow as best as we can-- and I don't mean to minimize those issues, nor the approach of looking at tznius in only that way. But I do also think it's important not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, and to remember the bigger picture.
That being said, if I may offer my personal opinion, even if it would be technically ok (again, I am not familiar with the halachos so I'm NOT saying that it is ok!) to wear a bathing suit in an amusement park where there are only non-Jewish males (also: while it may technically be ok to appear immodest in front of non-Jewish males) I'm not sure that a decision like that exemplifies the spirit of the laws of modesty.
I do recognize that my statement is perhaps indicative of behavior that is "just" a sensitivity or perhaps a chumra (I don't know the topic well enough to know if that is the case), but I still feel that there is something to be said for giving credence to the spirit of the law.