Just to add something to what Mrs. Sinensky said:
One of my favorite seforim on tefila, Sefer Hei'arat HaTefilah (it's in Hebrew, but it's really great, I would highly recommend it), explains that the great wisdom of Chazal was that although they instituted a set text, they were able to choose words that would transcend time, words that would be applicable to every person in every time period, no matter how different the people or eras may be from one another. Even more so, he explains, in their wisdom, Chazal chose the specific words that could mean something different even for the same person every time he davens. How is that possible? It’s not something that is just going to happen automatically, but rather it’s a result of kavana. If you really concentrate every time you daven and take care to try to understand the words, you will imbue them with new meaning every time you say them. It is almost guaranteed that something different will be going on in your life each time you daven that will change either what you focus on or what your perspective is, or a myriad of other things that may change your tefila in some way or another. And if for some reason nothing new is going on to change those things, then you should actively concentrate on changing them—because it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to become actively engaged in our conversations with G-d. Because that's what tefila enables us to do- to have a private, direct conversation with
G-d.
Lynn Kraft
Sunday, March 29, 2009
why is tefilah a set text when it's meant to be a personal thing?
This is a great question that many have wondered about over the centuries! There are a few different approaches to this issue. Here are some:
1. R Y Halevi- Kuzari 3:19 writes:
“Communal prayer has many advantages. In the first instance a community will never pray for anything which is harmful to the individual, while the latter sometimes prays for something to the disadvantage of other individuals, and those individuals may pray for something that is to his disadvantage…A person who prays only for himself may be compared to someone who retires alone into his house, refusing to assist his fellow citizens in the repair of their walls. His expenditure is as great as his risk. The one, however, who joins the majority spends little, yet remains in safety.”
2. On the other hand, we have the Rambam. According to him (Mishna Torah Hil' Tefilah 1:4) spontaneous prayer was ideal. But, b/c of historical circumstances—no one was able to express himself in one language without making mistakes—we switched to fixed text. In fact, if you look in Tanach we see many examples of spontaneous Tefillah! One example is Channah, and we even learn a number of halakhot about davening from her!! (see Gem Brachot)
Given the reality that we have switched to a fixed text, the question that we have to address is: is there room for spontaneity??
It seems that not only is there room, but Chazal aware of the dangers of fixed text and actually MANDATE spontaneity! The Mishna in Masechet Avot says:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ב משנה יג
רבי שמעון אומר הוי זהיר בקרית שמע ובתפלה וכשאתה מתפלל אל תעש תפלתך קבע אלא רחמים ותחנונים לפני המקום ברוך הוא שנאמר (יואל ב') כי אל חנון ורחום הוא ארך אפים ורב חסד ונחם על הרעה ואל תהי רשע בפני עצמך:
We can do this by inserting special tefillot within any of the brachot of bakash, we can add our own tefillah before "elokei nitzor."
Alternatively, we can look within Shmoneh Esreh and see that perhaps it is a "catch all" and we can find within it the words that we want to say if we look deeply enough.
1. R Y Halevi- Kuzari 3:19 writes:
“Communal prayer has many advantages. In the first instance a community will never pray for anything which is harmful to the individual, while the latter sometimes prays for something to the disadvantage of other individuals, and those individuals may pray for something that is to his disadvantage…A person who prays only for himself may be compared to someone who retires alone into his house, refusing to assist his fellow citizens in the repair of their walls. His expenditure is as great as his risk. The one, however, who joins the majority spends little, yet remains in safety.”
2. On the other hand, we have the Rambam. According to him (Mishna Torah Hil' Tefilah 1:4) spontaneous prayer was ideal. But, b/c of historical circumstances—no one was able to express himself in one language without making mistakes—we switched to fixed text. In fact, if you look in Tanach we see many examples of spontaneous Tefillah! One example is Channah, and we even learn a number of halakhot about davening from her!! (see Gem Brachot)
Given the reality that we have switched to a fixed text, the question that we have to address is: is there room for spontaneity??
It seems that not only is there room, but Chazal aware of the dangers of fixed text and actually MANDATE spontaneity! The Mishna in Masechet Avot says:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ב משנה יג
רבי שמעון אומר הוי זהיר בקרית שמע ובתפלה וכשאתה מתפלל אל תעש תפלתך קבע אלא רחמים ותחנונים לפני המקום ברוך הוא שנאמר (יואל ב') כי אל חנון ורחום הוא ארך אפים ורב חסד ונחם על הרעה ואל תהי רשע בפני עצמך:
We can do this by inserting special tefillot within any of the brachot of bakash, we can add our own tefillah before "elokei nitzor."
Alternatively, we can look within Shmoneh Esreh and see that perhaps it is a "catch all" and we can find within it the words that we want to say if we look deeply enough.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Birchat Ha-Chamah
Penina Cohen asks: What exactly is birchat hachamah? What does it signify? How often does it come? What are we supposed to do regarding it?
This question could not be more timely, Penina, because if we don't answer it before erev Pesach, we'll have to wait another 28 years! (And I'm sure blogs will be obsolete by then anyway).
Birchat ha-Chamah is the recitation of the blessing Baruch atah Hashem ....oseh ma'aseh Bereishit (the same bracha that we say when we see lightning). We recite it every 28 years when the vernal equinox (the moment when spring begins) falls out at 6 pm on a Tuesday evening. According to an ancient calculation, this corresponds to the coincidence of astronomical phenomena as they occurred at the moment of the sun's creation on the fourth day (i.e., Tuesday evening). We recite it Wednesday morning (the first time the newly created sun would have risen), which this year is erev Pesach. The astronomy is actually much more complicated than this (and I can't claim to fully understand it myself) but the point of the bracha is to remind humanity that Hashem not only created the world, but continuously upholds the world's existence through His will.
There have been many books and articles about this recently - Rabbi J. David Bleich has updated the one he published in 1981, for example - and consulting them might give you a fuller picture of this rare event.
This question could not be more timely, Penina, because if we don't answer it before erev Pesach, we'll have to wait another 28 years! (And I'm sure blogs will be obsolete by then anyway).
Birchat ha-Chamah is the recitation of the blessing Baruch atah Hashem ....oseh ma'aseh Bereishit (the same bracha that we say when we see lightning). We recite it every 28 years when the vernal equinox (the moment when spring begins) falls out at 6 pm on a Tuesday evening. According to an ancient calculation, this corresponds to the coincidence of astronomical phenomena as they occurred at the moment of the sun's creation on the fourth day (i.e., Tuesday evening). We recite it Wednesday morning (the first time the newly created sun would have risen), which this year is erev Pesach. The astronomy is actually much more complicated than this (and I can't claim to fully understand it myself) but the point of the bracha is to remind humanity that Hashem not only created the world, but continuously upholds the world's existence through His will.
There have been many books and articles about this recently - Rabbi J. David Bleich has updated the one he published in 1981, for example - and consulting them might give you a fuller picture of this rare event.
Dayeinu - Would it have been enough?
Layla Blenden asks: I was looking through a haggadah and I was puzzled by dayenu. The beginning of it seems out of order- first Ha-shem took us out of Egypt, then He executed judgement against the Mitzrim, then He destroyed their idols, then He killed their first born, then gave us their possessions, and split the sea. The second stanza and on could have been in order since we learned (in Shemot 3:22, Sforno) that B'nai Yisrael were meant to only borrow the Egyptian's possessions, but once the Mitzrim chase them and it turned into a war, they got to collect the spoils [and then they crossed the Yam Suf]; but how could taking us out of Egypt come at the beginning---even before makat bechrot? Also, why would we consider bringing us into Eretz Yisrael a "favor"-I know we should be grateful for that, but if Ha-shem promised it to Avraham, isn't it inevitable that he would bring us there after taking us out of slavery?
Hi Layla, great question! I think that taking Bnei Israel out of Egypt comes first because Dayeinu does not focus on the chronology of what came first in Yetziat Mitzrayim, but instead focuses on our praising of G-d for each step of the redemption. We are saying that if G-d had taken us out of Egypt and freed us without drama of the formidable 10 Makkot, that would have been enough for us. We would have been grateful to be freed in just a normal way, but we are thanking G-d for going the extra step and for freeing us with the יד חזקה of the 10 Makkot.
This idea is developed in a great (and short!) shiur by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: http://www.tanach.org/special/dayenu.htm . He explains why in Dayeinu we can state that it would be enough if G-d had just taken us out of Egypt, but not given us the Torah, or given us the Torah but not brought us to Israel - which clearly, would not have been enough! He explains that Dayeinu acts as the bridge in the Seder between Maggid and Hallel, and therefore we now exclaim that each act that G-d did would have been enough to cause us to praise G-d, helping us appreciate each stage of the redemption (he also then connects it to Yom Ha'atzmaut, check it out!). Therefore, to answer the last part of your question, even if it's inevitable that G-d would keep His promise to bring the Jews to Israel, we still must praise G-d for this significant action - especially since this is the culminating purpose of why we were brought out of Egypt. Praising G-d for each stage, helps us value and appreciate each part of the process and see that nothing is taken for granted. A great attitude for both Pesach and for how to appreciate the events that happen in our own lives as well.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Pre-Pesach Project
Now that we're in ניסן, and Pesach is in the air it's time to get ready for the seder. In school, I'm sure many teachers will be sharing divrei torah or encouraging students to do so. This week's mishmar will be a "mock seder" where students and faculty will bring their favorite SHORT (3 minutes or less - strictly enforced!) idea about the Hagada for us all to take notes and bring home.
In addition to all that, I'm going to invite everyone to submit divrei torah here to post on the blog. Again, we're looking primarily for short ideas, links to longer shiurim or both. Judaic studies teachers can post directly, everyone else is welcome to contribute through the e-mail address. Yasher Koach in advance for all those who participate.
In addition to all that, I'm going to invite everyone to submit divrei torah here to post on the blog. Again, we're looking primarily for short ideas, links to longer shiurim or both. Judaic studies teachers can post directly, everyone else is welcome to contribute through the e-mail address. Yasher Koach in advance for all those who participate.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Developmental Disabilities
From Zahava Rothschild:
I have a question that I thought of today in Tanach class in response to something we learned in Sefer Devarim. The Abarbanel says that the purpose of Moshe's wrapping up his huge speech at the end of his life in the way that he does was to show that the purpose of life is to not only do the mitzvot, but to also love and fear G-d in the biggest way possible. My question is, that if that is what our purpose is, to find Gd and love Him, fear Him, and serve Him, then what about people who are mentally disabled and do not have the capacity to visualize Gd in any way. It seems to me that they are never able to achieve this higher level of purpose in the world that all Jews are supposedly meant to fulfill? Thank you!
Response: So Zehava, as soon as I read your question I knew I wanted to claim it, and start to form some kind of answer. Maybe it is because my brother has a developmental disability, or because of my years of work at Camp HASC and Yachad, or my work with all kinds of patients in my psychology career with cognitive limitations. In any event, this is my take and some thoughts from the guests at my home one night who I shared your question with.
Ill start with a story:
When I worked in Yachad, there was an advisor from South Africa, who is now a renowned Rav, named Johnny Shippel, who had an incredible experience on a Yachad Shabbaton at Columbia University. I wasn’t there, but this is how it was explained to me. So if I get it wrong forgive me. Rabbi Shippel (Johnny) had been speaking at the (always moving) end of Shabbos time, about fulfilling our purposes in life. A Yachad member at the moving closing Shalosh Seudot ceremony asked Johnny with great and heartfelt emotion “I don’t understand, I have some many limitations, I can’t do this, and this that you mentioned, so what could possibly be my purpose in this world?” Johnny answered that he didn’t really have an exact answer since we don’t know our purposes in life, but maybe just you being you and asking this question right now is part of your purpose in life. Well, this all became more of a story, when this Yachad member died suddenly that week, and hundreds of Columbia students came to the funeral. The family wondered who these people were that they had never met before and Johnny explained the story that had ensued that past Shabbat, where that Yachad member had clearly added to at least a part of his purpose by touching and reaching so many students with his powerful question.
So with that as a backdrop, let’s get to your query. You explain that the Abarbanel says that purpose of life as taught through Moshe Rabbeinu is to love and fear G-d in the biggest way possible. Sounds true right…. in fact my husband and I named our son Ovadya Avraham, because Ovadya was known to be the greatest Oved Hashem (fear of G-d), and Avraham the greatest Ohev Hashem (love of G-d), and we wanted to cosmically give him a leg up on exactly that mission! But let’s challenge your question on two levels… One how does one define “finding G-d” and Two, does G-d have the same purpose for everyone?
Let’s start with one. Who is the one defining what fear and love of G-d is? How does one really know how someone visualizes, fears, loves, connects with or understands G-d? Knowledge of G-d is such a deep thing; everyone can connect with that on a different way.
At the farthest extreme, say for someone who is severely cognitively limited, we cannot really understand what they feel about G-d, about the world around them, about their sense of self or reality, but that doesn’t mean that they do not have feeling about G-d’s presence. When you move up the functionality spectrum and you really talk to people with great limitations “mentally” it can be quite amazing the richness of spiritual life they express. So what may be your heights of finding G-d may not be the same as someone with severe impairment, but they may be both equally valid.
Two: G-d’s plan for each of us is so individual. Rav Dessler z”L in Strive for Truth Michtav M’Eliyahu writes about the Nekudat Habechira or “choice point.” This idea, explains how Hashem can judge every person using the same measurement. Really he posits, Hashem doesn’t. If for you not eating shrimp is a given, and is not a challenge for you at all, than it is not in your choice point, you have achieved that, but if for you, remembering to say your brachot is a challenge, or you are always forgetting that you just ate meat and you slip up and eating dairy, or if you are struggling with speaking nicely to your mom, that is in your choice point and that is where Hashem is watching and judging your achievement!
Maybe the same holds true for life goals and Hashem’s gauge for judging our ultimate success at our life mission. Every person’s intelligence, family attitudes, abilities experiences shape our spiritual goal as well. For you Zehava, you can reach one type of growth and discovery of Hashem, and for someone who can’t verbalize or read the nature of her spiritual mission might be something totally different.
We don’t really know these answers they are so deep and mysterious, but I hope this gives you some food for thought as we all continue to work on fulfilling our unique missions in life. To add a final thought from a tenth grader, Alison Alt, who recently quoted something to me from the Chazon Ish via Rabbi Tatz, when one is really fulfilling their mission, there is no sadness for that person in the world. Let’s hope that we all can achieve their goal…
Also my parents just donated two books to the Maayanot Library called “Chinuch Meyuchad B’Rei HaYahadut” Translated as Special Ed through the Lens of Yahadut, one in English and one in Hebrew. They are written by Rav Yoel Schwartz and were commissioned for my brother’s Bar Mitzvah. There is some more on this subject in there for you to look at! I’d be happy to continue this conversation if you want at any point.
Rayzel Yaish
I have a question that I thought of today in Tanach class in response to something we learned in Sefer Devarim. The Abarbanel says that the purpose of Moshe's wrapping up his huge speech at the end of his life in the way that he does was to show that the purpose of life is to not only do the mitzvot, but to also love and fear G-d in the biggest way possible. My question is, that if that is what our purpose is, to find Gd and love Him, fear Him, and serve Him, then what about people who are mentally disabled and do not have the capacity to visualize Gd in any way. It seems to me that they are never able to achieve this higher level of purpose in the world that all Jews are supposedly meant to fulfill? Thank you!
Response: So Zehava, as soon as I read your question I knew I wanted to claim it, and start to form some kind of answer. Maybe it is because my brother has a developmental disability, or because of my years of work at Camp HASC and Yachad, or my work with all kinds of patients in my psychology career with cognitive limitations. In any event, this is my take and some thoughts from the guests at my home one night who I shared your question with.
Ill start with a story:
When I worked in Yachad, there was an advisor from South Africa, who is now a renowned Rav, named Johnny Shippel, who had an incredible experience on a Yachad Shabbaton at Columbia University. I wasn’t there, but this is how it was explained to me. So if I get it wrong forgive me. Rabbi Shippel (Johnny) had been speaking at the (always moving) end of Shabbos time, about fulfilling our purposes in life. A Yachad member at the moving closing Shalosh Seudot ceremony asked Johnny with great and heartfelt emotion “I don’t understand, I have some many limitations, I can’t do this, and this that you mentioned, so what could possibly be my purpose in this world?” Johnny answered that he didn’t really have an exact answer since we don’t know our purposes in life, but maybe just you being you and asking this question right now is part of your purpose in life. Well, this all became more of a story, when this Yachad member died suddenly that week, and hundreds of Columbia students came to the funeral. The family wondered who these people were that they had never met before and Johnny explained the story that had ensued that past Shabbat, where that Yachad member had clearly added to at least a part of his purpose by touching and reaching so many students with his powerful question.
So with that as a backdrop, let’s get to your query. You explain that the Abarbanel says that purpose of life as taught through Moshe Rabbeinu is to love and fear G-d in the biggest way possible. Sounds true right…. in fact my husband and I named our son Ovadya Avraham, because Ovadya was known to be the greatest Oved Hashem (fear of G-d), and Avraham the greatest Ohev Hashem (love of G-d), and we wanted to cosmically give him a leg up on exactly that mission! But let’s challenge your question on two levels… One how does one define “finding G-d” and Two, does G-d have the same purpose for everyone?
Let’s start with one. Who is the one defining what fear and love of G-d is? How does one really know how someone visualizes, fears, loves, connects with or understands G-d? Knowledge of G-d is such a deep thing; everyone can connect with that on a different way.
At the farthest extreme, say for someone who is severely cognitively limited, we cannot really understand what they feel about G-d, about the world around them, about their sense of self or reality, but that doesn’t mean that they do not have feeling about G-d’s presence. When you move up the functionality spectrum and you really talk to people with great limitations “mentally” it can be quite amazing the richness of spiritual life they express. So what may be your heights of finding G-d may not be the same as someone with severe impairment, but they may be both equally valid.
Two: G-d’s plan for each of us is so individual. Rav Dessler z”L in Strive for Truth Michtav M’Eliyahu writes about the Nekudat Habechira or “choice point.” This idea, explains how Hashem can judge every person using the same measurement. Really he posits, Hashem doesn’t. If for you not eating shrimp is a given, and is not a challenge for you at all, than it is not in your choice point, you have achieved that, but if for you, remembering to say your brachot is a challenge, or you are always forgetting that you just ate meat and you slip up and eating dairy, or if you are struggling with speaking nicely to your mom, that is in your choice point and that is where Hashem is watching and judging your achievement!
Maybe the same holds true for life goals and Hashem’s gauge for judging our ultimate success at our life mission. Every person’s intelligence, family attitudes, abilities experiences shape our spiritual goal as well. For you Zehava, you can reach one type of growth and discovery of Hashem, and for someone who can’t verbalize or read the nature of her spiritual mission might be something totally different.
We don’t really know these answers they are so deep and mysterious, but I hope this gives you some food for thought as we all continue to work on fulfilling our unique missions in life. To add a final thought from a tenth grader, Alison Alt, who recently quoted something to me from the Chazon Ish via Rabbi Tatz, when one is really fulfilling their mission, there is no sadness for that person in the world. Let’s hope that we all can achieve their goal…
Also my parents just donated two books to the Maayanot Library called “Chinuch Meyuchad B’Rei HaYahadut” Translated as Special Ed through the Lens of Yahadut, one in English and one in Hebrew. They are written by Rav Yoel Schwartz and were commissioned for my brother’s Bar Mitzvah. There is some more on this subject in there for you to look at! I’d be happy to continue this conversation if you want at any point.
Rayzel Yaish
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Matzah and Wine on Pesach
Tamar Berger writes:
How much Matzah does one really need to have on the Seder night?
Additionally how much wine does one really need to have?
Is grape juice okay??
Rabbi Jachter writes:
The Shaarei Teshuva (O.C. 486) and Mishnah Berura (486:1) adopt a compromising view regarding this issue. They rule that for biblical level obligations we should follow the strict ruling of Rav Landau. Regarding rabbinical level obligations, we may rely on the traditionally accepted smaller Shiurim. Thus, since the first Kezayit of Matza and the Afikoman might be required biblically (see Rashbam Pesachim 119b s.v. Ein Maftirin and Rosh Pesachim 10:34), the larger Shiur of Matza should be consumed for both of these occasions. In addition, by consuming the larger shiur one thereby accommodates the preferred practice of eating two Kezeitim for both the Matza that is eaten at the beginning of the meal and the Afikoman (see Shulchan Aruch 475:1, Mishna Berura 477:1, and Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in Nishmat Avraham 4:68). However, since the Matza eaten for Korech is only a rabbinical requirement, the smaller Shiur suffices. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, (Kol Dodi 14:11 and 18:3) the Shiur of Matza for Motzi Matza and the Afikoman should be 6.25 by 7 inches and the Matza for Korech need only be 4 by 7 inches (for more sources on this issue see Nishmat Avraham 4:67-70). Since the Mitzva of the four cups is only rabbinical, the smaller Shiur suffices.
According to Rav Moshe Feinstein (Kol Dodi 2:6), 3.3 fluid ounces suffices for the four cups of wine. When the Seder falls on Shabbat eve, the larger Shiur is required since Kiddush is a biblical requirement. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, the larger Shiur is 4.4 fluid ounces. Since some authorities believe that Kiddush for Yom Tov is always a biblical requirement (see Minchat Chinuch 31), it is best to use the larger Shiur for the first cup at the Seder even if the Seder falls on a weeknight
Regarding grapejuice, see the following link:
http://koltorah.org/ravj/15-27_May_We_Use_Grape_Juice_for_the_Arba_Kosot_3.htm
How much Matzah does one really need to have on the Seder night?
Additionally how much wine does one really need to have?
Is grape juice okay??
Rabbi Jachter writes:
The Shaarei Teshuva (O.C. 486) and Mishnah Berura (486:1) adopt a compromising view regarding this issue. They rule that for biblical level obligations we should follow the strict ruling of Rav Landau. Regarding rabbinical level obligations, we may rely on the traditionally accepted smaller Shiurim. Thus, since the first Kezayit of Matza and the Afikoman might be required biblically (see Rashbam Pesachim 119b s.v. Ein Maftirin and Rosh Pesachim 10:34), the larger Shiur of Matza should be consumed for both of these occasions. In addition, by consuming the larger shiur one thereby accommodates the preferred practice of eating two Kezeitim for both the Matza that is eaten at the beginning of the meal and the Afikoman (see Shulchan Aruch 475:1, Mishna Berura 477:1, and Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in Nishmat Avraham 4:68). However, since the Matza eaten for Korech is only a rabbinical requirement, the smaller Shiur suffices. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, (Kol Dodi 14:11 and 18:3) the Shiur of Matza for Motzi Matza and the Afikoman should be 6.25 by 7 inches and the Matza for Korech need only be 4 by 7 inches (for more sources on this issue see Nishmat Avraham 4:67-70). Since the Mitzva of the four cups is only rabbinical, the smaller Shiur suffices.
According to Rav Moshe Feinstein (Kol Dodi 2:6), 3.3 fluid ounces suffices for the four cups of wine. When the Seder falls on Shabbat eve, the larger Shiur is required since Kiddush is a biblical requirement. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, the larger Shiur is 4.4 fluid ounces. Since some authorities believe that Kiddush for Yom Tov is always a biblical requirement (see Minchat Chinuch 31), it is best to use the larger Shiur for the first cup at the Seder even if the Seder falls on a weeknight
Regarding grapejuice, see the following link:
http://koltorah.org/ravj/15-27_May_We_Use_Grape_Juice_for_the_Arba_Kosot_3.htm
Monday, March 23, 2009
Trip to Broadway
On Thursday night I had the privilege of seeing Irena's Vow, a broadway play about the Holocaust. The play impacted me in many ways, and I don't want to "give away" the details. However, one broader idea that struck me is how powerful acting can be. Broadway, movies and TV all have the incredible power to move us to new places both intellectually and emotionally. There are a lot of options out there in terms of what we can see and watch, and I hope we take advantage of the more substantive choices to help us grow religiously and personally.
Tefilla Contest Winner!
This past month's passage was קרוב ה' לכל קוראיו לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת. Congratulations to Layla Blenden who submitted this drawing, runner-ups to follow soon. We hope to announce the new contest for this month this week, so keep your ears open. - Enjoy.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bakashot on Shabbos
I wanted to add some thoughts about Daniella’s questions about bakashot on Shabbos, in addition to Ms. Gordon’s post. First of all, I don’t think there is a problem with asking Hashem for guidance or for help in spiritual matters on Shabbos. For example, the Yehi Ratzon that many women say immediately after lighting Shabbos candles contains a bakasha that one’s children grow up to be yarei Hashem and talmidei chachamim. We ask in Shmoneh Esrei “v’taher libenu l’avdecha b’emet”—that Hashem purify our hearts to serve Him in truth. I think it is fine to ask for siyata deshmaya in learning and religious growth. To my understanding, the bakashot that are problematic on Shabbos are those of a more practical nature.
I also think it is important to understand the conceptual reason that we do not make bakashot on Shabbos. At the end of the sixth day of creation, Hashem looked at all that He had created and it was “tov me’od.” I think that on Shabbos, we are meant to look around at our world and focus not on the imperfections and on the work yet to be done but on the overall beauty of our lives. Rav Hutner, in the sefer Pachad Yitzchak, develops the themes of Shabbos as they are articulated in the shir shel yom of Shabbos. One of the opening pesukim of the mizmor is “lehagid baboker chasdecha v’emunatcha baleilot.” Symbolically, this pasuk refers to the importance of recognizing Hashem’s goodness both when His blessings are clear and immediately apparent and when they are more obscured. The mizmor goes on to discuss the problem of rasha v’tov lo and tzaddik v’ra lo, and asserts that ultimately Hashem acts justly. Even though there are reshaim who “flourish like the grass,” the mizmor contends that Hashem will ultimately punish the wicked and bless the righteous. At first glance, the problem of rasha v’tov lo doesn’t seem to have anything in particular to do with Shabbos. Rav Hutner suggests that this is related to the concept of “lehagid baboker chasdecha ve’emunatcha baleilot” because Shabbos is an opportunity to recognize Hashem’s ultimate goodness and justice even when we encounter a reality that is imperfect and unfair.
In other words, the way I understand the reason we don’t make bakashot on Shabbos is that we are encouraged to relate to Hashem in a different way on Shabbos than during the rest of the week. Shabbos is intended to instill in us a certain serenity, appreciation, and gratitude. This is what I think oneg Shabbos refers to.
Of course, in all of these matters, it is important to have empathy when people are in situations that make it impossible for them to achieve this type of serenity and acceptance. A close friend of mine once told me that shortly after her mother died, she began crying in shul on Shabbos and a friend told her that she shouldn’t cry because it was Shabbos. Of course, that only made her feel worse because, in addition to feeling grief at the death of her mother, she now felt guilty for crying on Shabbos and misunderstood by her friend.
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to achieve this type of serenity on Shabbos, even in the absence (baruch Hashem) of major problems, since I find that I have more time to think on Shabbos and therefore sometimes dwell on problems on Shabbos rather than looking beyond them. But I still think the ideal is to see Shabbos as a time when we do our best to look at the world Hashem has given us and appreciate everything that is right about it.
I also think it is important to understand the conceptual reason that we do not make bakashot on Shabbos. At the end of the sixth day of creation, Hashem looked at all that He had created and it was “tov me’od.” I think that on Shabbos, we are meant to look around at our world and focus not on the imperfections and on the work yet to be done but on the overall beauty of our lives. Rav Hutner, in the sefer Pachad Yitzchak, develops the themes of Shabbos as they are articulated in the shir shel yom of Shabbos. One of the opening pesukim of the mizmor is “lehagid baboker chasdecha v’emunatcha baleilot.” Symbolically, this pasuk refers to the importance of recognizing Hashem’s goodness both when His blessings are clear and immediately apparent and when they are more obscured. The mizmor goes on to discuss the problem of rasha v’tov lo and tzaddik v’ra lo, and asserts that ultimately Hashem acts justly. Even though there are reshaim who “flourish like the grass,” the mizmor contends that Hashem will ultimately punish the wicked and bless the righteous. At first glance, the problem of rasha v’tov lo doesn’t seem to have anything in particular to do with Shabbos. Rav Hutner suggests that this is related to the concept of “lehagid baboker chasdecha ve’emunatcha baleilot” because Shabbos is an opportunity to recognize Hashem’s ultimate goodness and justice even when we encounter a reality that is imperfect and unfair.
In other words, the way I understand the reason we don’t make bakashot on Shabbos is that we are encouraged to relate to Hashem in a different way on Shabbos than during the rest of the week. Shabbos is intended to instill in us a certain serenity, appreciation, and gratitude. This is what I think oneg Shabbos refers to.
Of course, in all of these matters, it is important to have empathy when people are in situations that make it impossible for them to achieve this type of serenity and acceptance. A close friend of mine once told me that shortly after her mother died, she began crying in shul on Shabbos and a friend told her that she shouldn’t cry because it was Shabbos. Of course, that only made her feel worse because, in addition to feeling grief at the death of her mother, she now felt guilty for crying on Shabbos and misunderstood by her friend.
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to achieve this type of serenity on Shabbos, even in the absence (baruch Hashem) of major problems, since I find that I have more time to think on Shabbos and therefore sometimes dwell on problems on Shabbos rather than looking beyond them. But I still think the ideal is to see Shabbos as a time when we do our best to look at the world Hashem has given us and appreciate everything that is right about it.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ma'ayanot Nachas
In the Fall 2008 issue of the popular RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society there was an exchange that I want to share with you. In the previous issue, Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, Rabbi of the Beis Haknesses of North Woodmere and Rebbi in DRS, wrote an article about co-education. Rabbi Yaakov Blau, Talmud Department Chair at the Frisch School sent a letter offering a (limited) defense of co-education. The exchange is interesting, and I recommend reading it in its entirety.
My point concerns their exchange about the Rav’s (Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik) position. Rabbi Blau argued that since he strongly advocated teaching women Gemara in a serious way, “[t]he only separate school that I know of in America that does give women the same Gemara opportunities as afforded to women in coed schools is Maayanot in Teaneck, a model that has, sadly, yet to be copied. Given that reality the Rav’s argument for allowing coeducation to prevent an inferior education still holds true.”
Rabbi Lebowitz offers a point-by-point rebuttal to Rabbi Blau’s many points. In his response to his point about the Rav, he states that “Rabbi Blau argues that Rav Soloveitchik held the need for women to be educated at the highest possible levels to be paramount. Rabbi Blau correctly identifies one of the very few single gender schools which actually live up to Rav Soloveichick’s high demands for women’s education.”
In a fascinating dialogue in which the two disagree on almost everything, they agree that Ma’ayanot is the only (or one of the only, I’d be curious to know what other schools Rabbi Lebowitz had in mind) school successfully putting the Rav’s vision in to action. I think we have a lot to be proud of.
My point concerns their exchange about the Rav’s (Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik) position. Rabbi Blau argued that since he strongly advocated teaching women Gemara in a serious way, “[t]he only separate school that I know of in America that does give women the same Gemara opportunities as afforded to women in coed schools is Maayanot in Teaneck, a model that has, sadly, yet to be copied. Given that reality the Rav’s argument for allowing coeducation to prevent an inferior education still holds true.”
Rabbi Lebowitz offers a point-by-point rebuttal to Rabbi Blau’s many points. In his response to his point about the Rav, he states that “Rabbi Blau argues that Rav Soloveitchik held the need for women to be educated at the highest possible levels to be paramount. Rabbi Blau correctly identifies one of the very few single gender schools which actually live up to Rav Soloveichick’s high demands for women’s education.”
In a fascinating dialogue in which the two disagree on almost everything, they agree that Ma’ayanot is the only (or one of the only, I’d be curious to know what other schools Rabbi Lebowitz had in mind) school successfully putting the Rav’s vision in to action. I think we have a lot to be proud of.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bakashot in Tefilah on Shabbat
Daniella Grodko asks: We were discussing in Halachah class that we do not have an Bakoshot, requests, in Shabbat Shemonah Esrei because you are not supposed to ask Hashem for things on Shabbat. I was wondering, does this apply to personal requests to Hashem also? I had learned that before you take your three steps back at the end of Shemonah Esrei, you can ask Hashem for anything. Does that mean that on Shabbat I have to remain silent at this part and am PROHIBITED from asking him for a good shabbos, or to be able to study well that Shabbat afternoon, or for a sick friend to get better...? Or if something really annoying or bad happens on Shabbat, then you can't silently ask Hashem if He could make it better? If the answer is no, then I feel like on Shabbat, a time when we are supposed to feel so connected to G-d, the power of our tefilah is weakened. I had always learned that Tefilla was about talking to Hashem whenever I needed to, and being restrained to ask Hashem for things cuts off that connection and closeness to G-d.
Hi Daniella! Wow, great question... I'm not sure if I have a good answer but I will try... so there is an idea based off of a Midrash Tanhuma (Parshat Vayera) that you should not pray for חולים on Shabbat since doing so will cause sadness, an inappropriate emotion for Shabbat. This is also why we don't have the 18 בקשות that normally appear in the weekday שמונה עשרה; Shabbat being a day for עונג and מנוחה, not for being worried and distressed, so personal requests are discouraged (in fact, doing anything that will cause you sadness is discouraged, an extreme example of this being the story about Beruriah, who hid the fact that her two sons died on Shabbat from her husband, R' Meir, until after Havdala). However, I agree with you that it seems strange to not be allowed to turn to G-d and pray for what is bothering you. Maybe one could split between communal prayers and individual prayers; while we don't make public bakashot within a regular שמונה עשרה format on Shabbat, perhaps individual, personal bakkashot would be fine. Additionally, if the point of not making bakashot is to prevent you from feeling sad, if not being able to turn to G-d would cause you even more צער, perhaps then it would be ok.
Furthermore, there are bakashot that we do make publicly on Shabbat during laining: for the person who got an Aliyah, for חולים, and more recently for חיילי צה"ל and captured Israeli soldiers. But at the end of the bakasha for חולים on Shabbat, we add in "שבת היא מלזעוק, רפואה קרובה לבא", that "Shabbat prevents us from crying out, but there should be a speedy recovery", almost as a token way of acknowledging that this isn't the ideal type of prayer for Shabbat. So maybe you could add that line in to your personal tefillot as well. Either way, I remember being in numerous batei knesset, where the shul Rav led everyone in saying Tehillim when a member of the congregation was very ill, or there had been a pigua in Israel (לא עלינו), where clearly the need to turn to G-d in tefilah far outweighed any concerns about bakashot.
Hi Daniella! Wow, great question... I'm not sure if I have a good answer but I will try... so there is an idea based off of a Midrash Tanhuma (Parshat Vayera) that you should not pray for חולים on Shabbat since doing so will cause sadness, an inappropriate emotion for Shabbat. This is also why we don't have the 18 בקשות that normally appear in the weekday שמונה עשרה; Shabbat being a day for עונג and מנוחה, not for being worried and distressed, so personal requests are discouraged (in fact, doing anything that will cause you sadness is discouraged, an extreme example of this being the story about Beruriah, who hid the fact that her two sons died on Shabbat from her husband, R' Meir, until after Havdala). However, I agree with you that it seems strange to not be allowed to turn to G-d and pray for what is bothering you. Maybe one could split between communal prayers and individual prayers; while we don't make public bakashot within a regular שמונה עשרה format on Shabbat, perhaps individual, personal bakkashot would be fine. Additionally, if the point of not making bakashot is to prevent you from feeling sad, if not being able to turn to G-d would cause you even more צער, perhaps then it would be ok.
Furthermore, there are bakashot that we do make publicly on Shabbat during laining: for the person who got an Aliyah, for חולים, and more recently for חיילי צה"ל and captured Israeli soldiers. But at the end of the bakasha for חולים on Shabbat, we add in "שבת היא מלזעוק, רפואה קרובה לבא", that "Shabbat prevents us from crying out, but there should be a speedy recovery", almost as a token way of acknowledging that this isn't the ideal type of prayer for Shabbat. So maybe you could add that line in to your personal tefillot as well. Either way, I remember being in numerous batei knesset, where the shul Rav led everyone in saying Tehillim when a member of the congregation was very ill, or there had been a pigua in Israel (לא עלינו), where clearly the need to turn to G-d in tefilah far outweighed any concerns about bakashot.
Sunscreen and Shabbat
This is Chaya Kanarfogel (first time question-poster, long time why-aanot fan): I have a fairly random halachic question about Shabbos/Yom Tov. So we were just learning in health class all the dangers of being exposed to UV rays. I thought back to this past Shavuot when it was definitely over 90 degrees and I got a sunburn after walking outside for just 10 minutes. Putting on suntan lotion on the chag had never crossed my mind. Would it ever be OK to put apply suntan lotion on Shabbos, or should I just stick to wearing a hat if it's sunny outside?
Hi Chaya! Great question! As much as the MachHach-Machal counselor side of me leans towards pushing hats/sunscreen/giant bottles of water onto people no matter what the situation, you are right that certain types of sunscreen might pose a halakhic problem on Shabbat. If the sunscreen is a thick cream or ointment, then it would be problematic since putting it on would fall under the מלאכה of ממרח - smoothing, which is a תולדה of the מלאכה of מוחק - erasing (רמב"ם הלכות שבת יא:ו and Gemara Shabbat 75b). But, if it is a liquid spray (they do make sunscreen like this), then it would be fine, as you're not spreading anything into/onto your skin. Putting on this type of sunscreen would also not be a problem of רפואה or using medicine on Shabbat, since it is preventative and acting as protection and not for healing, which is fine (שו"ע א"ח הלכות שבת ס' שכח:כג). If someone has a unique situation and even liquid sunscreen won't stop them from burning, then they should probably consult their friendly neighborhood Posek.
Hi Chaya! Great question! As much as the MachHach-Machal counselor side of me leans towards pushing hats/sunscreen/giant bottles of water onto people no matter what the situation, you are right that certain types of sunscreen might pose a halakhic problem on Shabbat. If the sunscreen is a thick cream or ointment, then it would be problematic since putting it on would fall under the מלאכה of ממרח - smoothing, which is a תולדה of the מלאכה of מוחק - erasing (רמב"ם הלכות שבת יא:ו and Gemara Shabbat 75b). But, if it is a liquid spray (they do make sunscreen like this), then it would be fine, as you're not spreading anything into/onto your skin. Putting on this type of sunscreen would also not be a problem of רפואה or using medicine on Shabbat, since it is preventative and acting as protection and not for healing, which is fine (שו"ע א"ח הלכות שבת ס' שכח:כג). If someone has a unique situation and even liquid sunscreen won't stop them from burning, then they should probably consult their friendly neighborhood Posek.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Good Questions Happen When you Listen to the Megilla Carefully
Hello. Chag Sameyach!
Just a question on the megilah:
In perek 9, it talks about the Jews getting their revenge. It pasuk 10 it states that the ten sons of Haman were killed, and then in pasuk 13 Esther requests that they be hanged on the gallows. I'm not sure I understand this. Weren't the gallows the way to kill somebody (it seems that Haman was killed on the gallows, not just put up there once he was killed)? If the sons were dead, why now would they be hung? And why weren't they killed originally by being hanged on the gallows?
Thanks!
--Talia Stern
I think you have it exactly right. The gallows served a dual purpose, both as a means of execution, and to publicize the downfall of their enemies (וכל העם ישמעו ויראו ולא יזידון עוד). It was ironic and appropriate that Haman be killed on the very gallows on which he planned to execute Mordechai, but after that, the decree was only that the Jews were permitted to fight back when their enemies tried to kill them. Therefore, I would guess that the sons of Haman were killed in a more conventional way, and then later hung as a warning to other people the the Jews were not to be messed with.
חג שמח!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
More on Purim & History, & Another Book Recommendation
I have followed the conversation about Purim as history very closely and with great interest. I wish I could be comfortable with either result of the conversation, but I would be deeply troubled by the notion that the story never happened. I remember a number of years ago, Rabbi David Wolpe, a conservative Rabbi & a columnist in the Jewish Week started a firestorm by arguing that archaeologists proved that קריעת ים סוף never happened. Some at the time argued that it didn't really matter; that the biblical messages remain either way. I don't think so. To me the stakes of historical reality are high. Fortunately, I also am pretty confident that they actually did happen. The evidence to the contrary, and Mrs. Kahan noted, is usually pretty spotty. Certainly in this case. The only thing I would add to her case is that the story is not particularly flattering to the Persians & their rulers, and we know who wrote the history (though I concede that it is odd that the Megilla notes that the story was recorded in the Persian historical record).
On a related note, I'm currently reading a fascinating book. It is called "The Dawn", by Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Institute in Israel, and it's an analysis of the Megilla from a political perspective. His approach is novel and convincing. I'm only about half way through it, but so far I highly recommend it.
On a related note, I'm currently reading a fascinating book. It is called "The Dawn", by Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Institute in Israel, and it's an analysis of the Megilla from a political perspective. His approach is novel and convincing. I'm only about half way through it, but so far I highly recommend it.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Bracha Acharona
what do you do if you forget to make a bracha acharona and 72 minutes has passed since you finished eating?
-- Rebecca Schenker
This is a very practical question! If 72 minutes have passed, Poskim suggest that lechatchilah, you should eat another food (or the same, if you have any left) that has the same bracha acharona, in that location, and then recite the bracha acharona. Bedieved, even if 72 minutes have passed and for whatever reason, you can't eat more food that has the same bracha acharona, you may make the bracha acharona as long as you have not begun to feel hungry yet.
-- Rebecca Schenker
This is a very practical question! If 72 minutes have passed, Poskim suggest that lechatchilah, you should eat another food (or the same, if you have any left) that has the same bracha acharona, in that location, and then recite the bracha acharona. Bedieved, even if 72 minutes have passed and for whatever reason, you can't eat more food that has the same bracha acharona, you may make the bracha acharona as long as you have not begun to feel hungry yet.
response to adena and mrs. kahan re: historicity of purim
Adena,
I found your question interesting and Mrs. Kahan's post very informative.
I think that whether or not Purim actually occured is not necessarily so important.
Chazal---either because a historical event occured that contained important spiritual messages, OR because they wanted us to inculcate such t messages into our spiritual personalities--established that we celebrate this holiday. There are a number of critical spiritual messages that emerge from the holiday of Purim: searching for and recognizing the sometimes hidden yad Hashem in our lives, the importance of the individual in taking a stand for the well-being of klal yisrael, the importance of doing what is necessary to go back to Eretz Yisrael to build the Beit HaMikdash instead of being complacent during our time in Galut (see tanach.org), etc. The point, I think, is the Chazal wanted us to have a brief yet intense period of time-taanit Esther + Purim-when we can focus on these ideas and process them and integrate them into ourselves. Whether or not purim happened, the opportunity to have this "focus time" and the means that Chazal gave us to do this (the mitzvot hayom of Purim) are an incredible opportunity for us as religious individuals.
I found your question interesting and Mrs. Kahan's post very informative.
I think that whether or not Purim actually occured is not necessarily so important.
Chazal---either because a historical event occured that contained important spiritual messages, OR because they wanted us to inculcate such t messages into our spiritual personalities--established that we celebrate this holiday. There are a number of critical spiritual messages that emerge from the holiday of Purim: searching for and recognizing the sometimes hidden yad Hashem in our lives, the importance of the individual in taking a stand for the well-being of klal yisrael, the importance of doing what is necessary to go back to Eretz Yisrael to build the Beit HaMikdash instead of being complacent during our time in Galut (see tanach.org), etc. The point, I think, is the Chazal wanted us to have a brief yet intense period of time-taanit Esther + Purim-when we can focus on these ideas and process them and integrate them into ourselves. Whether or not purim happened, the opportunity to have this "focus time" and the means that Chazal gave us to do this (the mitzvot hayom of Purim) are an incredible opportunity for us as religious individuals.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Purim questions
Adena Kleiner asks:
1) I recently heard that the story of Purim might have not happened at all.
Is this true? If so how can a Jewish holiday be based on an event which may have never happened?
It is true that no record has been found of the Purim story in ancient Persian sources, which has led some to question the historicity of the story. However, this by itself does not constitute conclusive evidence that the story did not happen. The records that we have from antiquity are extremely incomplete, and it is a general principle in this context that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The fact that no Persian written record of the Purim story has been found cannot be interpreted as positive evidence that the story did not happen. There can be no question that many events happened in antiquity that we have no knowledge of because of the scarcity of written evidence.
Moreover, the descriptions of the Persian court and the realia [objects and activities associated with a particular culture] described in the Megillah are very realistic. The descriptions of Persian royal culture, physical setting, and the machinations of the royal court are in keeping with what historians know of ancient Persia.
It is also important to note that, while the Purim story is important to us because of its implications for the Persian Jewish community and for Jewish history, it might not have been important enough to record from a Persian perspective. Persian records might not include a story of an intrigue in the king's harem, the choice of a new favorite wife, the loss of favor of one of the king's advisors, etc., because it is possible that such a story was not deemed as having significant historical import.
Another reason that some people think the Purim story is not historical fact is that some elements of the story are reminiscent of Persian mythology. They therefore think that the Purim story is a Jewish reworking of a Persian myth. I think it's just as convincing to say that the Megillah includes allusions to Persian legend for the same reason that both holy and secular literature often contains cultural references; it creates a more compelling, engaging, and multifaceted story. In fact, this is a tool that is employed throughout Tanakh. Tanakh frequently makes purposeful allusions to legends from the surrounding cultures, and very often this is in order to highlight the differences between Torah and pagan worldviews by contrasting the original legends with the values found in Tanakh stories. If anyone would like to talk to me about this more or discuss specific examples, come find me in school and I would be very happy to talk about it with you.
While there are parts of Tanakh that are not tied to a particular historical context (the most notable example is Sefer Iyov, which the Rambam and others believe is really a parable rather than a historical event), the Megillah is written in the style of a historical story and is taken as such by Chazal. There is still much that we don't know about the historical context, however. We don't know which Persian king should be identified with Achashverosh. Generally, he is identified with either Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.) or Artaxerxes II (409-359 B.C.E.). This question is relevant to understanding the message of the story. If we assume that Achashverosh was Xerxes I, then the story happened shortly after Hatzharat Koresh, which implies that the Persian Jews described in the Megillah are those who chose not to return to Israel but are instead living in luxury in Shushan. This may color the way we understand the basic message of the Megillah. This point is sort of tangential to your question, so I'm not going to go into much detail, but I just read an interesting article about this by Rav Yonatan Grossman and I would be happy to share it with you or talk to you about it if you're interested!
2) The popular Hamantaschen or Oznei Haman that we all eat on Purim are supposed to symbolize Haman's ears, yet I wonder, what do Haman's ears have to do with Purim? This minhag seems to be so random. Is there a deeper meaning to hamantaschen?
I think the basic idea behind oznei Haman/hamantaschen is that it's a way of making fun of Haman. Most people probably wouldn't be too flattered if someone made cookies in the shape of their ears! Another idea I heard is that "hamantashen" in Yiddish means "Haman's pockets," and it's a reference to the fact that Haman was corrupt and always had pockets full of money. In either case, whether it's his ears or his pockets, it's not particularly flattering. It's sort of the same idea as shaking a grogger when his name is mentioned.
I also think it could be (although this is just my own idea and I have no outside basis for it) that the idea of making cookies stuffed with filling is another reference to the hiddenness associated with Purim. The same that we dress up in costumes to symbolize the way that Hashem's involvement in the nes Purim was hidden from view, we make cookies of fruit covered up with dough. Actually, there's a minhag to eat kreplech on Purim (also on Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabba), which I think is associated with this same idea.
1) I recently heard that the story of Purim might have not happened at all.
Is this true? If so how can a Jewish holiday be based on an event which may have never happened?
It is true that no record has been found of the Purim story in ancient Persian sources, which has led some to question the historicity of the story. However, this by itself does not constitute conclusive evidence that the story did not happen. The records that we have from antiquity are extremely incomplete, and it is a general principle in this context that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The fact that no Persian written record of the Purim story has been found cannot be interpreted as positive evidence that the story did not happen. There can be no question that many events happened in antiquity that we have no knowledge of because of the scarcity of written evidence.
Moreover, the descriptions of the Persian court and the realia [objects and activities associated with a particular culture] described in the Megillah are very realistic. The descriptions of Persian royal culture, physical setting, and the machinations of the royal court are in keeping with what historians know of ancient Persia.
It is also important to note that, while the Purim story is important to us because of its implications for the Persian Jewish community and for Jewish history, it might not have been important enough to record from a Persian perspective. Persian records might not include a story of an intrigue in the king's harem, the choice of a new favorite wife, the loss of favor of one of the king's advisors, etc., because it is possible that such a story was not deemed as having significant historical import.
Another reason that some people think the Purim story is not historical fact is that some elements of the story are reminiscent of Persian mythology. They therefore think that the Purim story is a Jewish reworking of a Persian myth. I think it's just as convincing to say that the Megillah includes allusions to Persian legend for the same reason that both holy and secular literature often contains cultural references; it creates a more compelling, engaging, and multifaceted story. In fact, this is a tool that is employed throughout Tanakh. Tanakh frequently makes purposeful allusions to legends from the surrounding cultures, and very often this is in order to highlight the differences between Torah and pagan worldviews by contrasting the original legends with the values found in Tanakh stories. If anyone would like to talk to me about this more or discuss specific examples, come find me in school and I would be very happy to talk about it with you.
While there are parts of Tanakh that are not tied to a particular historical context (the most notable example is Sefer Iyov, which the Rambam and others believe is really a parable rather than a historical event), the Megillah is written in the style of a historical story and is taken as such by Chazal. There is still much that we don't know about the historical context, however. We don't know which Persian king should be identified with Achashverosh. Generally, he is identified with either Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.) or Artaxerxes II (409-359 B.C.E.). This question is relevant to understanding the message of the story. If we assume that Achashverosh was Xerxes I, then the story happened shortly after Hatzharat Koresh, which implies that the Persian Jews described in the Megillah are those who chose not to return to Israel but are instead living in luxury in Shushan. This may color the way we understand the basic message of the Megillah. This point is sort of tangential to your question, so I'm not going to go into much detail, but I just read an interesting article about this by Rav Yonatan Grossman and I would be happy to share it with you or talk to you about it if you're interested!
2) The popular Hamantaschen or Oznei Haman that we all eat on Purim are supposed to symbolize Haman's ears, yet I wonder, what do Haman's ears have to do with Purim? This minhag seems to be so random. Is there a deeper meaning to hamantaschen?
I think the basic idea behind oznei Haman/hamantaschen is that it's a way of making fun of Haman. Most people probably wouldn't be too flattered if someone made cookies in the shape of their ears! Another idea I heard is that "hamantashen" in Yiddish means "Haman's pockets," and it's a reference to the fact that Haman was corrupt and always had pockets full of money. In either case, whether it's his ears or his pockets, it's not particularly flattering. It's sort of the same idea as shaking a grogger when his name is mentioned.
I also think it could be (although this is just my own idea and I have no outside basis for it) that the idea of making cookies stuffed with filling is another reference to the hiddenness associated with Purim. The same that we dress up in costumes to symbolize the way that Hashem's involvement in the nes Purim was hidden from view, we make cookies of fruit covered up with dough. Actually, there's a minhag to eat kreplech on Purim (also on Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabba), which I think is associated with this same idea.
Sinat Hinam and Jewish Unity
Anonymous writes: It is said that Moshiach isn't coming because of sinat chinam, but what exactly is that? I mean, I know it's when we 'hate our fellow Jews for no reason', but is it the same as when one sect of Judaism discriminates against another? For example what about if you say "I'm an Orthodox, observant Jew, but my friend Joe Shmo is Conservative and I think he should become more observant"? Or, if I were to walk down the street of an extremely religious neighborhood in a non tzanua outfit, and others gave me looks and whispered to their friends? Also, what about in some places in Israel, where they are not very accepting of converts, just because they were not born as a Jew? Isn't this kind of behavior also sinat chinam? Why don't these people realize what they are doing and instead of differentiating between different kinds of Jews, just realize that we are all members of clal yisrael?
Dear Anonymous, thank you for sharing your thoughts on such a crucial issue facing the Jewish people today. I agree with much of what you have said and it is very inspiring to see that you are thinking deeply about these issues, and that you are so concerned with Jewish unity! Personally, I agree that although שנאת חינם literally translates into"baseless hatred", this can also refer to disrespectful comments made about other denominations within Judaism and/or other opinions within Orthodoxy. Many times, people will justify these types of comments, claiming that it is ok to say this if it's for the purpose of showing how we are "right" and those other Jews are "wrong". This is very dangerous, as today many rabbis believe that no one has the right to give "tokhekha" (rebuke) to other Jews. Rav Yehuda Amital (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion) has an excellent article in a book entitled "Jewish Tradition and the non-Traditional Jew" where he states how when dealing with non observant Jews, one has to split between disagreeing with their actions while still respecting them as people and accepting them as fellow Jews. It is completely fine to think that someone else is wrong - just be respectful about it! (Another great author on this topic is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who writes a lot about the importance of Jewish Unity in a book called "One People?").
Another source you might find interesting (and is one of my favorite pieces of Torah to quote) is the Netziv (R' Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1893 CE)'s introduction to Sefer Breishit. He explains that Sefer Breishit is referred to as ספר הישר after the greatness of the Avot who acted as ישרים (meaning: they dealt honestly and respectfully) with both other Jews with whom they disagreed, such as Lot, as well as non-Jews, such as Avimelech. He explains that this was NOT the case during the 2nd Temple period, where religious Jews would accuse anyone who had a different hashkafa/religious approach then them of being a heretic! Ultimately, G-d could not handle these types of "tzadikim", who cared more about bein adam l'Makom then bein adam l'haveiro, and it was because of these self appointed "tzaddikim" that the Temple was destroyed!
Considering the fact that the Netziv himself lived at a time of great divide between religious and newly secular/enlightened Jews, these are strong words about the importance of Jewish unity to keep in mind! Achdut isn't a challenge if it's just with those you agree with, the question is how to have tolerance and respect with those Jews with whom we disagree the most.
Dear Anonymous, thank you for sharing your thoughts on such a crucial issue facing the Jewish people today. I agree with much of what you have said and it is very inspiring to see that you are thinking deeply about these issues, and that you are so concerned with Jewish unity! Personally, I agree that although שנאת חינם literally translates into"baseless hatred", this can also refer to disrespectful comments made about other denominations within Judaism and/or other opinions within Orthodoxy. Many times, people will justify these types of comments, claiming that it is ok to say this if it's for the purpose of showing how we are "right" and those other Jews are "wrong". This is very dangerous, as today many rabbis believe that no one has the right to give "tokhekha" (rebuke) to other Jews. Rav Yehuda Amital (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion) has an excellent article in a book entitled "Jewish Tradition and the non-Traditional Jew" where he states how when dealing with non observant Jews, one has to split between disagreeing with their actions while still respecting them as people and accepting them as fellow Jews. It is completely fine to think that someone else is wrong - just be respectful about it! (Another great author on this topic is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who writes a lot about the importance of Jewish Unity in a book called "One People?").
Another source you might find interesting (and is one of my favorite pieces of Torah to quote) is the Netziv (R' Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1893 CE)'s introduction to Sefer Breishit. He explains that Sefer Breishit is referred to as ספר הישר after the greatness of the Avot who acted as ישרים (meaning: they dealt honestly and respectfully) with both other Jews with whom they disagreed, such as Lot, as well as non-Jews, such as Avimelech. He explains that this was NOT the case during the 2nd Temple period, where religious Jews would accuse anyone who had a different hashkafa/religious approach then them of being a heretic! Ultimately, G-d could not handle these types of "tzadikim", who cared more about bein adam l'Makom then bein adam l'haveiro, and it was because of these self appointed "tzaddikim" that the Temple was destroyed!
העמק דבר של הנציב - הקדמה לספר בראשית:
בחרבן בית שני... היו צדיקים וחסידים ועמלי תורה אך לא היו ישרים בהליכות עולמים. על כן מפני שנאת חינם שבלבם זה אם זה חשדו את מי שראו שנוהג שלא כדעתם ביראת ה' כצדוקי ואפוקורס...ועל זה היה צדוק הדין שהקב"ה ישר הוא ואינו סובל צדיקים כאלו אלא באופן דהולכים בדרך הישר גם בהליכות עולם ולא בעקמימות אע"ג שהוא לשם שמים דזה גורם חרבן הבריאה והריסות ישוב הארץ
בחרבן בית שני... היו צדיקים וחסידים ועמלי תורה אך לא היו ישרים בהליכות עולמים. על כן מפני שנאת חינם שבלבם זה אם זה חשדו את מי שראו שנוהג שלא כדעתם ביראת ה' כצדוקי ואפוקורס...ועל זה היה צדוק הדין שהקב"ה ישר הוא ואינו סובל צדיקים כאלו אלא באופן דהולכים בדרך הישר גם בהליכות עולם ולא בעקמימות אע"ג שהוא לשם שמים דזה גורם חרבן הבריאה והריסות ישוב הארץ
Considering the fact that the Netziv himself lived at a time of great divide between religious and newly secular/enlightened Jews, these are strong words about the importance of Jewish unity to keep in mind! Achdut isn't a challenge if it's just with those you agree with, the question is how to have tolerance and respect with those Jews with whom we disagree the most.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Mercy Killings/ Euthanasia
Adena Kleiner asks: I hate to compare medical TV shows to real life, let alone Halacha, however plenty of times on TV I see instances of patients begging for a "mercy killing." What is the Halachik approach to this situation? Based off of the fact that a Jew is not allowed to commit suicide, I would assume that the answer would be that a Jew is forbidden to do this, however I think this issue brings up a bigger question. What is the Halachik approach to the question of sanctity of life vs. quality of life?
Hi Adena, great question! So in general, Halakha believes very strongly in the sanctity of life. Everyone is created b'tzelem Elokim and one who saves one life is considered by the Gemara to have saved an entire world. It is for these reasons that we always do whatever possible to save someone's life, with Pikuakh Nefesh overriding Shabbat, even if there is only a small chance of that person being alive.
However, although there is a mitzvah to save a life, there is also a mitzvah to alleviate pain and suffering. What happens when these two mitzvot contradict? For example (lo aleinu): does a terminally ill cancer patient have a halakhic obligation to endure chemo treatment or invasive surgery, if this will only grant them a few more months of life, but also cause extraordinary pain? It seems that the Halakha differentiates between prolonging life and prolonging death. On one hand, one is forbidden to actively do anything to end someone's life, since even someone very close to death (a goses), is considered Halakhically fully alive and one may not do anything to hasten their death (Shuchan Arukh, Y.D. 339:1). Actively assisting patient suicide would be considered murder, even if that person was in great pain.
However, although we do believe in the importance of חיי שעה- temporary life, it has to have a minimum of quality to it. Therefore, in certain circumstances, one may remove an impediment that is preventing someone from dying (The Sefer Hasidim, quoted l'halakha by the Rama: Y.D. 339:1), as now one is passively allowing the natural process of death to continue, instead of actively ending a life. Practically speaking, this would allow physicians to withhold certain treatments but would not allow for active Euthanasia. This perspective is seen in a number of Gemarot. In Ketubot 104a, R' Yehuda HaNasi was sick and in great pain but his students were praying for him to stay alive. His maidservant came in, threw an object at the students (!!) to disrupt their tefilot, consequently allowing him to die. The Gemara seems to conclude that his maidservant acted correctly. Also, in Avoda Zara 18a, when R' Chananya ben Tardyon was being burned alive by the Romans, he refused to open his mouth to the flames to actively hasten his death, but he did allow the executioner to remove the water soaked cloths around his heart - passively removing an impediment preventing his death.
Therefore, R' Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, C.M. 2:73:1 and Y.D. 2:174:3) permitted withholding medical treatment as long as the following conditions had been met: (1) The patient's condition must be terminal, and s/he will not recover, even with treatment. (2) The patient is enduring unbearable pain and suffering. (3) The patient indicated that they do not want to be treated. (4) The patient can decline painful treatment - chemo, surgery, but NOT food, water or oxygen (a feeding tube and antibiotics would potentially fall into this category). Unfortunately, this is a difficult question that many families face, but it seems that Hazal and the Halakhic system try to balance the sanctity of life with preventing unnecessary suffering. For further reading, check out the Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics by Dr. Fred Rosner, which I think we have in the Ma'ayanot Bet Midrash.
Hi Adena, great question! So in general, Halakha believes very strongly in the sanctity of life. Everyone is created b'tzelem Elokim and one who saves one life is considered by the Gemara to have saved an entire world. It is for these reasons that we always do whatever possible to save someone's life, with Pikuakh Nefesh overriding Shabbat, even if there is only a small chance of that person being alive.
However, although there is a mitzvah to save a life, there is also a mitzvah to alleviate pain and suffering. What happens when these two mitzvot contradict? For example (lo aleinu): does a terminally ill cancer patient have a halakhic obligation to endure chemo treatment or invasive surgery, if this will only grant them a few more months of life, but also cause extraordinary pain? It seems that the Halakha differentiates between prolonging life and prolonging death. On one hand, one is forbidden to actively do anything to end someone's life, since even someone very close to death (a goses), is considered Halakhically fully alive and one may not do anything to hasten their death (Shuchan Arukh, Y.D. 339:1). Actively assisting patient suicide would be considered murder, even if that person was in great pain.
However, although we do believe in the importance of חיי שעה- temporary life, it has to have a minimum of quality to it. Therefore, in certain circumstances, one may remove an impediment that is preventing someone from dying (The Sefer Hasidim, quoted l'halakha by the Rama: Y.D. 339:1), as now one is passively allowing the natural process of death to continue, instead of actively ending a life. Practically speaking, this would allow physicians to withhold certain treatments but would not allow for active Euthanasia. This perspective is seen in a number of Gemarot. In Ketubot 104a, R' Yehuda HaNasi was sick and in great pain but his students were praying for him to stay alive. His maidservant came in, threw an object at the students (!!) to disrupt their tefilot, consequently allowing him to die. The Gemara seems to conclude that his maidservant acted correctly. Also, in Avoda Zara 18a, when R' Chananya ben Tardyon was being burned alive by the Romans, he refused to open his mouth to the flames to actively hasten his death, but he did allow the executioner to remove the water soaked cloths around his heart - passively removing an impediment preventing his death.
Therefore, R' Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, C.M. 2:73:1 and Y.D. 2:174:3) permitted withholding medical treatment as long as the following conditions had been met: (1) The patient's condition must be terminal, and s/he will not recover, even with treatment. (2) The patient is enduring unbearable pain and suffering. (3) The patient indicated that they do not want to be treated. (4) The patient can decline painful treatment - chemo, surgery, but NOT food, water or oxygen (a feeding tube and antibiotics would potentially fall into this category). Unfortunately, this is a difficult question that many families face, but it seems that Hazal and the Halakhic system try to balance the sanctity of life with preventing unnecessary suffering. For further reading, check out the Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics by Dr. Fred Rosner, which I think we have in the Ma'ayanot Bet Midrash.
The Origin of Hamentashen
Adena Kleiner writes: The popular Hamantaschen or Oznei Haman that we all eat on Purim are supposed to symbolize Haman's ears, yet I wonder, what do Haman's ears have to do with Purim? This minhag seems to be so random. Is there a deeper meaning to hamantaschen?
This is an article about the origin of hamentashen that you might find interesting: http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/02/eliezer-brodt-origins-of-hamentashen-in.html
More on Asher Yatzar
Tali, I enjoyed reading Ms. Bieler's response and want to add some thoughts.
I was particularly moved by this question because Asher Yatzar has always been one of my favorite brachot - the fact that we are obligated to thank Hashem for the most basic (but crucial) of bodily functions rather than take them for granted, moves me. And without going into unnecessary detail, I'll point out that if you've ever recognized that any aspect of your "plumbing" is not working normally, even for a day (i.e., if you're human), it's pretty clear that it's a real gift when it does -- al achat kama v'chama for people who suffer lifelong problems in this area. While I'm no medical expert, I have three further comments on your first question: 1) even many of the remedies of modern medicine in this broad area often do not completely fix the relevant problem, 2) even if a remedy were to be a full cure, we can be grateful to Hashem for providing us (through medical research, technology, drs., etc.etc.) with that cure, and 3) when these bodily parts are truly "open" or "closed" in a permanent manner, it certainly has the potential to be fatal.
As for your second question, I appreciate your attention to the wording of this bracha, and it's led me to contemplate why, even after noting the ostensible contradiction that bothers you, I myself don't feel troubled by it. I think it's because I don't view "creating people with wisdom" as precluding the possibility of something going wrong. The intricate ways in which our various anatomical systems were created seem to me exquisite, just as the yearly cycles of flora, the solar system, and countless other things in the natural and biological world are awe-inspiring -- but all of them can suffer interruptions and, in some cases destructive ones. I agree with Ms. Bieler's point that people have the power to impact positively or negatively on their environments, but when a sick person has become so without apparent human causes (as it most often the case), or when a plant dies "before its time" in spite of proper human care of it, I am left simply with the mystery inherent in "ha-kol bi-yedei Shamayim".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)