Means and Ends

To me, one of the most inspiring things about our Torah is that it does not hide the flaws of its heroes. Quite the contrary: it seems to emphasize them. What is so inspiring is that these flawed humans are our heroes, our role models and our tzadikkim not only in spite of their flaws, but perhaps even because of them. We cannot use the excuse, "I'm only human! What does Hashem expect of me?" We are only human, we make mistakes. But that doesn't exempt us from aspiring to being like our Avot and Imahot. They too were human. If they could be tzadikim, then what is our excuse?

In Parashat Toldot, we find two episodes that are very troubling on many levels: Ya'akov's obtaining of his b'chorah from Eisav and his obtaining the brachah of the b'chor from Yitzchak. The former seems to involve some level of inappropriate pressure, while the latter seems to involve deception.

In the case of the b'chorah sale, I have always wondered more about Eisav and the omniscient narrator (Hashem as author) than about Ya'akov. Eisav comes in from the field and says to Ya'akov:"Hal'iteini na min ha'adom ha'adom hazeh ki ayeif anochi," and then the Torah states, "al kein kara shmo Edom."

Here are some questions for thought and discussion:

1. The word "na" seems out of character for Eisav. Eisav is an "ish sadeh"; this means not only literally an "outdoors" kind of person, but someone who is very rough, without the polish and manners of someone who is like Ya'akov "ish tam". He is more likely to demand than to say, more likely to declare "Gimme! Now!" than "Please ladle out for me." It is this character inconsistency that leads some to understand the word "na" as "raw" (another translation) and to say that Eisav was so uncouth that he would rather eat raw soup than wait until it's ready. But what if Eisav really did say "Please"? How does this affect our perspective of him?

2. Why does Eisav repeat the word "ha'adom"? Eisav is saying "Give me (please?) that soup that soup." What is it about "ha'adom" that requires emphasis by the text? Is it just that he's very very hungry, or is there something more significant about the repetition?

3. When Eisav is born it states: "Va'yeitzei harishon admoni, kulo k'aderet sei'ar"--he is identified as red from the moment of his birth. Why is he called "Edom" because of his request for soup rather than because of his coloring? In addition, why is Eisav so connected with the color red?

4. Finally, I will refer to a shiur that I once heard fom Dr. Aviva Zornberg, a very noted Tanach scholar. She asserted that what we learn from Ya'akov (and Yoseif) is that sometimes it IS okay to lie. (You have to be at the level of Ya'akov to know WHEN.) What do you think--do the ends (fulfilling a nevu'ah, fulfilling the legacy of Avraham) ever justify the means (deception)?

Happy thinking and discussing!

Shabbat Shalom!

Mrs. Leah Herzog

Is Turkey Kosher?

Here, Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky (who many of you remember from the article of his that we read about Women and zimun in halacha class) explains the surprising story of the kashrut of turkey.

Is Thanksgiving Kosher?

My Gemara class today raised the question of Jews celebrating Thanksgiving.  It is in fact a real halachik issue with varying opinions.  See here for a comprehensive article on the subject by Rabbi Michael Broyde on the subject.  His summary of the approaches (kudos to Rachel Olshin who told the class about the Rav's practice of ending shiur early).

In sum, three premier authorities of the previous generation have taken three conflicting views.
Rabbi Hutner perceived Thanksgiving as a Gentile holiday, and thus prohibited any involvement in the holiday. Rabbi Soloveitchik permitted the celebration of Thanksgiving and permitted eating turkey on that day. He ruled that Thanksgiving was not a religious holiday, and saw no problem with its celebration. Rabbi Feinstein adopted a middle ground. He maintained that Thanksgiving was not a religious holiday; but nonetheless thought that there were problems associated with "celebrating" any secular holiday. Thus, while he appears to have permitted eating turkey on that day, he would discourage any annual "celebration" ⁽⁵⁰⁾ that would be festival-like.

 In the end, Rabbi Broyde himself concludes that:

This article has so far avoided any discussion of normative halacha. Such cannot, however, be avoided, at least in a conclusion. It is my opinion that this article clearly establishes that: (1) Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with secular origins; (2) while some people celebrate Thanksgiving with religious rituals, the vast majority of Americans do not; (3) halacha permits one to celebrate secular holidays, so long as one avoids doing so with people who celebrate them through religious worship and (4) so long as one avoids giving the celebration of Thanksgiving the appearance of a religious rite (either by occasionally missing a year or in some other manner making it clear that this is not a religious duty) the technical problems raised by Rabbi Feinstein and others are inapplicable.  Thus, halacha law permits one to have a private Thanksgiving celebration with one's Jewish or secular friends and family. For reasons related to citizenship and the gratitude we feel towards the United States government, I would even suggest that such conduct is wise and proper.  It has been recounted that some marking of Thanksgiving day was the practice of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, thus adding force to our custom of noting the day in some manner.  Elsewhere in this article it is recounted that Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik would reschedule shiur on Thanksgiving day, so that shiur started earlier, and ended earlier, allowing the celebration of Thanksgiving. It is important to note the Torah study was not canceled, or even curtailed. Rather, the day was rearranged to allow for a full compliment of Torah, hand in hand with the requisite "civil celebrations." That too is an important lesson in how we should mark Thanksgiving.
Torah learning must be an integral part of what we do, and how we function. Sometimes, because of the needs of the times or our duties as citizens, we undertake tasks that appear to conflict with our need to study and learn Torah. But yet we must continue to learn and study. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik did not cancel shiur on Thanksgiving. We, too, should not forget that lesson. Torah study must go on.

 With that lesson in mind, I encourage you all to join us for Black Friday Shiur, this Friday.  אנו משכימים והם משכימים...

Parsha Questions - Chaye Sara

• At Mishmar last week, Mrs. Kahan discussed the Rashi in this week's Parsha quoting the Midrash that the reason the death of Sara is adjacent to the akeida (even though it really isn't) is because after the Satan told her the news of Avraham offering Yitzchak as a korban, her soul "flew away" and she died.  We saw many versions of the story in different Midrashim with fascinating differences.  At the end of the evening, we started debating how Sara would have reacted had she been the one to be commanded to sacrifice Yitzchak.  I thought that she would have done it, but we were pretty evenly split.  What do you think?
• See here for a post on my favorite biblical character who's not actually biblical.  I think she's fascinating and ripe for historical fiction (and I still think the name is cool).
• Chazal note the extended retelling of Eliezer's story in such great detail and comment that "יפה שיחתן של עבדי אבות מתורתן של בנים" - that the idle chatter of the servants of our forefathers is more precious than the teachings of their children.  What on Earth does that mean?
• We see that Rivka is given the choice whether to go with Eliezer and marry Yitzchak or not, and she chooses to go, despite never having met Yitzchak.  What do you think went into her decision making process (let's assume just for the sake of discussion that she wasn't a toddler).
• Finally, when she does get to meet Yitzchak he is waiting out in the field when she and Eliezer return because Yitzchak had gone "לשוח בשדה" - to converse in the field.  Chazal take this phrase to refer to Tefila, and assert that this is when he founded תפילת מנחה.  Can you think of any connections between מנחה and יצחק?

Lots to think about and react to this week - let's try to include some non-verbal feedback this week.

Sneak Preview - From the Stream

This week's Dvar Torah:

Let us start off with a number of questions.

·                                אברהם found out that he and שרה were going to have יצחק at the end of לך לך.  Yet, three days later, the מלאכים came to tell him the exact same news with שרה overhearing?  Why was it necessary for Hashem to tell either of them, let alone twice, of יצחק's pending arrival?  Why couldn't they find out the way that everyone else does?

·                                If שרה's נבואה was greater than אברהם's, why was he told directly by Hashem & she through a מלאך (who wasn't even talking to her!)?

·                                Why did Hashem reprimand שרה for her laughter, when אברהם also laughed when he was told they would have יצחק?  Rashi (based on תרגום אונקלוס) explain that the laughter of אברהם expressed joy, while שרה’s was cynical and doubtful, but why would that be?  And even if it were true, אברהם heard the נבואה from Hashem.  שרה heard the rantings of three Arabic nomads.  Why would she be expected to take it seriously?

·                                שרה’s reaction is completely irrational.  רש"י (יח:ח) tells us that  the bread that she prepared was never served because “פירסה נדה” at the age of 89.  With theנס  process already in motion, why would her reaction be so skeptical?  Once her body was miraculously rejuvenated, is ואדני זקן that much more of an obstacle?

It is well known that each of the אבות and אמהות embodying a certain מידה, which means not merely a good quality that they had, but a theological approach as to the proper way to serve Hashem.  When we say that אברהם was an איש חסד, it means that he was active, externally focused in his עבודת ד'.  Perhaps it also refers to a degree of spiritual optimism.  We know that שרה personified גבורה (like her son יצחק).  Maybe that implies the reverse.  Based on the story in the Midrash, an early if not initial exposure to G-d (or at least His supernatural miracles) for both אברהם and שרה was the story of the כבשן האש.  אברהם stood up for Hashem and was miraculously saved, שרה watched her father הרן do the same, and be burnt alive.  Maybe this helped foster within each of them differing approaches to נס.  To אברהם, anything was possible.  When faced with a seeming contradiction – G-d’s promise that he would be the father of a great nation and his childlessness into old age, or even the same promise against the commandment to sacrifice יצחק – he knew that his is not to reason why, and that Hashem can make it right in the end.  שרה on the other hand dealt with the practical, and was emotionally reluctant to rely on נסים.  Therefore, when her child-bearing years passed with no children, she assumed that the ברכה would be fulfilled through ישמעאל, but never dreamt that she  would still be destined to be the mother of this nation. 

This is not a value judgment.  שרה’s approach was not necessarily worse than אברהם’s, in fact sometimes her spiritual pessimism was proper.  When ישמעאל was not turning out as planned, אברהם could only see his potential.  It was שרה and her pragmatism that correctly recognized him באשר הוא שם – as he was – and Hashem explicitly told אברהם to concede to her superior judgment. 

A נסיון (test) is designed to test the subject in his potential area of weakness. Of course had שרה received the news of יצחק’s impending birth in the same way as אברהם she would have reacted as he did.  Perhaps שרה’s נסיון was to recognize the possibility of נס.  True, she heard the news from less than reliable sources, and had no obligation to believe it.  But what Hashem did expect was that she not dismiss it out of hand.  “היפלא מד'  דבר” ?  Hashem’s words of rebuke explain שרה’s misstep.  By cynically ruling out a miraculous conclusion to her story, שרה falls short of G-d’s expectation.  This is not to say that שרה was a spiritual failure or any less than the אם ישראל we know her to be.  Yet, the תורה is clear that Hashem is upset with her, so our job is to figure out why.  The above may be a step in that pursuit.

In Memory of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, ob”m

I was saddened to learn of the passing of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, ob”m when I waked into shul today for Mincha. Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel was the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Yerushalaim, the largest yeshiva in Israel, and one of the largest yeshivot ever, with over six-thousand students. The Mirrer Yeshiva, amongst so many other yeshivot, was one of the great yeshivot in pre-holocaust Europe, unlike most of them however, the Mirrer Yeshiva still exists today, not only in Yerushalaim, but also in Brooklyn, NY and in branches throughout Eretz Yisroel.

Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel was an American born Rosh Yeshiva, a scion of an illustrious family of Torah giants. He is named for Rav Nosson (Nota) Tzvi Finkel (1849-1927), who was known as the Alter of Slabodba, or “Elder of Slabodka”, the founder the Slabodka Yeshiva, one of the great mussar yeshivot. Though Rav Finkel grew up to become the head of Mirrer Yeshiva, his formative years were spent in Chicago, far away from the yeshiva, which he would one-day lead for over twenty years. As matter of fact, one could say that his childhood years were spent about as far away as one could imagine from one of the most prestigious institutions in the yeshiva word today.

Although I never had the privilege of personally meeting Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, I did hear him speak on more than one occasion. Twice I heard him address the NCSY Summer Kollel- once when I was a camper and once as a madrich. On a third occasion, I had the opportunity to hear a parsha shiur from him on erev shabbat in his home.

Since Rav Finkel had Parkinson’s disease and it was difficult for him to travel, our entire camp loaded onto busses and made the trip to a banquet hall in Yerushalaim, where he addressed us. On one occasion, Rav Finkel began by asking the boys who amongst them was from Chicago; immediately, a whole bunch of hands shot up into the air. Next, he asked them who attended Ida Crown Jewish Academy, again, a handful of boys raised their hands, though fewer than the time before. He then asked them who went Ida Crown and played forward for the Aces, Ida Crown’s basketball team; this time only one hand went up- his own.

The Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel I saw when I was a teenager, was far from the boy I imagined growing up in Chicago. He was tall though, tall enough to be a forward, and I could see him towering over his opponents, but the man I saw in front of me was frail, his body was ravaged by a debilitating disease, which made it difficult for him to speak or even sit comfortably in a chair. I remember him clutching his hands and thrusting them between his knees, which was all he could do to keep them from flailing uncontrollably by his sides. I have been told that although his symptoms were quite severe, Rav Finkel’s condition could have been alleviated greatly, by medicines which were readily available. Apparently there were stronger medications, which would help lessen his pain and discomfort, but he refused to take them because he was concerned that taking them would prevent him from thinking clearly, and would negatively impact his learning and his ability to continue giving shiurim in the yeshiva.

As he was trying to give us an appreciation for who Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel was, one of our camp rabbeim pointed out that many of the great Jewish leaders, both past and present, had distinguished themselves in different areas. Some roshei yeshiva were gedolim in Torah, some were gedolim in chessed, some were tzaddikim and gedolim in ahavat yisroel or middot tovot, but Rav Finkel was a godol b’yessurim- great because of the challenges and difficulties he lived with. He was an effective leader and maggid shiur, rebbe and rosh yeshiva, despite the obvious pain he had to put up with to simply hold a pen in his hand. He was great.

Though I must honestly admit that I do not remember most of what he spoke about when I was a camper, I do remember one thing- he spoke about faith in Hashem, and as he was concluding his speech he asked all of us to recite Shema together in unison, we did, but one voice towered over all the rest- his own.

Parashat Vayera - Morality and Sacrifices

This parashah is so rich and action-packed that I'm not even scratching the surface of doing it justice in this post. Try to get to shul this Shabbat to re-learn this parashah, or spend some time reading it this week. Vayera is probably familiar from elementary school, but you will approach it now with a more mature outlook, and maybe these or other questions will come to mind.

• Morality

The parashah opens with angels visiting Avraham, and we see him setting the example for hachnasat orchim - hospitality - that has influenced his descendants for generations. The angel informs Avraham that Sarah will give birth within one year, and then Hashem informs Avraham that He plans to destroy the corrupt city of Sodom and its suburbs. As Avraham starts famously bargaining with Hashem (if there be 50 tzaddikim, 45, 40, down to 10), he challenges Him:

Will You sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city; will You sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are in it? It is profane of You (chalilah lecha) to do this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be equated with the wicked; it is profane of you (chalilah lecha) -- shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?! (18:23-26)

Avraham is basically saying to God: "You are not living up to Your own standards of morality. How can You do something which is unjust, when You are the Source of justice?" Putting aside Avraham's brazenness (why wasn't he afraid to speak to God that way?) his question seems paradoxical. If God wants to do something, isn't that action by definition good and just? How can one challenge God on the basis of justice while at the same time acknowledging (as Avraham does) that He is the basis of justice?

• Sacrifice

At the end of the parashah, Hashem tells Avraham to offer Yitzchak, the son He had promised Avraham, as a sacrifice. Avraham's willingness sets an example of sacrifice for his descendants for all generations. But when are we called upon to sacrifice in the same way?

Last week my family lived for four days without heat or electricity (we did have hot water though, B"H). Some of my kids missed school, they did homework by candlelight, and we all shivered at night. We were very uncomfortable, but I don't think that was sacrifice, because it wasn't for any greater cause. At the exact same time, a friend told me, schools in Be'er Sheva were cancelled for at least 3 days because of missiles coming from Aza. I think that was sacrifice, of comfort and daily routines, and it was for a greater cause - a life in Eretz Yisrael.

On the other hand, Avraham didn't actually have to give up his son. Other Jews throughout history have had to make that ultimate sacrifice. Avraham is praised because he was willing, but he didn't have to actually sacrifice. What of those who are not willing, or have no choice, but who actually do sacrifice?

Free Parsha Tip

For those of you who read the questions below, the first & last ones highlight a secret to learning the Parsha.  Don't just start at the beginning.  If you do, you often join in mid-story.  Be sure to check the end of the previous Parsha before trying to figure out what's going on in the one your learning.

Parsha Questions - Lech-Lecha

A bit of a late start this week, but a thought provoking Parsha.  I'll get it started.

• While Avram is told by Hashem to leave בית אביך, many meforshim note that in fact, Terach had already begun the Aliya to Canaan at the end of last week's Parsha.  If so, what is the legacy of Terach?  We all think of him as the idolatrous foil in the Midrashic story of young Avram's scheme to highlight the folly of עבודה זרה, where he claims that the head idol "killed" the other ones. Did he discover Hashem before his death?  I once saw (I wish I could quote it, but I don't remember where) the suggestion that sefer bereishit is the story of the children of Terach, which explains the detail of genealogy for the families of Nachor and Lavan, beyond the daughters who married into Avraham's family.  Is he the hidden Patriarch of the Torah?
• A few questions that stretch into next week as well:
• What to make of Lot?  What an enigmatic character.  Is he a good guy?  A bad guy?  just kind of there?
• In this Parsha we find Avram and Sara traveling to Mitzrayim, and Paro takes Sara captive until he is inflicted by Makot.  Next week we find an almost identical story with Avimelech and Plishtim.  Why the need for the rerun?
• A short note on that same story, from a Maase avot Siman L'banim, I always thought that Avram and Sara both represented Bnei Yisrael and their eventual captivity in Egypt.  This morning I noticed that it seems more like Avram is playing the role of Hashem, with Sara as Bnei Yisrael - Avram is never taken.  We are often compared to Hashem's wife, but apparently for some reason in between the foreshadowing here in Lech-Lecha, and the real slavery, the metaphor shifted to "בני בכורי ישראל".  Not sure why, but open to ideas.
• Finally, at the end of the Parsha (we're skipping some interesting, important stuff), Hashem tells Avraham about the coming birth of Yitzchak.  Avraham responds with laughter.  You remember that at the beginning of next week's Parsha, the Malachim tell Sarah about Yitzchak, and when she laughs, Hashem gets upset.
• Why does Hashem get angry at Sarah for laughing but not Avraham?
• Why doesn't Avraham tell Sarah what Hashem had told him?
• Why does Hashem have to tell them altogether?  Why couldn't they just figure it out the way everyone else does?

OK, there they are.  Looking for some real feedback from you guys this week.  And this time, don't just approach me in the hallway - write it up & send it in.

Parsha at Your Fingertips in the NYT

Check this out.  It's an article about Rabbi Yael Buechler, a teacher at the Solomon Schechter of Westchester who started  a Midrash & Manicures club where she paints pictures from the Parsha on her students' nails.  Here's a quote:

“Re-envisioning education is what this is all about,” said Rabbi Buechler, 25, who was ordained in May by the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary and is the middle school student life coordinator at Schechter. “If I said come to a Midrash course, I’d have five or six students. But Midrash Manicures? Twenty plus.”…

The real beauty, she added, is this: “You can’t possibly come up with a meaningful design for your nails until you have read and analyzed the text.”

Better Late Than...

A slightly outdated (or really, really early) question from Liat Clark:

Although Yom Kippur has just passed and the selichot-saying days are over, I was wondering: why is it that selichot are said specifically late at night or very early in the morning, rather than together with maariv or after shacharit?


Thanks and great question.  In fact, so good a question that Gabrielle Hiller asked it last year and we re-ran it earlier this year (don't worry, you just got here & have a good excuse to having seen it).  Does that fully answer your question?

A Rabbi and a Senator Walk Into an Auditorium...

Here is a video of a public conversation between Senator (and once Vice -Presidential candidate) Joseph Leiberman (I, Conn.) and Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik partially about the Senator's new book about שבת, but also covering many aspects of Mr. Leiberman's unique and fascinating career as the most prominent observant Jewish American politician ever.

I was at the event and it was terrific; really interesting stuff about balancing his duties as a public servant and as a private eved Hashem.  Of note to us in light of our recent "Turn it Off Tuesday", he said that the the most difficult moment he has each week is turning off his Blackberry before Shabbat (appently RIGHT before Shabbat), and being forced to acknowledge that for all of his prominence and the important role that he plays in the world, that world can survive without him for 25 hours.  He also said that the next moment was his best of the week, as he would feel all of the stresses and difficulties of the week melt away with this one action of turning off his phone.  Rabbi Soloveichik was a little more aggressive with his questioning than I would have guessed, and it made for a truly enlightening and entertaining hour.  You should watch the whole thing.

It was particularly enjoyable to see so many Maayanot alumni who made the trip up from Stern to participate in the program.

I also got to participate in a reception before the program - here's a picture.

This was the first in a series of conversations Rabbi Soloveichik will be doing.  The second one is taking place tomorrow morning (10:00am, I have a conflict) at YU where he will be interviewing Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of England.  Promises to be great and I'll post it BN if it gets to YouTube so stay tuned.

Redecorating, Take 2

After pretty unanimous negative feedback for the Riddler-style background, we went back to the virtual drawing board.  Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Another Question on Parshat Noach

Cut Him Some Slack!

When Noach and his family finally enter the teiva, we are told they do so “מִפְּנֵי, מֵי הַמַּבּוּל,” because of the rising flood waters, (7:7). Rashi points out that these words imply that Noach was lacking complete emmuna, and that he only went into the teiva after the waters of the impeding flood compelled him to do so.

It is not necessarily Noach’s apparent lack of emmuna that should bother us, (although in reality it should), after all, that is one of the enduring questions in all of Tanach- how is it that those with such a direct connection to Hashem, especially those who witness His open miracles, can fail to believe in Him, or even worse, betray him for other gods! What should bother us though, is that this is being said about a man who spent 120 years of his life building teiva but for the his belief in Hashem, despite the constant taunting and ridicule of those around him! This much we do know, Noach did have emmuna, and this is clear from his behavior in the years preceding the flood.

If this is so, how might we help explain Rashi’s "harsh" words about Noach?

Question #1 on Parshat Noach

The following question on Parshat Noach is from the commentary of the Abravanel on the Torah, (R’ Don Yitzchak Abravanel, 1437-1508):

Already at the end of Parshat Breishit we are told that Noach was 500 years old when Shem, Cham and Yafeth were born to him, ( 5:32),

וַיְהִי-נֹחַ, בֶּן-חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, אֶת-שֵׁם אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת

Why then are we told this for a second time at the beginning of Parshat Noach, ( 6:9-10):

אֵלֶּה, תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ--נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה, בְּדֹרֹתָיו: אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, הִתְהַלֶּךְ-נֹחַ. וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, שְׁלֹשָׁהבָנִים--אֶת-שֵׁם, אֶת- חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת

The Ramban explains that the lineage of Noach is repeated, as an indication that these were his only sons. Unlike Noach’s ancestors, who bore sons and daughters other than those mentioned explicitly in the Torah, Noach bore only these sons and no other children. The Abravanel, however, is not satisfied by this explanation; He points out that the Torah explicitly states over there ",וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת " indicating that they had other children as well. Since no such phrase is found by Noach, argues the Abravanel, there must be another reason why his three sons are mentioned a second time.

Can you think of a reason why???

Why Joshua?

At lunch on Simchat Torah, my wife and I were asking our kids questions about the day, and the haftara came up - the very beginning of ספר יהשוע.  She asked why we choose this haftara, and we discovered that we both had always assumed different reasons for it.  I thought that it was because after completing the Torah and reading at the end of V'zot Habracha about the death of Moshe Rabbeinu and the subsequent leadership of Yehoshua, we continue the story at the beginning of Nevi'im.  My wife thought that it was to parallel the reading of the beginning of the Torah with Bereishit.

After שבת last night, she found this article by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik discussing the question.  Great minds...

Pidyon Shvuyim in the NYT

Check out this interesting article for a perspective on the halachik issues behind the deal for Gilad Shalit.  A friend told me that a local Rabbi who never talks politics or current events gave his drasha on Shmini Atzeret about this topic.  He defended the deal, despite the gemara's instructions not to redeem captives for excessive prices by noting that the gemara allows paying any price for an extremely important person.  Considering what Gilad has come to represent to the Jewish world, he certainly qualifies.

Redecorating

As you can probably tell, we did some redesign, please let us know what you think in the comments.

Learning About the Details of Mitzvot

Doreet Wiesel asks:
Why do we learn all of the details of what we do in Judaism? I realize that we need to fully understand in order to fully appreciate what the mitzvot are, but the more one adds on to their common knowledge, the greater the chance of them not understanding is. If we want our mitzvot to be done to the fullest extent, then why do we make it harder to comprehend what we know and love to do?

This is a very interesting question and one about which different people might have very different perspectives. The way I understand your question is that you are suggesting that sometimes our focus on learning the details of halakhot might undermine our intuitive, natural appreciation for the meaning of the mitzvot. In other words, perhaps a strong emphasis on the letter of the law might detract from our appreciation and fulfillment of the spirit of the law. (If I’m misunderstanding your question, please let me know!)

I agree that there is a risk of losing sight of the meaning of mitzvot by becoming excessively detail-oriented in our approach to learning about them. However, I think there is a far greater risk in the other direction. If we don’t continuously learn more about mitzvot, then not only do we risk not being able to fulfill the mitzvot correctly, but we also run the risk of relating to the Torah on a simplistic level. For example, a person may have an inherent love for the mitzvah of sukkah, because it’s such an enjoyable mitzvah and one that often brings back many happy memories and associations. However, if a person’s appreciation and understanding of the mitzvah of sukkah remain at that level, then her experience of the mitzvah remains static throughout her life. By contrast, if she continues to learn more about the halakhot and symbolism of sukkah, then her knowledge and love of the mitzvah have the potential to grow throughout her life. I think that it’s important for a person’s Torah knowledge to grow with the person—as the individual grows in thoughtfulness and depth, her Torah knowledge should expand in the same way. If this doesn’t happen, there is a risk that the Torah might gradually feel less compelling and relevant to her.

I hope that this answer is meaningful to you. Please stop by if you’d like to talk about it more!

Why is Rosh Hashana before Yom Kippur?

Ariana Brody asks: If Yom Kippur is all about getting rid of your sins, then why doesn't Yom Kippur come before Rosh Hashanah? Wouldn't you want to start your new year with a fresh start and no sins on your shoulders?

Good question. I think that the reason that Rosh Hashana comes before Yom Kippur, even though one might think that it would make more sense to achieve atonement first and enter Rosh Hashana with a clean slate, is that the teshuva of Yom Kippur is dependent upon the relationship that is established on Rosh Hashana. Before asking for Hashem’s forgiveness on Yom Kippur, we first need to establish a relationship to Hashem that is based on awe and reverence. Asking forgiveness before building that relationship would be premature; the gift of divine forgiveness is dependent on our recognition of Hashem’s malkhut and presence in our lives. In other words, if we tried to do teshuva before establishing an appropriate reverence for Hashem, it wouldn’t work—it would be like trying to make our sins go away without solving the problem that led us to sin in the first place.

Rav Shlomo Wolbe (a 20^th-century rav who lived in Eretz Yisrael and wrote works of mussar including his best-known sefer Alei Shur), develops an idea about personal growth that I think is relevant to this topic. Rav Wolbe wrote a sefer about childrearing called Zeriah U-Vinyan BeHinuch. The thesis of his sefer is that national and personal growth is based on the dual dynamic of zeriah (planting) and binyan (building). On the one hand, a person builds himself into a better individual through concerted action—through focusing on the performance of mitzvot and maasim tovim. On the other hand, a person grows in more subtle, organic, gradual ways as well. For example, a parent teaches a child about Judaism in practical ways, by teaching her Humash and halakhot and other areas of Torah. Equally importantly, however, a parent educates a child in Judaism by surrounding her with Jewish concepts and beliefs and experiences. In Rav Wolbe’s terminology, the active, practical type of education and personal growth is called binyan, and the subtle, organic type is called zeriah.

Rav Wolbe associates Rosh Hashana with zeriah, and Yom Kippur with binyan. On Rosh Hashana, we internalize the nature of our relationship with God by accepting His sovereignty, and on Yom Kippur we work actively toward admitting our sins and changing the way we behave. While Rav Wolbe does not explicitly address the question of why Rosh Hashana comes before Yom Kippur, I think that his idea about zeriah and binyan sheds light on the answer. I think it makes intuitive sense that teshuva would begin with zeriah and proceed to binyan, so that our resolutions for the future are built on the solid foundation of a meaningful, personal relationship with Hashem.

More on the Release of Gilad Shalit

From Temima Kanarfogel:

These past fews years as Gilad Shalit has been held captive by Chamas, many Jewish communities have organized rallies, recited perukim of Tehillim, and raised awareness of the importance of his release. To be honest, I had a hard time even agreeing with the idea that he should be released. Many questions swarmed in my mind: How can Israel trade a relatively large amount of Chamas terrorists for only one of our own soldiers? Is it really worth it to expose put so many more lives in danger to save one? And won’t this prompt Hamas to capture even more soldiers when they see we are willing to pay any price for our captives? Luckily, there are several Halachic sources that answer these questions:

            The importance of redeeming a captive is emphasized both by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. The Rambam writes about this in Hilchot Matnot Aniym, “Indeed, there is no religious duty more meritorious than the ransoming of captives, for not only is the captive included in the generality of the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked, his very life is in jeopardy.” The situation that a captive is in is considered worst than most, because he is experiencing multiple sufferings. Therefore we need to treat this matter more seriously. Additionally in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 252:3 this idea is further emphasized, “Every moment that one delays in freeing captives, where it is possible, is considered tantamount to murder.”

            The Talmud Bavli, Gittin 45a that teach us a captive cannot be redeemed for more than what he is “worth”. These were originally made in order to prevent Jewish societies from experiencing more emprisonments. If a captive is redeemed with an excessive amount of money, other nations or societies may take advantage of this and capture more people. The situation we are dealing with, however, is an exception that enables us to trade even an exorbitant amount of terrorists for Gilad Shalit. A well known Talmudic principle states, “Bari V’Shema, Bari Adif: A certainty and doubtful, the certain takes precedence.” His mortal danger is one of which we are certain. Even though it is not far-fetched to assume that if the terrorists are released, they may threaten lives in the future, it is not for sure. Their release presents a potential risk to many lives, but it is not as definite as the danger that Shalit faces.

            Ultimately, Gilad Shalit is part of Klal Yisrael. It is our obligation to return him to his family, and restore his life. Even though the price appears impossible to pay, we must do it. We do not have control over what harm these terrorists may do, but we can save somoene who is in their captivity. The only left to do is daven to HaShem that no significant damage will result from this trade, and bring Gilad Shalit home.

Gilad Shalit

With all the news surrounding (iy"H) Gilad Shalit's release, I found this blog post by a rabbi from Montreal especially moving and worth reading, no matter what your thoughts may be on the prisoner exchange (on which there is definitely much to discuss). Chag Sameach and hopefully we will be welcoming Gilad home soon!