Re Germany and Holocaust Denial

What a story for the yemei teshuva.

Observing yom tov sheni In Israel when you are there for the year

Since I'm (about to) spend[ing] the year in Israel, the question of whether or not I should keep 2 days of yom tov or one has come up. I probably will ask my rebbeim at Nishmat, but I was just wondering what your opinion is on this issue. - Aviva Novick

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein of Yeshivat Har Etzion always told my husband and me that the (colloquial) "day and a half" option is most correct for people who have not made aliyah, even if they will be there for the year. That means tefila of chol, but observing issur melacha and tchum Shabbat. Hence, one may get a ride within the tchum from an Israeli, or benefit from the melacha of an Israeli who is permitted to do melacha. It is an odd state of in-between, but it does allow the galut Jew to participate in some limited forms of chol hamoed activity on yom tov sheni, at the same time that one acknowledges one's status as a visitor from galut and not a permanent resident of the land of Israel. The advice of your rebbeim in the program you attend is probably a good option for you to follow. Shalom, and Gmar Chatima Tova, Rookie Billet

Germany and Holocaust Denial (in light of Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN)

Thought you might find this interesting:

Germany Will Walk Out of U.N. if Ahmadinejad Denies Holocaust

Published on: Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New York - Germany's foreign ministry is sending a clear message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ahead of his Wednesday speech to the United Nations — don't deny the Holocaust.

If the rogue Iranian leaders does in fact make such a statement before the General Assembly, German diplomats will walk out. And Germany wants other European Union countries to follow, the foreign ministry was quoted by Reuters.

"We will leave the hall if President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust or makes anti-Semitic statements ... we are making efforts towards a unified European position," a spokesman told Reuters on Tuesday.

As recently as last week, Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a lie, repeating the inflammatory statement as world powers weigh how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Stating that the Holocaust did not occur during World War Two is a crime in Germany. Last week Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier condemned Ahmadinejad's most recent denial and called him a disgrace to his country, Reuters reported.

News Source: Fox News

Post Rosh Hashana Thoughts

A couple of thoughts on our way from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur.

• First, a recommendation. I read most of the YU produced Rosh Hashana To Go booklet, and while I enjoyed some articles more than others, the overall quality of the publication was outstanding. Many of the articles are still relevant for Yom Kippur, and there are still copies in a box outside the Student Activity Center. A specific highlight for me was a sermon by Rabbi Norman Lamm that he gave in 1962 about the three different women whose crying we discuss on Rosh Hashana. He masterfully contrasts the tears weaving top notch drash with relevant, timeless lessons and fascinating political messages about Cuba, communism and Soviet Jewry that provide an interesting window into his world nearly 50 years ago. I can't wait for the Sukkot edition which we will have available next week, highlighted by an article by our own Mrs. Knoll.
• My first year in Maayanot at the Yom Iyun I gave a shiur tracing the roots of Rosh Hashana as a Yom Teshuva, as we don't find it described that day. My theory was pretty involved, and went back to Mitzrayim. While I stand by the shiur, I wonder if it might trace back even further. We repeatedly refer to RH as the day that the Earth was created (which should be familiar to many of you from your 9th grade Gemara class). This is one opinion among the tana'im, but even according to this tana, it would be the the anniversary of the creation of man on day 6 - not heaven and Earth on day 1. If so, RH is also the anniversary of the first sin - the disaster of the Eitz Hada'at. The Midrash teaches that Adam did Teshuva for this sin, and was forgiven. While I don't know when he did the Teshuva, at the very least it is the anniversary of sin, which is a good reason by itself to institute it as a Yom Teshuva.
• I hope you all saw the inaugural edition of this year's Maayanei Torah, under the new leadership of Mrs. Shapiro and Talia Friedman. It was a great issue, highlighted by two consecutive essays about the connection between Purim and Yom Kippur (Yom kiPurim). Some other answers that I like are the following: Generally, Jewish holidays are split between Torah and prayer on one hand, and festive celebration, expressed by eating and drinking on the other. Purim and Yom Kippur split the two days, where we have Taanit Esther preceding Purim, and a mitzva to eat on erev Yom Kippur. My favorite approach is that just as on Purim we where masks & costumes to symbolize that our bodies are also fake coverings that mask our true selves, our souls. That is why we (not you!) drink, because the wine reveals the true individual (נכנס יין יצא סוד). So too on Yom Kippur, we dress and act like angels, but our message to Hashem is that today is not the day of charades - this is the true us. Really, at our core, we are pure (אלקי נשמה שנתת בי טהורה היא). It is the rest of the year that we masquerade as sinners due to the difficulties that we encounter revealing this true self, but our essence is the Yom Kippur version.

Welcome Back!

Welcome to the Maayanot Jewish Studies faculty blog. We were in a state of quasi-hibernation over the summer break, but if you didn't check in over the summer, I recommend taking a quick look to see what you missed. If you are new to the blog, I strongly recommend that you explore our archives.

Most of the questions submitted last year have been addressed, though some are still being worked on. If your question hasn't been answered, please resubmit it. We are clearing the queue, and are ready for a whole new bunch of questions, so put us to work.

The first semester of this experiment was a huge success - I have received amazing feedback from people outside the school, and have heard reports of other schools trying to launch similar programs. The lifeblood of the blog, and the formula for its success has been the wonderful questions that you all ask. Maayanot students are constantly thinking, questioning and thirsting to know more. This is the environment that can make this year even better, and we all look forward to even greater things this coming year - please help us make it happen.

The Cleansing Waters of the מבול

Water, while being a symbol of sustenance, is also a symbol of cleansing. When looking at the flood in the times of Noach, it seems like it is G-d cleansing the world. Is it safe to say, then, that G-d made a mistake with how He created the world the first time, so He had to cleanse it and start all over again? - (anonymous)


I think that you are right in your description of water, in that is both a symbol of sustenance and a symbol of cleansing. And I agree that when looking at the מבול, it does seem that ה' was symbolically cleansing the world as He destroyed it. But I think that instead of viewing the מבול as a result of ה'’s mistake, we should view it as resulting from the mistakes of mankind.


(Most of what I’m about to say was first taught to me by Rabbi Haber in MMY, and was subsequently expanded upon by a variety of other sources:)


When ה' created the world, His purpose was for all of mankind to serve Him (not just Jews, as most people assume—Jews didn’t exist yet!). When He created אדם וחוה, He commanded them to multiply: “פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ.” But they were not only supposed to have children, they were also supposed to pass on the מסורה of עבודת ה' to their children, who were then supposed to pass it on to their children, etc., so that every generation throughout the history of the world would be serving ה'.


But we know that not everyone in the world today serves ה'—what happened?


It all started with קין, who was so disappointed with his rejected קרבן that he murdered his younger brother. The eldest son of אדם וחוה, who should have embraced the avodat עבודת ה' taught to him by his parents, instead committed one of the gravest sins! He therefore cast himself away from the מסורה of עבודת ה', and with הבל dead, the only son of אדם וחוה able to continue the מסורה was שת.


שת then had a son named named אנוש, about whom it says (בראשית ד:כו): "אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה'". According to חז"ל (as quoted by רש"י), “הוחל” comes from לשון חילול, signifying the beginning of עבודה זרה, since in his time the people began to disgrace the name of ה' and began worshipping people and objects (to understand how people could possibly go from עבודת ה' to עבודה זרה so quickly, see הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק א in רמב"ם’s משנה תורה). After אנוש’s time things got progressively worse, to the point that by דור המבול mankind had strayed so far from what ה' had originally intended for them, that He decided to start over with the one man who was doing things right: נח.


In summary, ה' didn’t cleanse the world from His own mistake, but from mankind’s mistakes. And in His רחמים, ה' decided to recreate it to give mankind a second chance. However, even after the מבול, not all mankind worshipped ה': of בני נח, only שם did; of בני שם only אברהם did; of בני אברהם only יצחק did; of בני יצחק only יעקב did. And then, finally, all of בני יעקב (= ישראל) worshipped ה', which is why He decided to make בני ישראל His chosen nation.

נקמה

Just to wrap this up, the Sefer HaChinuch says something very interesting about the prohibition of taking revenge. If asked, I think most of us would categorize this as a מצות בין אדם לחבירו. Yet, he explains that the reason for the mitzvah is because taking revenge reflects a lack of אמונה. If I truly believed, I would realize that anything this person did to me, I deserved - because Hashem made it happen and there is no reason to be angry at the other person. (The implications of this approach on the question of how free will coexists with divine providence is beyond the scope of this post).

Therefore, vengeance itself is not inherently a bad midda. By strict justice, or on a בין אדם לחבירו level, there is no reason not to respond in kind to someone the way they treated you. It is only the issue of אמונה that tells us not to take נקמה. When that is out of the picture - either because God is the actor, or we are taking the revenge on His command - vengeance is appropriate.

More on נקמה and the כהן גדול

Some answers, from Ma'ayanot Alum (and Why-a'anot regular) Aviva Novick:

I remember learning in 9th grade halacha (yay Rabbi Besser's class!) that a talmid chacham is allowed to take nekama because he is not acting on his own behalf - he is taking revenge on behalf of Hashem and Torah. So based on the fact that Hashem does seem somewhat ok with nekama, I think at it's core it is like all middot: it's good but only in moderation and when it's used appropriately. The Rambam says that when someone is too extreme in a certain middah, they should aim to go to the other extreme so that they will end up in the middle. Humans by nature are have a desire to take revenge - they are on the "too much nekama" extreme. Perhapes we only have the mitzvah of "lo tikom" because we need to go to the other extreme. Hashem on the other hand knows when it's good to use nekama and when it's not, and by Him commanding Bnei Yisrael to take revenge, He's showing them that this is the correct time to use nekama.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. I will B"N come back to this soon, ,but interested parties should see the Sefer Hachinuch on this mitzvah.

I heard a nice answer about the midrash with the kohen gadol's mom's cookies from a scholar in residence at shomrei torah in Fair Lawn. A few snacks are not enough for a rotzeach b'shogeg to stop davening for the death of the kohen gadol. but in order for tefila to "work," it has to be completely sincere. the mother of the kohen gadol is hoping that by doing something nice for the rotzeach, he will not be able to daven for the death of her son whole-heartedly - he will still want her son to die, just not as strongly.
His other answer which is not as "nice" was derived from a close reading of the midrash. the midrash does not say the mother of the "kohen gadol," it says the "mothers of the kohanim." the p'shat way of interpreting this is that the various mothers of the kohanim gidolim over time would have this custom, and it's in plural because over time there have been many kohanim gidolim. but sometimes there were multiple kohaim gidolim at a time - like if the kohen gadol became tamey and they needed to appoint a replacement, when the original kohen gadol was tahor again, both kohanim were kohanim gidolim in a way. a rotzeach b'shogeg would be free upon the death of either kohan gadol. So each mother made cookies for the killers in the arei miklat to try to get them to daven for the death of the other kohan gadol and not her son.

Interesting, I also like the first one better, (though I like mine best). אילו ואילו (ואילו?) דברי אלוקים חיים.

Tisha B'Av articles

Check out this.
There are articles about Tisha B'Av that might help your fast day be more meaningful.

מטות - מסעי

Since we had some success with me just throwing out a question last time, I’ll try that again this week. For some of these I have some ideas, and for some I will be trying to figure it out along with you. For all of them, I would love to hear your thoughts, and will share some of the responses here on the blog.

• Hashem commands the people to avenge the Midyanim, and destroy them. Besides the larger (too large for now) issue of warfare in the torah, the verb “nekom” automatically brings to mind the prohibition of “Lo tikom” – that we are forbidden to take revenge. In fact, we know that Hashem describes himself as a “Kel kana v’nokem” – a God of vengeance. And that we are implored to follow n His ways (v’halachta b’drachav”). How can we align God’s vengeance, as well as our mandated vengeance when properly commanded, with the general prohibition against nekama?
  
• On the issue of the 2½ tribes who stay on the other side of the Jordan , see this http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.58/42mm.htm article by Rabbi Nati Helfgott (which I haven’t yet read, but building off of an older Tradition article that I enjoyed).
  
• I once had a conversation with someone about the Midrash that the mother of the Kohen Gadol would go to the arei miklat with milk and cookies (so to speak) to try to keep the captives from praying that her son die. (Of course, the accidental killers in the cities of refuge were obligated to stay there until the death of the Kohen Gadol.) He thought that the message was how easily we are distracted by trivial desires away from what is truly important. These people were imprisoned in the cities, away from their homes, and their quest to escape would be undercut by some snacks.
  While I think this is an important message, I took something different from the Midrash. It is easier to only daven for your own self-interest when the person who might suffer from the fulfillment of your request is only abstract (I want to get into college, not I want her place in college). By visiting the refugees, the Kohen Gadol’s mother humanized him. I understand that you are inconvenienced, the man whose demise you are wishing for is real, with a mother who loves him. That makes it far more difficult to trivialize his potential death. We see this all the time whether it be in holocaust studies or modern PR for any number of causes.
  What do you take from the Midrash?
  
• The Gemara in Bava Batra (119b) states that the b’not Tzelafchad were “Chachmaniyot, Darshaniyot and Tzidkaniyot.” Chachmaniyot because they waited to approach Moshe until he was learning the subject of inheritance. Darshaniyot because they made the following argument: If we (daughters) count, give us a nachala, if not, let our mother do Yibum. Tzidkaniyot because they only married people who were worthy. Then it says that none of them married until they were over forty. What is this all about? I'll tell you that my theory is built off of a Gemara earlier in the same perek that says that someone who marries a woman should examine her brothers, because the sons are like the mothers' brothers. What do you think?
  
  
  
  
  
  

More on Donkeys

From another recent alum, Gabrielle Hiller:

Rabbi Besser mentioned that because the word describing the donkey in the Bilaam story is aton and not chamor, there might not be a pattern at all. However, it's possible that there is and just like the Torah says 'VaYikar' when Hashem talks to Bilaam and 'VaYikra' when He talks to Moshe, showing us (according to Rashi) that Bilaam is on a completely different level than Moshe, so too the Torah wants to teach us the same lesson whenever a donkey comes up, but Hashem wanted to differentiate between Bnei Yisrael and Bilaam. Interestingly enough, every time a donkey was mentioned, it was connected to bringing people to a higher spiritual level (which is even more interesting if a chamor is supposed to represent materialism- the Torah is taking what is often considered bad and using it for good). Redeeming a first born donkey is clear- you're forced to realize that whatever you have is from Hashem and therefore you have to give some sort of thanks. When Moshe said he never even took a donkey from Bnei Yisrael, his point was that he has remained a good leader- he remains on a high level of spirtiuality and listens to Hashem. He has not become a leader who no longer cares about his people and is only concerned with riches and other materialistic things. Finally, the donkey in the Bilaam story is responsible for helping Bilaam to see the angel that tells him that he must listen to whatever Hashem says to him.This fits with the vayikar/vayikra idea that puts our focus on levels of spirtituality and also makes sense with Aviva's idea that Bnei Yisrael were so focused on physical things. If a chamor, which is seen as the height of materialism, can change and be used for good, Bnei Yisrael should learn that they too can and should work to place more focus on the spiritual rather than the physical.

Can someone with a tattoo be buried in a Jewish cemetary?

Question submitted by Chana Ben-Zechariah: I have heard that someone who has a tattoo is not allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetary. Is that true? If the problem is damaging your body, what about people who smoke? Does it matter if the person did teshuva?

There is no source that I could find that specifically prohibits someone with a tattoo from being able to be buried in a Jewish cemetary. That being said, every Jewish burial society can theoretically choose to enact certain rules regarding who they allow to be buried in their plot. This is due to the fact that a) the Shulchan Aruch says that a person should be buried near someone similar to his/her religious observance (and it is assur to have certain types of tattoos), and b) the people who are being buried have a right to request that they be or not be buried near certain people.

Is one allowed to say Hashem's name when singing Zemirot?

Gabrielle Hiller asks: What is the root of the controversy with saying Hashem's name or not when singing zemirot on Shabbat?
This is a very practical question that comes up virtually every 7 days!
The root of the contraversy is centered around a Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin 101a which states, "If one reads a verse of Shir ha'Shirim as if it was a song (i.e. unlike the proper cantillation), or reads verses in the Beis ha'Mishteh (pub) out of place (just for fun), he brings evil to the world; The Torah girds itself in sackcloth and complains to Hash-m 'Yisrael treat me like a harp for Letzim to play'!"
Rabbi Howard Jachter has a good summary of the issues involved in his book Gray Matter, Vol. 3., page 7 (it's a short article).

Taking Medicine on a Fast Day

Ma'ayanot Alumni Gabrielle Hiller asked: What is the halachah regarding taking medicine on a fast day?

The poskim distinguish between two groups of fast days:
Group 1: Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av
Group 2: the rest of the fast days (Shiva Asar B'Tammuz, Ta'anit Esther, etc.)

Group 2 fast days: Most poskim agree that it is permissible to take medication on fast days from this group. If the medicine is a pill or bitter-tasting liquid, it should be taken without water if possible. If you need water, only a small amount should be taken. Some poskim say to add salt or other substances to the water to make it somewhat bitter.

Group 1 fast days: If the medication is for a life threatening condition, virtually all poskim agree that you are allowed to take the medication. You should consult your Rabbi to find out the specifications for how to take the medication. If the medication is something that you need to take every day but is not for a life threatening condition (i.e. antibiotics) or if you have a headache and want to take Motrin/Tylenol, you should consult your Rabbi as well.

More on Donkeys

From recent graduate Aviva Novick:

About Rabbi Besser's question about "chamor"s, based on his idea that the word "chamor" is related to the word chomer, materialism, and that donkeys represent materialism. I feel like a lot of bnei yisrael's complaints in the midbar are focused around physical things - they want more to eat than just the man, the want water, even that they are afraid to be defeated in battle and killed by the nations living in Israel. This is kind of a stretch, but even korach's complaint is materialistic in a way. By desiring power, he is allowing his material, animalistic drives to determine his actions instead of a more spiritual, God-focused way of thinking. Repeatedly, God tries to re-direct Bnei Yisrael's attention away from the material. they must look upward toward Hashem at the nachash hanichoshet to be healed, they are doomed to wander 40 years in the desert - a place with no material comforts, they use kitoret - a service that involves no animals or blood, only smell, one of the more spiritual senses, to fight a plague, and Korach gets swallowed into the earth itself, punishing his this-world-based desires. even when Hashem sends bnei yisrael meat, he sends birds which fly in the sky, and not a herd of cattle on the ground, making the Jews look toward Hashem. This all works well with Rashi's view of mei miriva. Moshe and Aharon used a physical action to bring forth water as opposed to the preferred non-physical act of talking. So, maybe donkeys are mentioned so often to emphasize that the overall problem the Jews had in the midbar was that they focused on the physical and material, and that they didn't have enough trust in Hashem. This is why they needed the man and tests like it - to help them learn to be dependent on Hashem, not the material world.
I'm not sure that this idea can be applied to any of the specific cases where donkeys are mentioned - it doesn't answer why Moshe used not taking donkeys as an example of how he had not done anything wrong to Datan and Aviram. Maybe donkeys are included in pidyon bichor laws to show Bnei Yisrael that Hashem is truly in charge of everything, not the material world and nature. even the first-born of donkeys really are Hashem's and so they must be redeemed. and perhaps Hashem uses a donkey to communicate with Bilam to rebuke/humble him - even a donkey, the epitome of materialism, could see the malach and Bilam couldn't. it might be a message to Bilam that he isn't as spiritual and all-powerful as he thinks.
This answer isn't so satisfying to me, but it's just a thought.

I should add that after posting that last week from memory, I realized that in the Bilaam story the donkey is called an Aton, not a chamor, so we may not even have a pattern at all. Thanks Aviva, & I hope others are reading & responding.

Re Ve-lamalshinim

Just to add to Ms. Appel's response, here is part of the footnote to the ברכה from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' commentary (this is from the new Koren Siddur, translated and annotated by Rabbi Sacks. I'm still getting started on it, but it seems awesome! I hope to post about it some more in the future). I had heard this insight before, but never in Rav Kook's name.

The Talmud (Berakhot 28b) says that to formulate this prayer, Rabban Gamliel turned to Shmuel HaKatan. Rabbi Kook pointed out that Shmuel HaKatan was
known for his attachment to the principle, "Do not rejoice when your enemy
fails." (Avot 4:19). Only a person who deeply loved his fellow human
beings could be entrusted with the task of constructing this prayer, which must
be free of animosity and schadenfraude.

פרשת קרח

Though I am nervous to comment in front of so many of you who learned and taught this in depth, a few quick thoughts (2 thoughts & 1 question) on the last Parsha:

• There is a puzzling passage right after sheini. Moshe calls for Dasan and Aviram to come to him, but they refuse, saying "לא נעלה". They continue to complain that הַמְעַט, כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר: כִּי-תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ, גַּם-הִשְׂתָּרֵר. יד אַף לֹא אֶל-אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ, וַתִּתֶּן-לָנוּ, נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם; הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם, תְּנַקֵּר--לֹא נַעֲלֶה - 13 is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us? 14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.'

The מפרשים come up with a couple of ways to explain the bolded portion, which on it's face makes no sense. Who are "these men", why would Moshe gouge out their eyes, and what does it have to do with anything? Rashi says that they are referring to themselves, but didn't want to say so (like ברכת ד' or שונאי ישראל). If so, their message was, no matter what you do to us, we aren't coming. Others give variations of the idea that there is nothing you can do to hide your deficiencies as a leader from either the people in general or Korach's group in particular.

Perhaps more simply, לא נעלה doesn't mean what it meant a few pesukim ago, but must be read in the context of the intervening text as we will not go up - to Eretz Yisrael! If so, the eye-gouging is a clear reference to the צרעה the supernatural hornets that Hashem promises to send ahead of Bnei Yisrael to gouge out the eyes of the enemies they encounter when conquering the land (see שמות כג:כח and דברים ז:כ). The message then is very pointed - the Meraglim rejected the land because they felt it would be impossible to conquer. דתן & אבירם go a big step further. Even if we are miraculously able to conquer the land, we still don't want it.

• Immediately after this, Moshe asks Hashem not to respond to the קטרת offerings of the rebels. This is very strange. Why would Hashem, knowing that this is the test to determine who he had chosen as the Kohen Gadol respond to those who are rebelling against his choice? Maybe we can explain this in light of what occurred earlier in פרשת בהעלותך. After the people sin and are punished again, Moshe complains that he can not bear the weight of the nation alone, and in response Hashem has him form the 70 elders to share some of his leadership role. Later, Yehoshua finds Eldad and Medad prophesysing and wants Moshe to defend his honor and destroy them. Moshe responds, wishing - מי יתן כל עם ד' נביאים - that the entire nation would be prophets. This is remarkably similar to קרח's argument that כל העדה כולם קדושים. Maybe the whole story of Korach is not just the story of a troublemaker and his attempted mutiny, but Hashem telling Moshe to be careful what he wishes for, and punishing him for doubting His methods. If so, Moshe's plea makes perfect sense. He asks Hashem not to answer Korach to teach him a lesson.

• Finally, Over these few parshiyot there is an odd recurrence of a חמור - donkey. From the mitzva of פטר חמור, where it is the only non-kosher animal that is subject to the laws of פדיון בכור to Moshe's insistence to Hashem when defending his reign that he didn't even take a single חמור to next week's story with the miraculously talkative חמור of בלעם (was there one more). I know that it often symbolizes חומר - materialism, but I can't figure out the message. All insights on this, and the previous points as well are of course welcome from anyone (faculty, students, parents, strangers etc.).

Ve-la-malshinim

Summer break provides some catch-up time for blog questions, and so... Ma’ayanot alumna (!!!) Gabrielle Hiller asked:

I have always learned that when you're davening you are not supposed to pray for bad things to happen to people. For example, if there's a baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox and you support the Yankees, then you are allowed to pray for the Yankees to win, but you are NOT allowed to ask that the Red Sox should lose. How then can we say V'Lamalshinim in Shemoneh Esrei if it is clearly a negative tefillah? How can we pray for something bad to happen to people?thanks, Gabrielle Hiller

Perhaps a little bit of historical context for this berakha can help us understand why Hazal found it appropriate for inclusion in the Amidah.

Originally, the berakha began not with “And to the informers” (ve-la-malshinim) but rather with “And to the sectarians and heretics” (la-minim ve-la-meshumadim) – and hence it is called birkat ha-minim. The likelihood, based on its discussion in Masekhet Berakhot and corroborated by some Christian reports, is that it was introduced during the first century of Christianity. Its specific purpose was to prompt Christians – who had developed their own particular rituals but had not yet established their own distinct liturgy and houses of worship – to remove themselves and their apostasy from the synagogues. Over the centuries, it became clear that for the purposes of maintaining (or creating) civil relationships with their Christian neighbors, Jews needed to alter the text of this berakha, and so it evolved (actually over the course of various versions) into being aimed at Jews who informed against their fellow Jews to non-Jewish authorities.

Hazal implicitly acknowledged the point you bring up in your question – that this berakha unusually asks Hashem to bring about people’s downfall – in Midrash Tanhuma. There (in writing about the original incarnation of the berakha) they indicate that while in general a shaliah tzibbur who made mistakes while reciting hazarat ha-sha”tz would not have to go back and correct the relevant words, one who erred in reciting birkat ha-minim was forced to make the correction or leave. This was because if one were a “Jewish Christian”, then reciting this berakha would be tantamount to cursing oneself, and so the unwillingness to say it with precision would indicate that one was, indeed such a sectarian.

I write all this not as an apologist for asking (as you put it) for bad things happen to people. Rather, I think that the historical context can shed light on the uniqueness of Ve-la-malshinim. Written at one of the most difficult junctures in Jewish history, it reflects a community’s sense of crisis in witnessing the growing fissures in Rabbinic Judaism and its feeling of helplessness in watching its own members join a heretical sect of Judaism. Thus, I view its original intent as one of entreaty, of desperation. Furthermore, its newer version reflects one of the results, a relatively short while later, of this fissure: once the erstwhile sect became a powerful new religion, its impact on internal Jewish social and political dynamics was intense and, likewise, provoked a sense of desperation within the community.

It may be useful to consider one other phrase in the Shemoneh Esrei that invokes God’s power against people. In Elokai Netzor at the end of the silent Amidah, we mention those who think badly of us (implying, if I understand correctly, that they might also consider acting badly against us) and ask of Hashem: hafer atzatam ve-kalkel mahashavtam – essentially to undermine their intentions and destroy their negative thoughts.

Taken together, the assorted versions of Ve-la-malshinim as well as the line in Elokai Netzor (in addition to some other phrases throughout the tefillah) may suggest a category in which it is considered appropriate to pray for people’s downfall: when those people aim to harm individuals or rend the Jewish community. In those circumstances, we see recourse in Hashem.

I want to conclude by stating emphatically that although Ve-la-malshinim originated in opposition to Christianity, I do not believe it is appropriate to have such kavvanah when we recite the berakha today. While Jews have had a complex and often difficult history with the Church, I do not feel the current state of Jewish-Christian relations warrants a hearkening back to the origins of this berakha. Indeed, I think we should be grateful for the freedom we have here in the United States to observe Yahadut with hardly a threat, and that we should reserve our kavvanot in this tefilla for those who might truly seek to destroy us.

More on Sign Language and Hamotzi

When this question came in, I asked one of the resident experts on sign language - Nikki Press, who took an elective in the subject this year. This was her response:

We asked Mrs. Landau about signing between washing and eating bread, and she answered that people don't sign after washing, just like they wouldn't speak, as a matter of respect for the bracha. If it's necessary, for instance to ask someone to pass the salt, one should gesture and not sign. Rebecca Birnbaum added that when her brother asked a Rabbi about signing after washing, he said that it is not allowed- because it's a form of communication just like speech.

Interruptions between Netilat Yadayim and ha-Motzi

Rebecca Schenker asked about interruptions, both verbal and non-verbal, between netilat yadayim and ha-motzi. Even though I am not a posek, with the help of Rabbi Binyamin Forst's sefer The Laws of B'rachos, I can safely say that the following halachot apply: One may not be mafsik (interrupt) between a berachah and its subject. But the eating of bread is not the subject of netilat yadayim - the mitzvah of washing hands is the subject of the berachah. Thus interrupting between netilat yadayim and ha-motzi is less problematic than interrupting between (for example) he-eitz and eating the fruit. Nevertheless, it is preferable not to interrupt.
If it's a request necessary for the meal (for example, someone forgot to bring the knife to cut the challah), however, it is completely permitted to interrupt - to speak - and ask for the knife. Sounds like "shhh" and "nu" are equivalent to any other words: preferable not to say them, but permitted if necessary for the meal. Gestures are less problematic than speaking, but still not ideal. Regarding sign language - which are gestures that are also communicating - a real posek should be asked whether it's equivalent to words (more chamor) or to gestures (less chamor).