Entering a Church

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

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

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

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

Copying Music that Someone Else Bought on iTunes

Question:

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

From,
The 11th Grade Technology Class

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

Student Reaction to Mrs. Sinensky's Post

Not the last one.

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

-Rachel Friedman

Click HERE for an interesting article

Boy-Girl Friendships in High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

All-Time Monthly Blog Post High

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

The Torah & the Environment

A freshman asks:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aliens?? Guest Response from Rabbi Lamm

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

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

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

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

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

One More ויצא Point...

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

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

Any other ideas?

Dudaim

Michelle Zivari asks:

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient Words, Modern Messages

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

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

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

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

Hello from Yerushalayim!

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Wonder of Wonders...

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

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

More Thanksgiving Torah

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

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

Thanksgiving Torah

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

Back to the Beginning

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

On Modern Orthodoxy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yawn

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

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

An Age-Old Religious Question

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

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

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

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

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