Thursday, November 20, 2014
Fasting On Your Wedding Day
The very last verse in Parshas Toldos tells us that Esav, after realizing that his parents disapproved of his Canaanite wives, went and married “Machlas, the daughter of Yishmael”.
The Midrash, as well as the Yerushalmi (Bikurim 3:3) question this from the verse (36:3) which reports the wife of Esav being Basmas the daughter of Yishmael? Chazal answer that we see from this that although her name was Basmas, she was called Machlas, because on the day that he got married all of Eisav’s sins were forgiven. This is signified in the name Machlas, forgiveness.
Upon reflection, this is incredible! Eisav, an arch-evildoer and murderer, was fully forgiven of all his sins on the day that he got married!
This concept is found in the Gemara as well (Yevamos 63b). The Gemara states: “Rav Chama bar Chanina said, as soon as a man marries a woman his sins are ‘stopped up’.” The word used is מתפקקין, the same word that is used in reference to a cork, or a seal. This is commonly understood to mean that his sins are forgiven and eradicated.
However, the in the Rif’s commentary to the Ein Yaakov he questions the use of this terminology. Wouldn’t it have been easier and more precise to say ‘forgiven’? He explains beautifully – on the day of the chuppah the sins of the groom are stored away and sealed up, but they are not yet forgiven.
In essence, he is being presented with a clear choice. You are now starting a new life, together with your new wife. You, as a couple, have the unique opportunity to start afresh, and to pursue a life of spirituality and mitzvos. However, you also have the option to fall back into your old and comfortable ways, which were possibly sin splattered.
Should you choose to walk a new path, and forge a new life together as a couple of Torah and Mitzvos, then the sins from your premarital state will remain corked and sealed (and will even ultimately be considered meritorious, as is with one who does Teshuvah out of love).
However, should you choose to continue in your old, non-elevated ways, then your sins will be uncorked and will still be considered ‘yours’. Because you haven’t started a new life together, you’ve just continued along the previous path.
The Rif goes on to explain that this is the intent of the next sentence of the Gemara: “In the West (Israel) they would ask a man upon his marriage, מצא או מוצא, was your marriage a fulfillment of the verse “He who finds a wife finds great good” (Mishlei 18:22) or the verse “I find a woman to be more bitter than death” (Koheles 7:26).
They weren’t questioning his state of marital bliss, indeed it was far too early to ascertain if the marriage would be a happy one. Rather they were asking a spiritual question – will you use the opportunity of a fresh start with your new wife to seek good? Or will you trudge along the path that will lead to a certain spiritual death?
It seems that even Eisav was presented with this opportunity, notwithstanding that this was not his first marriage, and he was already well established in his ways of debauchery, even so he was given the opportunity to have a fresh start.
Reb Yisroel of Brunia (a 15th Century scholar) quoted by the Rema (Even Haezer 61:1) records a custom for the bride and groom to fast on the day of their wedding. Since it is a day of forgiveness for them it would be appropriate to fast. [The Torah Temimah adds a nice twist – Eisav married Machlas to please his parents. The good deed together with his marriage effected the opportunity for forgiveness. So too we fast in order to add a righteous act to the marriage and effect forgiveness].
A second reason, given by the Mahari Mintz, for fasting is to ensure that they do not become intoxicated, and have the appropriate serious approach to the chuppah.
One practical difference between the two reasons will depend on the scheduling of the chuppah. If the reason for fasting is for forgiveness it would be like any other fast – dawn to nightfall. Even if the chuppah takes place early in day it would be logical to fast all day. However, according to the second reasoning, that we are merely avoiding frivolity at the chuppah, there is no reason to fast once the chuppah and kidushin are over.
Conversely, if the chuppah is after nightfall, according to the first reasoning, you’ve already fasted the day and there is no longer any reason to fast. However if one is concerned about intoxication they would be required to fast until after the chuppah.
Both reasons are quoted in the meforshim to Shulchan Aruch as well as in the Mishnah Berurah (573:8).
The Aruch Hashulchan understands the second reasoning to be primary, and in all situations rules that one should fast until after the chuppah. However the Chochmas Adam (129:2) writes that since the fast is only a custom, and not cited in the Gemara, one may definitely be lenient when the chuppah is after nightfall and eat before the chuppah, as long as they are careful to avoid any intoxicating beverages.
The custom is to break the fast immediately after the chuppah regardless. The Ezer Mikodesh (quoted in the Torah Ledaas) explains that even if it’s considered a personal Yom Kippur for the bride and groom, after the chuppah is the equivalent of after Neilah, the fast is complete.
One fasts even on Rosh Chodesh or during the month of Nissan and other days that we don’t say tachanun, but not on Chanukah or Purim. (OC 573). The Mishna Berura adds that one does not fast on Isru Chag, the 15th of Av and the 15th of Shvat. The opinion of the Elyah Rabbah is that one never fasts on a day that tachanun is not said.
If one gets married on the day or night following a fast day Rav Moshe Feinstein (OC 1:167) rules that they should fast, and infers by omission that this is the opinion of the Mishna Berura as well. However the Toras Mordechai writes that there is definitely no need to fast on the day following Yom Kippur, and Rav Shlomo Zalman extends this to the day following any fast day.
The Eishel Avraham questions the custom of the Kallah fasting – from the Gemara it seems that only the groom has his sins forgiven? He concludes that she too has her sins forgiven, and therefore should fast as well, however there is more room for leniency with the Kallah than with the Chassan. This is fully understandable according to our initial explanation of the concept - they are both setting out on a new, elevated path together, and therefore it is appropriate for them both to fast.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Birchas Baal Habayis - Blessing The Host
The Gemara (Berachos 55a) states that there are three things that cause a person’s life to be shortened.
1) If he is asked to read from the Torah and refuses,
2) If he refuses to accept a Kos Shel Beracha when offered (lit. a cup of blessing, referring to the cup of wine upon which mitzvos are performed), and
3) If he is מנהיג עצמו ברבנות, which the Maharsha understands to mean that he forces others to accept him as a leader.
I’d like to focus on the second item, if one refuses to ‘accept a Kos Shel Beracha’.
What sort of Kos Shel Beracha are we talking about? We find a hint in the source that the Gemara brings. The Gemara quotes the verse of ואברכה מברכך, where Hashem promises Avraham that ‘those who bless you will be blessed’.(Bereishis 12:3)
In the times of the Talmud only one person would recite the Grace after Meals, and all others would listen attentively and respond Amen. Rashi explains that when one is asked to say Birkas Hamazon he has the opportunity to bless the Baal Habayis, and in turn Hashem blesses him. If he refuses he then is effectively saying he is not interested in receiving the blessing. He loses out on that blessing, or as the Mishna Berura puts it, there is an implied curse.
In a rational follow through, the Aruch Hashulchan and Ben Ish Chai, as well as Rav Elyashiv, write that now that everyone says Birkas Hamazon individually, each individual is obligated to bless the host.
According to this logic, one can argue they would all be susceptible to the shortening of days in the Gemara above. However, there are two caveats:
1)While there is a preference to say Birkas Hamazon over a cup of wine, it is not required. The Magen Avraham says the curse of the Gemara only applies when using a cup of wine, as per the language of the Gemara Kos Shel Beracha. (The Shaar Hatzion isn’t sure of the source of the Magen Avraham is, although it seems that he is basing himself on the language of the Gemara, even though there may not be a logical difference whether he is using a cup of wine or not, the Gemara is limited to that scenario).
The Mishna Berura clarifies that although one should definitely bless his host either way, the curse is only present when using wine.
2)Furthermore, the Mishna Berura (OC 201: Shaar Hatzion 14) states that now that we all say a Harachaman for the Baal Habayis that may mitigate the curse totally (which presents an interesting ‘chumra’ for those who don’t say Harachaman on Shabbos).
The full language of the birkas Baal Habayis, as stated in the Gemara (Brachos 46a) is:
אמר ר’ יוחנן משום ר’ שמעון בן יוחי בעל הבית בוצע ואורח מברך. בעל הבית בוצע כדי שיבצע בעין יפה, ואורח מברך כדי שיברך בעל הבית. מאי מברך? יהי רצון שלא יבוש בעל הבית בעולם הזה ולא יכלם לעולם הבא. ורבי מוסיף בה דברים: ויצלח מאד בכל נכסיו ויהיו נכסיו ונכסינו מוצלחים וקרובים לעיר ואל ישלוט שטן לא במעשי ידיו ולא במעשי ידינו ואל יזדקר לא לפניו ולא לפנינו שום דבר הרהור חטא ועבירה ועון מעתה ועד עולם.
‘R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The host breaks bread and the guest says grace. The host breaks bread so that he should do so generously, and the guest says grace so that he should bless the host. How does he bless him? ‘May it be God’s will that our host should never be ashamed in this world nor disgraced in the next world’.
Rabbi added some further items: ‘May he be very prosperous with all his estates, and may his possessions and ours be prosperous and near a town, and may the Accuser have no influence either over the works of his hands or of ours, and may neither our host nor we be confronted with7 any evil thought or sin or transgression or iniquity from now and for all time’. May he be very prosperous with all his estates, and may his possessions and ours be prosperous and near a town, and may the Accuser have no influence either over the works of his hands or of ours, and may neither our host nor we be confronted with any evil thought or sin or transgression or iniquity from now and for all time’. (Translation from Soncino).
The Rif Rosh and Tur modify the text from יזדקר to יזדקק
Interestingly, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 201:1) modifies the language, although not the content, considerably from the Gemara. The Mishna Berura quoting Lechem Chemudos who wonders why. But he doesn’t recommend changing it back, although perhaps that’s implied.
יהי רצון שלא יבוש ולא יכלם בעל הבית הזה לא בעולם הזה ולא בעולם הבא ויצליח בכל נכסיו ויהיו נכסיו מוצלחים וקרובים לעיר ולא ישלוט שטן במעשה ידיו ואל יזדקק לפניו שום דבר חטא והרהור עון מעתה ועד עולם
The Aruch Hashulchan retains the language of the Gemara almost entirely, indicating that that is how it should be recited.
The Rambam adds that one may add in whatever they would like into the beracha if they so desire.
At which point of Birkas Hamazon should we say it?
Many people say it after the HaRachaman’s, and that is where it is usually printed. The Brisker Rav pointed out that the Harachmans originate from the post Talmudic era, whereas the blessing of the host is recorded in the Talmud. One should therefore recite the blessing of the host first, right after Al Yichasreinu, and then continue with the HaRachaman’s.
The Erech Shai (quoted in Chumash Midrash Halacha) has a beautiful observation. We bless the host that he should not be ashamed in this world nor disgraced in the next world. The Gemara (Chullin 7b) states that there are two types of givers - those who want to give and don’t have the resources, and those who have the resources but don’t want to give. Both are embarrassed so they give anyway, the first even though he can’t afford it, and the second even though he doesn’t want to. He explains that the one who gives even though he doesn’t have is embarrassed in this world, and the one who doesn’t want to give but gives anyway will be shamed in the next. The guest therefore blesses his host that he should be saved from both of these – he should desire and be able to share his wealth!
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Taking a Haircut On Friday Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 30 2014) and This Friday
It is well known that there are two main customs regarding the mourning practices of Sefira. The Shulchan Aruch writes that it is from the second day of Pesach until Lag B’Omer, after which all mourning ceases; this is the “Minhag Sefard”. The Maharil (quoted by the Rema) writes that the mourning practices are in place from Rosh Chodesh Iyar until Sheloshes Yemei Hagbolah, the three preparatory days before Shavous. This is commonly referred to as the “Minhag Ashkenaz”.
It is accepted by all Ashkenazi, and even many Sefardim, that when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, (as it is whenever Rosh Chodesh Sivan is on Friday), one may get a haircut on Friday in honor of Shabbos even though Friday is still a prohibited day according to all opinions.
[A similar idea is found on the Friday of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, when Rosh Chodesh Iyar is Friday and Shabbos. Even according to the Minhag Sefard one may take a haircut on that Friday.]
In the event that Rosh Chodesh Sivan comes out on Friday, such as this year (2014), the three preparatory days begin on Sunday.
Seemingly the same logic would apply here, according to Minhag Ashkenaz it is still a prohibited day, but since I am allowed to get a haircut on Sunday I may get one Friday as well. This is indeed the psak of Rav Sharia Dablitzki (Zeh Hashulchan 1:493) based on the opinion of the Pri Megadim (OC 493:5 AA) who permits taking a haircut on Friday when Rosh Chodesh is on Sunday, for those who stop the mourning on Rosh Chodesh Sivan (which is not in accordance with the Magen Avraham and not the conventional minhag).
Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted by Rabbi Elimelech Bluth Shlit”a in LeTorah VeHoraah vol. 10 p.14) disagrees, and differentiates between our case and the Friday preceding Lag B’Omer on two counts and Rosh Chodesh Iyar on one count.
1) Regarding Rosh Chodesh Iyar, there it is permitted because Shabbos itself has an added dimension of Simcha, coupled as it is with Rosh Chodesh. (Rosh Chodesh Iyar that is on Friday will always be on Shabbos as well). Therefore one can take a haircut in honor of Shabbos. This doesn’t apply to Rosh Chodesh Sivan which is only Friday.
2) Lag B’Omer is really part of the mourning period, but the mourning is suspended due to the various events that happened that day, and it is considered a quasi Yom Tov. It is therefore not respectful to take a haircut in honor of Lag B’Omer and not in honor of Shabbos which is a holier day. This does not apply to our case, where the reason for shaving on Sunday is not because it’s a holiday that the laws of mourning were suspended for, rather it’s the end of the Aveilus.
3) Part of the rationale to allow shaving on Friday before Lag B’Omer is miktzas hayom kekulo – a portion of the day is like a full day. (see Biur haGra), this only applies before Lag B’Omer. To apply it here would be analogous to allowing one who finishes his ‘shloshim’ on Sunday to shave on Friday, which is definitely not allowed.
Therefore Rav Moshe Feinstein argues with the Pri Megadim and prohibits shaving or taking a haircut this Friday. And although the general principle of the Poskim is to be lenient when it comes to Sefirah prohibitions (see Chok Yaakov 493:7) Rav Moshe writes that he doesn’t understand the Pri Megadim’s reasoning and is therefore stringent.
Additionally the Chachmas Shlomo, commenting on the Pri Megadim, in addition to mentioning a reason similar to first reason of Rav Moshe, writes that
since Lag B’Omer is only one day and possibly you will not be able to take a haircut, and if one doesn’t take a haircut they can’t take one before the following Shabbos, you are therefore allowed to take a haircut before the first Shabbos rather than being unkempt for two Shabbosim. This reasoning, writes the Chochmas Shlomo, does not apply to the Pri Megadim’s (or our) scenario.
The Chasam Sofer, speaking about a scenario where Erev Shavous is Sunday, (presumably he is of the opinion that one may not take a haircut until Erev Shavous) writes that one may not take a haircut on Friday, also unlike the Pri Megadim.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Saying Hatov Vehameitiv at the Seder
Although the usual blessing made before drinking wine is Borei Pri Hagefen, in very specific circumstances one may make the blessing of Hatov Vehameitiv. The specific circumstances is worthy of an article of its own, however in a nutshell, when a second wine is brought out unexpectedly and is better than the first, and is to be shared by more than one participant then the beracha can be made. [Before putting this into practice please consult with a halachic authority, or study the sources].
Can this beracha be made at the Seder? The Tur (OC 473) quotes this question as being posed to the Maharam of Rothenberg (1215-1293), a German Scholar. His response was that whereas the beracha made is not Hagefen, therefore it will not appear as if he is adding on to the required four cups and it is permitted.
It is apparent that the Maharam was referring to additional cups of wine, drunk sometime in the middle of the Seder. Since we make Hagefen on each of the required four cups, as long as we don’t make Hagefen on any additional cups there is no cause for concern. The Rema, in his commentary to the Tur seems to concur with this ruling.
However the Maharil, quoted by the Ba’er Heitiv (OC 175:1) rules that one ‘should not make Hatov Vehameitiv on Seder night so as not to appear as if they are drinking additional [required] cups of wine’.
The Chida (Birkei Yosef) quoted by the Shaarei Teshuva (ibid) writes that many disagree with the Maharil, and rule that it is permitted to make Hatov Vehameitiv at the Seder.
The Chida goes on to write that in an instance where kiddush was recited over wine, and the wine was found to be inferior, one should certainly not refrain from sending for a better wine for the second cup. In this instance the Maharil would agree, since we are not discussing additional, non-required wine, this
is wine that is necessary for the second of the Four Cups.
The Mishnah Berura in Shaar Hatzion (175:3) agrees that there is no problem with upgrading, and necessitating a Hatov Vehameitiv, for one of the Four Cups. However, he then presents the following dilemma:
Ashkenazi custom is to make an additional blessing over each of the four cups, even though the second is close to the first, and the fourth to the third. According to the Shulchan Aruch, a blessing is only made on the first and third cups.
The reason to make a blessing on each cup is because each cup is an independent mitzvah, and a cup of wine used in the process of a mitzvah (e.g. Kiddush or Havdalah) require their own Hagefen.
Now, ordinarily, the circumstances that one makes Hatov Vehameitiv are, by definition, where one has already drunk wine, and does not make a second blessing. So the Mishnah Berura writes that in this specific case one would make Hagefen because of the mitzvah, and then Hatov Vehameitiv, for the upgraded quality of wine.
There is a minority opinion of the Bais Yehuda (53) that one may never make Hatov Vehameitiv on a Mitzvah required cup of wine, as this would be considered a physical benefit of the mitzvah. However, the Kaf Hachayim disagrees, and, based on our discussion until now, so would the Chida and the Mishnah Berura.
In conclusion, there seems to be a halachic preference to not drink additional cups of wine in the course of the meal that would require one to make Hatov Vehameitiv. [Even in this scenario the Mishnah Berura writes that it’s permitted, but should not be done ipso facto]. However, the vast majority of the poskim write that as one of the four cups it would be permitted, bringing about the very rare scenario of making both Hatov Vehameitiv and Hagefen on the same cup of wine.
Inspired by, and dedicated to, Uncle Ray
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
The First National Mitzvah
“Hachodesh hazeh lechem rosh chadoshim”, this month shall be for you the first of months.
In a beautiful essay Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch explains – כי הנה הסתיו עבר the winter has passed, the spring is coming and Shlomo Hamelech is describing the beauty of the coming of Spring.
But real men don’t have time for spring. They are busy, trying to make a living, feed their families, and make ends meet. Do you really expect them to notice the singing of the birds and the buds on the trees? Only the young who haven’t dealt with life, or the shipwrecked, those whom life has been unusually harsh with and they’ve given up, speak of poetry and such. But the rest of us – it doesn’t do anything for us, doesn’t make our lives any easier or better, and we cannot appreciate it.
There was a group of the most downtrodden, despised, oppressed and ill-used people on earth. They knew nothing but slave labor and broken marriages, drowned children and broken backs and spirit.
They were taken outside by their Father, led by Hashem Himself, in the beginning of the spring and were shown the new moon, and the beginnings of life on the earth. Hashem told them החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים - this is not only a new time for the moon and for the earth, renewal and illumination for the celestial body, and germination for the plants and the trees, but lechem – for you as well. Just as there is a new light and a new spring, you too can have your own new and fresh illumination and growth.
This is why Kidush Hachodesh is so important אלמלא לא זכו ישראל אלא להקביל פני אביהם שבשמים פעם אחת בחודש דים the new moon signifies the capabilities of rebirth that are latent In every Jewish soul, and we are reminded of this when we bless the new moon every month.
Just as Noach was shown a rainbow as a sign of the promise that there would never be another flood, so too the Bnei Yisroel were shown the moon as a sign that the can renew, be mechadaish and extract themselves from the shackles of earthiness. We’re promised to appreciate the springtime, to live the
Jews are עתידים להתחדש כמותה, to renew ourselves just like the moon! We all have this power to illuminate anew and use it לפאר ליוצרם על שם כבוד מלכותו. – to glorify the Great Name of God. This is why Sanctifying the ne month, the first mitzvah, was given specifically in the spring. We bring together the ideas of renewal of the moon, renewal of the spring, and the renewal of the Jewish People.
Charles Dedereich (or Abbie Hoffman or The Diggers, bkitzur a hippie) – once said “Today is the first day of the rest of your life” – Jews get that every day, we always have the capability to start fresh, to renew.
Tu Bshvat is in the middle of the winter, when the sap starts to rise in the trees. This invisible process can only happen if the core and root of the tree is strong and healthy, and eventually bring to beautiful and healthy fruits. Judaism places primary importance on this process more so than the actual fruits themselves!
This too symbolizes the budding and yearnings of good deep within us. Rav Hirsch explains that the Torah cares less about the fruit, which are our deeds, then the origins and beginnings, “the invisible germination of righteousness and iniquity” within us.
With Tu Bshvat we show that we are focusing on the inner core of the tree, which if healthy, intact and strong, will yield beautiful fruit.
So too in our own lives if we focus on protecting and developing our neshamah and our hearts then we will produce beautiful actions and deeds.
The Mishna tells us that a Lev tov includes all other positive character traits and midos. (Avos 2-11) Once the core is strong it will develop and reflect outward from the Lev. Our focus has to be on having a correctly calibrated heart – like Tu Bshvat, from there everything will come to fruition properly and healthily.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The Shulchan Aruch succinctly tells us (673) that ‘all oils and all wicks are kosher to be used in the menorah and one fulfills their mitzvah with them.’ In fact, one fulfills his obligation by lighting any fuel, even the fats of non-kosher animals. However the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch all indicate that it is preferable to use kosher substances. Oil of a combination of milk and meat, or of shmittah produce, would be forbidden to be used.
The Rema (ibid) tells us that the ideal fuel is olive oil, reminiscent of the oil used in the menorah in the Bais Hamikdash. He then adds that his custom is to use wax candles as their light is especially clear.
From the Rema it seems, and this is abundantly clear in his commentary on the Tur, that the advantage of a clear flame supersedes the advantage of being comparable to the oil in the Bais Hamikdash, and therefore when presented with the choice of wax candles versus olive oil one should choose the wax candles.
However, the opinion of the Kol Bo, which was adopted by most of the later poskim (among them the Levush, Chayei Adam and Mishna Berura), is that olive oil would be the most preferred option. Only if olive oil were not available would one defer to the standard of the clearest flame.
There is a third opinion, which is that of the Maharal, who indicates that any oil is preferable to a solid candle, as the miracle was performed with oil, a liquid, rather than a solid. This would be a somewhat logical inference; our olive oil would not be eligible for use in the Bais Hamikdash, and its use is only supposed to be reminiscent of the Bais Hamikdash. As such, the more reminiscent one’s menorah fuel is the better it would seem to be. However the Shaar Hatzion, quoting the Machtzis Hashekel, writes that our custom is not in accordance with the Maharal.
[For a deeper analysis of this dispute, beyond the scope of this article, see Dibros Moshe Shabbos 26:23].
If one does choose to use candles, either because he follows the Rema’s opinion, or for convenience or economic reasons, it is important to be aware that many of the commercially available candles do not last for the required 30 minutes, and it is important to purchase those that do.
If one uses olive oil, they will achieve the hidur of using oliveoil no matter what grade or type of oil they use, as long as it is 100% olive oil.
In recent years there has been a surge in available ‘pre-filled’ oil cups, where the user has only to remove a cap and immediately has a ready to use (and super mehadrin) glass full of olive oil with a wick correctly placed. This saves a lot of time and mess, and has become a very popular option. [Whether or not it is appropriate to out-source your mitzvah preparations is not our subject today, perhaps in a future article].
One twist on this innovation is to, via a chemical additive, ‘gel’ the olive oil, which makes the transportation and care substantially easier, and obviates the need for a cap or any sort of anti-spill design.
Would this gelled olive oil be included in the most preferred method of lighting according to the Kol Bo et al, who prefer olive oil in order to be comparable to the oil lit in the Bais Hamikdash?
According to the Maharal cited above it would seem certain that this is not a preferred method, as he is of the opinion that a liquid fuel will always be preferred over a solid one.
The opinion of Rav Nissim Karelitz is that we are striving for comparability to the candles lit in the Bais Hamikdash. Once it is not fully comparable the advantage of olive oil is lost. This opinion, for slightly different reasoning, is shared by Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvos VeHanhagos 3:218) and Rav Asher Weiss.
The Shevet Halevi discusses whether it would be permissible to use congealed oil in the Bais Hamikdash, and although he concludes that it would not, he states that a full analogy is not needed and gelled olive oil would have the advantage of olive oil discussed by the Kol Bo. As we pointed out, even clear, liquid olive oil would not be acceptable for use in the Bais Hamikdash, which indicates that a full equivalency is not required. This is also the opinion of Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shlomo Miller and Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky.
There is a remarkable comment written by the Teshuvah Meahavah (285) in which he states that the oil used in the Chanukah story was a congealed jug of olive oil! According to this all the opinions above, including the Maharal, would seemingly agree that the gelled oil is included in the most preferred way of lighting.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Using Grape Juice for Kiddush
On January 18th 1920 the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, prohibiting the “"the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within… the United States… for beverage purposes”. The Volstead Act, which was designed to carry out the Prohibition (also known as “The Prohibition Act”), defined intoxicating beverage, and allowed an exemption for sacramental use.
Prohibition in general led to one of the first public altercations between the Orthodox and heterodox movements, who argued over who would have the Rabbinic authority to pronounce an occasion worthy of sacramental use.
For religious Jews the sacramental exemption was very important, and widely exercised. Jews use wine at a variety of occasions, and often in the privacy of their homes, which made it very difficult to regulate their sacramental use. This raised eyebrows in the Prohibition enforcement agencies, and indeed the privilege was apparently abused over the course of Prohibition.
The Conservative movement was embarrassed by the widespread use of the sacramental exemption, and Louis Ginzberg, a theologian associated with the Jewish Theological Seminary, wrote a responsum in which he argued that it was perfectly and halachically acceptable to use unfermented wine with no alcoholic content for sacramental purposes, thus allowing grape juice to be used for all religious rituals, and effectively not requiring any exemptions to the Prohibition Act.
It’s worth noting that historians view Prohibition as an attempt to keep America ‘American’ and not sully the lily white, puritan WASP reputation they were trying to uphold. It would be logical to assume that complying with the ethos of the Act was more important to the heterodox movements than to their Orthodox counterparts.
Also of interesting historical note, based on Ginzberg’s ruling the Reform Movement lobbied Washington to repeal the entire sacramental exemption. They quickly backed down when they realized that their Catholic neighbors let it be known that repeal of the exemption would not be appreciated within the Catholic Church.
There was no immediate public response to Ginzberg from the Orthodox Rabbi’s, although they most certainly did not stop using wine for sacramental purposes. However several years later, Rabbi Hurewitz of Hartford, Conn., a student of the Chofetz Chaim and an erudite scholar, wrote a very strongly worded response, and disagreed with the halachic advisability of using grape juice in lieu of wine.
The Gemara (Bava Basra 97b) states that one may (ipso facto) squeeze a cluster of grapes into their cup and say Kiddush, seemingly indicating that grape juice is permissible to use for kiddush, and all other sacramental purposes.
This is how the halacha is decided in Shulchan Aruch (272:2). However the Magen Avraham (3) adds that it is preferred to use aged wine, at least forty days old.
Rabbi Hurewitz’s position, and this position was initially held by Rav Henkin as well, was that our grape juice was different than the grape juice discussed in the Gemara. After squeezing grapes, the juice can either be turned to wine, or it will spoil. Contemporarily, in order to have grape juice, we pasteurize it, which gives it a long shelf life as unfermented juice.
The reason that grape juice was permissible in the Gemara was because it was, in essence, unfermented wine. However our grape juice, in order to preserve the grape juice it is necessary to pasteurize it, effectively neutering its potentiality of becoming wine. Thus, argued Rabbi Hurewitz, it was not the same as the grape juice of the Gemara.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, (Har Tzvi, OC 1:158) in a letter to Rabbi Hurewitz disputes this. He writes that just as cooked wine is permissible for Kiddush, because we recognize it as retaining the character of wine despite it being cooked (and despite it not being usable in the Bais Hamikdash and therefore not being an ideal choice) so too grape juice will retain its character despite being cooked and will still be permitted. This is also the position of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo 1:4).
Rav Henkin in a later responsum on the subject retracts his reservations regarding using grape juice for a different reason. He consulted with Mr. Herzog, of Herzog Winery fame, who demonstrated to him how one can easily fermented even pasteurized grape juice by adding a little sugar and yeast and leaving it exposed, thus refuting the pasteurization argument from a scientific perspective as well.
The common practice, and the position of the vast majority of contemporary poskim including Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Soloveitchik, and the aforementioned poskim, is that grape juice may be used for Kiddush and all other sacramental purposes. Many do note the position of the Magen Avraham, that it is preferred to use wine when possible.
Using grape juice for the four cups drunk at the Seder is a relatively new issue, as in pre pasteurization days the grape juice from the harvest season would have spoiled by the time Pesach came around. Although from a wine perspective it would be permitted, in the Kol Dodi Rav David Feinstein Shlit”a takes the position, based on early commentators, that wine is preferred as one of the purposes of the Four Cups is to demonstrate freedom, which is not possible with non-alcoholic grape juice.
There is also some discussion in the Poskim about using grape juice from concentrate, the position of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is that it would not be Hagefen!
A story is told about Rabbi Dr. Abraham J Twersky, the famed Rabbi, author and psychiatrist, who is a world renowned substance abuse expert. The story is told that one of his patients, a Catholic priest, expressed his consternation that he would no longer be able to take communion, which involves drinking wine. Rabbi Twersky asked him why he didn’t use grape juice, explaining that Rav Moshe Feinstein had ruled that Jewish law allowed grape juice to be substituted for wine. The priest asked his bishop who in turn asked the cardinal. The cardinal asked Rabbi Twersky to put the halachic rationale in writing, which he then forwarded to the Vatican. The psak came back – they agreed with the reasoning and would permit using grape juice as sacrament, based on Rav Moshe’s psak!
I first heard a shiur on this topic from Rav Hershel Schachter, and many of the sources were heard then.
These articles proved to be an excellent resource as well:
Friday, October 18, 2013
The Sun Unsheathed
“He (Avraham) was sitting outside his tent as the day was hot” (Gen. 18:1) The Gemara (Bava Metzia 86b) explains that Hashem removed the sun from its sheath and the sun healed him.
The Talmud (Avoda Zara 3) relates that when Moshiach comes the nations of the world will complain to God saying: “if you would have given us the opportunity to do mitzvos then we too would have done them faithfully as the Jews did. Hashem replies “I will give you one mitzvah, we shall see if you can do it”. He gives them the commandment of Sukkah. As soon as they made their Sukkos and got comfortable, G-d removed the sun from its sheath and made it unbearably hot, causing the people to kick the walls of the Sukkah and leave.
The Gemara questions this incident: There is no obligation to sit in the Sukkah if it is causing one pain? Answers the Gemara, yes that is correct! There is however no excuse for kicking the walls. For that they lost their chance.
This incident begs explanation. Hashem seems to be toying with the nations of the world, giving them a mitzvah, and then not giving them the circumstances to correctly perform the mitzvah. Furthermore, we find that Hashem removed sun from sheath and made excessive heat. Why the similarity in language?
What’s the common thread?
I heard a beautiful thought from Rabbi Asher Brander - Avraham was technically exempt from welcoming his guests. He was old, recovering from surgery and in pain. It was very hot. But he was pained by this. He sat outside waiting for guests. He wanted to do the mitzvah. Therefore Hashem sent him guests and he was able to serve them and honor them.
A direct result of this was the creation of the Jewish people. That show of selflessness, of wanting to go above and beyond, was the impetus for Hashem to say “This man’s people will be My Chosen People.”
When the nations of the world come to Hashem when Moshiach comes and ask why he didn’t give them the opportunity to do mitzvos, they are in effect asking “why are the Jews the chosen people and not us?” Hashem offers them an opportunity to do a mitzvah, however he tests them with ‘removing the sun from its sheath’. Meaning to say, they had to show that they wanted to do the mitzvah, that even if they were exempt they would try to do it, and would be pained if they were unable to perform the mitzvah . They had to show that they were willing to go above and beyond the letter of the law to do the will of Hashem. When they left the Sukkah in disgust, kicking the walls behind them, they showed they were just trying to get points and did not altruistically want to do the will of God. They were not eligible to be the Chosen People.
With this we can explain a third incident. The Gemara in Nedarim 8b states in the name of Reish Lakish: “In the future (in messianic times) there will be no Gehennom. Rather Hashem will remove the sun from its sheath; Tzadikim will be cured by it and Reshaim will be judged by it.”
So again we have Hashem removing the sun from its sheath. What is the nature of the judgment?
Perhaps what Hashem is going to do is take each and every individual and examine them. Are you self-sacrificing in your service of God? Does it pain you when you are unable to perform His will, even when you are exempt? That is the Judgment of the future.
However this requires further study. What is the significance of removing the sun from its sheath? And how is the sun both the tool used to judge evil ones also used to heal righteous ones?
The Gemara above is based on several verses in Malachi (3:19-20), the closing of the book of prophets, where the prophet describes the end of days. The verse states: “The day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the wicked people and the evildoers will be like straw and Hashem will burn them up and totally consume them. But a sun of righteousness and healing will shine for those who fear my name, with healing in its rays…”
We see from the prophet the dual nature of the sun; burning the evil-doers and healing the righteous.
Hashem created light on the very first day of creation; however only on day four did He create the sun and the moon. The original light was all permeating and was too strong, and was wrapped in a sheath so as to contain it. (See Malbim in HaCarmel).
The Gemara tells us that when Hashem first created the constellations, the sun and the moon were equal in both size and intensity, the moon complained to Hashem saying that two kings cannot share one crown! Hashem responded, go minimize yourself. However when Moshiach comes the moon will be restored to its original splendor, matching the sun, and the sun will be 7x7x7 (343) times its intensity, as described in Isaiah (30:26). The verse goes on to say that on that day that Hashem intensifies the sun the wounds of his people will be healed.
This strong and full light that is the light of the first three days of creation, is the very same light that was revealed to heal Avraham [see tosfos beracha gen. 18:1], and this is the light that will be used to judge evildoers, discomfort the would-be Sukkah dwellers and heal tzadikim upon the ultimate redemption. This is referred to as the Ohr Haganuz, the light that is hidden away and reserved for the righteous at the end of days.
Hashem created the world with the attribute of ‘din’ or justice. When He ‘realized’ that the world would have no continuity if it was run under the attribute of justice he tempered it with the attribute of kindness so as to have permanence. Hashem is light (Hashem Ori)The original light, the light of the unsheathed sun, is the light of truth and justice, where veneers don’t matter and the raw truth is exposed. Those who are not true to God, whose actions are not done in a wholehearted manner, are exposed. This wouldn’t work for the continuity of the world, and God had to add the attribute of kindness.
However when Moshiach comes, we will go back to an all justice state. This sounds harsh but in truth the opposite is true. It’s truth! Everyone will be honest and true to Hashem, His presence will be so clear that there will be no double standard, no disconnect between our actions and thoughts.
In fact, this is an ideal that was always considered necessary and ideal. The Gemara in Yoma (72b) states that any Torah Scholar who’s interior does not match his external actions is not worthy of being considered a Torah Scholar. In fact, Rabban Gamliel originally insisted that only those scholars’ whose insides were the same as the outsides, i.e. were sincere, would be allowed into the Beis Midrash. Because in a true Torah environment that is a necessary prerequisite.
There are several things that are called an ‘os’, a sign. Milah (circumcision), Tefillin and Shabbos.
Milah – circumcision is the connection between a Jew and Hashem. When a Jew is circumcised, in the words of the Zohar, Hashem is visible from within him. It is the ‘seal’ of the King, a manifestation of His presence within every Jew. The sefarim say that the removal of the foreskin is the removal of the veneer of the heart, allowing the neshama to shine through and elevating the person to the potential of a tzaddik. (c.f. Ramban Gen. 17:4)
Tefillin – the Gemara tells us that the verse “when the nations of the land see that the name of Hashem is upon you and they will fear you” refers to tefillin. For tefillin are a manifestation of Hashem’s presence, they are called the name of Hashem.
Shabbos – Our celebration of Shabbos is celebrating the creation of the world, a ‘sign’ between Jews and God that Hashem crated the world and is actively manifest in all its aspects.
We find one more thing that’s called an ‘os’. The constellations are called osos, signs. The Gemara explains that they will show us the months etc. however perhaps simply understood, they are manifestations of Hashem’s presence, in the truest sense, the attribute of truth and justice.
Now everything comes together beautifully. Avraham, after his Bris Milah, exhibited the presence of Hashem from within Him. This pure manifestation of Hashem was deserving of the unsheathed sun, the pure and great light that would illuminate all in the truest sense, for Avraham it was healing, for he was, after the Milah, through and through dedicated to Hashem, as exhibited by his willingness to go above and beyond the call of the duty.
This light is manifest on Shabbos. The Zohar tells us that every Shabbos there is an aspect of the light from the beginning of creation, only at the end of Shabbos do we have to go back to the light of fire and heat, which is exhibited by the havdalah candle. This is why only Jews can keep Shabbos; only one who is clear and true to Hashem, without any distinction between his inner devotion and his outside deeds can partake in the light of Shabbos. (See also Yalkut Shimoni Tehillim 139,888)
This is why Adam only was scared by the darkness on the first Motzai Shabbos, whereupon he discovered fire(Ibid Bereishis 2:17)
This light will indeed be a healing light for all the tzadikim at the end of days, it will allow them to live in a true and clear brightly illuminated world. They will be out of the darkness, the presence of Hashem will be clear.
However when the evildoers are presented with this light, it exposes their inconsistencies, their lack of truth and honesty and the fact that their external, seen actions are not representative of their true feelings and thoughts.
When they are put in the Sukkah, and the big lights are turned on, the question is – are you willing to go above and beyond as you say you are? Are you committed to Hashem in the manner required, where His presence is manifest from within you? Are you like Avraham after his circumcision? Like a Jew on Shabbos? They claim yes, but by kicking the walls the answer is evident. They aren’t really willing to put themselves on the line and inconvenience themselves.
This will be the ultimate Day of Judgment for reshaim, as well as the ultimate day of healing for tzadikim. Each will be exposed for what they really are.
The take home lesson from this is that we must strive to make sure our actions mirror our thoughts and desires, and our thoughts and desires are in sync with what the Torah requires our wants to be, to be selfless and dedicated to Hashem, fully subservient to His will, and then we will be the children of Avraham, the Chosen People, in the fullest sense of the term.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Vaccines in Halacha
There have been some recent reports in Southern Israel of the polio virus being discovered. As a result the Ministry of Health is encouraging all children born after January 1 2004 to receive a special inoculation, which is available for free. This has led to some discussion of vaccinations in general, and I would like to present the halachic perspective. At the end of the article we will discuss the polio vaccine specifically.
First, a word about polio, a disease which we are not familiar with, Boruch Hashem. Polio causes acute paralysis that can lead to permanent physical disability and even death. Before polio vaccine was available, 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic polio were reported each year in the United States. Annual epidemics of polio often left victims—mostly children—in braces, crutches, wheelchairs, and, in serious cases, iron lungs. Many of the children that survived experienced life-long consequences from the disease.
It is important to note that almost all vaccines are not effective in 100% of the population, and therefore rely on a herd, meaning if everyone is inoculated there will not be enough carriers to infect those whom the vaccine did not work for.
Another vaccine that has been scrutinized lately is the MMR vaccine. MMR inoculates against measles, mumps and rubella, three potentially fatal disease. Some history is in order:
MMR was first linked to autism in The Lancet, 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and twelve coauthors. It was widely circulated and featured on 60 Minutes. However the science behind the study was suspect, and over the years 10 of the 12 coauthors withdrew their names. In February 2010 The Lancet retracted the article, and in March 2010 Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license due to having acted irresponsibly.
Additionally the main factor studied was Thimerosal, a mercury based ingredient that was used in vaccines. As of 2001 the Thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines.
However, there is still much lingering confusion in the general populace, and much misinformation being spread purporting that the vaccine should not be given. This thinking has taken grip in many Orthodox communities, and unfortunately, over the years there have been outbreaks in Jewish enclaves of mumps and measles. These are diseases that can be fatal, and/or have lifelong effects on the health of the diseased.
Avoiding Pre-Existing Danger
There is a very clear commandment in the Torah to take preventative action to avoid danger – the obligation to build a Maakeh, agate around a rooftop, or anywhere from which one can fall. We find that this concept extends on a Torah level to be “exceedingly careful” to avoid all dangerous situations, food, and activities – (see CM 427).
We find many activities and foods that were prohibited by Chazal due to the possibility of danger, and the well-known adage that Chamira Sakanta Meisura, we are stricter with risk than prohibitions, underscores this.
There is some discussion in the poskim as to the risk factor needed to be considered a dangerous activity. According to all opinions if it is 50% or higher it is forbidden, and according to many a significant risk such as a 10% risk is prohibited as well.
However, we find that even when there is only a small chance of danger the action or food is prohibited, see IGM OC 2:100.
Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski wrote that although there is a rule of Shomer Pesaim Hashem, Hashem protects the foolish, which the Gemara uses as a rationale to explain risky behavior, that only applies when it’s a distant and minor concern (Achiezer 1:23). Others write that the rule only applies when the concern is by and large disregarded and ignored.
Proactive Healthy Action
Until now we have discussed avoiding existing dangerous situations. There is much less Halachic literature written about proactively protecting oneself from unsafe circumstances.
The most notable is the Rambam (Deos 4) who describes healthy living as part of Avodas Hashem, and therefore includes eating, sleeping and exercise habits as part of the overall service to Hashem.
The opinion of the Rambam (as understood by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach) is that contemporary medical advice is to be the basis of what is considered healthy living.
There is also some discussion on the poskim regarding healthy people fleeing a smallpox epidemic, the Rema (YD:116:5) and the Mishna Berura quoting the Shelah (OC 576 MB 14) write that one must flee the town in which people are contracting smallpox.
So it would seem clear that there is an obligation to take steps to prevent and avoid disease, and presumably vaccinations would be required as well.
However vaccination is somewhat different than flight as it’s not inherently risk free. There is a very small possibility that the person receiving the inoculation will get sick as well.
When the smallpox vaccine was first invented, the Tiferes Yisroel (see commentary to Yoma 8:3) was asked whether one should be vaccinated.
The risk of vaccination (in his time 1/1000 fatality rate) was weighed against the risk of getting infected with smallpox, (at that time 30% of the population died due to smallpox) and he ruled that one should be vaccinated.
On the one hand, nowadays the risk factor of infection is statistically miniscule, due to the widespread use of vaccinations. On the other hand in order to perpetuate this we must continue to inoculate until there is worldwide eradication of any given disease, and the risk factor of becoming ill from the vaccine itself is scientifically unproven or negligible as well.
Therefore, many poskim conclude, an individual cannot be compelled to vaccinate their children (putting aside legal or school policy concerns). This is the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Neuwirth.
The Nishmas Avraham qualifies this by saying in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Neuwirth that inoculations should be strongly encouraged. Indeed, all the above poskim encouraged parents and doctors to vaccinate children.
In a much firmer stance, Rav Elyashiv, quoted by Rabbi Tatz in “Dangerous Disease & Dangerous Therapy,” says that all parents have an obligation to vaccinate as this is normative practice throughout the world, and is included in the parents’ basic obligation to care for their child. It would seem from the quote that he was very familiar with the scientific pros and cons and felt that until there was objective evidence to the contrary one must vaccinate to avoid danger; not vaccinating would be considered negligence on the part of the parent.
Additionally, Rav Elyashiv is quoted as ruling that parents of vaccinated children can insist that all other children in the class be vaccinated as well, so as to limit their exposure to disease.
There has been an ongoing discussion in Lakewood, NJ as to whether schools can insist that all children be vaccinated. After perusing the various statements, proclamations and psakim that have been issued over the last few years in the Lakewood controversy regarding immunizations, it seems clear that the (seemingly minority) opinions that do not support compulsory vaccinations are basing their psak, in part, on the fact that there is a portion of the medical community that is anti-vaccine, and the jury is still out on the issue. This is simply no longer true, and should be noted.
Additionally it should be noted that none of the Rabbonim involved discouraged vaccinations, they just felt the schools can’t mandate them.
In some states where it is legally mandated to vaccinate your children, there is the option of a religious waiver, where one can state their religion is against vaccinations. In light of all that has been discussed, according to all opinion it would seem incorrect to use a religious exemption, with Judaism being the religion.
The Current Polio Issue
So how about the current polio vaccine being recommended in Israel? This is a little different, and may not be subject to the above discussion.
In a nutshell as I understand it:
It seems that all children, once vaccinated, cannot contract polio. They can however still be carriers, and infect other unvaccinated people. Strains of polio have been found in sewers in Southern Israel, (much of the Muslim world does not vaccinate) and can therefore infect unvaccinated people. The current campaign introduces a weakened live strain of the virus into an already inoculated child, who then will not get sick, but will fight the virus and not be a carrier, and thus help eradicate the virus completely.
Although there doesn’t seem to be any statistical risk to the child getting the live vaccine, they cannot come into close contact with immune-deficient people. They also don’t gain anything, and there are (unsubstantiated by me) rumors of a very minute percentage of these children becoming ill as well.
The question then becomes a hashkafic one: Do I have to compromise, even minutely, my health or even convenience for the greater good? Furthermore, Should I compromise the health of some immuno-deficient people I may come in contact with for the greater good?
Something to think about, and if applicable discuss with your Rav.
May we merit the days when disease and illness will cease to exist!
In writing this article I leaned heavily on information presented by Rabbi Bush in Hakirah vol. 9, and an article by the Institue of Dayanim, pub. 17th Tamuz 5772, as well as information provided by the Ministry of Health.
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Maaser Sheini - Maintaining the Connection
We are familiar with the concept of Maaser Sheini. You take your tithe, bring it, or its monetary value to Jerusalem, and let it here, in the presence of the Bais Hamikdash.
We do the same with Maaser Beheimah – we tithe our animals, bring them up to Jerusalem, and eat them there.
Why? What do we gain by taking our meals in the presence of the Bais Hamikdash?
The Chinuch (360) offers some insight. He explains that Hashem wants all of His nation to be close to Him, Torah scholars and devout. However, He realizes that due to human nature, for the majority of the population this is an impossibility. They must support their families, earn a living, and that can take them to places that are not centers of Torah and bastions of piety.
However, in Jerusalem, the seat of the Sanhedrin and the place of the Kohanim, there is nothing to do but study His ways and learn His Torah. Therefore Hashem commanded that we travel periodically to Jerusalem, spend some time there and engage in study and prayer, whilst being supported by the food we brought along.
This way, explains the Chinuch, not just every region or city, but every household will have at least one member who is well versed in Torah, who can impart of his newly found wisdom to his family and elevate the spiritual level of the entire home.
The Meshech Chochmah (Shemos 23:16), gives us a beautiful understanding of the mitzvah of being Oleh Regel, the thrice yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He explains that Hashem is connected to Klal Yisrael, of which each Jew is a vital part, a limb. However, it is impossible for each Jew to fully cleave to Hashem on an ongoing basis, since they are busy and distracted with the travails of day to day life. However, just as a limb is not considered halachically disconnected from an animal (for the purposes of tumah) until it is unable to be reattached, so too every Jew, so long as they have the potential to connect are considered connected. The way to maintain that connection, to preserve the ability to connect, is by actually connecting periodically. This, explains the Meshech Chochmah, is one of the goals of the pilgrimage.
This idea is really clear in the Sifri, explained by Tosfos (Bava Basra 21a). The verse puzzlingly states that one should bring Maaser to Jerusalem למען תלמד ליראה so as to learn to fear Hashem. The Sifri expounds: Maaser was only given to us so as to engender Torah Study and Fear of Heaven. The Netziv
(Haamek Daver Devarim 14:23) explains that it is impossible to eat all the Maaser during the Chag itself, and therefore he will stay on in Jerusalem, and during that time will study and grow spiritually. (He adds that at the very least he will leave the food behind to support Torah Scholars, which will also help Torah grow).
So we now understand the goal of Maaser Sheini – to get us to Jerusalem, to put aside our earthly pursuits for a little while and focus on our spiritual development.
And now that we have no Bais Hamikdash and we don’t have the opportunity to bring Maaser, what is our vehicle for connection? The answer lies on a second interpretation of Chazal (Yevamos 93a): “Learning to Fear God” which the Torah states as the goal of Maaser, refers to Shabbos and Yom Tov.
The Meshech Chochmah (Devarim 14:23) explains: When observing the Kohanim and scholars in Jerusalem, it’s difficult to find commonality with them. As working folk, we don’t have the luxury that they do to focus on learning and spiritual growth on a full time basis. To that the verse tells us – Shabbos and Yom Tov is your time! You’re not working, you have the opportunity to focus on your growth, that’s when you should apply the lessons learnt from the Kohanim.
May we use our time wisely, and have the opportunity to internalize the lessons of Maaser Sheini.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Doing The Shuckle - To Sway Or Not To Sway
We’ve already discussed the bowing and bouncing parts of Prayer. Now let us take a look at the Shuckle.
The Gemara in Berachos 31a asserts that many Halachos of Prayer, and specifically Shemonah Esrei, are learnt from the prayer of Chana in the Mishkan, as depicted in the beginning of Shmuel 1.
Among these are to daven in an undertone, to enunciate the words, that a drunk can’t pray and more.
The Rema Mipano (Eim Kol Chai, 1:33) posits that additional Halachos can be deduced which the Gemara doesn’t include. He therefore deduces from the words רק שפתיה נעות, only her lips were moving,
that the rest of one’s body should be at rest during the Shemonah Esrei prayer.
He reiterates this in his responsa (113) as well. He goes on to say that although there is a concept, found in Tehillim, of כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה’ מי כמוך ‘all of my limbs will declare – Hashem whom is like
You’ that is limited to praise of Hashem, however during the Amidah prayer no movement is to occur, other than the required bowing.
However, the Mateh Moshe (1:118) quotes sources in the Rishonim that one should sway during prayer, and this is the opinion of the Avudraham as well (Siman 44). They understand that the above quoted verse, that one should use all their limbs in prayer, refers specifically to the Shemonah Esrei prayer.
The Rema (OC 48) quotes the Avudraham noted above, that due to the verse of ‘all my limbs will declare’ one should sway during prayer. The Magen Avraham notes that this is not clearly applicable to Shemonah Esrei, and he personally feels that the halachah is that one should not sway. However he concludes that either way is acceptable and it depends on the person. This is quoted by the Mishna Berura, and the Aruch Hashulchan similarly notes that one should do whatever allows him to better concentrate.
It’s interesting to note that the Mishna Berura elsewhere (95:7) quotes only the authorities that one should sway during the Shemonah Esrei. One can argue that this would indicate his opinion was that one should sway.
Although it would seem that almost everybody sways in practice, Rav Avraham Gurwicz writes that his personal observation of his Rebbeim, the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach and the Stiepler Gaon did not sway during Shemonah Esrei. I recall hearing the same of Rav Dessler, Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
There are certain things the poskim caution to be aware of and not do:
One should not stand straight and move his head side to side as that appears to be haughty. The Rambam says the same of putting ones hands on their hips.
Although in Biblical times they prayed with their hands outstretched to the heavens, this has been adopted by other religions, and therefore the Beer Sheva writes that it should not be done. This is quoted by Rav Akiva Eiger.
One should avoid anything that disturbs those around him, and should avoid making grotesque motions. Rav Gurwicz writes that he is appalled at the faces and gestures people make whilst standing in front of the King of Kings!
There is a Zohar (vol. 3 pg. 218b) that is referenced by the Biur Hagra, that tells us a fascinating fact.
שאילנא ליה מאי האי דכל עמין דעלמא לא עבדין נענועא אלא ישראל בלחודייהו דכד לעאן באורייתא מתנענען הכא והכא בלא למודא דבר נש בעלמא ולא יכלין למיקם בקיומייהו אמר לי אדכרתן מלתא עלאה ובני עלמא לא ידעין ולא משגיחין. יתיב שעתא ובכה. אמר ווי לבני נשא דאזלין כבעירי חקלא בלא סוכלתנו. במלה דא בלחודוי אשתמודען נשמתהון קדישין דישראל בין נשמתהון דעמין עעכו"ם. נשמתהון דישראל אתגזרו מגו בוצינא קדישא דדליק דכתיב נר יי’ נשמת אדם והאי נר בשעתא דאתאחד (נ"א דאתדליק) מגו אורייתא דלעילא לא שכיך נהורא עליה אפילו רגעא. ורזא דא אלקים אל דמי לך כגוונא דא כתיב המזכירים את יי’ אל דמי לכם. לא שכיכו לכון. נהורא דשרגא כיון דאתאחדא גו פתילה ההוא נהורא לא שכיך לעלמין אלא מתנענעא נהורא לכאן ולכאן ולא משתכיך לעלמין. כגוונא דא ישראל דנשמתייהו מגו ההוא נהורא דשרגא כיון דאמר מלה חדא דאורייתא הא נהורא דליק ולא יכלון אינון לאשתככא ומתנענען לכאן ולכאן ולכל סטרין כנהורא דשרגא דהא נר יי’ נשמת אדם כתיב. וכתיב אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ולא אומין עכו"ם. נשמתין דעמין עכו"ם מדעיכו דקש בלא נהורא דשרי עלייהו וע"ד משתככין ולא מתנענען דהא לית לון אורייתא ולא דלקין בה ולאו נהורא שרייא בהון אינון קיימין כעצים בגו נורא דדליק בלא נהורא דשריא עלייהו וע"ד משתככין בלא נהורא כלל.
My loose translation:
The question was posed: why is it that Jews sway when they are learning Torah, and non-Jews do not?
The answer was given: there is a fundamental difference between the soul of a non-Jew and the soul of a Jew. The sould of the Jew is carved from the holy fire of God, and therefore once it is alight, the flame, as small as it may get throughout one’s life, is always there. The nature of a flame is to sway, to always move and jump, and so is the soul of a Jew. However the soul of a non-Jew is static, there is no flame, and it doesn’t sway.
Rav Gurwicz points out that this refers specifically to Torah study and not prayer, however the idea is fascinating. Our fires are lit – we just have to act on it!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Learning Torah On Purim
The Ramchal writes (Derech Hashem Chap. 7), in explaining the Moadim, that the Jewish calendar is cyclical, not linear. Therefore, the events that took place during each of the Yomim Tovim made an indelible impression on the calendar cycle, and when the cycle comes back to that point of the year the Divine Light of that time resurges as well.
The holidays are not merely historical commemorations of ancient events, rather they are resurgences of the Godly inspiration that was created during the original event.
Therefore Pesach is an opportunity to tap into the bounty of personal emancipation and freedom of the Exodus, Shavous is a time to have Divine assistance in Torah learning and so on.
The Ramchal continues: the cyclical inspiration of Purim is in the salvation of the Jews during the Babylonian exile, and in that they reaccepted the Torah in a permanent way.
What does he mean when he writes that we reaccepted the Torah?
The Gemara in Shabbos (88a) explains that when we stood at Har Sinai Hashem held the mountain over our heads like a barrel and delivered an ultimatum. Either accept the Torah or this will be your burial place! The Gemara notes that from here we have a really good excuse when challenged on our lack of fulfillment of the Torah’s laws – we were forced into it!
However, the Gemara goes on, that in the days of Achashverosh we reaccepted the Torah willingly (and are therefore bound, with no out).
So presumably, the Ramchal is referencing this Gemara, and telling us that each year on Purim we once again have a unique ability to reaccept the Torah in a willing manner as we did on that first Purim.
There are many other manifestations of this concept in the customs and laws of the day of Purim.
The Rema writes that the custom is to wear Shabbos clothes on Purim (and as an aside, the Poskim stress that this is especially important during the Megilla). The Chida explains that the reason for wearing extra nice clothing is for the Simchas HaTorah that we have on Purim.
The Behag also refers to Purim as being comparable to the day the Torah was given, and his source is the above Gemara.
The Shelah refers to Purim as the ‘conclusion’ of the acceptance of the Torah, and the joy of Purim is the joy of Simchas Hatorah.
The Rema codifies: (695:2) One should engage in Torah study before beginning the Seudah as it says “The Jews had Orah Vesimcha” and Orah (light) refers to Torah. The Levush notes it should be specifically before the Seudah, first Orah, then Simcha.
Wishing you all a wonderful, inspiring and Torah filled Purim!
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Message of Tu Bshvat
What follows is based on Rabbi SR Hirsch. I wrote it in my own words, and have not done him full justice.
Why do we celebrate the Rosh Hashanah of the trees in the middle of the bleak, cold, lifeless winter? The Gemara explains – Since most of the rains have already fallen. (Rosh Hashanah 14). What does that mean?
Rabbi SR Hirsch in Collected Writings explains the significance of Tu B’Shvat in the following manner:
A rational person will say the tree bears fruit when the fruit actually appears on the tree. One who thinks a bit more deeply will postulate that the fruit really begins at the original budding. There must be a physical manifestation to show the budding of the fruit.
This is true in the world of men in general. Only deeds, actions, actual physical efforts are considered noteworthy.
The Torah operates differently; the origins of the actions are paramount. Rabbi Hirsch refers to the “invisible germination of righteousness and inquity”.
He explains that the Torah focuses on protecting and building this inner, invisible foundation from where all the actions come. All the laws of Purity, Issur and Heter and so on protect this core, particularly where the spiritual intersects with the physical and and the integrity of one’s purity is at stake.
This is also exemplified in the purity that was required in the camp of the Jewish Army, the cleanliness of speech that is Halachically necessary, the preparations needed to pray and to eat, and the entire approach to Jewish Law.
What follows then, is that all the rituals and laws are done not only as a way of serving Hashem, but more importantly to strengthen and solidify man, to ensure that the origins of all his deeds are pure and whole.
This is the message of Tu B’Shvat. We do not address the outer manifestations of Spring, rather the inner beginnings. The rains have begun passing, the sap is starting to rise in the trees, the inner core is strong and healthy – unaffected by what’s going on outside. This is the message to each and every one of us.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Chanukah Candles on Friday
Even though we usually light Chanukah candles once it’s dark, obviously that is impossible on Friday, we therefore have to light before dark. We will discuss some of the associated Halachos.
The Shulchan Aruch rules (679) that one should first light Chanukah candles and then Shabbos candles. The Mishna Berura explains that this is because of another issue – there is a question if there is an automatic acceptance of Shabbos when one lights Shabbos candles. We generally accept that for men there is no automatic acceptance and for women there is. However there is an opinion that for men lighting Shabbos candles there would also be an automatic acceptance and therefore the Shulchan Aruch rules that one should first light Chanukah candles to suffice all opinions.
This would seem to only present as an issue when the same person is lighting the Shabbos candles and the Chanukah candles. However it could be that even if the woman is lighting Shabbos candles then the man can’t help her fulfill her Chanukah obligation as an agent.
If one forgot and the woman of the house lit Shabbos candles then the man may still light the Menorah. If the woman was intending to light Chanukah candles she may not, because she has accepted Shabbos, and she should ask someone else to light for her. The lighter should make the first Beracha and she makes the second (and when applicable the third).
However if a man lit the Shabbos candles he would be thrust into the above dispute. The Mishna Berura concludes that ex post facto he may light the Menorah even if he already lit Shabbos candles.
One has to make sure to have enough oil in at least one (and preferably all) of the candles to burn until a half hour after nightfall.
One may not light the menorah before Plag Hamincha, which is one and a quarter halachic hours before sunset.
One should ideally daven Mincha before lighting the Menorah. Obviously it is preferred to daven with a minyan earlier in the day; however the question often arises; is it better to light Menorah and then go to Shul to daven with a minyan, or is it better to daven without a minyan at home and then light the Menorah?
This would seemingly depend on a much greater question. Why is it that we light the Menorah when we do, after Plag Hamincha?
According to many we are commemorating the lighting of the Menorah every evening in the Bais Hamikdash, which took place after the daily afternoon offering was brought, in which case our lighting of the Menorah would have to be after Mincha, which corresponds to that offering. This reasoning is offered by the Shaarei Teshuva in the name of the Birkei Yosef.
However others understand that when we allow one to light in a time of need from Plag Hamincha on, it is because we are ruling according to the opinion that Plag Hamincha is already night time, and therefore if I go and daven Mincha after lighting the Menorah I would be engaged in seemingly contradictory behavior. Some contemporary poskim (see Mishna Berura Hamevuar) argue that according to this line of reasoning the Halacha would prefer a ‘contradictory’ davening with a minyan than a properly ordered one without. However, in Shaar Hatzion the Mishna Berura quotes this line of reasoning as the primary one when explaining why to daven Mincha first.
[This discussion is relevant to bringing in Shabbos early, which will hopefully be the focus of a future article].
In a nutshell, it would seem to be appropriate to daven Mincha, if need be without a minyan, before lighting the Menorah. This is indeed the opinion of my Rebbe and other contemporary Poskim.
However it is noteworthy that the Shelah in his commentary on the Siddur and Rav Ovadia Yosef explicitly write that the preference to daven Mincha first is only when one is able to do so with a Minyan.
There is one major exception to this rule – if by davening Mincha one will delay lighting the Menorah until very close to or after sunset then one should most definitely light the Menorah first.
Monday, November 19, 2012
As Diaspora Jews, having been through exile after harsh exile, and particularly in the post Holocaust generations, we are ever so thankful for the United States of America. Although each exile comes with its particular set of challenges and obstacles, the physical and financial security that we enjoy is not taken for granted.
One of the classic American ways of exhibiting that appreciation is by celebrating Thanksgiving. Once a year, Americans sit around the table and commemorate the first landing of the pilgrims on these shores. Although we too share in the appreciation, there are Halachic intricacies that are to be dealt with in celebrating Thanksgiving in the classical fashion.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, in a posthumously published volume of Igros Moshe, has a fascinating series of letters. Written over a two month span in 1981 he at first (OC 5:20:6) makes the case that it is forbidden to have a Thanksgiving celebration, because of the prohibition of ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו, you shall not walk in their statues, which includes any non-Jewish custom for which a logical reason cannot be attributed.
He firmly rejects the notion that there is any sort of prohibition of Idolatry, and he also rejects the opinion that it is forbidden to eat turkey because that’s what you happen to have available. However it is prohibited to have a joyous meal in honor of Thanksgiving because of the afore-mentioned prohibition.
Then, six weeks later, in a letter to a questioner who asked if he is permitted to join in a festive meal, Rav Moshe (YD 4:11:4) writes that it is permitted to join and to partake of the turkey so long as one doesn’t intend to have such a meal on this particular day every year, for then there may be a prohibition of בל תוסיף, adding a mitzvah to the Torah.
Here he mentions nothing of the prohibition to engage in an illogical no-Jewish custom, and concludes that celebrating Thanksgiving is permitted!
Two weeks later, in a third letter written to his grandson, who had questioned his apparent change of heart, he explained: The Rema, in explaining the prohibition, writes (YD 178:1) that anything which has no reason is considered to be Emorite ways and is forbidden. Rav Moshe explains that this statement of the Rema can be interpreted in two ways.
The first way to understand this is that it would be considered Emorite practice (who were very superstitious) to do something for no reason. Therefore the Torah prohibits anything that is done without good cause. Eating turkey on Thanksgiving, and making a whole shebang out of it because the Pilgrims had some turkey hundreds of years ago would be prohibited under this umbrella. This is what Rav Moshe intended in the first response.
Alternatively, we can explain the Rema differently. The reason we ascribe Emorite practice to illogical customs is because we are concerned that they originate in paganism and idol worship. Although now they are just senseless, we don’t want to partake in something which h has its roots in the worship of idols. However, in an instance that we know the root cause of a custom, even though we may deem the reasoning insufficient cause for celebration, the prohibition of ‘walking in their statues’ would not apply. And this, explains Rabbi Feinstein, is why in the second letter he was not concerned with this prohibition.
In conclusion Rav Moshe writes that it is appropriate to be stringent as he had written in the first letter.