Weekly Feature: “Frum … or Krum??” – Bug Checker Magnifying Lamp

Now it’s time for our weekly feature “Frum … or Krum??”, in which we debate whether something afoot in the Jewish world is worthy of our time and consideration (Frum) or just another indication that contemporary Orthodoxy is being hijacked by fools and crazies whose misshapen priorities will doom us and our children to despair and mediocrity for the foreseeable future (Krum). There can be no middle ground.

This Week’s Entry: “Bug Checker Magnifying Lamp – Cool Light”
(Perfect Solution to Tiny Bugs – Saves You from Eye Strain)
http://www.jewishsoftware.com/products/Bug_Checker_Magnifying_Lamp_Cool_Light_2802.asp

Discussion: You have the DVD, the book, the other book, the two-volume Hebrew set, the Yiddish Book, the XL Light Board (for the really big bugs), and the special Kosher vegetable spray. But you still feel insecure, and you worry that something is still getting in. And you’re right to worry, because you’re constantly being bombarded with rhetorical questions like the one I was asked in the email about this amazing new product: “Did you know that the Fresh Produce we enjoy daily and take for granted as Kosher – may not be Kosher?” And even though that was the question that convinced you to buy the last seven products taking up valuable counter-space, you are thinking about going for it again, in the belief that you will finally get those pesky bugs once and for all.

And you are right to not want to rely on the significant post-facto leniencies provided in Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah, 100:13-18), because even he lays out very specific guidelines for removing bugs (Y.D. 84-85). That’s why you got all those products in the first place – you’d like to rely on the many authorities who are concerned about this issue. You are not the type to shop around for Kulot, and why should you be?

This product, however, goes further than the products before it, because this one does not merely remove bugs (like the spray) or show you bugs that are really there but hidden (like the light board). This product actually magnifies otherwise-invisible bugs which, without this product, would not be visible to you at all. Is that necessary?

Actually, no. While the Aruch Hashulchan (in Siman 100) does provide post-facto leniencies regarding these issues, he is not being lenient when, among the stricter Halachot in Siman 84, he reminds us that anything smaller than the naked eye is considered invisible, even if it can be seen through a microscope:

ערוך השלחן יורה דעה סימן פד סעיף לו
יש מי שכתב בשם חכמי הטבע, דהמסתכל בזכוכית המגדלת, שקורין ספאקטיוו”א, יראה בחומץ מלא תולעים. והנה, בחומץ, אין חשש, כמו שנתבאר, דהתולעים המתהוים בתלוש התירה התורה.
אמנם שמעתי שבכל מיני מים, וביחוד במי גשמים, מלא ברואים דקים שאין העין יכולה לראותם.
ובילדותי שמעתי מפי אחד שהיה במרחקים, וראה דרך זכוכית המגדלת עד מאד, כרבבות פעמים במים כל המיני ברואים, ולפי זה, איך אנו שותים מים, שהרי אלו הברואים נתהוו במקורם?
אמנם האמת הוא, דלא אסרה תורה במה שאין העין שולטת בו, דלא ניתנה תורה למלאכים.

דאם לא כן, הרי כמה מהחוקרים כתבו שגם כל האויר הוא מלא ברואים דקים מן הדקים, וכשהאדם פותח פיו, בולע כמה מהם!
אלא, ודאי, ד”הבל יפצה פיהם,” ואף אם כן הוא, כיון שאין העין שולט בהם, לאו כלום הוא.
אמנם, כמה שהעין יכול לראות, אפילו נגד השמש, ואפילו דק מן הדק, הוה שרץ גמור:

Prof. Daniel Sperber, at the end of this article, discusses that Aruch Hashulchan and also brings numerous other reliable Poskim, from the Tiferet Yisrael to Rav Ovadiah Yosef, who ruled similarly to the Aruch Hashulchan on this issue and did not consider anything smaller than could be seen with the naked eye to be legally “visible.” As Prof. Sperber points out, this issue is similarly relevant for checking Etrogim for blemishes before Sukkot.

Verdict: Krum. As Sperber notes, we have here a double-edged sword, as the Tiferet Yisrael was worried that if we are to consider microscopic things “visible,” one could then be lenient and eat a fish whose scales are only visible under a microscope. Ironically, the proprietors of this new product are making that leniency a theoretical possibility.* Also, an issue Rav Moshe dealt with late in his life – why earlier generations were rarely known to check as carefully for bugs – is magnified (sorry) by the fact that this “new” product was more or less available to those earlier generations anyway, unlike sprays or light boards (or DVD’s) which they could not have been expected to have used.

For these reasons, this product, while masquerading as Frum, is really shelo b’ratzon Chachamim and is likely to cause us more harm than good. True Yirei Shamayim will find more valuable things to spend their money on.

Disagree? Have a reason why you feel this is a valuable product? Please share your thoughts in the comments sections below.


* Also consider the following converse example: One of the three reasons given in Gemara Sukkah 2a for the Sukkah’s maximum height of 20 Amot is that above that level, לא שלטא בה עינא – the eye cannot easily discern the Schach at the top of the Sukkah. Nowadays, however, we can see distant planets with a telescope! Even a 1000-Amah Sukkah would be visible through a telescope, or by using a camera with a zoom function. By allowing that things visible only through artificial means be considered Halachically “visible,” we could create the possibility that even very high Sukkot are acceptable.

Posted in Frum ... Or Krum??, Halacha | Leave a comment

Exploring Lecha Dodi, Part 2: Verse #1 – Shamor V’Zachor

Other entries in this series: Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Last week we discussed the refrain of Lecha Dodi. Now we will move on Verse #1.

“שמור” ו”זכור” בדבור אחד
השמיענו קל המיוחד.
ה’ אחד, ושמו אחד,
לשם, ולתפארת, ולתהילה.

Most fans will tell you with a high degree of certitude that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time. When he played in the same era as Larry Bird, few would have disagreed that, while Bird was great, Jordan was greater. Against that backdrop, it is fascinating how each fared in 2012: Jordan’s Charlotte Bobcats compiled the worst single-season record in NBA history. Bird’s Indiana Pacers made it deep into the Playoffs. Bird became the first person to be named Most Valuable Player, Coach of the Year, and Executive of the Year in the same Gilgul. Jordan’s accomplishments since he stopped playing have been considerably less noteworthy, while Bird’s star has continued to rise. The lesson: Jordan made better plays, but Bird makes better players.

In this verse of Lecha Dodi we celebrate Hashem not merely as the play-maker, but as the player-maker. שמור וזכור בדבור אחד – Hashem was able to state two seemingly opposite commands simultaneously; but even more impressively and more importantly, השמיענו, קל המיוחד – Hashem also caused us frail mortals to hear those commands simultaneously. That engenders responsibility on our part, and one which becomes important to consider as we enter Shabbat. For if we heard the two words simultaneously, as they were said, we have no excuse but to recognize the equal and overlapping nature of the two commands.

Munk in “Otzar HaTefillot” (Heb. Ed., Vol. 2, p. 12) explains the significance of Hashem’s having השמיענו, caused us to hear, both words at once:

“בדבור אחד” השמיען לנו ה’, שכן כשם שאין בפניו – הא-ל המיוחד – לא ניגוד ולא שניוּת ולא סתירה, כך הוא יתברך תובע (claims/expects) גם ממנו התאמה מוחלטת (determined harmony) בין העיסוק החיצוני (outer actions) (שמור) והיות פנימיותנו (זכור) חדורה (imbued) רצון קודשו.

Is that fair? The expectation made of us in Munk’s conception seems laughable. Just as Hashem is perfectly singular, so should we be singular in our service of Him? Yeah, but He’s Hashem! Easy for Him to say! Furthermore, wasn’t this issue settled on the day that Rabban Gamliel was reinstated to the Beit Midrash, acquiescing to the new standard established in his absence by Rabbe Yehoshua that even those who were not “תוכו כבורו,” whose ideals were not perfectly consistent with their actions, could enter and learn? Where is Rabbi Munk coming from in saying that Hashem expects התאמה מוחלטת בין העיסוק החיצוני ופנימיותנו?

Perhaps the difference between the Gemara and Rabbi Munk’s idea is that the former entails responsibility while the latter engenders opportunity. On the level of integration and exclusion, we cannot eliminate someone from the Beit Midrash on account of their not being תוכו כבורו. However, that does not mean that all who do enter should not consider themselves infused with the necessity to try and reach that level. Bird’s Pacers look to him as a model of what they might achieve, and therefore their efforts catapult them higher. Rabban Gamliel’s problem (and perhaps Jordan’s) was that his approach did not inspire anyone to work to get to the level of תוכו כבורו. Hashem (קל, המיוחד) letting us in on the secret of singularity (השמיענו) doesn’t mean that we have to be God, but it does mean that we have to strive to be God-like. It means that we have to exert the effort necessary to begin the process of living an integrated life in which “זכור” and “שמור” are entwined and in peace, because if Coach believes we can, so should we.

A more careful reading of the Gemara from which our song adapts this line further reinforces the power of the mentor’s belief in his protege:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבועות דף כ עמוד ב
ומאי “דבר אחד הן?” דב”דיבור אחד” נאמרו, כדתניא: (שמות כ’) “זכור,” (דברים ה’) ו”שמור” – בדיבור אחד נאמרו, מה שאין יכול הפה לדבר, ומה שאין האוזן יכול לשמוע.

The Gemara informs us that both the speaking and hearing of two things simultaneously is impossible – as the Gemara says in other places, תרי קלי לא משתמעי, two voices cannot be heard at once. In our case, however, Hashem was the speaker and we (the Jewish People) were the hearers. Granted that Hashem could do anything and, if He so chose, say two words at once. But what about us? Weren’t we still within the province of the usual rules of nature? No – because Coach believed we could.

I remember being a kid and watching the Olympics on TV when the gymnast Terry Strugg hobbled her way to victory with her Coach (a burly Russian fellow – anyone? anyone?) chanting behind her, “You can do it! You CAN do it!” For a while, everyone I knew was imitating him with the same thick Russian accent. The power of that moment was not just what she overcame, but that her coach willed her to victory by believing in her fully from the outset. השמיענו, קל המיוחד is Hashem willing us to victory from the start, more confident than perhaps we are about our ability to live an integrated life where זכור and שמור co-exist with seamless fluidity.

Netiv Binah (Vol. 2, p. 31) comments on the fact that “שמור” is before “זכור” in the song, even though in Chumash “זכור” (which appears in the Aseret HaDibrot in Shemot) comes before “שמור” (which appears in the Aseret HaDibrot in Devarim). Netiv Binah notes that the song needed to begin with a “ש” so that the author’s name, “Shlomo,” could appear in the acrostic. I saw another idea in Sefer Lechem Rav (Rav Moshe Chaim Litsh Masz Sigel Rosenbaum, the Rav of Kleinverdein before World War II and grandfather of a Rebbe of mine who introduced me to this amazing work). The Lechem Rav’s answer is based on the Chatam Sofer. Rashi tells us that the ambiguous “שמור את יום השבת לקדשו כאשר ציוך,” as I commanded you, refers back to Marah, where the Jews received a few commandments, among them Shabbat. The reason for “Zachor” not being recorded explicitly in Shemot (even though the words were both stated simultaneously) is because “זכור” refers to creating physical reminders that Shabbat is here, such as Kiddush, which purpose was served in the Wilderness by the cessation of Manna’s falling on Shabbat. For this reason, “שמור,” which is recorded only in Devarim, was actually taught all the way back in Marah, for “זכור” was not necessary at that time.  That may be why “שמור” is listed first in the song. The Lechem Rav’s idea does not explain why “זכור” is then said in the first recounting of the Dibrot if “זכור” was still accomplished at that time by the Manna’s not falling on Shabbat. Perhaps we can say that the Dibrot in general contain a larger, more pluralistic message relevant to both the generation in the Wilderness (“שמור”) and to future times (“זכור”) while in Marah, where only that generation was spoken to, only “שמור” was necessary.

OK – next week we will have to conclude this verse with some attention to the fact that elsewhere in Tefillah we refer to Hashem’s שם being אחד as a futuristic endeavor (ביום ההוא יהיה), but here we seem to say that it is a current reality (ה’ אחד ושמו אחד). We will also have to consider the three epithets at the end. (Hashem’s שם is אחד for שם? Say what?)

Posted in Lecha Dodi, Tefillah | 1 Comment

Exploring Lecha Dodi, Part 1: The Refrain

Other entries in this series: Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

With some time off this summer, I thought I would take some time each Friday to explore one of our best-known but least understood Tefillah-songs, Lecha Dodi. Check back each Friday to learn about the next verse or two. I will be taking an approach that combines textual, historical, and philosophical ideas to, hopefully, enhance our Tefillah and our lives as thinking religious individuals.

The refrain:
Lecha, Dodi, likrat kallah; p’nei Shabbat nekablah.
Literally: Come, my beloved (male singular), to greet the bride; the face of Shabbat we will accept.

Issues we will need to consider:
1) Who is the “dod” referred to in the first half of the line? (From the male “Dodi,” we can assume that it is a male.)
2) Based on the song’s use of the word “likrat” (to greet) rather than “nikrat” (we will greet), it seems that the “Dod” is being told what to do on his own, as a sort of command or invitation, rather than being asked to do something with the singer. Yet the second half of the line has the word “nekablah,” we will greet, rather than “likabel,” to greet. Why the change? In other words, who are “we,” and why are “we” added only later in the refrain?
3) Is the “Kallah” Shabbat? If so, why is Shabbat first (in the singular, directive part of the verse) referred to as Kallah and only afterward (in the communal, invitational part of the verse) as Shabbat? In general, what is added or changed in the second half of the refrain?
4) What is the p’nei (“face of”) Shabbat? Does Shabbat have a face? Why not just say “Shabbat Nekablah?”

The basic text of this refrain seems to come from Gemara Shabbat 119a, which, at least according to the commentary “Iyun Tefillah” in the Siddur Otzar HaTefillot, also serves as the impetus for this whole song. Let’s see the Gemara:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קיט עמוד א
רבי חנינא מיעטף (wrapped himself), וקאי אפניא (rooftop), דמעלי שבתא. אמר: “בואו, ונצא, לקראת שבת המלכה!”
רבי ינאי לביש מאניה (special garment) מעלי שבת, ואמר: “בואי כלה, בואי כלה!”

On a simple level, both accounts show great Amoraim expressing their excitement for the onset of Shabbat, and in both cases Shabbat is personified in surprisingly human terms, in one as a “Malkah” (queen) and in the other as a “Kallah” (bride). Our Siddur is inspired by both accounts, borrowing from both Rabbi Yannai, who anthropomorphizes Shabbat as a “Kallah,” and from Rabbi Chanina, who introduces the concept of “Likrat,” our going out to greet Shabbat (as opposed to Rabbi Yannai’s inviting Shabbat to come to us [“Bo’ee”)]. Along the same lines, note the change from “בואו” to “בואי.” In fact, the terms used by each Amorah are consistent with their personifications: one would probably go out to greet (“Bo’u,” “Likrat”) an aloof Queen, but a Chattan might lovingly invite (“Bo’ee,” “Nekabel”) his Kallah to come close to him. Our Siddur, however, chose to combine the two, adjuring us to “Likrat” the “Kallah,” which compromises between the two Amoraim but which also might be said to compromise some fluidity in the process.

Missing from either Talmudic account is the “Dod.” The sense in both stories is that these great leaders were inspiring their students, family, or community members to join them in greeting Shabbat or inviting Shabbat to come to them. The inclusion of some other party in the process is absent from the Talmudic accounts. Who is the “Dod,” and where did he come from?

Yaakovson in Netiv Binah (Heb. Ed., vol. 2, p. 60) quotes Zev Yaavetz who feels that the “Dod” is Knesset Yisrael, and we are thus inviting an inter-generational mass of Jewishkind to join together in greeting Shabbat. The more common explanation, as mentioned by Yaakovson in the name of Rav S. R. Hirsch (based on Yishayahu 5:1 and Shir Hashirim 7:12), is that the “Dod” is Hashem.  The Commentary “Anaf Yosef” (in the Siddur Otzar HaTefillot) explains:

דודי – פירוש”דודי,” הוא הקב”ה. ואנו מתפללים על קץ הפלאות, שינחם לשכינה, הנקרא “כלה.”

Munk in “Olam HaTefillot” (Heb. Ed. p. 12) also assumes that the Dod is Hashem. If this is true, we begin the refrain by asking Hashem (“Dodi”) to go ahead (“Lecha”) and greet (“Likrat”) Shabbat (“Kallah”), which, if He does, would in turn lead all of the Jews together to accept (“Nekablah”) the face of Shabbat (“P’nei Shabbat”). Hashem marches ahead at the front of the line to “greet” Shabbat, so to speak, following which we all together accept Shabbat as a Nation.

This is in line with the Gemara’s understanding that while Holidays are sanctified first by us and only afterward (based on our calculations) by Hashem, Shabbatot are sanctified first by Hashem and only afterward by us:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ביצה דף יז עמוד א
תני תנא קמיה דרבינא: “מקדש ישראל, והשבת, והזמנים.”
אמר ליה: אטו שבת – ישראל מקדשי ליה? והא, שבת מקדשא וקיימא!
אלא, אימא: “מקדש השבת; ישראל, והזמנים.”
אמר רב יוסף: הלכה כרבי, וכדתריץ רבינא.

When it comes to Shabbat, Hashem takes the lead in creating the sanctity of the day which we then harness for ourselves. That is why Kiddush on Shabbat begins with Vayechulu – a declaration of Hashem’s having already made Shabbat Holy – before we can make Shabbat Holy for ourselves in the second half of Kiddush. Yom Tov Kiddush contains no such introduction because the Holiness is initiated by us, not by Hashem, after which Hashem follows our lead in accepting our declaration of the new month which has led the holiday to be celebrated on that particular day. Instead, we end Yom Tov Kiddush with She’hechiyanu, thanking Hashem for “doing His part” by bringing us to this new opportunity to declare the new month and celebrate the holiday at this exact juncture.

This same theme is mirrored in the refrain to Lecha Dodi. “Lecha, Dodi, Likrat Kallah” – You go first, Hashem, to sanctify Shabbat; and only then, “Pinei Shabbat Nekabelah” – we will all go, following your lead, and accept Shabbat for ourselves. Perhaps the role-reversal of Yom Tov is also why we do not say Lecha Dodi on Yom Tov – this refrain would not be relevant to a day on which we do not want or need Hashem to take the lead in sanctifying the Day.

We have now answered the first two questions with which we began our discussion. As to Question #3: why the change from “Kallah” to “Shabbat” part-way through the refrain? In order to answer this question, let’s pose one more: Why say Kiddush on Shabbat at all, if Hashem has already been Mekadesh the Seventh Day? Although Hashem initiates the Holiness of Shabbat – as the Gemara said, “שבת מקדשא וקיימא” – the full effect of that initiation is still predicated on our being Mekadesh Shabbat ourselves. In other words, the Seventh Day itself is Holy either way, but its Holiness, and the attendant opportunities that that Holiness provides, do not transfer to us without our active involvement (i.e., Kiddush). (It could be for that reason that on Shabbat we do “קִידוּשׁ,” while on Pesach [and on other holidays, if we cared to use the term] we do “קַדֵשׁ.”) Without that transfer of Holiness from the Day to us, Shabbat remains merely the Kallah that it is in the first half of the refrain – brimming with potential, but short on experience or affect. For as long as only the Dod, Hashem, has “greeted” the day, the day is merely a Kallah. Only at the point at which “Nekablah,” we accept Shabbat for ourselves, can we refer to the day as Shabbat.

Yet even then, Shabbat will not effect us the right way simply by our having been “Nekabel” Shabbat. Even after Hashem (the “Dod”) has initiated Shabbat’s Holiness by sanctifying the Day and we have been “Nekabel” its Holiness onto ourselves, we have still only reached the “P’nei” Shabbat. The way in which we act for the next 25 hours will determine whether Shabbat truly has any meaningful or lasting impact on our lives. In theory, we can make Kiddush and then forget about Shabbat, to varying degrees of negligence, until Havdalah. The third and final stage of the process implied in the refrain of Lecha Dodi is to move the “Kabbalah,” a mere acceptance of Shabbat, into action over the rest of Shabbat so that more than merely the “P’nei” Shabbat can affect our lives.

We tend to feel differently about Shabbat at its beginning than we do at its end – the creeping hordes crowding the exit door during the final Kaddish (or earlier) at Maariv at the end of Shabbat may have greeted the “P’nei” Shabbat nicely 25 hours earlier, but may also have missed some of the follow-through of that excitement as Shabbat moved along. In fact, in shoving Shabbat out the door like a house-guest we just found out is a jewel thief, we actually violate several Halachot, among them:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן רצ”ג – רמ”א
הגה:
ונוהגים לומר “והוא רחום” ו”ברכו” באריכות נועם, כדי להוסיף מחול על הקודש (א”ז).

Whoa – try doing that in your local Orthodox Shul next week! A drawn-out “Vehu Rachum” and “Barchu” at the end of Shabbat? Duck! Projectiles incoming! Try advertising a Carlebach end-of-Shabbat Maariv and see who comes. Actually my father-in-law, who maintains his Dutch Minhagim fastidiously, does do this and has not (yet) been shot. The rest of us are, of course, one foot out the door (figuratively if not literally).

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן ש – רמ”א
הגה: לעולם יסדר אדם שלחנו במוצאי שבת כדי ללוות את השבת, אפילו אינו צריך אלא לכזית.

Are we careful about Melave Malka? Or has the P’nei Shabbat we so excitedly greeted turned on its heels and run?

So the short refrain reminds us of many important points: Shabbat’s Holiness comes directly from Hashem, but it does not transfer to us unless there is a Kabbalah by us as well – an acknowledgement that we want to begin the process of accepting Shabbat in our own lives. And even then, we have only reached the “P’nei” Shabbat, because – as any Kallah knows – it is easy to dream and want good things from the outset, but maintaining that commitment, or feeling its freshness, over time is not as easy. Moving from the “Kallah” stage to the “P’nei” stage and then carrying the feelings long beyond are all challenges, but it behooves us to invest more effort than entailed by our singing about them in a nice song.

OK – next week we’ll explore Verse #1.

Posted in Lecha Dodi, Tefillah | Leave a comment

Daf Yomi – Charts and Notes for Niddah 21-22

I’ve been giving the Daf this week, Niddah 20-25 – here are some charts and notes, in case anyone out there finds them useful.

Daf Yomi – Niddah 21 – Charts

Daf Yomi – Niddah 22 – Notes

Posted in Talmud / Daf Yomi | Leave a comment

Shavuot: Under the Mountain and Dreaming

For Shavuot, I am posting something I wrote many years ago, apparently just before Shavuot 2003, and shared by email at that time to some family and friends. I was finishing my first year of YU at the time.

Shavuos: Standing Under the Mountain

LEVEL 1: Where Yirah Fights Ahavah

THE APPARENTLY WILLFUL nature with which the Jews accepted the Torah at Har Sinai was only goat-skin deep. “Na’aseh v’nishma,” they told Hashem, “we will do [first] and only then hear [your explanations; i.e., we accept Torah unconditionally and without the need for prior justification or explanation]” (Shemos 24:7). But commenting on the Torah’s statement that the encamped Jews, in waiting for the Torah’s revelation by G-d, stood “underneath the mountain” (Shemos 19:17), the Gemara (Shabbos 88a) reveals another side to their acceptance: “Kafah Hakadosh Baruch Hu aleihem as ha’har ki’gigis,” “Hashem held Mt. Sinai over their heads like an overturned barrel,” and provided them an ultimatum that they accept the Torah or be buried inside the mountain. Their “decision” was thus predetermined; it was Torah or death. What, then, was the great merit in the nation’s accepting lives of Torah? And what of our own obligation – how can we be considered responsible for a commitment made through apparent blackmail?

The Gemara proceeds to ask this very question and responds that in the time of Purim the Jews reaccepted the Torah wholeheartedly and without coercion (see Esther 9:27 and Rashi there). From then on, and continuing forever, the Torah has and will be the responsibility of the Jewish people.

But there is still a question: what of the Jews’ keeping of the Torah – and punishments for not doing so – from the time of Sinai until the time of Purim? How could Moshe exhort them throughout the rest of the Torah that they must safeguard a Torah whose acceptance would not be binding until the time of Purim hundreds of years later? Indeed, we were exiled from our Land before the Purim era for not keeping the Torah! Furthermore, the Jews reaccepted the Torah twice prior to Purim – first at Har Grizim and Har Eval (see Devarim 27; see also 29:8-28) and then again at the end of Sefer Yehoshua (see Chapter 24). Why does the Gemara skip to Purim as the earliest reacceptance? Furthermore, the “acceptance” in Megillas Esther (9:27) is actually the acceptance of their institution of Purim as a holiday which the Gemara extrapolates to be the larger reacceptance of the whole Torah. Surely this is not more indicative than the blatant reacceptance of the Torah found at the end of Devarim! It would seem that both problems – the problem of their being subsequently exiled from Eretz Yisroel (after Devarim but before Purim) and the problem of the Purim declaration being only an indirect reaffirmation of the truth of the Torah – could be solved by pinning the Jews’ reacceptance of the Torah on the end of Devarim. Why, then, does the Gemara put so many feathers in the cap of Purim, as opposed to Har Grizim and Har Eval?

Tosafos to our Gemara (Shabbos 88a) answers that the acceptance of Devarim is less consequential because there, like a merciful master, G-d was giving us the opportunity to reaffirm our faith on our own – but the guiding impetus was still His and the reacceptance thus less impactful than that of Purim. (Tosafos also points out that the reaffirmation in the time of Yehoshua was merely that they would not worship idols but not that they would worship G-d alone; we see throughout Tanach that these two are mutually exclusive; the Jews needed to state both in order to please Hashem.*) The acceptance of Purim, it appears, was the first truly independent, non-coercive, self-guided declaration of kabbalas haTorah in the history of the Jewish people.

In fact, though, this answer of Tosafos is difficult to take. While the reacceptance by the Jews at Har Grizim and Har Eval was in fact not of their own volition, as Tosafos notes, nor was Purim! At Purim time, as the Gemara and Rashi explain, the Jews saw the miracle, fell in love with Hashem, and reaccepted the Torah – but then that miracle was no less an impetus to their reacceptance than was the request by G-d at Har Grizim and Har Eval; both were brought forth by G-d, and we can accept that no acceptance has ever been acceptable.

What Tosafos likely mean, however, is that if, as the Gemara relates, the Jews accepted the Torah on Purim out of love, then it is impossible that their acceptance of the Torah was predicated on the miracle before them. The miracle may have brought them to such a state, but it was not the miracle itself – whereas it had been the request itself at the end of Devarim – which prompted this reaction from the Jews. True love mandates that one relinquish all extrinsic elements of that love in favor of the purest object of that love. The Jews’ seeing the miracle was irrelevant in light of their falling in love – the miracle was thence nullified in favor of the love which they had for G-d because of the miracle. By this definition, then, Purim was a proper reacceptance of the Torah, Har Grizim was not, and the Gemara appears understandable in its jumping so many centuries.

But we have not answered our other initial question: how could the Jews be held to task for not keeping the Torah between Shavuos and Purim? The answer to that question is also the solution to this next puzzle: with Purim codified and the Torah reaccepted in so definitive a way, the further need for Shavuos (which commemorates only our earlier acceptance of the Torah) is hard to understand. After all, why have a date on our calendar which marks only an event whose importance was later obfuscated by a better event? It would seem that Purim should have replaced Shavuos; our forced acceptance was uprooted by our willing one.

Yet we cannot do away with Shavuos so quickly – for it gave us the push which allowed the Jewish people to go forward and eventually get to that happier point of Purim; without the mountain over our heads, we could never have arrived at our own communal realization of Torah’s importance on Purim. The Gemara tells us that mitoch shelo lishma, bo lishma: we do not stop a person from learning Torah for external reasons since he MAY come to more later come to correctly learn Torah for the right, intrinsic reasons. The Jewish people exemplified this principle in their march from Shavuos to Purim.

SHAVUOS, THE HOLIDAY commemorating that original acceptance of the Torah, is notably different from the rest of the yearly holiday cycle in its lack of notability. It has no laws indigenous to itself and almost no minhagim (not even any chumros!). It contains no separate Tractate of Gemara and almost no mention at all in Mishna; it is barely spoken of in Shulchan Aruch (the code of Jewish law) and has almost no laws or customs of its own. Hard to pass by just weeks after Pesach, the subject of eight perakim of Mishna, 120 pages of Gemara, most of a volume of Mishna Berurah, countless laws and customs, and often thousands of dollars per year. What happened to Shavuos? Why such silence? Surely the holiday noting our acceptance of the Torah warrants more discussion.

The Rambam, in Hilchos Teshuva (10:1-3), utilizing the Gemara’s teaching mentioned above that mitoch shelo lishma, bo lishma, teaches that the uneducated should first worship G-d on the easier level of fear (yirah) so that they will later worship correctly, out of love (ahavah). Between Shavuos and Purim, that personal odyssey became the communal destiny of the Jewish people which worshipped first out of fear (with a mountain over our heads) and only later out of true love of G-d (after seeing the miracle of Purim). While this earlier acceptance sufficed to hold us over until Purim, it is nothing to celebrate – and so we preserve Shavuos, but without the fanfare and accolades of Purim. G-d realized that this fear was the only way in which these early Jews could have any acceptance of and share in the Torah, but this was not the ideal. It was when this glum Shavuos acceptance of fear was replaced by the preferred Purim acceptance of love that it was truly time to celebrate. Any acceptance of Torah is worthy of a holiday, but Purim is a much greater cause of celebration – it marks our newfound communal love of G-d which replaced our fear of Him marked by Shavuos. Truly a reason to drink! (And drink and drink!)

What emerges is that Shavuos, the holiday without a paradigm, contains a very important one. Shavuos is the holiday not of acceptance of Torah but of growth through Torah. On Shavuos we accepted the Torah out of fear. This would have been a tragic day had it not been the harbinger of a much greater day to which it would lead. Shavuos teaches us that being on the path from Shavuos to Purim, from lo lishma to lishma, from yirah to ahavah, is not just valuable for the destination but for the journey as well. This journey, too, is a reason to celebrate.

In its quietude, Shavuos shares something in common with one more holiday – Chanukah. While Chanukah’s loud, Rabbinically-ordained partner Purim boasts its own Megillah, a Tractate of Talmud, a host of mitzvos and customs, and much annual fanfare, the more sedate Chanukah contains one law and a few pages of Gemara (Shabbos 21b-24b), but little else. We light the candles – and that is all. What is the nature of Chanukah, and why is the one holiday specifically marked for “pirsumei nissah” (wide-spread publicity of the miracle) kept so secret? Purim, with its public reading of the Megillah and masquerading, could be a better marketing tool! Chanukah is hardly noticed (and many try to restrict its publicity even further).

Perhaps the publicity demanded of us on Chanukah is of a different sort. If quiet Shavuos and loud Purim represent, respectively, our public coerced and self-generated acceptances of the Torah, perhaps Chanukah, both in its simplicity and in its conceptual individuality, marks each individual’s rekindling of his own inner desire to learn Torah each year – what is required of us is a more personal pirsumei nissa. On the bookends of time, Shavuos, a low-key festival, and Purim, a most public one each mark our communal acceptance of the Torah. But within the nation as a whole, how do individuals show their own acceptance? When can individuals express their own longing and desire to simply, quietly learn Torah? Enter Chanukah, the festival of rekindling par excellence.

And what do we publicize on this hidden holiday of Chanukah? How are we to understand the paradox that this secret festival is the one which is supposed to be the most open? Consider one pivotal difference between Purim and Chanukah: on Purim (and most other holidays) it is perfectly legitimate to fulfill one’s obligation through another person – one’s reading of the Megillah may exempt as many people as are present in the Shul. On Chanukah, the holiday of individual acceptance, each person must light for himself. The Gemara (Shabbos 21b) says that “mitzvas Chanukah, neir ish u’veiso; vihamihadrin, neir lichal echad v’echad …” – the mitzvah of Chanukah is that each household light one candle; the better way to perform the mitzvah is for each person in every household to light one. The greater the observance of this mitzvah, the more personal and personalized the mitzvah becomes; ideally, every Jew in the nation has his own light and nobody lights for anyone else. For Chanukah is the holiday in which every Jew must take a role – no general, communal acceptance will suffice in the manner of Shavuos or Purim. The pirsumei nissa is to take place within each and every home, or ideally within each and every Jew. Each and every one of us must be reminded by the sight of his own candles that he is an important and unique member of the Jewish nation. Perhaps this is why the tool of the holiday is a candle, often analogized as the quintessential module of continuity: one candle can light others ad infinitum; so, too, each Jew must be reminded on these days that it is his responsibility to share his Torah with as many others as possible. **

Let’s go back to the Rambam cited above (Teshuva), that dealing with life as a process of growth from Yiras Hashem (fear of G-d) to Ahavas Hashem (love of G-d). In the words of the Rambam (10:2), ahavah “is the level which is exceedingly great and which every smart man does not reach – and this is the level of Avraham Avinu who was called G-d’s beloved because he served only out of love.” Yet the Rambam goes on to teach that yirah is to be instilled only in “foolish, unlearned people; [medieval] women; and children” (10:1) who should use this yirah merely as a stepping-stone in getting to ahavah. Where, then, does that leave the “ideal” Jew? Is he condemned to selecting between the simplicity of a child or the impossible heights of the progenitor of Jewish leadership?

Perhaps Rambam is saying that just the opposite is true. No one is destined to make such a choice – all of life is a continuum, a journey from the lowest to the highest levels of avodas Hashem. True, the peak is set very high, the bar is raised noticeably above our heads; but our mission is only to climb as high on that ladder of faith as possible: as the Mishna in Avos says, “Lo alecha haMelacha ligmor, v’lo ata ben chorin lihibatel mimena.” True, it is exceedingly difficult to reach the level of Ahavas Hashem of Avraham Avinu, but it is only the climb up the ladder which is sought by Hashem anyway. If He wanted our feet to land squarely on the highest rung, our life would be both hopeless and eventually pointless – what would be our job after that? Game over, with years or decades left to live? And so the journey from Shavuos to Purim plays out in each of our own lives every day, as we strive to climb from the ranks of the uneducated to the heights of greatness, knowing all the while that we will probably, and even ideally, always be somewhere in the middle.

The Gemara tells us that rachmana liba ba’ey – Hashem desires to see that we have placed our heart upon the task of climbing ever higher. That is how the nation’s challenge of Shavuos and Purim is represented by each person’s life-long challenge of Chanukah, that quintessential holiday of personal rekindling of the drive to be on that path, to climb higher from the yirah of a small child to the ahavah of Avraham Avinu, but all the while to remember that being on that journey is more integral to one’s examined spiritual life than ever reaching the final destination.

And so Chanukah finds a friend in Shavuos, both quiet holidays of renewal and reacceptance. And Chanukah, a time of personal, love-based acceptance serves also as a counterpart to Purim’s communal, love-based acceptance. We need the rejuvenation of a Purim to remind us of the most proper derech in serving Hashem – out of love – and the dimmed catharsis of a Shavuos to instill in us the understanding that even an acceptance of a lower level, one of fear, is important if it leads us on the road to a Purim worthy of real celebration. And for the lonely man in each of us just wanting to serve Hashem simply and without fanfare there is Chanukah, renewal of the individual’s fire for G-d and His Torah.

LEVEL 2: Where Yirah Becomes Ahavah

THIS IDEA OF a life-long journey from ahavah to yirah is in need of its own exploration if it is to serve as an instructive and useful barometer of growth in Avodas Hashem.

Consider a Mishna in Sotah (5:5) in which a discussion ensues as to whether Iyov served G-d out of fear or out of love. Initially, Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Herkonus asserts that Iyov served out of love as exemplified by the posuk that “even if G-d were to kill me, TO HIM (“לו”) would I yet gaze” (Iyov 13). But one short word, “lo,” causes a problem in the Mishna: if spelled lamed aleph (“לא”), the verse would carry quite the opposite message. An alternative posuk is supplied as proof that Iyov indeed served out of love, a final posuk is brought to counter the former, and the matter is left dramatically unresolved.

Several problems emerge from this Mishna:

(1) The second verse, brought in to defend the argument that Iyov served out of love, contains the same ambiguous “lo” as the first verse! It could be read, as the Mishna does, “until I die I WILL NOT remove my innocence,” or it could be read “should I die, I WILL remove my innocence TOWARDS HIM.” Why is this any more solid a conjecture on the part of the Mishna?

(2) The only posuk actually containing either word – ahavah or yirah – is the final verse, which contains a clear reference to Iyov’s serving out of fear. Why is this posuk not conclusive proof, and why is it not brought at the beginning to make the same point made at first by a more ambiguous reference?

(3) In explaining the two ways of understanding the first posuk, the Mishna should have used the two variances of “לו” or “לא,” but the Mishna does not. It instead lists the two possibilities as “לו” or “איני” (lit., I will not). Why this further ambiguity in explaining the original ambiguity of the posuk?

Commenting on this Mishna, the Rambam asserts that the two variations “לא” and “לו” are interchangeable and that either word can take on either meaning (“not” or “I will”) at any point in time. This would beg the argument that this Mishna’s discussion is irrelevant from the get-go – regardless of the spelling, either verse could have either meaning! The Rambam, understood in this way, would be positing that the Mishna’s early question is intended to lead to a Tannaic black hole. It is unlikely that the Rambam is asserting this.

Perhaps the best way to understand this Rambam is in consonance with the Tiferes Yisroel (Yachin, 20) on this Mishna who understands the spelling differential differently. To him, both spellings could be expressions of negativity, with לא retained as we understood it: “I WILL NOT gaze,” and לו a note of rhetorical exclamation: “TO HIM I would gaze?!” The inconsequential nature of the spelling pointed out by the Rambam is not a product of their random interchangeability but of their intrinsic interconnectedness: the Mishna is not saying that their two meanings must be equally considered but that their two meanings are really one and the same.

Answers to the three questions above illustrate this point more fully. If the Mishna was, ultimately, interested in bringing out a point about the similarity between ahavah and yirah, then there is no problem with bringing up another לא / לו ambiguity – for it was not this ambiguity which concerned the Mishna in the first place. Perhaps this sheds light on the second question as well – had we found a conclusive proof immediately, the idea that ahavah and yirah are interchangeable could not have been brought out. The Mishna, perhaps, was so chiefly interested in expressing the similarity between yirah and ahavah that it did not even bring up as obvious a source as the final one until the point had been brought out lest it forfeit that very point! And as to the third question: the Mishna is not discussing variant spellings of two homographs but is teaching a larger, more conceptual point about the interconnectedness of their ideas which was more explicitly brought out by the inclusion of the otherwise irrelevant “aini.”

But can the Mishna really mean that ahavah and yirah are interchangeable, as the Tiferes Yisrael (and perhaps Rambam) assert? Let’s see the Gemara to that Mishna.

The Gemara (31a) offers a statement written one way (לא) which must necessarily be understood with its opposite spelling (לו) in an apparent agreement with our surprising understanding of the Mishna that the two possibilities are interchangeable. Then the Gemara explains this mystery of interchangeability between ahavah and yirah by pointing out that Iyov, like Avraham (the oheiv par excellence), served G-d in both ways! “Just as fear of G-d as exemplified by Avraham was a service of love,” says the Gemara, “so too was the fear of Iyov.” Yira as ahava – a strange idea.

Rashi explains: Love is to be separated from fear. These (ideas under discussion) are love of reward and fear of pitfalls, curses, and punishments. (In such a case, both love and fear are wrong.) But here (in reference to Iyov) we have love of the Omnipresent and fear of He Whose fear is great and placed on all the creations.” A remarkable upgrade from the limited understanding we developed earlier: Fear and love are indeed both right and wrong. Fear of punishment and curse is always wrong, but love of reward is equally always wrong. Fear of G-d Himself, or love of G-d Himself, are equally and always proper and not at all at odds – though, as we have seen, the former must lead to the latter in order to be useful.

The Jews at Har Sinai with the mountain over their heads are to be pitied not for their fear per se but for the misplacement of their fear – for their fear of the mountain over their heads, for their fear of not measuring up to the high standard which was being metaphorically and physically set up for them. Love or fear would have been acceptable – Purim may have happened right away – had their love or fear been aimed at the One above the mountain. But, then, if Purim had been achieved so soon and so easily, what fun would have been the unfurling flag of history for us to watch? The journey of two thousand years begins with a single gift.

“If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”                                 – Albert Einstein

* This latter statement of Tosafos is not understandable to me given the Jews’ explicit statement in Yehoshua 24:21 and 24:24 that they would serve G-d alone. Indeed, the statement immediately preceding their explicit acceptance of Yehoshua’s covenant (24:25) is one of solidarity with G-d (24:24).

** For a startling discovery of the nature of the fusion between Purim and Chanukah check out the actual (k’siv) wording (NOT its kri correction) in Esther 9:27. Kimu vikibeil – It’s singular, just like Chanukah! Gevalt! If you’re so inclined, check out Minchas Shai there.

Bonus question: One which has been bothering me since I went through the Gemara about Chanukah this year. The Gemara (Shabbos 21b) asks an elusive question about Chanukah which we do not find in relation to any other holiday (as far as I know): “Mai Chanukah” – what is Chanukah? One would expect the Gemara to launch into a discussion either about the original two miracles or of our lighting candles today, but it does not. Instead the Gemara answers that Chanukah is “… timanyah iynun d’lo limispeid bihon udilo lihisanos bihon,” eight days on which we neither deliver eulogies nor fast. Apparently, searching for the paradigmatic element of Chanukah, this is the most fitting answer the Gemara could find. Why might this be so?

Posted in Holidays, Parshat Hashavua, Shavuot | Leave a comment

HaShomer Ani Lecha Yerushalayim: Haftarot of Acharei Mot and Kedoshim

If you were in Shul yesterday morning, around the combined Torah reading of Acharei and Kedoshim, you may have noticed a peculiar sight: we read two Parshiot, but subsequently read the Haftarah of the first one, Acharei, rather than the second one, Kedoshim. That violates the usual rule that we read the Haftarah of the second Parsha in such a situation.

The angry note in the ArtScroll Chumash (p. 1173) against “most Chumashim” (i.e., Hertz, which instructs us to read the later Haftarah in this case as usual) doesn’t really explain why the phenomenon exists but notes that the Rama mentions the Minhag. To the Rama we go, then:

שולחן עורך אורח חיים סימן תכח סעיף ח – רמ”א
כשקורין ב’ פרשיות מפטירים באחרונה (מרדכי פרק בני העיר), מלבד באחרי מות וקדושים דמפטירין “הלא כבני כושיים,” שהיא הפטרת אחרי מות (מנהגים).

The Rama does not give a reason for the change either, but the Mishna Berurah does:

שולחן עורך אורח חיים סימן תכח סעיף ח – משנה ברורה סעיף קטן כו
(כו) שהיא הפטרת אחרי מות – מפני שההפטרה של פרשה שניה מזכרת מִתוֹעֵבַת ירושלים, מה שאין כן כשהן נפרדות, שכבר קראו “הלוא כבני כושיים” בפרשת “אחרי,” בהכרח להפטיר בפרשת “קדושים” “התשפוט.” והנה, הלבוש חולק על רמ”א, ודעתו דגם כשהיא כפולה קוראין הפטרה אחרונה, דהיינו של פרשת “קדושים.” אבל הב”ח ושאר אחרונים כתבו שנתפשט המנהג בכל הקהלות כהרמ”א בזה. והוא הדין אם שבת פרשת “אחרי” היה ערב ראש חודש, ומפטירין מחר חודש, דמפטירין בשבת פרשת “קדושים” “הלוא כבני כושיים” [חי’ רע”א]:

The gist of the Mishna Berura seems to be this: The Haftarah for Acharei Mot, “Halo Kivnei Kushiyim,” is an angry rant from Amos against the Jews whose actions place them in no better light than their surrounding nations. The Haftarah for Kedoshim, “Hatishpot,” is an angry rant from Yechezkel against ghastly Yerushalayim in its destroyed state. If we can at all avoid reading about Yerushalayim in its sorry state of degradation, such as in our case where we have one week and two Haftarot to choose from, we do so by choosing the one insulting ourselves rather than the one insulting Yerushalayim. Not that it bothers us any other week of the year to read about Yerushalayim’s maligned condition, and we’ll come back to that point later, but we usually don’t have much of a choice.

All of this is based on a Mordechai on Gemara Megillah:

מרדכי מסכת מגילה תתלא (פרק בני העיר)
ובמנהגים מצאתי כל פרשיות הסמוכות מפטירין הפטרה של אחרונה חוץ מאחרי מות וקדושים, שאז מפטירין “הלא כבני כושיים,” שהיא הפטרה של פרשה ראשונה, מפני שהפטרה של פרשה שניה מזכרת מתועבות ירושלים:

That’s more or less satisfying, except for one thing: The Mishna Berura noted that the Levush Mordechai disagrees with the Rama and would have us instead read the second Haftarah, as usual. Why does the Levush feel this way?

Since we’ve looked at Gemara Megillah, the Mordechai and the Levush Mordechai, it should not surprise us that the Machatzit Hashekel has something to say about this issue. (If we can get the Megillat Esther into the game, I win a sandwich!) The Machatzit Hashekel explains the Levush’s objection as involving a more careful reading of the Gemara in Megillah – or just about any reading at all:

תלמוד בבלי מסבת מגילה דף כה עמוד ב
“הודע את ירושלים את תועבותיה” – נקרא ומתרגם. פשיטא! לאפוקי מדרבי אליעזר. דתניא, מעשה באדם אחד שהיה קורא למעלה מרבי אליעזר “הודע את ירושלים את תועבותיה.” אמר לו, “עד שאתה בודק בתועבות ירושלים, צא ובדוק בתועבות אמך!” בדקו אחריו, ומצאו בו שמץ פסול.

Rabbi Eliezer objected to the public reading of a Haftarah calling out Yerushalayim for its sullied condition because the person reading it in front of him was of inferior stock and was thus hypocritical in chastising Yerushalayim publicly. Everybody after the Mordechai assumes that this Gemara is the basis for the Mordechai’s ruling. Two problems, though: 1) The Gemara (at the beginning of the piece just cited) rejected Rabbi Eliezer’s objection as a possible precedent for future readings, and so today we should be able to read “Hatishpot” without any problem. 2) That wasn’t the Haftarah that Rabbi Eliezer objected to! As the Machatzit Hashekel goes on to explain in the name of the Levush, the confusion arises between two similar Perakim in Yechezkel, each dealing with the degradation of Yerushalayim. The first, Perek 16, also mentions “אביך האמורי ואמך חתית,” which Rashi there explains as rather unflattering (if ultimately edifying – see Rashi there) references to Avraham and Sarah. That additional unkind reference is what caused Rabbi Eliezer to be surprised at someone (and someone of imperfect ancestry, no less) reading it publicly. Our present-day Haftarah, “Hatishpot,” however, is six Perakim later – Yechezkel Perek 22. That Perek, like many of the year’s other Haftarot, mentions the degradation of Yerushalayim, but this one was never called into question as a public reading by Rabbi Eliezer!

So what we’re left with is that the Gemara rejects Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that a single, long-deceased individual should not publicly read Yechezkel Perek 16, and we have no clear reason why we should avoid publicly reading Yechezkel 22, “Hatishpot,” which is not terribly different than many other accepted Haftarot. That is why the Levush (who, to be fair, seems awfully correct) was not in favor of supplanting the usual Minhag that the second of two possible Haftarot be read. The Mordechai, however, cited a Minhag anyway to avoid this Haftarah, and the Rama, perhaps less than attentive to the source for this Minhag and its general irrelevance today, mentioned the Minhag to forgo “Hatishpot” whenever possible, such as when there is an option to read “Halo Kivnei Kushiyim.”

The Machatzit Hashekel further posits that there may have been an error in the printings of the Chumashim in the days of the Mordechai, such that the Mordechai actually preferred that we read “Hatishpot” anyway, just that the Mordechai felt that that already was the Haftarah of Kedoshim. Any reading of the Mordechai as cited above does not support such a claim. Similarly, the Bach bats away any notion that a theorized but unproven mistake in the books of the Mordechai (or the Minhagim, the Mordechai’s source) should change the accepted custom to avoid reading “Hatishpot.” The Mingahim, in any case, is pretty clear:

ספר המנהגים (טירנא) הלכות שבת
ולעולם מפטירין [הפטרה] השייכת לשנייה, חוץ מאחרי וקדושים שמפטירין ב”הלא כבני כושיים” (עמוס ט, ז) השייך לראשונה, לאחרי מות, ולא ב”התשפוט” (יחזקאל כ, ב), ששייך ל”קדושים,” כדמפרש רש”י שם, לפי שמיירי בתועבות ירושלים – כן משמע במרדכי. לכן, כשהן חלוקות, מפטירין לאחרי מות “הלא כבני כושיים,” כן נראה לי עיקר כשהן חלוקות. וגם, אם חל ראש חודש אייר בשבת או ביום א’, אז בטילה הפטורה דאחרי מות, דהא מפטירין (ישעיה סו, א) “השמים כסאי” או (שמואל א’ כ, יח) “מחר חדש” לאחרי מות, נראה לי דמפטירין לקדושים רק “התשפוט,” דשייך לקדושים, כדפירשתי לעיל.

Interestingly, the Mishna Berura above said that if Acharei’s Haftarah is supplanted in a given year by the Haftarah for Rosh Chodesh or Erev Rosh Chodesh, the Haftarah for Kedoshim would then be “Halo Kivnei Kushiyim,” thus further strengthening the Minhag to protect Yerushalayim’s image. The Minhagim, however, says that in such a situation the Haftarah for Kedoshim would be “Hatishpot,” because that Haftarah is still the one most relevant for Parshat Kedoshim.

Probably based on an error in the reading or application of a Gemara, and despite the apparently legitimate objection of the Levush, this custom has gained near-universal acceptance. But perhaps that acceptance could not be fully explained until our day, when, inadvertently, we protect the image of once-downtrodden Yerushalayim just days or weeks before Yom Yerushalayim. How, indeed, could we have read the dirge of “Hatishpot” on the eve of this day celebrating Yerushalayim’s renewal? I guess we’ll never need to know.

Posted in Halacha, Parshat Hashavua | Leave a comment

ומי יודע אם לעת כזאת חסרת המלכות? Just Desertions – Pinchas and Overriding Faith

Learning Parshat Pinchas today with my Sixth Graders, a pair of insights by the students impressed me for their ingenuity and for their surprisingly adroit sensitivity to human nature and the human experience.

Parshat Pinchas relates the reward that Hashem gave Pinchas in exchange for the zealotry he displayed in killing the “intermarrying” (I told you, it’s 6th Grade) Jewish man and Moabite woman:

במדבר פרק כה
(יב) לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם: (יג) וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

Two presents. The first, Brit Shalom. Rashi explains this as …

רש”י במדבר פרק כה
כאדם המחזיק טובה וחנות למי שעושה עמו טובה; אף כאן, פירש לו הקב”ה שלומותיו:

… “a Thank-You Card,” as one of my students put it. Very nice. And the other gift? Brit Kehunat Olam. The Eternal Covenant of Priesthood. ECP. But as one of the students astutely noticed, he already had that gift! He was, after all, “Ben Elazar, Ben Aharon Hakohen.” A sock full of coal, perhaps?

Rashi doesn’t think so:

רש”י במדבר פרק כה
שאף על פי שכבר נתנה כהונה לזרעו של אהרן, לא נתנה אלא לאהרן, ולבניו שנמשחו עמו, ולתולדותיהם שיולידו אחר המשחתן – אבל פינחס, שנולד קודם לכן, ולא נמשח, לא בא לכלל כהונה עד כאן. וכן שנינו בזבחים (קא ב) לא נתכהן פינחס עד שהרגו לזמרי:

In other words, Pinchas had been left out on a technicality. The Priestly Inauguration earlier in the book included Aharon, Aharon’s living sons, and Aharon’s unborn descendants until the end of time – but not already born grandson Pinchas. For this reason, Pinchas could now be “inaugurated” newly, finally, as a Kohen.

Many of my students found this explanation wanting. Why create such a loophole to begin with? And if, for whatever reason, Pinchas was not worthy of being a Kohen to begin with, why change his status now? Why the sudden change of heart by Hashem?

One student had the insight that perhaps Hashem had left Pinchas out of the Kehuna all this time (forty years!) in order to test his enduring faith in the abiding equity of Hashem’s commands. (Maybe I have embellished this Sixth Grader’s verbiage. Maybe.) What seemed unfair for so long finally became understandable: Pinchas had been left out of the Kehuna for just this very moment! When Pinchas realized what the reticence had been all along, years of frustration at having missed out on the Kehuna for what was apparently such a silly loophole washed away. How often do we miss the coach bus sent to us by Hashem because we are so frustrated by having just missed the city bus? In our displeasure for particular, sometimes difficult rules, we miss the beauty of other ones all around us. We can be upset at the coming of so many days of Yom Tov and never really capture the beauty of our family sitting all around and enjoying each others’ company. How many of us, in Pinchas’s position, might have missed the chance to become a Kohen simply out of frustration for the fact that we were not one already?

Another student made a somewhat different point: Perhaps Pinchas had been left out of the Kehuna – abandoned, to a certain degree, by Hashem – in order to gauge Pinchas’s reaction to this “snub” over time. Remarkably, while Pinchas could have used that very abandonment to “snub” Hashem in return, he instead acted deliberately on Hashem’s behalf when given the opportunity, turning that very slight on its head: you may abandon me, Hashem, but I will never abandon You. When Pinchas displayed the genuineness and altruism of looking past his personal rejection in order to show that he would never in turn reject Hashem, he also earned himself a right to Kehuna itself; now it was a Kehuna of genuine love of Hashem – אהבה שאינה תלויה בדבר.

Both of these are very beautiful explanations. I think the more common explanation is one based on a famous Rambam at the end of Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel:

רמב”ם הלכות שמיטה ויובל פרק יג הלכה יג
ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם, אשר נדבה רוחו אותו … הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים, ויהיה ה’ חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים, ויזכה לו בעולם הזה דבר המספיק לו, כמו שזכה לכהנים ללוים

Based on this Rambam, we could say that Pinchas may never have had the first Aliyah (Avraham did, I suppose – err, sorry) or received Terumah, but he was a Kohen in the deeper, more meaningful sense of the term: he was a member of the President’s Club; he had a backstage VIP pass to shake hands with Mick Jagger. Only it was Mick Jagger who would never wash his hands again, even if no Levi would ever wash Pinchas’s.

But anyway, I’ll take either of my students’ explanations over the more common one. As they say, מתלמידי יותר מכולם – from my students I have learned the most (or, perhaps, from my students I have learned more than any of them learned) (Avot).

Posted in Classroom Experiences, Parshat Hashavua | Leave a comment

Roundup of Seder Insights 2012

With tremendous thanks to all who honored us with your presence, I wanted to share with the general public some of what was developed at our Pesach table this year.

1) The Surprising Emergence of Yosef at the Pesach Seder

Although Pesach may not seem to be a holiday with much connection to Yosef, this may not be the case. The following two ideas illustrate this point.

a) The Future as Past Experience

ספר בראשית פרק מ
(ט) וַיְסַפֵּר שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים אֶת חֲלֹמוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בַּחֲלוֹמִי וְהִנֵּה גֶפֶן לְפָנָי: (י) וּבַגֶּפֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִם וְהִוא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים: (יא) וְכוֹס פַּרְעֹה בְּיָדִי וָאֶקַּח אֶת הָעֲנָבִים וָאֶשְׂחַט אֹתָם אֶל כּוֹס פַּרְעֹה וָאֶתֵּן אֶת הַכּוֹס עַל כַּף פַּרְעֹה: (יב) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יוֹסֵף זֶה פִּתְרֹנוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַשָּׂרִגִים שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים הֵם: (יג) בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת רֹאשֶׁךָ וַהֲשִׁיבְךָ עַל כַּנֶּךָ וְנָתַתָּ כוֹס פַּרְעֹה בְּיָדוֹ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָיִיתָ מַשְׁקֵהוּ:

Here we have an imprisoned wine-steward telling his dream to a lowly cellmate, Yosef, who proceeds to interpret it as a positive message about the steward’s coming reinstatement. The Talmud Yerushalmi picks up on the repeated use of the term “כוס,” cup, as an allusion to the four cups of wine that we drink the on Seder nights:

תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת פסחים פרק י הלכה א
מניין לארבעה כוסות
?
… רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר – כנגד ארבעה כוסות של פרעה (ברשאית פרק מ): “וכוס פרעה בידי, ואשחט אותם אל כוס פרעה, ואתן את הכוס על כף פרעה,” “ונתת כוס פרעה בידו.”

Among many other interpretations (including the more famous והוצאתי והצלתי וגאלתי ולקחתי argument), the Yerushalami uses the four cups of Pharaoh as an implicit harbinger of our own four Seder cups. This connection is not coincidental, for it is the very four cups which represent slavery, persecution, and pain which are hijacked and used as representative of freedom and joy. Prisoner Yosef, interpreting the dream of another prisoner as it relates to Pharaoh, sees our own four cups of joy hidden within four cups of misery.

The Midrash makes this point even more starkly:

ספר בראשית פרק מ
(ט) וַיְסַפֵּר שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים אֶת חֲלֹמוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בַּחֲלוֹמִי וְהִנֵּה גֶפֶן לְפָנָי: (י) וּבַגֶּפֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִם וְהִוא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים: (יא) וְכוֹס פַּרְעֹה בְּיָדִי וָאֶקַּח אֶת הָעֲנָבִים וָאֶשְׂחַט אֹתָם אֶל כּוֹס פַּרְעֹה וָאֶתֵּן אֶת הַכּוֹס עַל כַּף פַּרְעֹה:

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשה פח, ה
וַיְסַפֵּר שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִיםוְהִנֵּה גֶפֶן לְפָנָי” – אלו ישראל, שנאמר (תהלים פרק פ), “גפן ממצרים תסיע.”
וּבַגֶּפֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִם” – משה אהרן ומרים.
הִוא כְפֹרַחַת” – הפריחה גאולתן של ישראל.
עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ” – הֵנִצָה גאולתן של ישראל.
הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים” – גפן שהפריחה, מיד הֵנִצָה; ענבים שֶׁהֵנִצוּ, מיד בִּשְׁלוּ.
וְכוֹס פַּרְעֹה בְּיָדִי” – מכאן קבעו חכמים ד’ כוסות של לילי פסח.

The Midrash takes every element of a dream describing the interaction between Pharaoh and the wine-steward as an implicit indication of the eventual salvation of the Jews. Here in a tiny prison cell with the Jews’ enslavement yet to begin, we see their salvation already hatched. הקדים רפואה למכה, perhaps, or maybe something bigger.

Perhaps the Seder night is not about slavery or freedom – perhaps it is about the inexorable freedom within slavery; about recognizing and appreciating the extent to which one is already free even while he is as yet enslaved. Think back to being a child and waiting for your mother to pick you up from soccer practice. The time is 3:55 pm. If your mother was the type to pick you up at 4:00 religiously, you feel “redeemed” even before she arrives. If she is the type to be late, sometimes very late, your lack of confidence in her prevents you from feeling “free” until she actually arrives. If you are a latchkey kid who has never seen your parents, you might feel free already, but as a result more of not actually having been redeemed than of actually having been so.

The same three possibilities exist as well in relation to the Jews’ redemption from Mitzrayim. Sitting in a secluded prison cell, Yosef already felt redeemed; he so acutely felt the gentle tug of Hashem on his arm that he could already describe visually what it would be like to be redeemed. He so believed in the reliability of his parent to “pick him up” on time that he could already picture the Jews on the road to redemption.

Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone spoke in my Shul last night and made a similar point in a different way. When, Rabbi Lightstone asked, did the first Pesach Seder take place? We tend to forget this, but it was the night before the Jews left Mitzrayim. So what exactly were the Jews celebrating? They were not discussing the past, as we do, or even the present, or even exactly the future. They were discussing the future as past. They so believed that they would be freed the next day that they could literally sit with their families and close friends and discuss the redemption as if it had already happened! Like the little boy who feels as if he is already in his mother’s car even as he waits for her by the curb, like Yosef in his prison cell describing a redemption still hundreds of years off in the future, these Jews on the eve of freedom were so strong in their faith that they felt the redemption as clearly as if it had already happened.

The challenge that the Seder offers us that חייב אדם ל(ה)ראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים is not really as difficult as it sounds when our situation is compared to that of Yosef in his cell or the Jews on the dawn of redemption. Our challenge, perhaps, is not to picture ourselves leaving, but to picture ourselves being so confident in the guarantee of Hashem’s redemption that we, like the Jews the night before their own redemption, can experience freedom while still wallowing in exile.

And in fact, this would be perhaps a more instructive and useful spiritual challenge as posed to us by the Haggadah. As we find ourselves, each in our own way, ensconced in physical, psychological, or spiritual acrimony, waiting each of us for our proverbial Mother to drive up and collect us, we have the choice to imagine that Parent as distant and unlikely to ever redeem us; as likely to redeem us but not for a long while; or as so likely to pick us up at the right time that we feel the closeness to our Parent before that redemption has even taken place. Our ultimate celebration is the penultimate one, the celebration of faith and tangible confidence in a redemption still to come.

Incidentally, the extent to which the wine represents freedom as felt within slavery can be seen in the interesting Halacha that the wine at the Seder should preferably be red. Although the verse in Mishlei/Proverbs used as a support for this ruling – אל תרא יין כי יתאדם; do not glance at wine as it reddens – could presumably be used to prove that Shabbat or Purim wine should be red, we never find the Gemara or Midrash make that point. The Seder wine is different, we are taught, because it also represents the blood that we shed in Egypt. That’s strange – the wine is generally assumed to be a symbol of freedom, not slavery! We pour wine for each other as a show of royal camaraderie; we lift the glasses in song throughout Maggid! Who toasts blood? What demented kings pour blood for each other? Yet that is exactly the point. As the cup of Pharaoh becomes the cup of redemption, we feel and experience the joy of freedom despite our seeing nothing but blood. It is interesting that wine is the only constant of the Seder – we lead off the Seder with wine, and we close it off with wine. Marror makes its appearance, even Sipur Yitziat Mitzrayim comes and goes, but wine is always there. Because wine does not represent either slavery or freedom, but the feeling of freedom that one experiences when he is enslaved but believes truly and deeply that the end will come. That is why the wine is always there – we lift it when we say “Baruch Hamakom” at the beginning of Maggid, and it is still raised much later during Hallel. (The debate about Rav Nachman’s opinion concerning leaning while drinking wine in Gemara Pesachim 102a, if understood properly, brings this point to life as well.)

b) Yosef, Lost and Found
Rabbi Marc Gitler
spoke to my students last week and made another interesting Yosef-Seder connection. Perhaps Karpas, he posited, is actually an acronym for כתונת רבוי פסים, a coat of many colors. (Anyone wondering why we don’t simply form the acronym from the first letter of each of those three words has obviously never been a teenage boy. But I digress …) The Karpas is dipped in saltwater, although it should probably really be dipped into something redder, more blood-like – see Mishna Pesachim 10:2 carefully. Anyway, the Karpas is Yosef’s coat. Then a Matzah is broken in half, as Yaakov’s family is torn apart; and the larger half (i.e., Yosef) is hidden away by a group of conniving, unruly children – representing Yosef’s brothers who sold Yosef down the river. “Yosef” remains in exile for most of the Seder, until, when it finally seems like all hope is lost, those very children (Yosef’s brothers) find Yosef Tzafun, hidden, in exile (Tzafun = Tzafnat Paneach, Yosef’s Egyptian name) and restore him to his rightful place at the Seder as we all open the door and shout “Shefoch Chamatcha …”

The message in this early-medieval (intentional?) misunderstanding of the Gemara’s dictum that we חוטפין את המצות (read: Mitzvot) in order that the children not fall asleep may be understood in several ways. On the one hand, it is a message that a redemption for us will yet come, even if, as it may have for Yosef, that redemption seems too long delayed to still hope. Second, that it is the children who will bring about the redemption – or perhaps that it is the very people who caused the destruction who will “right the ship” and bring about its end. And then there is the message about our relationship with Galut, exile – that Galut is a temporary condition meant to be tolerated but not celebrated.

2) Why Don’t You “Tzei” Just a Little Big Longer?

משנה: … מתחיל בגנות, ומסיים בשבח, ודורש (דברים כו) מ”ארמי אובד אבי” עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה.
גמרא: … “מתחיל בגנות, ומסיים בשבח.” מאי “בגנות?” רב אמר: “מתחלה עובדי עבודת גלולים היו אבותינו.” ושמואל אמר: “עבדים היינו.”

The Haggadah’s use of the phrase “Tzei U’lemad” before leading us to embark upon our mandate to fulfill Shmuel’s requirement as described above is rather interesting. Why the use of the word “Tzei,” go out? Why do I need to go somewhere before I can learn about Lavan and eventually Pharaoh? And where is it that I should go? (Of course the phrase cannot be taken literally, because it was forbidden for one to leave his Pesach Chabura anyway.)

Upon reflection, we might realize that it is always after either a physical יציאה, a mental one, or both that one finds success. Avraham is perhaps the prime example of needing to leave both his physical environs as well as his familial attachments in order to commune with Hashem (see Rashi to the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha). Yaakov could not “find himself” until he moved, and even Yosef would never have been able to define for us what a life in Galut should be without having had his own “Tzei” forced upon him by his brothers. Maybe it is the choice itself to leave, or maybe it is the ability to make any hard and fast decision, which often causes one to only be able to “Lemad” in a “Tzei” environment. Exiting his cave, Rabbi Akiva finds that remaining cloistered in one’s one daled amot and unaware of what is going on in the world around him causes stagnation of learning. Rava’s declaration of או חברותא או מיתותא – give me dependence or give me death (Taanit 23a) – is a call to consider something larger than oneself in learning, a reminder that only shared experience can elicit Truth. In contrast, Nathan Hale’s own battle cry is symptomatic of what is wrong with the Lone Ranger society that he helped to create.

Reading a brief biography of the recently departed Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, I noticed that he, too, experienced a “Tzei” moment before he emerged as the giant of Torah learning that he would become:

With the encouragement of his father-in-law, Scheinberg and his new wife spent their first five years of marriage in the town of Mir, Belarus (then Poland). They lived next-door to the yeshiva, where Scheinberg immersed himself in learning while his wife coped with the impoverished lifestyle. There was no running water, the only source of heat was an oven in the center of their apartment, and the unpaved streets were always muddy. Bessie, however, encouraged her husband to grow in learning, and he developed a reputation as one of the yeshiva’s most diligent students.

Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, as well, while no doubt heavily influenced by the robust Modern Orthodox education he received through high school, would not fully emerge into the Torah giant that he became without “Tzeing” to his cousin’s Mir Yeshiva in  Israel:

Nosson Tzvi grew up as a “typical American Jewish boy” known as Natty who enjoyed playing baseball. He took his secondary education at the co-ed, Modern Orthodox Ida Crown Jewish Academy, where he was a starting centerfielder for the baseball team and president of the student council. During a visit to Israel at the age of 15, his cousin, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Finkel (“Reb Leizer Yudel”), the Mir rosh yeshiva, recognized his ability to think clearly and have patience for studying, and invited him to stay in Jerusalem to pursue advanced Talmudic studies at the Mir. But Nosson Tzvi’s mother wanted him to return to Chicago to finish high school. At the age of 18, Finkel returned to Jerusalem to learn at the Mir and Reb Leizer Yudel provided him with top-notch chavrutas (study partners) to develop his skills. He learned diligently for the next six years. With one of his chavrutas, Rabbi Zundel Kroizer, he completed the entire Talmud each year.

It seems anecdotally that similar paragraphs can be found in the biography of almost any Torah leader. In order to “Lamad,” it seems, one must first “Tzei.” I heard recently that Google requires all of its employees to devote a few hours each week, on company time, to developing their own projects, a concept which has yielded GMail and other important innovations. By “Tzeing” from their normal routine, by straying from their usual constraints, they are able to produce something they otherwise would not have been able to create. That’s the power of Tzei.

3) Inspiration at Sunset

יכול מראש חודש; תלמוד לומר, “ביום ההוא.” אי “ביום ההוא,” יכול מבעוד יום. תלמוד לומר, “בעבור זה.” “בעבור זה” לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.

Perhaps [one might have thought that the obligation to discuss the Exodus from Egypt can be fulfilled anytime] from Rosh Chodesh Nissan, [when Pesach preparations typically begin, and would continue until the 15th of Nissan] – that’s why it says [in the Torah that the Exodus should be discussed] “on that day.” If [the obligation exists] on that day, perhaps [one might have thought that the obligation applies] in the afternoon [of the 14th of Nissan, when the Korban Pesach was slaughtered]. That’s why it also says “because of this” – “because of this” only applies when Matzah and Marror are actually placed before you [and eaten together with the Korban Pesach, on the night of the 15th].

As someone at my Pesach table observed, the Haggadah makes an excellent point that the Torah obligation to discuss the Exodus seems to be one that applies during the day – the verse quoted here (“והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר …”) does in fact seem to indicate that, like virtually every other Mitzvah in the Torah, this one as well applies singularly during the day. Against that backdrop, why does the Haggadah go so far out of its way to ensure that one not think that the obligation existed at the time that the Korban Pesach was slaughtered, on the afternoon of the 14th, but rather when it is eaten, on the night of the 15th? What would be so wrong with discussing the Exodus on the afternoon of the 14th, as the Korban Pesach is being slaughtered, that the Haggadah needs to make so clear that that would be an inappropriate way to fulfill the Mitzvah?

Perhaps closer reflection upon a typical Erev Yom Tov in any Jewish home gives us two clues. At the time that Yom Tov preparations are actively underway, everyone is independently completing their assigned tasks en route to taking in the holiday on time. As the Gemara describes, Erev Pesach in Temple-era Yerushalayim was no different – the frantic and frenetic pace of pre-Pesach preparations created a feverish frenzy perhaps most closely seen on Erev Shabbat in Meah Shearim today. Two elements lacking from this scene would be needed to create an element conducive to passing on lessons to perpetuity: serenity and community. In fact, nothing on Erev Yom Tov is really “placed before” (מונחים לפני) anybody – everybody is shuffling around their items as needed before the final siren rings. It is very important to the Haggadah that this critical Mitzvah of furthering a perpetual legacy be performed only at a time of serenity and one at which a sense of community overtakes the Jewish People.

4) The $10,000 Answer
Many people are bothered by the apparent non-answer to the children’s “Mah Nishtanah” questions, with the father simply moving on to “Avadim Hayinu” as if he had not just been asked direct questions by his children. I would like to offer an approach to this problem which will redefine the nature of the children’s questions and make the father’s answer more tolerable.

The word “Mah” (as in “Mah” Nishtanah) can be translated in many ways, among them “is it really?” or a sarcastic “how?!” Mah Nishtanah can be translated “How different is tonight, really, from all other nights?” The child’s questions proceed to accentuate the problem that, in essence, nothing is really all that different. We always eat either Chometz or Matzah, and tonight we eat one of those, Matzah. We always eat some sort of vegetable – Marror (especially Romaine Lettuce, the choice apparently preferred by the Gemara) is just another and not entirely uncommon form of vegetable. We always dip once, tonight we dip twice – big deal. We always eat either sitting straight or leaning – tonight we lean; is that really so significant, Dad? Is this why we’ve gathered here tonight? Are these seemingly petty, superficial, detail-oriented differences the explanation as to why we’ve prepared the house for a month and dropped everything to come here and sit around this table together? So we could eat a different type of vegetable? So we could lean? So we could dip twice, instead of once? Are these really the “Nishtanah,” the differences that I’m supposed to notice? I mean, missing school is always nice, Dad, but seriously, is this what this holiday is all about?!

To which the father supplies the most important “Nishtanah” of all, and the one the child could only be expected to have missed because it is the least immediately accessible to the naked eye. It is also the diagnosis for which all of the “Nishatanah’s” that the child noticed were merely symptoms. The final “Nishtanah?” עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים, ויוציאנו ה’ אלוקנו משם – We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but Hashem made us slaves to Him. We were once slaves to a person, but on this night we were redeemed in order to became slaves only to Hashem. And that, my child, is the ultimate “Nishtanah,” the real difference that we celebrate on this night, and the one that in turn gives rise to all of the more superficial differences you have already noted.

Pedagogically, the father is in the right place, because rather than lecture his children about the differences of the night or about Yitziat Mitzrayim in general, he invites his child to build a paradigm for himself via the experience of self-discovery. Once they have done this, the father essentially confirms the child’s findings, before organizing them around a central theme which the child could not have created on his own. Also notice that the children’s own experiential learning has included several modalities and senses – doing, tasting, seeing, hearing, speaking, and eventually classifying. See John Dewey, Experience and Education, esp. p. 35, but the whole book really.

5) The Challenge of שעבוד in a World of Comfort
Many people are confused by the Haggadah’s claim that אלו לא הוציא הקדוש ברוך הוא את אבותינו ממצרים, הרי אנו ובנינו ובני בנינו משועבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים – if Hashem had not taken us out of Egypt, then we, our children, and our grandchildren would continue to be Meshubad to Pharaoh in Egypt. These people find it hard to believe that we would not have escaped somehow. While that fact may be true, it is entirely beside the point.

Rather than translate משועבדים as enslaved (which would really be עבדים, the first word in the same paragraph), the word may perhaps better be translated indebted. Had we spent any more time in Egypt, says the Ba’al HaHaggadah, we would pledge our allegiance only to Pharaoh, identifying ourselves as Egyptian Jews, and then, increasingly, merely as Egyptian.

The boatloads of Italian and Chinese immigrants who came to America’s shores a century ago would be appalled how few of their descendants are even aware of their ancestors’ homelands, much less actually identify as Italian or Chinese. For all intents and purposes, these descendants, in less than half the 247-year time-span that the Jews spent in Egypt, have become משועבד to America. And perhaps we should not be surprised, either, that the 80% of the Jews who in fact did identify first and last as Egyptian and who were not redeemed from Egypt would be mirrored in America today by the 80% intermarriage rate and appalling rates of assimilation. In all likelihood, 4/5ths of the Jews who came to America’s shores in the early 20th Century have descendants who today are unaware that they are Jewish and are משועבד only to America.

The tragedy of שעבוד is perhaps greater even than the pain of עבדות. The latter is a unifying force which promotes, at least in some, a sense of reliance, fortitude, and disgust at once’s oppressors. שעבוד, on the other hand, engenders feelings of admiration and respect for one’s foreign surroundings, along with the most dangerous and pernicious sense that those surroundings are really not that foreign at all.

When we mention at the Seder that אנו ובנינו ובני בנינו משועבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים, we are putting forth the very startling fact that without Hashem’s intervention, there could have been Egyptians walking around today who would call themselves merely Egyptian but whose ancient ancestors were our very Avot – because these Egyptians would have been us. The mention of בנינו and בני בנינו is meant to evoke the endless generational links that would have been lost, the great history and culture of Torah and Torah study which would not have even been missed had we become משועבד to Pharaoh and to Egypt. This is a tragedy which, looking at fifth-generation Chinese Americans, is highly realistic and saddening.

As to the fifth-generation American Jews, the writing was on the wall before the game had ever really begun. To really understand this situation and its origins, you must study Chapter 1 (“The Orthodox Immigrant Community”) in Rabbi Dr. Aaron (Rakkefet) Rothkoff’s amazing biography of YU’s founder, “Bernard Revel: Builder of American Jewish Orthodoxy.” The chapter closes (p. 26) with this chilling – but telling – anecdote:

A recently married Russian Jew of New York’s East Side, when asked whether he still observed the dietary laws, said:
“In a way, yes. We don’t make much of the details like keeping the butter and meat dishes apart, but we do eat kosher food. If we didn’t, the old folks would not come to visit us. We shall keep it up as long as they live.”

6) Serial Killer of One
Someone at my second Seder made an interesting observation about the comparison between Lavan and Pharaoh made in the Tzei U’lemad paragraph. On the surface, it seems ironic that we begin the main portion of Maggid by saying that, in essence, Pharaoh wasn’t really that bad after all. Furthermore, the proof-text for Lavan’s evilness is rather weak in its attempt to assert that Lavan somehow בקש לעקור את הכל, attempted to uproot everything.

The individual at my Seder pointed out that the sum total of “everything” which Lavan “attempted to destroy” consisted of only one thing: Yaakov, the only Jew alive at the time. In essence, then, Lavan and Pharaoh have a lot in common. Pharaoh wanted to destroy all of the male Jews – so did Lavan. In trying to subdue Yaakov religiously, if not physically, all of Hashem’s plans for an impactful Jewish People would have been lost without anyone ever really noticing.

Notice that the Haggadah never actually says that Lavan was worse than Pharaoh in an absolute sense, because if either had accomplished his goal the same end would have come about and the Jewish Nation would have been lost. The Haggadah does say, however, that Lavan attempted to uproot everything, in the sense that his actions would have bore a greater responsibility with so much potentially being lost by his swaying Yaakov from a path of spiritual cognizance. Lavan thus stands as a figure who represents the chilling power of one – of how actions seemingly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things may in fact spell the harbinger of doom.

Posted in Holidays, Pesach | 1 Comment

Tim Tebow and the Convenience of Religious Evangelism

I penned this strange bit of satirical verse a couple of months ago, in the throes of Tebowmania, but I held off on posting it at that time. With the imminent trade of Tebow and the decreasing relevance of the sentiments expressed here (both to me personally and perhaps to the NFL universe more generally), it seems that if I don’t post this now it may never see the light of day. And so, I give you, “Tim Tebow and the Convenience of Religious Evangelism.”

It seems that everyone I know
Is gooey for this man, Tebow,
His grand heroics, piety,
Of “Sacked again!” variety.
(A pillar of society
Engenders such anxiety?!)

But me, a merely “casual fan,”
– I really don’t adore the man.
I’d rather see his Sundays spent,
In Church, at Mass, observing Lent.

But Koufax we cannot all be,*
For faith’s got nuthin’ on TV.
And anyway, our Sunday friend,
Has only but one choice. Pretend –

That basketball was his career,
And down he went at every cheer –
A Tebow done at every point,
Would quickly empty out the joint.

If baseball, he would have to face
The choice to Tebow off first base.
He might get tagged, but surely so
If bowing first, then off to go.

And Hockey? That’s just dangerous,
He’d fall right through the ice and miss
The chance to bail his team out late,
And watch his teammates celebrate.

So even if the Church’s laws
Might give this man of faith some pause,
He has no choice but grin and heave,
For penitence? Why, just Believe!

* With a name like Eli Herring, your problem should involve playing ball on Saturday, not Sunday.

Posted in Communal Matters | Leave a comment

Drinking on Purim – Sources – UPDATED WITH HIGHLIGHTS AND EXPLANATIONS

I gave a Shiur this past Shabbat on the Halachic background related to Drinking on Purim. Although, of course, there is no Audio for this Shiur, I am attaching the Source Sheets in case anyone would like to study or otherwise make use of them. If I ever give the Shiur on a weekday, I’ll post the audio. Enjoy, and Purim Sameiach!

Drinking on Purim – Halachic Discussion (Source Sheets)

February 2013: I see that this post is drawing some attention, so with Purim approaching I will add a few points based on the source sheet for those who would like some help.

1) Notice the boxed words in Source 1. They correspond to the very interesting Meshaneh Halachot in Source 19, which is worth noticing. Rav Menashe Klein in Meshaneh Halachot brings up a fascinating textual problem related to the names in Source 1 which has repercussions for how we can relate to the Mitzvah of drinking on Purim. Our standard Gemara has רבא stating that there is a Mitzvah to get very drunk on Purim, then רבה killing רבי זירא. If this Girsa is correct, says Rav Klein, the Halacha would follow רבא who came later than רבה, knew the story, and said what he said anyway. The story would then be a cautionary tale but not a disagreement with the same Halacha he had already said. However, Rav Klein points out another Girsa in the Gemara, one shared by the Ba’al HaMaor (see Source 14), the Maharil (see Source 16), and the Mordechai, that רבה stated the Halacha before himself becoming the central character in the story of killing רבי זירא. In that case, says Rav Klein, the story would constitute a retraction from what רבה had previously said because of his own experience with רבי זירא. Rav Klein is of the creative opinion that those Rishonim (and the Mechaber) who are serious about drinking on Purim and view the story as merely a cautionary tale must have had our Gemara’s Girsa, in which רבא, who came later, nonetheless made his Halachic statement; while those Rishonim (and the Rama) who assume there is no such mandate at all must have had the Girsa that רבה, who mandated drinking heavily in the first place, was also the one who killed רבי זירא and would certainly have retracted his position subsequent to that experience. The difference comes down to whether there is an implied “BUT STILL …” between the Halacha and the story, or whether there is an implied “BUT THEN …”

2) I also like the conversation that takes place between the Rambam (Source 17) and the Aruch HaShulchan (Source 18). The Rambam, after asking awkwardly how the obligation of this meal functions (כיצד חובת סעודה זו), says that one must drink so much that he falls asleep in his drunkenness. (It is interesting that the Rambam connects the meal and the drinking in this way – we may have thought they were separate Mitzvot.) It is unclear whether the Rambam’s explanation represents a fulfillment of the Gemara’s prescription that one drink עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן וברוך מרדכי, or whether the Rambam intends to cancel that prescription. The Aruch HaShulchan assumes the Rambam could not be explaining the Gemara, because רבא could have employed such a formulation if he had wanted to. Rather, says the Aruch HaShulchan, the Rambam must be assuming, like many other Rishonim, that the Gemara’s obligation never made it to first base, because of the story with רבי זירא. The Aruch HaShulchan is further surprised that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch take the Gemara more seriously than does the Rambam.

3) When closely examined, the famous Rama in Source 23 is extremely difficult to understand. First he says that one should ישתה יותר מלימודו, a statement generally attributed to the Kol Bo before him, but a close look at the Kol Bo (Source 24) shows something very different. The Kol Bo actually gives a very specific reason for this statement: כדי שירבה לשמוח ולשמח האביונים, וינחם אותם, וידבר על לבם – וזו היא השמחה השלמה. The Rama seemed to forget about these important details, because the Rama’s next step is not to cheer up poor people but rather to ישן, sleep, in order to not know the difference between ברוך מרדכי and ארור המן, a comical misreading of the Rambam (Source 17) that sleep is somehow a fulfillment of רבא’s Halacha (which the Rambam never says) rather than a sufficient measure of drunkenness to indicate that one has completed his Mitzvah. So the Rama, אשר מפיו אנו חיים, appears to have strung together an out-of-context Kol Bo and a misreading of a Rambam to form a convoluted Halachic norm for the ages.

There is more in the sources, but those are some highlights. ואידך, זיל גמור.

Posted in Halacha, Holidays, Purim | 2 Comments