הדרך הטוב והישר הוא, שירגיל האדם את עצמו ללכת בדרך אמצעי

“The way that is good and right, that man should accustom himself to follow, is on the middle of the road”

-Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Ch. 29:2

This morning we had an interesting discussion in the twitterverse. My JewCrew and I had been discussing many theological issues since last night, including whether Halacha (Jewish Law) evolves or not. One of my tweeps brought up a valid point about whether certain acts became assur (forbidden) or if they led to a recommendation to not do something. Not technically wrong, but advised to abstain.

The example that was given was connected to marital relations. Sex isn’t supposed to happen in the daylight and is supposed to be performed in a certain way. I am not going to get into details here. These things are not forbidden per se, but the rabbis strongly advise against it. From where was this extrapolated by some meforshim (commentators)? From the Book of Esther. Chapter 5 verse 2.

“The King extended to Esther the golden scepter he was holding. Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.”

Apparently, according to those meforshim, this is all a euphemism for a particular sexual act that Esther performed with such aplomb that King Achashverosh gave her half his kingdom. *

I sat in my chair shell shocked. This is Queen Esther we are talking about! The Queen who saved us, her people, from being destroyed by the evil Haman!! How can holy rabbis even think to paint her in this negative light? I am not mad at the JewCrew Tweeps. They were just doing what we all always do, passing on knowledge to foster understanding and more conversation. Yes, Queen Esther did what needed to be done in order to save us. I was quite happy sitting in my naïve little bubble thinking that we fasted, she made a feast, ratted Haman the Evil One out, and we were free. The End.

Now my reading of the megillah (scroll, in this case the Book of Esther) will be forever tainted with the idea that the innocent girl that married King Achashverosh in order to save the Jews  – was she a wanton hussy schooled in the erotic arts or was she a victim of the whole regime? It must be said that this is ONE of who knows how many explanations and could totally be misinterpreting the whole sentence. But I will never know, and that will now be in my head next Purim and every Purim after.

Why has this thrown me for a loop? It’s been on my mind all day. To me this seems almost sacrilegious. Perhaps it’s because I see myself as named after her in some way? The text calls her “Hadassah”. I guess Esther was her middle name and was used to identify her every subsequent time in the book. Not that I am so holy. I am not. But it’s almost like that moment when you realize your parent is a human being and not quite perfect. That pedestal didn’t seem quite so high after. It seems devastating to me to even think of Esther in a sexual context. Obviously our forefathers and foremothers were intimate with each other, otherwise we wouldn’t be here today. So why am I having such a hard time in dealing with this? Is it because I wonder if God forbid I was called upon to perform such an act to save my kids or my people – would I have the guts to follow through? Or is it because I now see her as perhaps more of a victim than she already was? So disturbed….

*this act was performed in broad daylight and sent the King into such a tizzy that he parted with half his kingdom, which is why we are warned against such behaviour. We don’t want to give away half of what we own for just a few minutes of blissful gratification.

     The sun shone brighter not long ago, and all earthlings had more pep in their step, with the news that a new rabbinical organization was launched – the International Rabbinic Fellowship. Ostensibly, it was formed in order to counter what they perceive as the too-dominant influence of Roshei Yeshiva in psak (Jewish legal decision-making) and communal life. In reality, it is an organization with a narrow agenda – to push the envelope of halacha so wide that it can accommodate the demands of feminists, homosexuals, and other assorted causes blowing in the cultural winds, and in a way that it senses that neither the Rabbinical Council of America nor the “right-wing” Yeshiva world will, properly, ever tolerate.

     Ordinarily, the founding of a new rabbinical organization would not be an occasion for comment, or even much general interest, as Jews are well known for organizations that are either redundant or promote – even just for vanity – the interests of one person. And since not all doctors belong to the AMA, not all lawyers belong to the ABA, and not all seasoned citizens belong to the AARP, why should all Orthodox Rabbis belong to any of the current five, six or seven existing rabbinical organizations ? If in the rest of Jewish communal life, the slightest difference in tinge, color or philosophy warrants a new organization (with overhead costs, officers, fund-raising, dinners, etc.), why should Rabbis be different ? Indeed, everyone knows (although few admit) that the quest for “unity” in Jewish life usually means “agree with ME or I will go my own way” (and everyone is a ME to himself). As such, the formation of any new organization is rather unsurprising.

     There is an interest, though, in highlighting the stated objectives of this new organization, if only out of a desire to propagate the Torah truth and safeguard the Mesora, as I see it. If several dozen Rabbis find fault with the ideological direction of the more than 1000 member RCA, not to mention the thousands of Orthodox Rabbis who are considered as part of the right-wing world, it is legitimate to inquire as to the nature of the disagreements, and whether they contain any substance.

     Clearly, they find the influence of the “Roshei Yeshiva” as stultifying – certainly those in the Yeshiva world but perhaps even most at Yeshiva University. They are perceived – probably justifiably – as resistant to the “changes” in Jewish life, first made by the Conservative movement in the last century but now embraced as a legitimate expression of “Torah” by proponents of this new organization. Actually, the rivalry between Roshei Yeshiva and shul (or town) Rabbis is not new, but was a staple of Jewish communal life in Eastern Europe. There, the balance of power favored the town Rabbis – and not the Roshei Yeshiva – as the town Rabbis were considered both scholars and pragmatists, and were more actively involved in people’s lives. Indeed, in Europe, it was considered more prestigious to be a town Rabbi than a Rosh Yeshiva.

     Today, the balance of power has shifted somewhat, and Roshei Yeshiva are, if not more respected (I have no complaints in that regard), then at least widely construed as more reliable and consistent interpreters of halacha. This is perhaps an over-generalization, and is shaped by three distinct phenomena: one, many people do not have a Rosh Yeshiva, and for them their Rabbi remains the exclusive address for Torah advice and guidance (that is a good part of my job); two, many students who spend years learning with a particular teacher develop a warm personal relationship with him, which is quite natural and understandable; three, Roshei Yeshiva generally train the pulpit Rabbis, and the burden of proof is on the Rabbi to justify why  he deviated from his teacher’s path.

     It is not my place to judge the relative Torah scholarship of Roshei Yeshiva vs. pulpit Rabbis, as there are many pulpit Rabbis (and Roshei Yeshiva) who are fine, outstanding Talmidei Chachamim. To be a pulpit Rabbi or a Rosh Yeshiva requires a different set of skills. Because pulpit Rabbis live in the grass roots, their decisions are often rooted in a greater awareness of communal concerns; conversely, Roshei Yeshiva can be in an “ivory tower,” unaware of how their decisions will affect a community beyond the individual who questioned them. Even to suggest that the world of Roshei Yeshiva is monolithic, or that their decisions are necessarily correct, would be misleading. And no one is infallible.

    But the pulpit Rabbi is also subject to pressures that the Rosh Yeshiva is not, and therefore Roshei Yeshiva today have become – fairly or not – perceived as more coherent defenders of the Mesora against the onslaught of modern cultures and its insatiable demands on halacha and minhag Yisrael. Undoubtedly, that underlies the discomfort (distaste ?) this new organization feels toward the authority of the “Roshei Yeshiva” who have not been forthcoming on issues of importance to them.

     Three examples suffice: the nascent movement among some liberal-Orthodox Rabbis to find a place for practicing homosexuals in Orthodox life, usually by embracing the politicized conclusions of academics that homosexuality is innate, and it is therefore wrong – even immoral – to term homosexuality an abomination or homosexuals sinners. I’ll address that another time, but the attempt to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, and even support the legalization of homosexual marriage, may be an expression of sensitivity and compassion on some level but is clearly driven by the popular culture. That itself erodes the respect that these Rabbis think should be theirs, and increases in inverse proportion the ire they feel towards the “Roshei Yeshiva.” That is to say, they lose credibility as representatives of Torah when they adopt such trendy views, and founding five or ten new organizations will not change that one iota. Simply put, the mass of Torah-faithful Klal Yisrael will not stand for it.

     Secondly, “liberal” Orthodox Rabbis call for relaxed standards for converts, and dissent from the standards promulgated several years ago by the RCA. They would rather revert to the practices of the recent past, where Rabbis were often compelled to look away from insincerity, or pretend that halachic commitment existed where it patently did not. See http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/30621 . But an individual Rabbi retains the autonomy to pronounce a particular restaurant kosher or not, based on standards that others can accept or reject; he does not have the right to dictate to the nation of Israel who will properly be termed a citizen. (I refer here not to the State of Israel but to the Jewish people. Membership in the Jewish people is not determined by the predilections of individual rabbis but by generally-accepted standards. Nor was the State of Israel endowed with the authority to declare “who is a Jew;” they can only decide “who is an Israeli.”)

     The third issue is that (now) century-old bugaboo of women’s rights and feminism. I have no doubt that the International Rabbinic Fellowship will find a way to admit women as members, and as Rabbis, and thereby in the short-term necessitate a change in their name (already!) to International Rabbinic Fellowship and Galship (IRFG).

     More seriously, I sense their inner turmoil. They would like to ordain women as rabbis, but fear the obvious repercussions. Similarly, they must chafe at the mechitza, women’s inadmissibility as witnesses, judges, or in a minyan, or the restrictions on women in public prayer, or the very notion that the Torah ideal is based on a division of roles and responsibilities between men and women (analogous to the division between kohanim, leviim and yisraelim). They recognize the “mechitza” as a political statement – a clear sign of Orthodoxy in a synagogue, as lack of a mechitza is a clear sign of non-Orthodoxy. So they are stuck – emotionally, intellectually, halachically and spiritually – and therefore bristle at organizations – RCA, Young Israel, Aguda – that do not give them cover or succor, and at people – “Roshei Yeshiva” – whose authority, popularity and credibility they resent, and crave for themselves. It must be hard to explain these encroachments on the altar of egalitarianism to their constituents who have learned to expect flexibility-on-demand in halacha.

      So they skirt the issues, and implausibly think they can introduce gimmicks for women (sheva brachot in English, serve as Rabbis without the title, etc.) that do not really satiate the demand for equality, and are themselves rationalized by cherry-picking halachic sources and ignoring the mesora. Women’s prayer groups and the Yoetzet movement (the latter, more understandable in Israel where the Rabbinate is largely dysfunctional) are just two examples of the straight line one can draw from the Reform ordination of women in the early 1970’s and the Conservative ordination in the 1980’s until today. What changed ? Why did Orthodoxy vehemently oppose those ordinations then, and a few support it today ? Were we sexist, male chauvinists then, and more enlightened today ? Did it take thirty years to find the sources to rationalize it ? Not at all. The secular world changed, and for those whose halachic foundations shift with every change in the secular world, their world had to change as well.

    In brief, one has to line up a number of halachic ducks in a row (permitting women to learn Torah she-be-al peh, sing in public, speak before male audiences, decide matters of Jewish law, et al – each one somewhat controversial, some more controversial than others) in order to entertain these changes. The outcome is predetermined, because the psak is not based on an honest appraisal of sources but on finding the supportive sources and ignoring the rest. And then one has to wantonly discount Minhag Yisrael.

    Some of my dearest colleagues who endorsed either (or both) women’s prayer groups or yoatzot (I didn’t) now find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Each move raised expectations, each move fostered the idea that we were revising the traditional role of women in Jewish life, or entirely abandoning it as both antiquated and repugnant – and so each move just encouraged the next one and the one after that.

     We can always play with halacha in an attempt to devise new roles. A husband is as capable of lighting Shabbat candles as his wife is, and usually less harried. How uplifting it would be if men went to the mikveh monthly, as well as women. Nothing wrong with that; some men go every day. We can also find a way to eat milk right after meat; we don’t, because that has no lobby. We also don’t, because that is not our tradition. The Torah – not liberal society – also determines our values, not just our practices.

     The real dividing line in Jewish life today is between those who are happy with the mesora and those unhappy with the mesora. Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of G-d’s kingship) demands that we accept the mesora even if we deem ourselves “more enlightened;” otherwise, we – like Nadav and Avihu before us – are worshipping ourselves, and not the Almighty. And isn’t that the ultimate reality of Western man today – self-worship ? If I am unhappy with the Mesora, it is because of something within me that needs rectification. I have to bend to the Torah’s will, and not bend the Torah to suit my will. Those who live with grievances against the Torah must recognize that on some level, as Moshe once said to his flock, “…your complaints are not against us, but against G-d” (Sh’mot 16:8).

     The feminist movement ravaged the American family, with skyrocketing rates of divorce that have only recently begun to level off, with a majority of children born out-of-wedlock, and with the continuing unreliability of the home as the transmitter of values. The Jewish world has suffered from this as well, and we should not look to repeat the mistakes from which American society is already retreating.

      Sometimes, the answer to a she’ela is “no” – like the answer a wise parent has to give to a child on occasion.  Any organization founded on the principle that a leniency can always be found to justify what we want to do (women, converts, homosexuals, Shabbat, you name it) will attract like-minded, tenuously-committed Jews but will soon be an anachronism, leaving only the questions: how much damage can it do to Jewish life ? How many well-meaning Jews will be misled into thinking that the Torah is a ball of wax that can be shaped any way they want in order to satisfy their needs ? How will pulpit Rabbis retain the respect of Torah Jews ? And how long before the Torah world rejects these notions, and this new organization merges with some form of Conservative Judaism that posited the same approach in the last century, with devastating results for Jewish life ?

     The reality is that men are the transmitters of the Mesora, and therefore entrusted with responsibilities of psak and leadership. Man’s nature is such that he will not regularly seek out a female teacher of any sort – and certainly not Torah – and those who doubt this should behold the steep decline in male attendance at female-led temples. Any attempt to tamper with the Mesora will not succeed, and the very framework of this new organization will be self-marginalizing. The “Roshei Yeshiva” will reject it, and so will most of the RCA, and the Yeshiva world, and the educated young people of today – men and women – and the religious world in Israel. It will be a curiosity, like Edah that came and went. And the second reality is that women are partners in transmitting the Mesora, but with a different role, different responsibilities, and, yes, different skill sets to help them fulfill their role. Their contributions are indispensable, their growth in Torah is a marvelous development – but neither should lead to a diminution or elimination of their traditional role on which the Jewish family depends, literally, for its survival.

     Should these individuals be purged from the RCA ? I am not enamored of purges, and the RCA can certainly accommodate a wide range of thinking, something natural to the study of Torah in any event. But anyone who thinks that a particular rabbinical organization no longer suits them should probably resign; I know I would. The saddest aspect is that many of the individuals involved – I am not familiar with all of them – are very talented teachers and leaders, with much to offer the Jewish people. Indeed, their greatest weakness might be a boundless love of every Jew that precludes them from inflicting on Jews the slightest pain – even the pain that comes from hearing the word “no.” With Jewish identity under attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/books/24jews.html?pagewanted=2&em) and the target of the most vulgar distortions and lies, we need all Jews and especially all Rabbis to strengthen the Torah and not to dilute it. We need clarity and consistency – from generation to generation. There needs to be the expectation that halacha will not change because of interest-group politics.

     In America, everyone has the right to found an organization that propounds any philosophy. And everyone has the right – sometimes the obligation – to challenge that organization, to defend what is pure and holy, to expose (where possible) hidden motivations, and to underscore the beauty of our mesora – the tree of life of Torah, for those who want to grasp it.

One of the tenets of Morethodoxy as I see it is finding as many and as wide a range of opportunities as possible within halacha for all Jews to engage in Judaism and connect to God.   In the case of women this means finding greater room for women’s leadership, women’s learning, women’s expression, and women’s teaching within Orthodoxy.  My collogue Rabbi Kanefsky has written that not finding enough room for women’s voices makes orthodoxy not only less palatable but less inspiring http://morethodoxy.org/2009/11/25/can-orthodoxy-get-better-market-share-part-2/ .

I would like to go a bit farther.  I think it’s important we have women’s voices expressed in Jewish leadership, Jewish teaching and in guiding the Jewish people because women have a unique voice. Over half of the human population is female.  Isn’t it possible that if we only hear the voice of men in Torah and in leadership that perhaps we are missing something very basic?  Perhaps the way that Devorah led the Jewish people was not the same as the way Moses led the Jewish People?  Maybe both voices are essential in order to have a complete whole.

If such an approach requires leniencies then those are the places that leniency is appropriate.  As my colleague Barry Gelman has written http://morethodoxy.org/2009/11/10/being-machmir-stringent-about-being-meikil-lenient-%E2%80%93-rabbi-barry-gelman/ and as I have written http://morethodoxy.org/2009/07/31/the-importance-of-leniency-and-the-leniencies-that-come-from-being-strict-by-rabbi-hyim-shafner/ leniency can be a very important halachic factor and indeed a stronger one than strictness.   Indeed, often stricture creates leniencies we have not intended.

Another reason that it is important we make room for women in Jewish leadership is that it is just not fair to say to 50% of the population, your talents cannot be used for holiness in every way.  In fact, we find this argument of “It is not fair” in the Torah itself.  “It is not fair” is a valid concern that was addressed by the highest levels of Jewish leadership.

When the Jewish people are told of the mitzvah of Passover some come to Moses and say “We are impure. Our relative has passed away and we have had to bury them, and so cannot bring the Passover offering.  It is not fair!  Why should we miss out?”  Moses doesn’t know what to do when “it is not fair” is in conflict with the law that God has given.   So Moses turns to God and God responds –Let’s find a way; let’s make a second Passover for them.

Later on in the Torah when the Torah tells us that sons inherit the land of their fathers the daughters of Tzelofchod come to Moses, and they say “it is not fair.”  Our father had no sons.  Why should we have less?  Why should the land of our father go to someone else?  Again Moses is not sure what to do when the claim of “it is not fair” is in conflict with God’s law.  Moses turns to God and God says, “The daughters of Tzelofchod have spoken well.” Let the daughters of Tzlofchod inherit him.

What an amazing Torah.  What religion of the ancient world held the concerns of the individual on such a high footing as to take seriously the claim, “it is not fair,” only the Torah which teaches that all humans are made in the image of God.

We are not Moses, but as the rabbis tell us the leaders of each generation must see themselves as Moses in his.  What do we do when the honor of Heaven is at stake?  If we will not get a direct answer from God as Moses did, it is our obligation to utilize halacha and sevarah to find it in the Torah.  Indeed, the Talmud asks why it is that minority opinions are preserved in the Mishna if the law is not in accordance with them.  The answer is that perhaps a court in the future will need that opinion to rely upon and it will be able to utilize it.

Let us take the approach not of closing the doors but opening them.  Let us use our minds to create greater honor of Heaven, not to make the life of Jews comfortable, not to fall into the trap that we are all so afraid of, of becoming a more liberal and permissive movement, but to tweak Judaism so that it can be more open to creating greater fear and love of Heaven.  Maybe the liberal movements such as Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism went wrong in our eyes, but maybe their mistake was not in making more room for people to serve God, maybe it was in losing the passion and commitment among their masses to Torah and Mitzvot.  Let us make room for people within learning, teaching and leading the torah world, let us make more room for the glory of God, but let’s do it without making the mistakes that others have made.

This week, Rabbi Moshe Nechemia Reichman resumes his Gemara Brachot class, with a new course beginning from Daf 13A of Gemara Brachot.

In this Torah shiur (class) on Gemara Brachot, Rabbi Moshe Nechemia Reichman begins learning daf 13A, with a discussion of the halacha which states that one who is reading from a Sefer Torah fulfills his obligation to recite Kriat Shma daily if he reads the Kriat Shma from the Torah.

Microphones for Shabbat?

I had no idea there was a debate regarding using these on Shabbat – amongst orthodox minds. So my question is… if the battery goes in one’s hearing aid on Shabbat? Can’t switch it on?

A close friend forwarded a link to me some time ago now on the topic. Interesting stuff. The halachic debate on electricity is peppered with politics (apparently a desire to make a clear separation between traditional Judaism and Conservative leading to probably a more chumra-dic, insular, uncompromising, blanket, sledgehammer approach to the topic), a lack of proper understanding of the then burgeoning technologies on the part of major halachic decisors, and much more. The extraneous noise surrounding the topic has made it harder to get to the bottom of things. A smokescreen of “NO!” shuts up the average honest questioner.

Jerusalem Post recently reported that certain poskim in a specific area (where there are apparently no multi-storey buildings) have now banned Shabbat elevators, after years and years of them being acceptable. However the move might be supported, it certainly makes life harder for a lot of people, especially our precious elderly, and will prevent visits to the sick or injured. Electricity is always relevant, and each Jew would do well to learn more about it.

Ask the Rabbi: Speak up!

Nov. 5, 2009
SHLOMO BRODY , THE JERUSALEM POST
The propriety of using microphones during synagogue Shabbat services generated major disputes within and between the Orthodox and Conservative movements. While this debate has partially abated, its larger implications, both for hearing aids and the halachic process as a whole, remain poignantly relevant.

A microphone operates by converting sound waves into electric signals. In earlier generations, some decisors raised concerns that microphones heat metal and cause sparks, thereby violating the prohibition of lighting a fire (Minhat Yitzhak 3:38). These concerns, which at times were based on misinformation, might have applied to old amplifiers like the radio tube, but have no bearing on contemporary systems. Further concerns might apply to lights created on panel displays that indicate volume and create an entertaining sound-and-light effect. While rabbinic restrictions might forbid illuminating LCD or LED displays, one can easily purchase microphones that do not have such panels. As such, the use of microphones relates directly to the permissibility of creating or increasing electric currents on Shabbat.

Categorizing electricity in legal terms was one of the 20th century’s great halachic quandaries. On the one hand, electric power, which revolutionized modern culture, clearly facilitates creative activity. Nonetheless, it remains difficult to define this action under any of the usual activities categorically prohibited on the Sabbath (melachot).

One prominent scholar, Rabbi Yitzhak Shmelkes (Beit Yitzhak 2:31, addendum) contended that creating an electric current violates the talmudic prohibition of producing new entities (molid), such as creating a new fragrant scent in one’s clothing (Beitza 23a).

Rabbi Abraham I. Karelitz alternatively asserted that the completion of a live circuit violates Shabbat proscription of building (boneh), since it transforms something completely useless into a functioning wire, much like completing a wall (Hazon Ish OC 50:9). Others suggested a third potential prohibition of makeh bepatish (lit. “the final blow of the hammer”), the biblical proscription of completing any item in a way that now renders it beneficial (Heichal Yitzhak OC 43).

The consensus of rabbinic opinion, however, deems these theories as legitimate yet not entirely compelling (Encyclopedia Talmudit XVIII). While many poked holes in these theories, the most strident critic was the eminent decisor Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (b. 1910), who constantly researched and published on this topic from 1935 until his 1995 passing. In addition to a number of more specific points, Rabbi Auerbach generally claimed that none of the aforementioned prohibitions apply to activities, like opening circuits, which are regularly done and undone throughout the day (Minhat Shlomo 1:11). Nonetheless, he himself adopted the rabbinic consensus that opening or closing electric circuits, even without the involvement of light, remains prohibited, for one reason or another.

This entire discussion, however, would seemingly only apply to turning on or off a microphone. Using a microphone left on before Shabbat, or initiated by a timer, would only increase or decrease the existing current. While Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC 4:84) believed that increasing current remains prohibited, the preponderance of scholars agreed that merely changing the current violates no Sabbath restrictions (Minhat Shlomo 1:9). Possibly based on this understanding, several mid-20th-century American synagogues, Orthodox and Conservative alike, used microphones on Shabbat.

Most Orthodox decisors, however, believe that microphones violate other Sabbath restrictions, unrelated to electricity per se. The major concern stems from a rabbinic decree forbidding that activities that cause excessive noise (hashma’at kol), even if the action was initiated before Shabbat (Shabbat 18a). These actions were prohibited either because they denigrate the spirit of the day, or alternatively lead to the wrong impression that a prohibited action occurred (OC 252:5). Lesser concerns included the fear of people unwittingly fixing a broken amplifier (Tzitz Eliezer 4:26).

While hearing aids amplify sound in a similar manner to microphones, they obviously do not create excessive noise and operate quite smoothly. As such, it remains permissible to wear them and speak directly into them, especially given the need to preserve a safe and dignified lifestyle for the hearing-impaired (Shmirat Shabbat 34:28).

Over time, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox synagogues came to ban all microphone use, drawing a distinct line from the Conservative movement, whose leaders frequently adopted a more lenient position regarding all electric appliances to facilitate greater synagogue participation.

However, one prominent Orthodox rabbi, Yisrael Rozen, has argued that interdenominational polemics led to excessive stringency, with potential problems surmountable through clearly labeled, automated condenser microphone systems installed with precautionary tools (Techumin 15). Supported by the permissive rulings of Rabbis Shaul Yisraeli and Haim D. Halevi, and following a similar mechanism previously advocated by Israeli chief rabbi Isser Unterman (Shevet Meyehuda II), the Tzomet Institute continues to arrange such amplification systems for synagogues, highlighting the complex interaction between technology, Shabbat and denominational divides.

The writer, on-line editor of Tradition and its Text and Texture blog (text.rcarabbis.org), teaches at Yeshivat Hakotel.
Submit questions to JPostRabbi@yahoo.com

Our tag line – Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth Depth and Passion Of Orthodox Judaism means different things to different people. For me, it is a call to educate the Morethodox public, and others, about the fundamental ideas of Modern Orthodox Judaism. One of the foundations of Modern Orthodoxy is that the Torah does not have a limited warranty. The reform movement essentially clams that the rituals of the Torah does not speak to the modern Jew and are unnecessary to live a full Jewish life. On the other hand, certain segments of the Orthodox community believe that (or act as if) when it comes to ritual and practical halacha there is no room for the Torah to expand to incorporate modern sensibilities and concerns.

Below is part of the introduction to the book of Responsa entitled Dor Rivii written by Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glassner. The biographical information below a well as the English translation of the text is taken from an article written by Rabbi Yaakov Elman for Tradition magazine, 25(3), Spring 1991, pp. 63-69.

This work serves as an important theoretical basis for some of the practices that some in the Modern Orthodox world innovated. Often the claim again such innovations (women dancing with the Torah, pain blockers administered before a bris, including a mother’s name in a ketubah, double ring ceremony) is that they are not part of the mesorah(tradition) and that 100 years ago they were not practiced by pious Jews. Rabbi Glasner teaches that a Torah scholar “can derive totally new insights which were never [apprehended] before…”

Rabbi Moses Samuel Glasner (1856-1924), an only son of Rabbi Avraham Glasner and a great grandson of the Hatam Sofer through his mother, Raizel (a daughter of the Hatam Sofer’s oldest daughter Hindel), was born in Pressberg, and later moved with his family to Klausenburg, where his father served as rabbi. The younger Glasner succeeded his father as rabbi in 1878, serving in that capacity until his move to Jerusalem in 1923. In Jerusalem, he was involved in Mizrachi educational activities during the last year-and-a-half of his life. …

“For just as in natural science a person produces innovations with his intelligence and understanding based on old principles, so too with the science of our holy Torah. As Hazal say, “if you hear the old, you will hear the new. “The intent is that one who incessantly occupies himself with the Torah that is with us of old and “kills himself over it” can derive totally new insights which were never [apprehended] before; it is in this sense that Hazal said that “the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses all that an experienced disciple would in future times innovate [in Torah],”commandments ” [the principle] that from that time [of the completion of the Torah as described in Deut. 31:24, even] a prophet may not innovate anything–this refers only to adding to, or subtracting from it, but permission is given to every authorized court [of ordained sages] to interpret it and derive new laws.

Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements. Rather, the truth is that this [issues from] the wonderful wisdom [and] profound insight of the Torah, [which teaches] that the interpretation of Torah [must be] given over to the sages of each generation in order that the Torah remain a living force with the nation, developing with it, and that indeed is its eternity. In this way may we understand correctly the wording of the blessing “Who gave us a Torah of truth and implanted in us eternal life,” which the Tur interprets as follows: “a Torah of truth” refers to the Written Torah and “eternal life” refers to the Oral Torah (Orah Hayyim 138, see Shulhan Arukh thereto).

[The author of] Midirash Shmuel on Ethics of the Fathers (chapter 1, s.v. “Make a fence for the Torah”) makes the same point in this way: “And therefore [the Tanna] says that this Torah was handed over to Joshua to do with it as he wished, making right left and left right according to the time and place [R. Glasner's emphasis]; in all this it is his, to do with as he wishes, and so too was it handed over to the Elders, etc. and this is one of the reasons that the Oral Torah was not written down but given to the Great Court to do with as it wished [R. Glasner's emphasis].”

When they contradict that which was [accepted as true until then, their new interpretation becomes the true one [for their generation]; so have we been commanded by Him, may He be blessed, that we “should not depart from the thing (the sages of that generation) tell us either to the right or left” –even if they uproot that which was agreed upon until now. This too is what they intended when they said “Both these and these are the word of the LivingGod . . . .”

Finally, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Below is a quote from Rabbi Glasner as to how halachik innovators were treated in his time. “If one man be found who wishes to remove the thorns and weed the [garden], he is adjudged a rebellious elder, and, God forbid, as one who cuts down the shoots” [= a heretic]. In this way the land is filled with hypocritical flattery in which [each one] suppresses [his sincere] opinions because of the power of those who are willing to use force and intimidation against whoever opposes them”

There has been some interesting debate in the comments about the evolving nature of halacha. I wrote a dvar torah two years ago on this subject (for Parashat Shoftim), and I would love to share it with you.

The one-line summary is that the Torah instructs us to consult judges from our own generation who are able to interpret and understand the unique needs of our time.

Check it out for yourself:

“Parashat Shoftim: What do I do?” (Care of: Eimatimes.com)

Shomer Negiah Panties have finally arrived!!  Get a them on Etsy: $20 per pair or $36 for 2 pairs.

Shomer Negiah is a concept in Jewish law halacha that prohibits any degree of physical contact with, or touching of, a member of the opposite sex, except for one’s spouse and immediate family. Shomer means “guards”, but due to its common use in phrases relating to religious practice, it has come to mean: “adhere to” as well. Negiah is the Hebrew word for “touch”, and thus Shomer Negiah is a term used to describe one who “guards the touch” or simply “adheres to restrictions of touch”. Although the feminine form of the term is technically Shomeret Negiah, it is almost always used in the masculine, even when in reference to women. Shomer Negiah Panties allow a woman to abide by the halacha, but still be individual and sexy at the same time.

Another small step was taken this past Shabbat to strip away some of the superficial and unnecessary discriminatory practices in Jewish ritual that exclude and ignore women. Uri, a good friend and colleague of mine, started Birkat HaMazon at Friday night dinner in a way I’d never heard before: “Gveirotai v’Rabotai Nevarech” (ladies and gentleman, let’s bless).

For too long, the standard language (Rabotai Nevarech) has pretty much ignored the women in the room. If the call is for everyone in the room to start saying grace, why wouldn’t everyone be invited?

I cannot think of any halachik basis for someone to argue against this change, and hopefully it was be tiny little baby step in the right direction.

I want to praise Uri for taking this (somewhat) bold step. We must now work diligently to spread it to Jewish communities around the world.

What other simple changes could be made to current Orthodox Jewish practice that would make it more open and accepting, without shaking the boat too much to be accepted?

“Judaism Discovered” ON SALE NOW!

Min farmor dog för ett par veckor sedan. Hon blev 97 år gammal. Inom judendomen brukar man vara snabb med att ordna begravning, men jag är den enda i släkten som är religiös eller som bekänner mig till judendomen. Hon begravs därför på sedvanligt Svenskt sätt i kyrkan. 

Som noachid bör jag inte ta del av eller engagera mig i ”avgudadyrkan”, vilket bön eller sång till människan Jesus är. Det finns oftast ingen anledning att besöka andra religioners lokaler eller aktiviteter. Undviker jag att delta i andra religioners aktiviteter undviker jag samtidigt risken att ägna mig åt ”avgudadyrkan”, vilket innebär att jag lever efter ett av de nochidiska buden. Därför finns ett dilemma: Att gå på min farmors begravning, med risk för att delta i avgudadyrkan eller att avstå att gå och därmed såra min far i en stund då han mår gott av min närvaro och önskar att jag är där.

Ärligt talat, jag har inte övervägt att inte gå på begravningen. Det är dock ett teoretiskt dilemma. Därför frågade jag ett par Rabbiner på siten asknoah.org. Svaret jag fick var att om det ställer till med stort förtret i släkten om jag inte går på begravningen och om begravningen inte hålls som ett utpräglat religiöst möte så kan jag gå om jag inte ber eller sjunger till någon avgud (d v s till Jesus). Min släkt är sekulär och inte engagerad i kristendom eller några andra religioner. Jag är den ende idag som är aktivt religiös. Det finns nog ingen risk att det blir ett aktivt religiöst möte av begravningen. Det är skönt att veta att det när det gäller halacha (lagens tillämpning) för noachider inte finns ett förbud mot att jag deltar i en anhörigs begravning.

/Niklas

There has been a lot of misguided criticism of the “anti-Croc” p’sak of Rav Elyashiv two weeks ago before Yom HaKipurim, when the great Ashkenazic sage and halachik authority suggested that people not wear comfortable Croc shoes on Yom Kippur, even though they are not leather a do not violate the letter of the law – the prohibition of wearing leather shoes. Some on the left and even in the right might view this negatively as part of the “chumra of the month” club. But if they do, they are missing out on two important aspects of Rav Elyashiv’s p’sak, which give important direction to all Jews, and certainly for passionately committed Morethodox Jews.
First, Rav Elyashiv was careful to distinguish between the halacha itself, which allowed any non-leather shoes, even comfortable ones like Crocs, and his personal opinion, his “gut” feeling, as it were, that it was in keeping with the atmosphere of Yom Kippur which is about being a little less comfortable – and fancy and trendy, I may add – than usual. Frankly, the subtlety of Rav Elyashiv’s p’sak is rarely seen in Centrist Orthodox or even in Modern Orthodox p’sak, where everything that is prohibited has to be a Torah violation, or a rabbinic decree going back 2000 years. Rav Elyashiv evinces confidence – reminiscent of Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l – that he can suggest something without needing to back it up from Sinai.
Second, Rav Elyashiv is willing to break from the status quo. He is willing to be creative – though it is to be machmir, to restrict, in this case – and to think outside the box. Just because we have always focused on whether a shoe is leather or not, doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion to think about on Yom Kippur. This is refreshing creativity that I believe appears frequently in chareidi p’sak. Again, it is usually used to restrict, and sometimes in an almost cruel manner as in the case of retroactively nullifying a get – a divorce – that the court granted, however, at least a great Torah sage is willing to say something new, something unheard of in a previous generation. That should be a hallmark of the halachik process, and it means all the more coming from a frum posek, and a revered chareidi leader such as Rav Elyashiv, sh’lita.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Rav Elyashiv realizes that Yom Hakippurim, as any holiday or halachik practice, needs to be meaningful. The restriction on wearing leather needs to mean something: and in Rav Elyashiv’s opinon, wearing comfortable, cool shoes which many people prefer to leather shoes anyway, takes away from the meaning of Yom Hakippurim – to afflict your selves (nafshoteichem). Morethodoxy needs to learn from Rav Elyashiv and be on the forefront of reading Torah and halacha in a way that gives meaning to Jewish practice, rather than turning it into an ossified, bizarre tradition. For Rav Elyashiv, afflicting yourselves, and not wearing leather shoes, is a living tradition – part of the Living Covenant that Rabbi David Hartman writes about so eloquently.
Not that Rav Elyashiv, sh’lita, needs my approval, but I hope someone tells him that somewhere in galus, in the city that didn’t get the Olympics, is a Morethodox rabbi who is inspired by his p’sak, a rabbi who wore uncomfortable canvas shoes all of Yom Hakippurim.
May we continue to be inspired by our great leaders to continue to see the meaning, creativity and relevance of the Torah and Mitzvot that God gave us.

There has been many that are saying the Conservative Judaism is the movement of “convenience than anything else. Mainly because of how its the”middle road” of Judaism and is sometimes misunderstood. The Orthodox say that they are mainly a movement who “claims” to follow Halacha but isn’t “following it correctly”. Many Reform Jews believe Conservative Judaism would be considered apart of Traditional Judaism because they consider Halacha as binding in the first place. Is it truly possible to have a middle road in Jewish movements? The Orthodox would say no because Conservative Judaism isn’t similar to Orthodoxy because of how Conservative Judaism doesn’t fully observe Halacha(Jewish law) and that to observe Jewish Law, that it must be observed fully. But many others say that Judaism is about pluralism and that its very much possible to have the best of both worlds, Tradition and modernity. Criticism of Conservative Judaism is nothing new and has been there since its founding, same with Reform Judaism, but they have been known even more now. Especially with how there are many in the movement considering a name change of the movement and how it is currently down in membership but up in attendance of their Religious Schools.

Halacha – Tshuvos 2 – 15th Elul, 5769

Shevet HaKehosi: A Shadchan For Estranged Friends

When a Shadchan makes a match for a couple the halacha is that he must be paid. This is generically called Sirsur which means “broker” and the Shulchan Aruch stipulates that a Sirsur must be paid. After giving a list of examples, the Rema (CM 264:4) says that any deed or favor a friend does for you, you must pay him and you cannot say that you undertook it for free since we never made up beforehand.

What if two people are in a fight and after much effort with both people you manage to bring them together again and settle their differences, must they pay you if you did not stipulate initially that you would like to be paid?

The Shevet HaKehosi (3:310) says that although the Nesivos HaMishpat that says that this is only for something positive but saving him from damage does not earn you any fee, nevertheless in this case you are doing something very positive, you are making him and old-new friend.

Even so says the Shevet HaKehosi, in this case you need not pay him. Since it is not the minhag to pay for this service nowadays you can’t demand money even if one or both of the parties approached you to get involved. The mitzva of making so peace among friends is so great that unless the broker specifically said up front that he would like to be paid, he is not paid.

Important Note: We try to convey the Tshuva to the best of our ability. We admit that our understanding may not be accurate. One should learn the tshuva to verify the accuracy of our interpretation. Please also understand that this Tshuva may not be the final word on this topic. One should consult a Rav before drawing any conclusions.

Take advantage of this great opportunity and sign up for RevachL’Neshama’s daily email reminder. Feel free to email this to your friends and family. Who knows, it may arrive right when it is needed most!

Please click here to Subscribe to revach.net Mailing Lists.

Source:RevachL’Neshama

Halacha – Tshuvos – 15th Elul, 5769

Rav Menashe Klein: A Day At The Races?

Rav Menashe Klein discusses (Mishneh Halachos 6:270) if it is permitted to go to the race track and bet on horses or even to watch horse racing just for fun. The Mekor for this Halacha is a Mishna in Sanhedrin (3:3) that says Mafrichei Yonim, pigeon flyers, are Pasul for Eidus. The gemara says that according to one explanation this means pigeon racing for money and it applies to any other animal racing including horses. The Rambam (Eidus 10) and Shulchan Aruch (CM 34:16) say this only applies to people who are not gainfully employed and do this for a living. However says Rav Klein that while the threshold to be pasul for eidus is that it must be your means of earning a livelihood, nevertheless it is assur to bet on these races even if it is just a hobby.

This all implies that if you are merely going to be entertained by the spectacle and are not involved in any betting, then it would be permitted. However says Rav Klein, there is a Mahari Bruna that speaks about this. He says that watching horses race is not assur because it is educational and can teach you how to ride horses faster for a living and to run from your enemies. The Mahari Bruna then says that if your intention in going is simply to enjoy a jousting match then it might be assur. In our case says Rav Klein since there is no redeeming value whatsoever it is certainly assur.

This issur he says, would extend to all spectator sports and would fall under he issur in the gemara Avodah Zara (18b) of going to stadiums since it is considered Moshav Leitzim, which Rashi says is Bitul Torah. Moreover, he says, even if you were to watch it on television from the comfort of your own home, which would eliminate the issur of Moshav Leitzim, still you will be left with Bitul Torah and anyone with Yiras Shamayim should stay far away.

Important Note: We try to convey the Tshuva to the best of our ability. We admit that our understanding may not be accurate. One should learn the tshuva to verify the accuracy of our interpretation. Please also understand that this Tshuva may not be the final word on this topic. One should consult a Rav before drawing any conclusions.

Take advantage of this great opportunity and sign up for RevachL’Neshama’s daily email reminder. Feel free to email this to your friends and family. Who knows, it may arrive right when it is needed most!

Please click here to Subscribe to revach.net Mailing Lists.

Source:RevachL’Neshama

Halacha – Tshuvos – 14th Elul, 5769

Chelkas Yaakov: Can You Break A Shidduch If The Girl Lied About Her Age?

The Chelkas Yaakov (EH 80) was asked about a girl who was supposedly 28 years old a the time of her engagement and when when it was time to get married three years later it turned out she was 36 and not 31. Does the Chosson have halachic grounds to break the engagement?

He answers that we don’t find anywhere in the gemara (Chulin or Kesuvos) among the list of Mumim, blemishes that age is considered a Mum. However the Chassam Sofer says that the gemara in Bava Basra says that a women who is over 40 years old and never married cannot have children therefore not only can you break a shidduch but even if they were already married you should divorce her because of the mitzva of Pru U’Rvu. Other than that he says that breaking an engagement because of age is not justified.

Disclaimer: We try to convey the Tshuva to the best of our ability. We admit that our understanding may not be accurate. Please also understand that this Tshuva may not be the final word on this topic. One should consult a Rav before drawing any conclusions.

Take advantage of this great opportunity and sign up for RevachL’Neshama’s daily email reminder. Feel free to email this to your friends and family. Who knows, it may arrive right when it is needed most!

Please click here to Subscribe to revach.net Mailing Lists.

Source:RevachL’Neshama

One of the things that makes Judaism very interesting is the amount of practices done that are not ordained in law; namely, Gzerot, Takanot M’Drabanan, and Minhagim: preventative and positive legislation made by the Rabbis, and customary laws. All are binding according to the Jewish tradition, just as much as halacha. I am not referring here to halacha formulated through the laws of derivation, but rather rabbinical decrees.

Gzeirot, preventative legislation, is intended to prevent violations of the commandments. Takanot, positive legislation, are practices instituted by the Rabbis not based directly on the commandments. Minhagim are customs and communal practices that a sect or community will take on in their observance of mizvot.

An example of a Gzeirah is that the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbos, but a gzeirah commands us not to handle an implement that would perform prohibited work. An example of a Takanah is the “mitzvah” to light Chanukkah candles. A minhag is like the modern institution of two days of Yom Tov in the diaspora, when it is not halachically necessary anymore. Of these three extra-Toraic laws, gzeirot are perhaps the most widely visible in Judasim, and is symbolic of a gezer, fence, around Torah.

Where do we find the permission to make a fence around Torah? Chazal (Yevamos 21a) derive this obligation to protect the mitzvos by enacting rabbinic decrees from the last pasuk in Parshas Achrei Mos (Vayikra 18:30), “ushmartem es mishmarti”. While gezieros d’rabanan are found in all areas of halacha, a unique status was assigned to the safeguards protecting prohibitions of gilui arayos (prohibited relationships). We are taught (Avos D’rabbi Nosson 2:1) that the Torah itself enacted safeguards to protect us from violating the prohibitions of arayos. All physical contact is prohibited by the Torah itself. These prohibitions are to be a fence to protect us from committing actual gilui arayos.

The modern world is asking, “Is this in fact necessary?! In fact, all these extra laws and prohibitions are making it harder for people to follow Judaism and harder to bring Judaism back to people.”

Well, it is indeed very necessary, because it distinguishes us as the Jewish people.

Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev said to Hashem one Rosh Hashana:

“Ribono shel Olam! Master of the World! You ordained a day of truah, a blowing of the Shofar! See how much your children love You? You command a truah, and they blow hundreds of notes. Thousands, tens of thousands, millions of Your people Israel have blown those hundred notes for millennia. How many Shofar notes have been sounded throughout the ages? No one can count them. But at the same time they have called upon You with the words ‘Tka b’shofar gadol l’cheruteinu!’ ‘Hashem, blow just one note on Your great shofar to herald the beginning of our freedom and redemption.’ Hashem, You asked us for one truah, and we gave you a hundred multiplied over and over again. All we ask of you is one tkiah. Why can’t you give us that one note?”

In order for Klal Israel to merit their redemption, and to hear one tkiah of the Shofar, they have to give in return millions more, even though they were only asked for one. What has without argument saved the Jewish people’s traditions, customs, laws, and Torah for so long? What is sustaining us until redemption? What allowed the same Judaism from 3000 years ago to see the State of Israel rebuilt, the re-conquering of the Old City of Jerusalem heralded by the cry of the Shofar? What has sustained us is that Hashem asks for one tkiah, and we give him one hundred.

This Rosh Hashana, give your one hundred tkiot from the Shofar, and perhaps built another fence to protect Jewish existence.

Halacha – Tshuvos – 13th Elul, 5769

Does A Store Need A Mezuzah?

The Shulchan Aruch says that a store is not Chayav in a Mezuzah. The Taz explains that since the proprietor is only there during the day and doesn’t spend his nights there it is Patur from a Mezuzah. However if there is merchandise in the store that is kept there overnight it is Chayav in Meuzuah. Even a storage room is Chayv in Mezuzah, certainly a store which is used not only for customers but also for the storage of merchandise is Chayav in Mezuzah. (Sefer Yad Ktanah Al ha’Rambam)

Take advantage of this great opportunity and sign up for RevachL’Neshama’s daily email reminder. Feel free to email this to your friends and family. Who knows, it may arrive right when it is needed most!

Please click here to Subscribe to revach.net Mailing Lists.

Source:RevachL’Neshama