From the Florida Sunshine Tree

From time to time, I like to discuss some of the pearls of wisdom that surface in my comments section. Today's comment (posted to my May 14 post) comes from a fellow who identified himself as E-Man, a 24 year old Capricorn from Miami who was born on the Year of the Rat and went to Skokie Yeshiva for High School (this means he left about 7 years ago so he wouldn't know Yaakov, 20 year old Pisces born Year of the Ice-Storm-on-Erev-Shabbos-Zachor) and on to other fine places.

E-Man writes as follows:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag. So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish. That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books? I read parts of your book, but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb. That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings. I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here. He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth. I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is, instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Okay. Let's try to understand what this guy is saying:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag.

Ralbag and who else? Can I get the whole list?

I am certainly glad that he thought I should know this because it is certainly news to me. At my age (way past 24), not much catches me unawares but this certainly does. Personally, I have never shunned the Ralbag and I never knew anybody in my Yeshivos (Lakewood, Mir) who shun the Ralbag but I guess there must be plenty of chareidim in Skokie and Miami who do shun the Ralbag. Of course, I do not learn much Ralbag on Chumash because my edition of Mikraos Gedolos does not happen to include any Ralbag on Chumash although I do have Ralbag in almost every edition of Nach. I've gone through most of Nach doing Rashi, Metzudos and Malbim. Not much focus on Ralbag but no shunning. I didn't learn much Radak or Minchas Shai either. Are they on the list?

Oh, I get it. He must mean Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag from the Triangle-K! Yes, it's true. Many chareidim do shun SunMaid Raisins and Mott's Apple Juice in favor of products from OU or other more "right wing" hechsherim. I also stay away from this hechsher (Hostess Twinkies are not for me) but sometimes my wife makes me buy the Craisins.

And it's true, we do shun many of his colleagues like the entire Rabbanut.

So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Probably not, but drinking lots of Mott's Apple Juice, Minute Maid Orange Juice and eating wholesome Wonder Bread and Sun-Maid Raisins might.

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible
according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and
other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say
anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish.

Let's go over that list again: Skokie Yeshiva, Shaalvim, YU, Lander College for Men, Talmudic University and looking to Med School and you are such an expert on Chareidim! And I am even learning new things from you! I guess Charedi'ism 101 must be a course in their curriculum (though they certainly do not feature my book!) I am very impressed.

That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Sorry. won't work. A typical chareidi will definitely go against most of the people who are called Rabbis at the current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

H-m-m-m. This sounds familiar. Let's see, let's see...Oh yes!! Here it is - One Above and Seven Below - page 82:

Q. In the previous chapter, I set out to explain the “meaning of toil”. Yet, aside from the three principles that were quoted from Maimonides, all I did was to describe what toil doesn’t mean. Didn’t I forget something?
A. Guilty! Here are some details that I omitted.
Like almost any commodity, toil can be measured by two attributes: quantity and quality. The three principles listed above provide a quantitative perspective. We have still not, as of yet, defined toil in Torah from the qualitative perspective.
Thankfully, we can always rely on our dedicated teacher. Rashi does not leave us totally in the lurch.
On the phrase “And my commandments you shall guard” (VaYikra 26:3) Rashi explains, “You shall toil in Torah for the purpose of observing and fulfilling [the commandments] as it states ‘and you will study them and you will observe them to perform them’.” There is an end purpose to our Torah study – that we observe the commandments and incorporate Torah principles in all our daily activities.

Apparently, it's according to Rashi on Chumash, too.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books?

From the FAQ section of my book (page 7-8):

Important Note - The intention is to promote the conventions that the chareidim uphold. It is not meant to challenge the conventions of those who are not chareidi although, in some cases, it is an inevitable cause-and-effect. Although to some readers - who do not [yet] wish to identify themselves as chareidi - parts of this book may inadvertently seem patronizing or antagonistic, be assured that this is certainly not its purpose. I apologize in advance should this occur.

For those who have trouble with this passage (you are not alone), it says this:
The book does not actively or aggressively insult anybody. Nevertheless, it is a given that when comparing A vs. B, anything that is promoted as a strength or advantage to A is automatically highlighting a shortcoming to B. This is called the see-saw syndrome - raising side A automatically lowers side B. Thus although nobody insulted B, B is passively ipso facto insulted (antagonized).
I am only interested in raising the One Above side. It is a truth of physics that when one does this, the opposite (the Seven Below) side goes down. I have no control over it except that my point is that one should not be on the side that is diametrically opposed to "Im Bechukosai Telechu".
A number of people have told me that they are put off by the "condescending" message of the omnipotent tefillin-clad arm patronizingly reaching out over the sinking bare arms. My message to the reader is that, according to Vayikra 26:3, it pays to identify with the upper arm. Anybody who still insists on identifying with one of the seven sinking arms will certainly feel threatened and antagonized, but, don't blame me. I didn't write sefer VaYikra. I am just analyzing it.

I read parts of your book,

One cannot read my book in parts (as I wrote on page 9).

but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb.

That's because you couldn't keep reading. Incidentally, I didn't write that I thought he would be wearing 18th century Polish garb. I wrote that he would be wearing 21st century Rabbinic garb. Either that of 21 century Chassidish or Misnagdish rabbanim (who may be styled after 18th century Poland) or Sefardic or Yemenite or whatever else is out there.

That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings.

The discussion is about what he would wear in public (formal settings, in your terms). We are not interested in what color his pajamas were. Most readers weren't confused.

I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Wow, a 24 year old non-chareidi (if I read you right) from Miami and you have it in with all the biggies! I take my black hat off to you. And, rest assured, your secret is safe with me.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here.

It must be because he's from Miami.

He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Evidently, this Rav was able to understand what you seem to grudgingly acknowledge - the book is not about "chareidim" but rather about Torah-true Jews. I just happen to call Torah-true Jews "Chareidim" because that was certainly the case by Yeshaya HaNavi and - when we use Hashkafa as our definition - it is true today. This is the theme of Chapter 9 and, subsequently, of the whole book. Once you agree with this, then it follows that the ones that are called Non-chareidi" are those who are not full scale Torah-true Jews. The objective of my book is to entice more people to be full scale Torah-true Jews. The knocking comes from VaYikra 26:14-46. G-d wrote that, not me. I am just quoting it. Apparently, what He wrote leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
It must be something you ate.

I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Excuse me? Is this somewhere in my book? I actually promote Maimonides' approach both on page 60 and again on page 114. But that was after you couldn't keep reading.

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is,...

No need. All you have to do is reread the book and substitue the word "Chareidi" with "Torah-true Jew". I suggested this in the last paragraph of the book on page 229.
Try it it works!

...instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Critics write about the way I define chareidim as if I am alone in my definition. This is a case of denial on their part. I have written profusely, in my book and out, that there are clearly 2 general definitions of chareidim. One used by chareidim and one used by non-chareidim. My definition of chareidim is very much in line with Rabbi Grylak's (Chief Editor of Mishpacha magazine). The one he wrote in his Hebrew language book way before I wrote mine. (It is quoted on page 121.) In fact, if you perceive there are any differences, you are invited to discard the differences and just go with the common denominator.
I use the definition that chareidim use, and to date, no chareidim have written to challenge me on my definition. Makes sense. But, evidently, non-chareidim fantasize that even chareidim think like them. And that there is only one way to define a chareidi - their way. And so, they write that "most people" don't use my definition. Of course, they are right - most people aren't chareidi! But they also seem to think that for some reason I am obligated to use the definition that chareidim in general do not agree with, though nobody has ever explained exactly why. And they never will. Because they do not acknowledge - or legitimize - any other more general, less derogatory definition. (See Chapter 9).

That's why I wrote the book, to enlighten them that chareidim themselves think differently, and why. Chareidim can understand this. That's why they like my book. Non-chareidim are not as broad minded. That's why I wrote in the FAQs:

This book is meant to reframe common perceptions of what constitutes a “chareidi” and will present a definition that may differ from your preconceived notions. If you are already certain about what constitutes a chareidi and are not open to new definitions, this book will not work for you.

And so, this book will not work for someone like E-Man and I am not sure why he even read beyond the FAQs.

Well, at least he made it to the beginning of Chapter 4.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Likewise.

At the Drop of a Hat

Yes, I got the hat.

My rendezvous at the Tachana HaMerkazit came off without a hitch except that it really bothered me that I had to buy a ticket to Raanana (just kidding).

The driver's name is Shmuel Almog, by the way. I guess he lives in Raanana or the vicinity. Sweet fellow.

Now, if anybody knows what happened to my 11-year old...

One Above and Seven Below - The Secret of Parshas Bechukosai

And so, for the first time since I opened this blog last July, Parshas Bechukosai has arrived.

For those of you who have read my book, you know that the first section of Parshas Bechukosai is the heart and soul of Judaism for here, G-d is telling us in no uncertain terms what makes a proper Jew and what does not. And it is the secret of the Chareidim.

However, as the few people who comment on my blog seem to indicate, most of the readers have not read 1A7B. And so, l'chvod Parshas Bechukosai, I have transferred the pilot chapter of my book to iPaper in its entirety and am posting it right here.

I also transferred Yaakov's Story to iPaper and will post it after the feature chapter.

Enjoy, and when you review the Parsha this shabbos, pay attention to Rashi!

One Above and Seven Below_S... by binhersh on Scribd

And now - Yaakov's Story

Yaakov by binhersh on Scribd

Hats Off to Egged (Drivers)

Did I say something about hats not finding their way home by themselves?

What was I thinking?!

Ferster Hats, the most popular hatseller in Yerushalayim, offers to make up labels that display the name and phone number of the owner to put on the sweatband. This is a very prudent idea because, I don't know if anybody else noticed this, many black hats look alike.

Now, I did not really give up on my hat. As soon as I realized that I forgot it - when I noticed that I wasn't sweating as much as I should be - I ran back to the bus depot at Har Chotzvim (it's a good thing I work there) and tried to find the bus. The bus was gone so I went to a supervisor who told me as follows:

It takes 3 days for them to gather up all the forgotton items on their bus fleet and to sort them out. Then they are brought to their lost and found center at the main Tachana Hamercazit (much more convenient than their previous one in Talpiot!) and I can try to find it then. Good luck!

Thanks.

Well, that was Tuesday and I have been counting the days (Today is day 1 of sefiras HaKova...) and, lo and behold, I get a call from the bus driver (he wears a knitted kipa, incidentally). He said that he didn't want to give in the hat to Egged because he thinks that I will never see it again. He is not based in Yerushalayim but he will be here tomorrow (Day 2 of Sefiras HaKova) when he does a run on the 950 line to Raanana. He will be here from 7:30 pm and his bus goes out at 7:55 so I will have this 25 minute window to reclaim my precious crown.

How will this drama end? Will I make the dropoff or am I headed for another trip to Ferster? Will some lucky Jew in Raanana turn chareidi (perhaps the driver ;-) )?

Hang on to your hats!

Populations Growing and Shrinking

Since I've come to Eretz Yisrael I have frequently toyed with the idea of going up to Meron on Lag B'omer but, until this year, I have never followed through. To a minor degree, this was due to claims of less than reverent conduct that is known to go on in some spots and admonitions from some Rabbanim (Litvaks, as you would assume) not to go there on Lag B'omer in particular. To a greater degree, it was due to laziness and frugality - it is cheaper and easier to stay home in Yerushalayim. But I think it has been to the greatest degree due to fear. Firstly, the fear of messing something up as I have never done it yet. Secondly, the fear of getting squashed - I hate crowds! And thirdly, the fear of coming back with less than I came with (besides the money). Most specifically, coming back with less kids than I came with. Even though such a development would probably save a good deal of money, my wife still insists that when I go out with any number of kids, I come back home with at least that many.

Well, this year I took the plunge and I took a midnight express trip with only 2 sons (11 and 14). The trip went very smoothly and I managed to brave the crowds but still my main fear was realized. No, I didn't lose either of my kids but I left my hat on the bus.

Aside from that hats cost more than kids :-), kids seem to have an uncanny ability to find their way home all by themselves, even after we vacuumed up the trail of breadcrumbs (and gum wrappers). Hats just don't do that.

Anyway, Meron on Lag B'Omer is a lot like Meron not on Lag B'Omer except for many more people and a lot of free food. That's why, if you can pack a lunch, many gedolim say there is more Kedusha to go not on Lag B'Omer. I could see their point. Yet, there is still something mystical about visiting the graves of these deceased holy people on Lag B'Omer and that is - that it is being done by so many people who aren't deceased. Lots of people. Lots and lots of people. Hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people!

Yep. An Arutz-7 news piece claims that there were already 450,000 pilgrims by 6:00 am on Tuesday. If this is so, even if the tide subsided, there still must have been well over half a million visitors all told and more like 6-700,000.

Do you realize what this is? This would be 1 out of every 10 residents in Eretz israel including Druze and Arabs! If we just talk about the Jews, it was probably more like 1 out of 7 (14%). Of course, they were not all Israeli residents. Many were tourists and foreign students in Yeshivas and seminaries.

600,000 Jews! And what kind of Jews?

Predominately religious Torah observant Jews. They were of all stripes and there were even some chilonim but the concentration certainly focused on the more devout. I would guess it was somewhere around 60-70% "Chareidi" (2/3) comprising chassidic, misnagdic, Yerushalmi, Chabad, Breslov and Sefardi-Chareidi - and the rest were Chardal, RW Mizrachi, Hilltop, traditional Sefardi, and smaller concentrations of standard "dati" and MO tourists.

How's that for labels?

In any case it was 600,000 or more Jews who all identify with the spirit of Lag B'Omer and Rashbi and there was no factional strife of any kind. Hatzala was there, ZAKA was there, and throngs of cops and I am sure they didn't see anything but the most trivial order of business.

The fact that so many Jews are anxious to participate in this pilgrimage and that this number keeps increasing from year to year tells us something very comforting:

We are alive and well and growing. and, except for our Yishmaeli cousins, we are the only ones.

A friend of mine sent me an email containing the following You-Tube clip. It is about demographics and it is alarming. It claims that for a culture to perpetuate itself, it must have a fertility rate of at least 2.11. That means that on average, every couple (2 people) must produce 2.11 people to maintain equilibrium. The minute it is less than 2 people (i.e. 1.9), they are not fully replacing themselves. Below 1.8 (lets say 1.75) there is a serious decline as every 2 couples (4 people) are only producing 3.5 people to replace them. At 1.5 you are down to 3 people replacing 4 and at below 1.3 the situation is called to be irreversible. I am not sure why that is but it means that out of evey 1M couples (2M people), there will be 1.3M offspring or maximun potential 650,000 couples. But not every person gets married (especially in the West) and not every woman conceives. (You may ask - how come it doesn't look like there are any less Chinese with their 1.0 policy? You got me there.) If this would produce even 500,000 fertile couples (a highly optomistic 77%), they would require no less than 4 kids/couple to restore the next generation to 2M total (which is not even 2M couples).

Pretty bleak, huh?

Well the video suggests that all Western societies (and this would certainly include secular Jews) - except for the US if we include the "illegal" immigrants - is well below the minimum 2.11 rate and many are courting the 1.3 "irreversible" figure. The developed industrial Asians (China, Japan, Korea) are not doing much better.

Not so our Yishmaeli cousins. They are beating the 2.11 minumum by more than 3-fold. Polygamy has its rewards. This means that in just a matter of time, they will simply overrun the West. All Western societies are shrinking, even the Westernized Jews.

But, as we see from our trip to Meron, the Jews that are not so Westernized stand a chance. Unfortunately we are not as fertile as the Moslems. This is partly because we only get one wife each, and we usually take them a bit older. Also, we do have hetterim for family planning and, unfortunately, ample reasons to take advantage of them. And the fact that they don't have to send their kids to Orthodox day schools (they are actually infesting the public school system in the West) and we do also takes it's toll.

Still we are holding our own and doing a great job of it under the circumstances. The people who oppose increases in child allowance payments should take a good hard look at this video.

Here is the video. According to the You-Tube listing, this video is up since March 30, 2009 - less than seven weeks and it hads already been viewed over 5,800,000 times! It is not for the faint of heart:



And as for us, even though Lag B'Omer may not be the best time to make a trek to Meron, we should take comfort in these numbers and keep the numbers growing, BE"H.


Because in 20 or 30 years it's going to be only us and them.


P.S. While we are in the neighborhood, let's have a look at another video about how a nice young Jewish girl is sidestepping the Shidduch crisis. I think it behooves us to do something not only about the Shidduch crisis but about the Jewish education tuition crisis but quick!

Ki Li HaAretz - This Land is My Land - Eminent Domain

והארץ לא תמכר לצמתת כי לי הארץ

And the land shall not be sold for permanance; for the land is to Me. (VaYikra 25:23)

With these words, the Torah introduces to us a concept that has been part of civil law in many cultures throughout the world for generations: the law of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. It basically says that the government is the ultimate owner of the land.

G-d's eminent domain is of significance. And a sovereign state's eminent domain is likewise of significance. How so?

In a recent post, I disputed the claim of a rival blogger that the chareidi world is living in a world of chumros. My contention is that the non-chareidi world is living in a world of kulos. Let us review part of what I wrote:

Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had to implement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is a kula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. We know that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keep Hilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversial Hetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.

I want to elaborate a bit on the issue of Hetter Mechira to explain why I (and the birds of my feather) think this way. There are 2 stipulations for a Hetter Mechira to be valid:

(A) It has to be a Hetter
(B) It has to be a Mechira

Stipulation A means that even if the "sale" is 100% Halachically valid and there is no question that "Halachic" ownership has been transferred to a non-Jew, we must establish that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta. In other words, the Mechira may be good, but does that make a Hetter?

Stipulation B means that even if there is no question that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta, we must establish that the "sale" is valid and that the land is, in fact, Halachically owned by a non-Jew. In other words, the Hetter may be good, but do we have a Mechira?

Unfortunately, both must be in effect. One without the other by definition invalidates the mechanism. So let's examine both stipulations and see if any of them are 100% valid or even close.

Stipulation A - The Hetter

This is relatively simple to deal with. We examine the simple case: If a non-Jew already owns land in E"Y with no mechiras necessary. Say his family [claims to have] owned the land for generations and all legal deeds and titles are in his name - does this suspend the laws of Shmitta?

As you would expect, this is a major machlokes in the opinions of the rishonim. There are numerous players, but 3 heavyweights stand out:

To the extreme right is the Mabit. He maintains that even if a non-Jew legally owns land, all the Halachos of shmitta remain in effect. This means that both the soil remains kadosh and the produce remains kadosh. As per the soil, this means that a Jew cannot work the land not as an employee, leasor, or sharecropper. Any produce that grows under these circumstances are fully prohibited. In terms of produce that grew from non-Jewish labor, it retains all Halachos of Kedushat Shviis. It may be consumed but... it cannot be sold for profit, cannot be exported, cannot be used for irregular consumption, is subject for biur, etc. According to the Mabit, selling the land accomplishes nothing since the Halachos don't change.

To the center is the Bais Yosef. He maintains that the land remains Kadosh but the produce grown through the labor of the non-Jew (or by themselves) does not. This is called Yevul Nochri. As such, a Jew may not lease and work the land and doing so makes the resulting produce forbidden. Thus, selling the land and "leasing" it back still accomplishes nothing with the minor exception of fruit trees and vines that produce by themselves. If the vines are tended by Jews, we are back to square one.

Most other poskim (I do not have names) support either the positon of the Mabit or the Bais Yosef.

The third and most lenient opinion is the Sefer HaTrumos and this is the foundation for the Hetter Mechira. The Sefer HaTrumos wants to say that, because we are in golus, all of Eretz Yisroel today has the status that the annexed land of Suria had in the times of the Bais HaMikdash. There, the Halcha was that only land that is owned by a Jew is subject to the Halachos of Shmitta. Land in Suria that is still owned by a non-Jew has no Kedusha of Shviis whatsoever and even a Jew may be employed to work on that land, or to lease with no restrictions.

The Sefer HaTrumos is certainly a "bar-samcha" yet this ruling came under much attack from his colleagues particularly because there is a Mishna in Challa that seems to negate this perspective. Regardless, the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos is recognized as a "daas yachid l'hakel" and the general rule concerning a "daas yachid l'hakel" is that it can only be relied on in times of great necessity - "B'shaas ha'dchak".

Thus we see that even if the land is unequivocally under the ownership of a non-Jew, "rov deos" (most opinions) hold that it does not constitute a Hetter. The opinion that it is a Hetter (Sefer HaTrumos) is a daas yachid l'hakel. This is very far from being 100% valid.

Stipulation B - The Mechira

The Hetter is not enough. Even if there were no opposition to the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos, we must verify the second stipulation, that the land becomes the rightful property of the non-Jew. Or, in other words, that it becomes "non-Jewish" land. There are numerous issues that play a role, many of them are technical issues were applicable in 1910 as much as today. But I only want to discuss one issue that not many people are aware of: Ki Li Haaretz - eminent domain.

As we wrote, eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. The implication is that a private owner is merely a junior partner in the land with a non-controlling (49%) share. Another perspective is that the state is the ultimate owner of the land under all circumstances and the legal "occupant" is merely leasing the land from the state on a long-term basis for a nominal fee. This implies that nobody who sells land from one person to the other is really selling it because the land does not actually belong to either of them. The seller is merely transferring to the buyer the rights to exclusive occupancy that he had procured from the state until now. Thus, no matter how thorough and "legal" a "Mechira" one does, the land belonged to the state beforehand and it still belongs to the state afterward.

What it Means

With this knowledge in hand, we note that there have been some very significant changes in circumstances from the time HaRav Kook, ZT"L, advocated the Hetter Mechira in 1910 to the present. The main change took place on 5 Iyar 5708 (May 14, 1948), 13 years after the death of Harav Kook, ZT"L. Both stipulations are affected.

Stipulation A - The main problem does not focus on 1948 but on more recent times (let us say from 1967 and beyond). In 1910 and 1917 (WW I), the drastic situation of a miniscule food supply was a clear matter of pikuach nefesh. No question about it. Thus, despite all the deficiencies in the Hetter Mechira, there was a clear Shaas hadchak which certainly justified relying on a "daas yachid". The direness of the situation was not merely related to the severe food shortage but to another aspect. I was told (I did not read this anywhere) that the Turkish authorities would not allow a farmer to leave farmland unworked. If one would neglect to work the land, the Turks would confiscate it. Thus, through the shmitta year of 1917, there was a double pikuach nefesh.

1917 relieved the second aspect of the dchak when the British overran the Turks and took over the country. They did not sustain this cruel policy (they implemented enough of their own), but, of course, we still needed to grow food for subsistance. Even this was not to the same degree, as the British opened up commerce to the West. Over the ensuing 80 years, our agricultural prowess (hydroponics and such)and commercial ties with the outside have steadily grown and, together with financial assistance from the diaspora (Keren Shviis, etc.), we see that even though shmittas may still be difficult - as they are meant to be - there is no longer any of the "pikuach nefesh" that was in place in 1910 and 1917 and even 1931 (Rav Kook's final shmitta year).

But there is one more ramification that does relate directly to 1948 and, ironically, it has more adverse "Halachic" significance for the Religious Zionists than for the chareidim. This is that the entire Hetter is based on the ruling of the Sefer HaTrumos that since we are in golus and all of the shmitta laws are Rabbinic, then we can consider all of E"Y as if it is Suria.

The problem is that the most extreme elements of the Religious Zionist camp, which happen to be the strongest advocates of the Hetter Mechira, want to maintain that the "conquest" of 1948 was a Halachic and divinely mandated conquest and we are no longer in golus! If not for the Western lackey government we would have rebuilt the Bais HaMikdash already! This is ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו and that is why it is appropriate to say Hallel with a bracha on 5 Iyar.

Well, if we are no longer in golus and the Kibush makes kedushas haAretz, then shmitta is d'Oraisa and we cannot consider mainland E"Y as Suria, can we? Now, for the chareidim this is no problem because nothing changed in 1948 and shmitta is still Rabbinic. But for the idealist RZs, even the Sefer Terumos is null and void. Obviously, they must hold that, since yad umos haOlam tekifa and we didn't build the Bais HaMikdash, the kibush falls just short of making Shmitta d'Oraisa. But if this is true, then אכתי עבדי דאחשורש אנן and I cannot figure out the justification to say Hallel. We must say that the kibush is just valid enough to justify Hallel but not valid enough to require proper shmitta observance. Hm-m-m. I suppose some people need to grow their hummus and eat it too.

Stipulation B - This is the real sticky problem. Remember that all this Hetter doesn't work if the land does not become "non-Jewish" land. Well, in 1910 when the Ottomans ran the place it can be argued that eminent domain made all the land into non-Jewish land even if the Jew did not sell it! And this can certainly be reinforced by the Turkish grow-or-go policy that I discussed earlier. Even after 1917 through 1935 when Rav Kook ZT"L passed away, the eminent domain was mandated to Bnei Eisav. 1948, however turns the situation on its face. Now, technically all the land is under the jusidiction of the Israel Land Authority or the KKL and they have no authority to sell it out of their authority! Hence, technically even rightful Arab owned land within the jurisdiction of the ILA is technically all Jewish owned land and possibly, even the kula of the Bais Yosef (that produce of non-Jewish land in E"Y does not have Kedushas Shviis) can come into question.

Obviously, all of this is perspective and not psak. Rav Kook is no longer here to give his opinion. There is no doubt that the circumstances that is was based upon have drastically changed. Also, the assurance that he gave to his chareidi colleagues that the Hetter would not be employed wily-nily and the essence of shmitta will not be forsaken due to the Hetter does not seem to have stood the test of time. We have no way of telling what Rav Kook, ZT"L would hold in today's circumstances. ואין לנו לסמוך אלא על אבינו שבשמים and Avinu SheBashamayim says this:

כי לי הארץ .

The land (alt.: the Earth) is Mine. Avinu SheBaShamayim - His A-lmighty Eminence - holds eminent domain.

It is not ours to work on the seventh year and it is not ours to sell on the seventh year unless He tells us otherwise. He talks to us through the tzaddikim and morei hora'ah of each generation. 99 years ago Rav Kook, ZT"L and Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector, ZT"L, were here to tell us that those who really need to can sell the land and work it. But neither of them are here to tell us this now.

משנה ח
שבעה מיני פרעניות באין לעולם, על שבעה גופי עברה: מקצתן מעשרין ומקצתן אינן מעשרין רעב של בצרת בא; מקצתן רעבים ומקצתן שבעים. גמרו שלא לעשר רעב של מהומה ושל בצרת בא. ושלא לטול את החלה רעב של כליה בא. דבר בא לעולם על מיתות האמורות בתורה, שלא נמסרו לבית דין; ועל פרות שביעית. חרב בא לעולם על ענוי הדין, ועל עוות הדין, ועל המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

משנה ט
חיה רעה באה לעולם על שבועת שוא, ועל חלול השם. גלות בא לעולם על עובדי עבודה זרה, ועל גלוי עריות, ועל שפיכת דמים, ועל השמטת הארץ. בארבעה פרקים הדבר מתרבה: ברביעית ובשביעית, ובמוצאי שביעית, ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה. ברביעית מפני מעשר עני שבשלישית; בשביעית מפני מעשר עני שבששית; ובמוצאי שביעית מפני פרות שביעית; ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה מפני גזל מתנות עניים.

The Genie of Ochel Nefesh and the Markey Bill

As of late, Mondays have been my busiest week days. I recently undertook a course to be certified as a Rabbinic Marriage Counselor. The course meets on Mondays in Bayit VeGan. So now, on Mondays, I leave the Har Chotzvim office in the late afternoon, scoot over to Bayit VeGan where the course runs until 9:00 pm and then dash back to Har Nof to catch HaGaon Rav Asher Zelig Weiss's weekly shiur from 9:00 to 10:00. Then I have a personal chavrusa at 10:30 til 11:00 pm and then I can go home (and practice what I learned in the Marriage Counselling course).

In short, I had a long day yesterday.

Rav Asher Weiss's shiur typically analyzes a Halachic topic that is related to the relevant Parsha, and last night, in light of Parshas Emor, Rav Weiss chose to discuss Hilchos Yom Tov. The topic he focused on was not actually in Parshas Emor but rather in Parshas Bo (Shmos 12:16) which was the "hetter" of doing melacha for אוכל נפש . In the main, he analyzed various opinions of the rishonim as to exactly which melachos are included in this hetter and which are not and why.

In the course of the shiur, he discussed the concept of "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" - מתוך שהותרה לצורך אוכל נפש הותרה נמי שלא לצורך אוכל נפש . This means that there are a few melachos that one may do on Yom Tov even if their primary purpose does not relate to "ochel nefesh" once it is already permissible to do these melachos for the sake of "ochel nefesh". This is a very bold leniency that is very uncharacteristic to normative Hilchos of Shabbos and Yom Tov. Typically, the opposite is true and the Rabbanan forbid things that are not forbidden from the Torah (e.g., handling of muktza, engaging a non-Jew, climbing a tree, riding an animal, etc.). This Halacaha certainly goes against the tide and, accordingly, we have to be very specific as to where and how to apply it.

Some poskim say that "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" only applies to הוצאה and מבעיר and others hold that it applies to a much broader range of melachos. Still and all, this chiddush of the gemara is confined to Hilchos Yom Tov and that's where it is meant to stay. It is not employed in other areas of Halacha. You might say that "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" is a genie that grants special favors to its master. And its master is Hilchos Yom Tov.

I sense that in the non-chareidi world, there is a bit of jealousy over the Yom Tov genie of "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" and that they have let the genie out of its bottle!

The most obvious and relevant example is the propensity of the non-chareidi Jews to litigate civil disputes in secular courts.

The secular courts are what we call erkaos ha'ovdei kochavim and there is no love lost between chazal and this institution. In a perfect world where there are Halachic courts - batei dinim - qualified and empowered to manage civil affairs, chazal have nothing but the fullest contempt for those who seek redress outside beit din (see Rambam Hilchos Sanhedrin 26:7). Alas, we do not live in our "perfect world". The opening section of Choshen Mishpat expressly mandates that today's batei dinim are not as qualified as the proper ones (musmachim in Eretz Yisrael). What's more, qualifications aside, their power to enforce rulings is very limited.

As such, in certain circumstances, there may be a need - a צורך - to approach a secular court. Most commonly this occurs in a case of siruv and לא ציית לדינא where one party does not abide by the ruling of a beit din. In these cases, a plaintiff may approach a secular court after beit din issues a license (harsha'ah) to do so. Additionally, beit din can not deal with criminals so a Rav may issue a harsha'ah when there is a criminal complaint that may involve pikuach nefesh and does not constitute mesirah (a very touchy subject).

We see clearly that due to pressing need, siruv or pikuach nefesh, the erkaos are "huttra l'tzorech". However, we do not find any authority that says about erkaos that מתוך שהותרה לצורך פיקוח נפש הותרה נמי שלא לצורך פיקוח נפש . That genie is the exclusive property of Hilchos Yom Tov.

Evidently, somebody let the genie out of the bottle. And this has the potential of causing more harm than good.

I noticed this phenomenon when I was doing research about Agunah issues in the scope of my book. Every agunah episode is a tragic situation and we would all like to do away with these heartaches. Nevertheless, there are very few true Agunot. A true agunah is a woman whose husband is not in position to give a get because he is either physically or mentally AWOL (or MIA). This is rare. Most "agunah" cases are actually cases of recalcitrance - מסורבי גיטין - where the husband and wife are both at the table and know to follow the rules but one of them doesn't want to play.

For true agunot, some creative ideas have been put forth such as annulments or "conditional weddings" but, unfortunately, there is very little Halachic currency in these accounts. I wrote about this at length in a previous post (click HERE).

For the more common cases of outright recalcitrance, there is a large and growing movement for pre-nuptual agreements. The goal of the pre-nuptual agreements are to motivate the stubborn player to cooperate by imposing heavy penalties for continued recalcitrance. Now, in theory, these prenups should be effective because there is no Halachic problem with getting one to cooperate with beit din. HOWEVER, there is a very severe problem with artificially "motivating" one to issue a get without the sanction of beit din. This is called a "get meusah" (forced get) and it is a recipe for an illegitimate divorce and other illegitimate issues.

And herein lies the pitfall of some of today's prenups. They are very meticulously and properly composed. A bit too meticulously.

You see, the problem is that most batei din cannot really enforce the punitive terms of a prenup. No surprise, seeing as they are meant for people who do not really respect beit din. But the wizards who compose them make sure that they are enforcible in a secular court, a bona fide binding contract. Now, there is no problem with this as long as first beit din rules that the recalcitrant party is in breech of contract and issues a harsha'ah for the injured party to take the prenup to a secular court to enforce it on behalf of beit din. However, this does not always occur. Often, a beit din may feel that, even though the time deadline has come to pass, recalcitrance has not been proven or that both parties are equally recalcitrant (very typical scenario) and there is no Halachic justification to enforce the penalties of the prenup. Whereupon, one party (usually the female one) runs to the secular court with the legally binding prenup - with no harsha'ah from beit din - and has a liberal Western minded judge (usually a female one) enforce the prenup. Since beit din did not authorize this, any money extracted may be Halachic gezel and a resulting get may well qualify as a get meusah.

This is playing with fire. But I guess we established that מבעיר is one of the melachos that everyone holds we say mitoch she'huttra, huttra!

Speaking of מבעיר, I want to discuss the burning issue that inspired me to write this post. This is what is known as the Markey bill. This is a proposed bill pending in the New York legislature that aims to assist victims of sexual abuse by temporarily suspending the statute of limitations on criminal charges and civil claims. There is a bit of disagreement among Orthodox askanim on whether or not to support this bill.

It seems that even before the swine flu we have been faced with a growing pandemic of revelations of sexual abuse within the greater Orthodox community. I am as distressed as everybody else to read about these stories and I bemoan the weaknesses that far too many "frum" Jews have fallen prey to and more so the plights of those who have been victimized by them. It goes without saying that victims of abuse should have full access to every resource that can aid in healing and closure.

Still, when it comes to what can be presented and litigated in a secular court we must tread carefully. We must not lose sight of what is muttar and what is not.

Now, I have heard that numerous rabbanim have allowed people to report suspected sexual offenders to the police and to press charges. Quite obviously a sexual miscreant is a menace to society and it can be deemed a case of pikuach nefesh to take these fellows out of circulation. However, when it comes to suing in civil court for monetary compensation, I don't really see any real pikuach nefesh and I am not sure that many erudite poskim permit it.

So now, on one hand, I have no problem at all with the Markey bill. All it does is eliminate the statute of limitations on claims and offenses that were prosecutable before the expiration of the limitations. I have never been a great supporter of the whole concept of statute of limitations being that no such concept exists in Halacha. But we do need to take a good strong look at what we are allowed to bring to a secular court even if we are within the limitation period.

In other words, let us pretend that today (R"L) a young man is molested in an Agudah affiliated camp or in some Yeshiva or Torah U'Mesorah institution. And let us assume that to this point, the camp or yeshiva administration, and certainly the parent umbrella organization, is not currently aware that the perpetrator is a sexual offender. Now, I understand perfectly that many rabbanim will permit us to "throw the book" at the perpetrator and press charges both criminally and civilly. But, are there Halachic grounds to sue the administrators or the incorporated entity of the camp or organization?

We are all influenced by western society's dogma of "all associated parties are responsible" that is the basis of mountains of litigation in Western courtrooms. Negligence here, negligence there. Everybody is responsible for the miscreant behavior of their children and spouses and their children's spouses and their spouse's children and their employees and their employee's spouses and children and for their products and for what their products produce and for everybody who can't read instructions and doesn't know that coffee is hot. In the West there is never an ingrown toenail without somebody to sue.

Is that what the Halacha says?

Here's what the gemara says:

חרש שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה החובל בהן חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין. העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין

This means that from an Halachic perspective, when an person inflicts some damage, it doesn't matter who their spouse is, who their parent is, who their employer is, as long as the parent/spouse/employer did not actively aid and abet the perpetrator, and more so if they were not aware of their destructive tendencies, then there are no Halachic grounds for compensation from them.

As for the Markey bill - If it merely exposed the perpetrator and stopped there I would consider it worthy of undivided support. But, as long as the claims can be extended to the "she'ar yerakos", we are playing with fire. A yeshiva, camp, or frum organization can and should only be sued in Beit Din on Halachic grounds. If there are no grounds to sue in a beit din, then there are no grounds to sue anywhere.

Let's keep the genie in the bottle.

Har Nof - An Aging Community?

I have been meaning to post this image for months. I was finally motivated to action last week to commemorate the mitzvah of מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן which appears in parshas Kedoshim. Though I still didn't get it posted by Shabbos.

The sign is found on Rechov Agassi almost across the street from Kehillat Bnei Torah. It has been there for as long as I can remember (about 20 minutes on average) and I am not aware of another sign like it anywhere in Har Nof or in the entire world, for that matter. I wonder if they have such a sign near Neve Simcha?

What is it doing of all places on Rechov Agassi? There are no old age homes in Har Nof. The average "baal habus" in Har Nof is about 45. The bus routes do not go down Agassi so it is a much quieter street than Shaulson or Katzenelenbogen. And it has enough speed bumps to keep draggers at bay and provide ample parnassah to all the mechanics in Givat Shaul.

Perhaps it pays to remind lower aged people that nobody ever gets any younger. Maybe we need to put a sign like this in Ramat Beit Shemesh?

רבי טרפון אומר: היום קצר , והמלאכה מרבה, והפועלים עצלים, והשכר הרבה, ובעל הבית דוחק

Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta - Revisited

Parshas Acharei Mos is coming up and it goes without saying that it holds a very dear place in my heart right there alongside the other 53 parshiot. This is because this parsha holds in it the source of the title of my magnum opus - One Above and Seven Below a.k.a. Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta.

In honor of this special occasion, I will present a golden oldie (or a summer rerun, depending on how you look at it), which is a repost of my August 20, 2008 post which explains the connection between the service on Yom Kippur and the main premise of One Above and Seven Below. Yes, this is one of the "Important Posts" that I have featured year-round on the sidebar of this blog in the section designated for important posts, but now that the parsha is upon us, it carries much more significance, as the pasuk says in Mishlei (15:23): ודבר בעתו מה טוב

So, here is the post in iPaper:

Yom Kippur Connection

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Creative Writing chizkuni one above and seven

Yom HaAtzmaut and Mehadrin Motorcycles

I believe in celebrating Yom HaAtzmaut.

No, I do not say Hallel. There is no mention in Shulchan Aruch to do so. Yes, I do say tachanun. There is no mention in Shulchan Aruch not to do so.

Nevertheless, it is a day off of work with full pay and that is certainly something worth celebrating.

Of course, when we do not need to go to work and all the stores, banks, and government offices are closed, and half of your kids (the female half) are home from school, there is more opportunity and incentive to ditch out to the beis midrash and learn and there is little excuse not to. And so, I was able to put in some extra Torah time in the early part of the day.

Still, even a secular holiday can be חצי לה' וחצי לכם and since we do not celebrate July 4th around here, I took up a very close friend's invitation to his mangal (barbecue) in Kochav HaShachar. (I also have a weakness for American kosher hot dogs).

These friends in Kochav HaShachar were actually referenced on page 68 of my book. The husband was my roommate and chavrusa when I was in Mir Yeshiva back in '81 and shared all the adventures that I wrote about. He is most certainly a chareidi by Kochav HaShachar standards (and mine) though perhaps not by Harry Maryles's. He told me that he "accidentally missed" the regular shacharis minyan and didn't have a chance to say Hallel. But he didn't say tachanun, either. There were 2 brissin in Kochav HaShachar this morning. (From 2 different families, a very rare phenomenon in a small Moshav).

Going out to Kochav HaShachar is a breathtaking venture in more ways than one. For one thing it is located on the wild side of the security fence where there have been known to be fireworks even when it is not Yom HaAtzmaut. In fact, along the way, by the turnoff to the Tapuach junction, there is a monument to a woman named Edith Mizrachi, HY"D, at the spot where she was murdered some years ago. This is a bit unnerving for us timid city mice who dwell in the "relative security" of Har Nof. Of course, Kochav HaShachar's most recent casualty was one of the 8 Mercaz Harav Kedoshim who was taken in Kiryat Moshe which is a whole lot closer to Har Nof (like walking distance) than it is to Kochav HaShachar.

But what is more breathtaking is the scenery of the drive. Kochav Hashachar is located smack in the middle of the north Judean Hills and, even if the Judean Hills are not the Alps, they are still very majestic. On one hand it is beautiful to look at a limitless expanse of unmarred and unpopulated natural landscape that seems to be standing guard over Yerushalayim just as Dovid HaMelech says (Tehillim 125:2):

ירושלים הרים סביב לה וה' סביב לעמו מעתה ועד עולם.

On the other hand, it's a bit disconcerting to come out of the congestion of Yerushalyim and see such an expanse of usable inhabitable land that is our nachala and to be forced to neglect it. It's not like the Yishmaelim need it or use it and, regardless, there is plenty of room for everybody.

One interesting thing about the trip is that I noticed that it seems the general population is becoming more G-d-fearing. I noticed a number of motorcycles along the way and - guess what??!! - they were all mehadrin!

That's right! Some of them were men only but even those that were mixed, every one of them kept the same protocol: the men were in the front and the women were in the back. Not only that, but all the women had their hair covered - even if nothing else was - and not with shaitels, mind you. They all had these snoods made out of very hard plastic and they even had lucite shields to cover their faces. For head covering, they put even the women in Saudi Arabia to shame.

What gevaldiga mesiras nefesh for tznius! I saw Kedoshim Tihiyu with every motorcycle. Now, if even the motorcycles can be mehadrin - why not the buses?

Scrooge and the Ghost of Lag B'Omer Past

Well, at least my previous post drew one solitary comment. But I must admit that much of it is over my head and I am having a bit of a time understanding this fellow. Perhaps it's tit-for-tat because I surmise from the comment that he had a bit of a time understanding me.

Perhaps my post was too long (no smirking out there). But, in a nutshell, these are the points I was trying to make:

1. Any Halachos or hanhagos that are clearly expressed in Tanach, Shas, and Shulchan Aruch (literal text) represent the normative execution of Jewish living and cannot be deemed chumros.
   
2. It is inherently dishonest to represent kulos - paricularly those that deviate from literal text - as normative execution to the point of characterizing literal text as chumros and intimating that upholding these "chumros" (i.e., precepts of literal text) are "beyond the norm".

If we are clear on this, let's have a look at part of this anonymous comment and try to figure it out:

Bah humbug! Any serious analysis has to look at halacha psuka in rishonim and achronim. For example, let's look at the conditions under which it's mutar to walk by a river where women are bathing. Or the discussions in rishonim of jousting (yes, on horses) as wedding entertainment. Or the discussion by even the aruch hashulchan about saying kriyas shma in front of women with uncovered hair.

Thanks, Ebenezer. To be honest, I am not up to date on these particular t'shuvos but I gather that what he is trying to point out is that some very prominent poskim have lenient rulings on these things. Regardless, it goes without saying that every authority holds that if any of these things can be readily avoided - they should be. And one who makes more efforts to do so is praised as tavo alav bracha. There is no posek that says that one can l'chatchila walk by a river that is populated by women in compromised positions, hire jousters for weddings, or say kriyas shma in front of women with uncovered hair. Thus, my post was merely saying that it is hard to consider somebody who goes out of his way to avoid these things, even in cases where they are difficult to avoid and there are valid lenient rulings, as being a machmir.

Further, I really don't know where any of these issues are different than Chalav Akum/Yisrael that was duly discussed (except that some of these are d'oraisa).

The following paragraph was even harder to understand:

But you don't want to go there anyway, or else you'd have to address the fact that it's blatantly against gemorah and shulchan aruch for a father not to teach his son a trade, and against the kesuba that we all sign for a husband not to support his wife. You come up with all the terutzim that the shulchan aruch would never consider, and then try to claim that the shulchan aruch is the yardstick!

Did you get that? Neither did I.

For one thing, I am at a loss to understand how a discussion about "chumros" and "kulos" turned into an issue of "for" and "against". I don't see how he addresses either of my points 1 or 2 above.

Let's go over this again:
If it is in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, it is to be upheld. If not, it can be called a chumra.

Now Ebenezer brings up the subject about a father not teaching his son a trade. I know this will probably catch him by surprise (it actually even puzzles me) but there is no Halacha in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch whatsoever that obligates a father to teach his son a trade. At least, I have yet to find it. It is a clear braitha in Kiddushin 29a and, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Rambam and mechaber omitted it, but it is not there. Despite this, it is indeed in the gemara so I wholeheartedly maintain that one who teaches his son a trade is not being machmir.

Next he mentions something about a kesuba.

The terminology of the kesuba is designed to reflect obligations of she'er, k'sus, and onah that are mandated in the Torah and are discussed in the gemara (Kesubos 47b-48a) and are codified in Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 12) and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 69). Yet, the kesuba is a contract and, like any contract, it's function is not to overrule the wishes of both parties that they agree on, it's function is to set the standards that are mandated in case both parties do not mutually agree. In other words, the contract states that the husband is obligated to provide his wife with she'er (ana eflach v'ozin v'echalkel), k'sus (v'okir yasech), and onah (u'lme'al l'vasaichi). The gemara and Shulchan Aruch determine the extent of the obligations. Yet, the husband and wife are free to work out their own formulas as long as there is mutual consent.

Thus, Ramabam clearly writes in Hilchos Ishus 12:6:

התנה הבעל שלא יתחייב באחד מן הדברים שהוא חייב בהן או שהתנת האשה שלא יזכה הבעל באחד מן הדברים שהוא זוכה בהם התנאי קיים חוץ משלשה דברים שאין התנאי מועיל בהן וכל המתנה עליהן תנאו בטל ואלו הן עונתה ועיקר כתובתה וירושתה:

And again in 12:9:

ובשאר הדברים תנאו קיים כגון שהתנה עמה שאין לה שאר וכסות על מנת שלא יאכל פירות נכסיה וכל כיוצא בזה תנאו קיים:

This is also in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 69:6.

What Mr. Scrooge has taught me in his comment is that he has a hard time with the idea of men committing themselves to long term Torah study while married to wives who voluntarily agree to rough it to maintain this goal. And he supports his position from the "text" of the Kesuba. He calls these things "against the kesuba" and, earlier, "against the gemara", such as the gemara in Kesubos.

Kesubos? Did he ever study masechet Kesubos? Daf Yomi, perhaps?

He must have had the flu at daf 62[b].

Do you know what period this is? This is what we call "Sefiras HaOmer". We do not make weddings or take haircuts during Sefiras HaOmer. Do you know why?

The gemara in Yevamos (62b) explains to us that it all has to do with one man: Rabbi Akiva. The gemara tells us that Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students and they all died in one period. And the world was devastated! It was without Torah! The Torah would have been lost from us forever but he managed to rear 5 outstanding disciples: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi, Shimon (ben Yochai), and Rabbi Elazar and they restored the Torah.

Did you hear that? The Romans had effectively destroyed all centers and avenues of learning. Nobody except Rabbi Akiva knew the Torah inside and out. Initially we had 24,000 scholars still available to maintain the flame of Torah, but, suddenly, they all died. And the Torah would have been lost from us forever (and us with it) if not for the erudition, scholarship, perseverence, and mesiras nefesh of this one man. He started over again and brought it all back.

How did he get to be such a scholar, leader, and moser nefesh?

Let's look at the gemara in Kesubos 62b-63a:

Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of Ben Kalba Savua. He noticed that his daughter was chaste and worthy and said to her, "If you will be betrothed to me, I will study Torah." ...He went to yeshiva for 12 years. He returned with 12,000 students and heard an old man tell his wife, "How long will you accept being a living widow?"...She said, "If he would listen to me, he will stay another 12 years."... He went back for another 12 years and returned with 24,000 students...he sais to his students, "What is mine and yours, is actually hers."

24 years of no she'er, k'sus, and onah to sit and study! 24 uninterrupted years! This was not the YU semicha program. It was the equivalent, if not the superior, of Moshe Rabbenu learning Torah for 40 days and 40 nights. Every minute was needed for him to become Rabbi Akiva. And if he wasn't Rabbi Akiva, we would all be lost!

But wait! Didn't Rabbi Akiva have a wife? Didn't he write a kesuba? Doesn't it say that he must provide for her? Isn't this against the kesuba that we all sign? And he had a well paying job, to boot!

How can he do such a thing? What a skunk! So what if the Jews just underwent a Holocaust and a churban and Torah is being forgotten from Klal Yisroel?! It says in the kesuba you gotta work, remember?? Okay, so all of klal Yisroel will be swallowed up, but at least we won't go with an empty stomach.

This is what my commenter, Ebenezer, seems to think.

Now, of course, no woman is required to forfeit her marital rights and marry somebody who will study and not provide for her. If you don't want to marry somebody who is busy maintaining the Torah and keeping the Jewish people open for business, then don't.

But, then again, nobody will say about you, "What's mine and yours is hers!"

Truth in Harrassment: A World of Kulos

This world is a world of sheker. Sheker is the most plentiful commodity around and thus it is the cheapest thing on the market. I will not cease to be amazed at how many people are in the business of selling sheker but I am more amazed at how many people are buying it.

Why do they buy it? Like most of our made-in-China goods, the price is low and it is made to look like it is worth something. People think they are getting their money's worth. Truth is also available, but you have to know where to find it and it is not cheap. Truth always carries a steep price.

I will not sell any sheker. My book is cover to cover truth (Okay, let's forget about the opening of the Preface). That is why nobody is buying it. Also, Amazon has not discounted the price below $20 in about a year. Like I said, truth carries a steep price.

My book is a consumer's guide. It is meant to help people spot the truth in a sea of sheker. And this is what I have found myself doing in my most recent blog posts. Most shakranim do not really lie - they just bend the truth. And they do it by mischaracterizing concepts and using exaggerated terminology. I struggle to help people see through the mischaracterizations, distortions, and exaggerations.

There is a serious issue when one mischaracterizes concepts and then uses them as ammunition to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty look innocent. Thus, to call Jewish people thugs who do not meet the definition of thugs and people victims who do not meet the definition of victims and to call an event an attack that does not meet the definition of an attack is blatant mischaracterization and has no claim to emes (or to emunah). This was the subject of 2 recent posts (HERE and HERE).

Likewise, in another recent post (HERE), I took issue with somebody who called Bituach Leumi child allowance payments "welfare". This writer wrote that the scale that gives a bit extra to larger families - quite a logical phenomenon - is "punishing" those who do not yet qualify for the increase. A typical distortion: not yet qualifying for a bonus equals punishment!

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

One of the most commonly used mischaracterizations is the term chumra. It is almost always used to connote an activity that goes beyond the letter of the law and is technically unnecessary. For if it meets the letter of the law, how can it be a chumra?

So, how do we determine what is a chumra or not? The answer is we check what it says in the "law". If the law mandates it, or even if it merely "advocates" it, then it is following "law" and not a chumra. Our law is the Shulchan Aruch. So clearly, anything that the Shulchan Aruch tells us we must do or refrain from doing is basic "law". Moreover, even things that the Shulchan Aruch says that we should do or not do, even when there are grounds to circumvent it, is definitely not beyond the letter of the law.

This law is what we call "Halacha". If one is Orthodox and a proponent of emes and emunah, he follows Halacha. An Orthodox Jew who has smicha gets his smicha from studying and taking tests in Shulchan Aruch. It is his job to follow Shulchan Aruch and to teach it to others. It is an undefensible travesty to call anything in Shulchan Aruch a chumra (unless the SA iteself calls it a chumra).

Actually, the opposite is true. Often, the Shulchan Aruch or qualified authorities tell us that we can come up short of the letter of the law when meeting the letter of the law entails difficdulties. What we call shaas hadchak, hefsed merubah, tirchah yeseira, and the like. These are what is known as kulos.

It is a sad day in Israel as well as a distortion of the truth (i.e., sheker) when not relying on kulos are termed as chumros!!

For the past few decades we have been blessed with an extraordinary measure of affluence and religious freedom coupled with substantial technological advances. These have enabled us to become more learned on a general scale, to be better acquainted with the laws of Shulchan Aruch, and in a better position to observe these laws the way that the Shulchan Aruch recommends. This is not called being machmir this is called being medakdek b'mitzvos.

This luxory is a gift from Heaven. It is also a nisayon - a test. Many of our parents and grandparents did not have this luxory of affluence, learnedness, technological conveniences, and communal support. And so, they had to rely on kulos. They were necessary but they were nevertheless kulos.

How do we know?

Because their parents did not rely on them.

Thus, I must take exception to a recent blog post that has the temerity to call itself Emes Ve-Emunah for distorting the truth and terming what is medakdek b'mitzvos as chumros. Here is what he writes:

We now live in the era of the Chumra. I have discussed this phenomenon in the
past. It is not my intention to discuss the reasons. But I do think it is
imortant to look at some of the fallout – particularly as it pertains to parents.

"The era of the Chumra". Is that so? And what, pray tell may be the chumros that he refers to? Let's skip a paragraph:

What about the grandchildren? Grandparents might have a TV in their home. Can
a grandchild be allowed to visit a grandparent lest he be exposed? What about a
newspaper? There are inappropriate advertisements contained even in a
respectable newspaper like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Should
a parent risk exposure to such material by allowing a child to visit a
grandparent? What about the food? Should a child be exposed to a grandparent who
does not keep ChalavYisroel? What if he is finds a Hershey Bar in the cupboard
and asks if he can have it? Is it worth the chance?

Two issues of note are mentioned here. One is having a TV in the house. The other is Chalav Yisroel. The impression given by the poster is that observing (against and for, respectively) on these 2 issues are to be considered chumras! Of course, it does not say in Shulchan Aruch "Thou shalt not watch TV" but I would assume that the Torah's admonitions of קדושים תהיו and ונשמרתם מכל דבר רע are pretty fundamental. And Cholov Yisroel is mandated in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 115. Yes, we all know that Rav Moshe Feinstein has presented "solid grounds" (his words) to permit American milk, but he himself calls it a "kula". How can anybody with semicha in Yoreh Deah even insinuate that to adhere to Shulchan Aruch פשוטו כמשמעו is a chumra??!!

It is sad that we have come to this – and does not speak well of children
who have these questions. Many of these parents have sacrificed great amounts of
time and money into educating their children to be religious Jews. They have
been sent to some of the finest day schools and Yeshivos. The result is an Olam
HaChumros - a world of religious stringencies that parents never dreamed their
children would become a part of.

If one follows this progression to its logical end, the grandchildren will be even more Machmir. Either that or they will go off the track and become irreligious (The pendulum does swing back).

Olam HaChumros? Our parents and grandparents, through want and through need, created a world of kulos. The kulos were necessary for them and possibly even for us. But when a kula becomes Halacha p'suka, we are in trouble. Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had to implement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is a kula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. We know that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keep Hilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversial Hetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.

It is a sad day in Israel when being medakdek b'mitzvos and not following kulos are called Chumras! And since the issue at hand is a the opportunity to be medakdek b'mitzvos, what is he talking about that grandchildren will be even more machmir? Shulchan Aruch hasn't gotten a bit more "machmir" in 450 years!!

To be sure, Kibud Av V'Em is a very serious and sensitive topic. The Torah knows in advance that there are going to be conflicts between Kibud Av V'Em and proper observance of mitzvos. This is why the Torah says (Vayikra 19:3):

אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ

Each man must revere his mother and his father; and he must observe my Shabbos.

On which Rashi says:

ואת שבתותי תשמרו. סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב לומר אע"פ שהזהרתיך על מורא אב אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת אל תשמע לו וכן בשאר כל המצות:

He must observe my Shabbos: It juxtaposes Shabbos observance to reverence of parents to tell us that even though I cautioned you on revering your parents, if they tell you to violate the shabbos do not obey them, and so with all mitzvos.

It is a very sensitive and complex task to understand when this limitation applies and how to apply it. Every case must be evaluated on its individual merit. In most cases, there are middle-of-the-road solutions where Kibud Av V'Em will not be readily compromised and dikdukei mitzvos can still be upheld. In some cases, one may be advised to accept a reasonable kula for the sake of Kibud Av V'Em. Halachic guidance is indispensible.

Nevertheless, glossing over the subject by declaring the dikduk in mitzvos that is available to us today as chumros is misleading and dishonest. It makes it look as if there are no grounds at all for challenging the applicability of Kibud Av V'Em.

More:

But I do think a lot of children end up only tolerating their parents and looking down at their Judaism. That sometimes causes them to minimize contact. I’ve seen it happen. I know of one case where a Frum parent is not invited to any of his children’s homes for the Pesach Seder. How sad is that?! What kind of values have his children really learned? What happened to Kibud Av V’Em?

I realize that there might be other factors involved –

No. There must be other factors involved. We all know scores of people who are more medakdek b'mitzvos than their elders and they have no problems interacting with them. These extreme cases are definitely the exception rather than the rule and clearly bespeak mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, I think it is very irresponsible to build any points from case examples where so much is left to the imagination. I honestly don't know where the author gets off on blanket indictments where he admits he does not know the dynamics.

like a parent who constantly criticizes his children’s Chumra filled lifestyles.

There's that dirty word again. Of course he can't say "Halacha filled" lifestyles because that would nullify his entire point.

But honoring one’s parents means biting that bullet.

Sometimes yes and sometimes not (see VaYikra 19:3 and Rashi). How do you know whether this is Yes or Not? There have been buckets of ink spilled on the issues of Kibud Av V"Em and what to do when parents and grandparents are lax in Halacha or accept kulos.

Our parents created a world of kulos. Kulos that their parents never observed. They did it because they had to. And it can be said that without these kulos, so many of us would not be religious today. We needed them. But they were kulos, nonetheless. In today's generation, we do not need many of these kulos any more. We have outgrown them and we can go back to living the lives of our great-grandparents.

If only Rabbi Harry would allow us.

Chag Kasher V'Sameach

It is now shortly before candle-lighting on Erev Pesach and I wanted to steal a few minutes to wish all my readers a chag kasher v'sameach.

I am certain there are already numerous news reports about how Bichas haChama came off in many parts of the world especially here in Eretz Yisroel so you don't need me to report. It was a spectacular event at the Kosel. As I predicted, I didn't go but 4 of my children went and they all had a lot to say when they got back.

Here in Har Nof there was a temendous gathering at the "summit" of the mountain. My son, Yaakov, remarked that this is the first recital of Birchas HaChama in Har Nof. There was no Har Nof 28 years ago. Maybe they said it here 2800 years ago (Probably not because the first Bais HaMikdash was newly erected around then so why not say it there?) All in all it was a great kiddush hashem and I hope it will be a greart zchus for klal yisroel.

The interesting thing was that it was a clear blue sky with perfect visibility despite certain doomsday predictions of a rainstorm. Lest you think it was all a bunch of hot air, I am reporting that the skies have darkend and there is light rain falling in Jerusalem as I write. My assumption is that the weather people weren't wrong, the clouds were really meant to come but HKBH held them back for us for a bit so we can say the bracha me'omek halev.

In other words, I maintain that by "natural" conditions it should have been dark and overcast and the clear blue skies were a hidden miracle.

Gut yom tov to all.

Chezkel

Where Were You When the Lights Went On?

This post is directed to the 30-plus crowd.

Birkas Hachama is 2 days away and we are all planning on how to make this once-in-a-quarter-plus-century event the most meaningful and memorable it can be. Of course, this got me thinking: how many of us remember if and how we proclaimed the bracha 28 years ago; or even 56 years ago for whom it applies (not me, for sure). How memorable was it for us 28 years ago?

I know that Eretz Yisroel is teeming with observant Jews and there are, ken yirbu, more than ever, who would like to recite the bracha at the center of the world - the Kotel HaMaaravi. I expect that there will be so many people there that it won't pay to brag about it.

"Oh, I said Birkas HaChama at the Kosel."
"Big deal, same here."

28 years ago there were much fewer observant Jews in Eretz Yisroel in general. Aside from that, Birkas Hachama was recited on 4 Nissan, not 14 Nissan so most of those myriads of precious Jews who came to E"Y special for Pesach hadn't yet arrived. So I can assume that the number of Jews who were actually at the Kosel last cycle can't compare with the number who will be there this year.

So, now I can brag.
I was there.

The funny thing is that it wasn't my first choice of spots. I actually wrote a bit about my previous Birkas HaChama experience in the autobiography chapter that I wrote for my book. Only, it's not in the book because I only printed pieces of the autobiography and this part didn't make the final cut. Still, loyal readers of mine were able to see it since it was part of the Menachem Begin exerpt that I posted to the blog on Feb. 9. For those who haven't seen it, I will repost the part about Birkat HaChama now. The section in the narrative was discussing a number of unusual events that took place in the one year that I came to study in Eretz Yisrael before I married; among them was Birkas HaChama. This is what I wrote:

Birkat HaChama (occurs once every 28 years). This is a special blessing that is to be recited when the sun returns to the original position in the firmament that it occupied when it was first created on Wednesday the 4th of Nissan.* This is not much of an event as it entails reciting a blessing that is all of nine words. Yet, since it occurs so rarely, there is a tremendous amount of hype that is generated as the date approaches. As this was shortly after the Camp David peace accords, the border to Egypt was newly opened and I and a few others planned to make a quick tourist pilgrimage to the land of de-Nile so that we could see those big pointy things and experience a true exodus from Egypt by the upcoming Passover. The only problem was that we could only designate the first week of Nissan for the excursion and the nine-word Birkat HaChama was to be recited on Wednesday and who did not want to utter this rare blessing at the Western Wall? As things developed, our initial group of about seven began to dwindle. The first fellow dropped out because he was a Kohen and then another for some other unrelated cause. Then a few others backed out so as not to miss Birkat HaChama in Jerusalem. I was the lone holdout because I had my heart set on the trip and I rationalized that it would be unique if we could tell our grandchildren (and whoever is reading this book) that we recited the Birkat HaChama in Cairo. On this I was completely outvoted, and so, I reluctantly remained in Jerusalem and recited the blessing at the Kotel. As presumed, I never did get another opportunity to go to Egypt.

Like I said, I really wanted to make the event a memorable one. Of course, it was nice to be at the Kosel. I remember that there was one fellow, I believe from the Eidah Chareidis, who was MC-ing the event. There were large scattered clouds and the sun was initially playing hide and seek. We couldn't say the bracha at the scheduled time because of the clouds, so the MC fellow was saying some inspiring words while we were watching the clouds move. Then, it suddenly looked like the sun was coming out so the fellow quickly said, "Luh mehr machen shoin der brucha: Baruch atoh..." And I made the bracha with him as the sun dived back for cover and I must say that I felt somewhat cheated. So much for being memorable! A few minutes later it made a grand appearance and those who held off at the beginning were able to say it with gusto.

With this, I am a bit curious who else has some anecdote to tell related to the previous occurrence of Birkas HaChama. I would be happy to see stories submitted to my email at 1a7b.author@gamil.com or in the comments section of this post.

As for this Wednesday's great event, I am certainly not going to Egypt. The question is whether I will try to go to the Kosel. I no longer am situated at Yeshivas Mir which is walking distance and it will be impossible to drive there. I was told that there are supposed to be some #2 buses going non-stop from Har Nof to the Kosel (with separated seating, I hope) but I have a bunch of little kids now (didn't have any then) and after the Bedikas Chametz marathon, I don't know if I will have the strength to get up that much earlier and brave the crowds.

It is a bit tedious saying Birkas Chama at the kosel because the wall itself blocks the sun, so the people there have to wait a bit until the sun is high enough in the sky to see it and l'chatchila, you need to wait until the entire sun is unblocked to say the bracha. This means just standing there and watching it slow-w-wly emerge and muttering to yourself, "Is it all the way out, yet?" From what I heard, this won't be before 7:15 and it depends on how close to the wall you are standing (the further the better!).

All this on erev yom tov!

Oh, and one other thing. They are predicting rain!

Not again!!


*The Birkas HaChama event came out on 4 of Nissan that year and I was led to believe that the date of 4 Nissan is the set date whenever it is said every 28 years. This certainly makes sense since we hold that the Creation took place in Nissan so that if the 4th day of Creation was the 4th day of Nissan that is certainly the Jewish date that the sun was created. I lived with this misconception until the discussion of the current cycle when, after almost 28 years, I first discovered that this is not the case!

Off the Beaten Track

Over at Emes VeEmunah, Harry is back to his preaching in favor of the egel hazahav. He titles his post The Eibishter Vet Helfen and he is trying to tell us that it is not really true. I wonder how he understands the pasuk (Tehillim 55:23): השלך על ה יהבך והוא יכלכלך לא-יתן לעולם מוט לצדיק

Here is how I understood Harry's post:
In order to have the materialistic (goyish) lives that we yearn for, we need to be as much like the goyim that we can allow ourselves. We need to know English (goyish, as Rabbi Nosson Wachtfogel, ZT"L, called it) as our first language and we ought to go to goyish bastions of learning to acquire skills so that we can work together with the goyim and share the American dream.

You know what I think? (If you are reading this blog, then you already know what I think). I think that HKBH "had it up to here" with our living with the goyish materialistic mentality and pulled the plug on the whole business. We strayed too far from Vayikra 26:3. I will not elaborate further. My position on parnassah has been clearly articulated in chapter 2 of my book.

What I do want to add is an old favorite of mine that was brought to mind from Harry's post:

One Sunday morning a Jew walks into shul and sees a tattered and despondent looking beggar at the door. A compassionate fellow, this Jew presses a twenty dollar bill in his hand and says: Gut zol Helfen!

The very next Sunday as he goes again to shul he sees the same beggar standing at the door looking much cleaner, a bit better attired and in a cheerful disposition. As he passes him, the beggar presses $600 into his hand and says to him:

"Gut zol Helfen was a longshot, but he came through in the 7th and paid out 60 to 1."

For us believing Jews, parnassah comes from Off the Beaten Track.