Chazak Uvaruch

Yishar koach. Finally, finally, proper words from the pulpit about the importance of Torah observance. Not just mitzvot bein adam lachavero, but even mitzvot bein adam lamakom!

We were actually told that Jews have to be shomrei shabbat.

And, icing on the cake--it's wrong to pretend that Torah observance is optional, as other "movements" have done.

This is a moment we can all be proud of. And it comes on the second to last day of the year, so we might say that deficiencies are being rectified right before Rosh Hashana, as they should be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this signals a sea change in Roslyn Synagogue policy. But, as they say, "baby steps," kol hahatchalot kashot, eventually we will get there.

More importantly, every positive statement is beneficial. One good speech like this can dispel an enormous amount of misinformation that exists in the minds of the congregants. This is a perfect example of how to teach Torah honestly and openly, without faking it, without whitewashing it nor beating around the bush. And no one walked out in a huff, no one hates the Rabbi, no one hates the Synagogue, no one hates Torah as a result. They all learned something and they're better off for it.

Ketiva vachatima tova!

State of Israel

Two comments were made about the State of Israel, which superficially seem reasonable, but whose veracity is called into question upon further analysis from a Torah perspective.

1. "If the State of Israel had existed at the time of the Holocaust, all/many/most of those Jews would have been saved." 
First of all, besides the immense halachic implications of such a statement, on its face, this comment is absurd. Perhaps by next year, a few Iranian nuclear missiles could murder six million Jews in a matter of minutes, which took Hitler years to accomplish. So clearly, having a State of Israel doesn't necessarily protect against anything. Further, during World War II, the Germans nearly invaded Palestine (until stopped by the British at El-Alamein). The Nazis very nearly were successful in precipitating a Holocaust in Eretz Yisrael, and they would have come just as close (or even possibly succeeded) even if there had been a State of Israel instead of a British occupation.

The bottom line is, and this also relates to the halachic issue, that if God wants something to happen, it will happen regardless. For reasons entirely unknown to us, the divine plan was for the Holocaust to occur. There is no political or military action that anyone could have taken that would have prevented that.

Furthermore, it might be apikorsus to say otherwise. There's a story in the gemara (I heard it quoted in a shiur by Rav Tendler, but I can't find the source right now) where someone advises someone else to avoid going to be menachem avel in a certain house. Why? Because they're talking heresy in that beis avel. What's the heresy? They're saying that if the deceased had gone to a different doctor, he'd still be alive. That's heresy because the divine plan was for the individual to pass on, and it's heretical to think that human intervention could have aborted the plan. The same is true for pretending that if we had established Israel before World War II, all/many/most of the victims would have been saved.

2. The State of Israel upholds Torah through its military's philosophy of "tohar haneshek."

Tohar haneshek refers to the IDF's emphasis on avoiding collateral damage to enemy civilian populations in times of war, sometimes at the expense of their own soldiers' lives:

Purity of Arms - The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.

The question is whether that is really a Torah value, to put Jewish lives at risk in order to protect enemy civilians. Certainly, in the Torah's view of war, this is decidedly not the case. See Rambam, Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 8. Basically, in a milchemet mitzvah (e.g. to defend Israel from its enemies) you come to a city, besiege it, and demand whatever surrender terms you want. If they say "no", you have to let them escape, and kill the rest. (In a milchemet reshut, an optional war to expand the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, you can only kill the men.) Clearly, saving our enemies at the expense of Jewish lives is not a Torah concept. A PR concept, maybe, but not a Torah concept.

3. "It's bad to say shetehei reishit tzmichat geulateinu instead of reishit tzmichat geulateinu."

In the Prayer for the State of Israel, it asks God to bless the State of Israel, "the first flowering of our redemption (ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו)" How do we know that the State of Israel is the first flowering of our redemption? Not to be depressing, but how do we know that (God forbid) this State won't be destroyed, and later on another State will take its place, and that one will be reishit tzmichat geulateinu? So many people add "שתהא", "that it will be", meaning that we're asking God to make this State the first flowering of our redemption, and not presuming to tell God that we know for a fact that it is the first flowering of our redemption. How could we be so presumptuous as to tell God what the future holds? We can only pray to Him that the future will be good, not dictate such to Him.

Chumrology

The statement was made decrying the tendency of some people to "look for chumras", meaning that they try to find stringencies to observe. He even quoted a conservative "rabbi" who was such a genius that he was able to coin the term "chumrology" to describe a phenomenon that everyone knows about anyway. The real problem is, that since actual halacha is never discussed from the pulpit, and much of the congregation knows relatively little about actual halacha, how could anyone be expected to know what's basic halacha and what's chumra?

For example, many people don't know that tying many types of knots is prohibited on shabbat. Double knots, single knots in one string or similar entity like the end of a garbage bag, or any knot whose duration is expected to be greater than 24 hours are prohibited. Now, if someone doesn't know this, he'll think that anyone who doesn't tie these types of knots on shabbat is a "chumrologist," whereas, in fact, that person is merely following basic halacha. So, in essence, the congregation is, for lack of a better term, being manipulated into mistrusting and blowing off anyone who follows halacha. As we've discussed many times in the past, this is part of a desire to cultivate as unobservant and Torah-ignorant a membership as possible. The preceived benefit is that no one will question far-left positions or someone's rabbinic credentials, and that no one will trust any source of Torah other than that which comes from one particular speaker.

Another let-down

As we've written before, many times, on these pages, the speeches from the pulpit do their best to diminish the importance of mitzvot bein adam lamakom. Time and time again, we are told how extremely important it is to be honest (which is correct), but the importance of shabbat, kashrut, etc are played down as much as possible. This, obviously, in keeping with the general philosophy of maintaining as irreligious and ignorant a membership as possible, so that one man's authority can't be questioned.

Yesterday, I thought that maybe, just maybe, something had changed a little bit. But I was wrong.

The speech started out with the usual "some people place so much emphasis on all the details of religious observance but are dishonest and wind up in the papers" kind of thing. Which is true, but hardly relevant--the vast majority of our congregation is honest, but, unfortunately, many are not observant of shabbat, etc. And then he said, "but on the other hand, there are people who say that they're honest, good people, and that's all they think they need to do..." And I was so happy that finally he would come out and tell people of the importance of following the rest of the Torah! And then he said, "but they neglect the spiritual side." And that was it. No shabbat, kashrut, taharat hamishpacha. Just, "the spiritual side." So, according to him, all the Torah wants us to do is be honest....and spiritual. Right.

Yes, actually, it IS black and white

A halacha was being discussed, and the statement was made that "it's [not, or never, or hardly ever, or whatever] black and white. Wrong. The halacha tells us what to do, and we have to do it. We may not want to, but we know what we have to do. Usually, in life, what's right and wrong is pretty clear cut; the usual problem is the individual not being up to the task.

In this case, the situation being referred to was the rotzeach bishgaga (negligent murderer) not being allowed to leave the ir miklat (city of refuge) until the death of the kohein gadol, otherwise he risks being killed by the goel hadam (avenger). The mishna states that he may not leave even to save a life, not even to save klal yisrael. Now, there are two ways to understand this halacha--either it's assur for him to leave, or it's mutar but exposes him to risk. Now, if it's prohibited for him to leave, then it's most certainly black and white--the Torah tells us it's assur, so it's wrong. Even if we think we know better, that there are good reasons to leave, etc., it's still wrong. We look to the Torah for right and wrong, not to our own personal instincts. On the other hand, if it's not prohibited to leave the ir miklat, just really risky, well, the halacha is pretty clear cut there too--one is not obligated to risk one's life to save another, but it is considered a meritorious act. Not as black and white, but pretty close.

Again, we are never in a quandary about knowing what to do when we follow the Torah (of course, sometimes we're not certain what the halacha is, because there are differences of opinion, but that's a completely different type of case).

"Chareidim must serve in the IDF"

Maybe yes, maybe no. Obviously, there are arguments on both sides (if you don't think there are arguments on both sides, maybe you should learn to see beyond your "side"). However, the pesukim used as "proof" for this assertion were laughable. The story in the parasha concerns those shevatim who were not going to enter Eretz Yisrael. They offered to not only fight for the land, but in fact to lead the forces in battle. Somehow, this was being used as "proof" that chareidim should go into the Army. Imagine: a rabbi speaking from a pulpit in Roslyn Heights, using, as proof that chareidim in Eretz Yisrael should go into the IDF, the story in the Torah that those who were going to live in chutz la'aretz would fight first! Ridiculous! If the story demonstrates anything, it is that Rabbi Block should be the first to volunteer for the IDF, not sit back in his comfy home in Roslyn and dictate which Israelis should be fighting. Maybe it's time for him, in fact, to go.

What's the definition of an American Zionist? Someone who's willing to fight for Israel--down to the last Israeli!

Whoa!

A rather pleasant surprise this past shabbat, parashat Pinchas. No criticisms of Orthodoxy or adulation of anti-Torah movements. Just a cogent analysis of Pinchas' behavior, coupled with an attack on intermarriage (okay, not exactly going out on a limb, but still, we're giving credit where credit is due). And all this, on a day when there was a large crowd in shul!

Are we witnessing the turning over of a new leaf? Only time will tell.

Theft vs. Cheeseburgers

The statement was made that stealing is as bad or worse than eating a cheeseburger, and as bad as eating on Yom Kippur. We will briefly analyze this from three perspectives: halachic, meta-halachic, and does-this-make-any-sense-at-all-to-be-saying.

• Halachic | Theft is a Torah prohibition. Eating a cheeseburger entails the prohibition against eating meat that was not slaughtered in accordance with halacha, a Torah prohibition. It also involves eating blood, since the meat was not salted to remove blood; this is a capital offense (I guess, if you consider Karet, spiritual death, to be a capital offense). However, there are opinions that cooked blood is a rabbinic prohibition, and also, perhaps the blood was broiled out of the burger, the way we kasher liver, for example. Finally, eating milk and meat cooked together is a Torah prohibition (most opinions say it applies to non-kosher beef as well as kosher), so if the cheese is melted onto the meat, this Torah prohibition is violated. So it seems that eating a cheeseburger is either as bad as, or worse than theft, depending on the blood issue. With respect to Yom Kippur, well, eating on Yom Kippur is a capital offense (karet), so eating on Yom Kippur is worse than theft.
• Meta-halachic | Could be that theft would rise to the level of a chillul hashem, depending on the circumstances (OK, maybe that's more halachic than meta-halachic). This would make it much worse than cheeseburgers or Yom Kippur. Further, with theft, you're sinning against both man and God.
• Does-this-make-any-sense-at-all-to-be-saying | Of course not. The message we were given was, "don't think that only kashrut and Yom Kippur are God's law; theft is, too." Now, that's true, but the converse is also true--"don't think that only being good to other people is God's law, but so is keeping kosher and shabbat and all the other commandments." Who is he preaching to? Which message is lacking among 95% of American Jews, and among probably the majority of the Roslyn Synagogue? Most American Jews, including those who live in Roslyn, are honest, and don't need to be told that the Torah prohibits theft. But most American Jews are eating treif and violating the shabbat. So they don't need to be taught that the Torah prohibits theft, they already know that. They need to be taught that it's (for all intents and purposes) just as bad to eat a cheeseburger as it is to steal. Does the rabbi have any idea who his audience is? Or is he lashing out at some unseen right-wing bogeyman, getting all defensive against the chareidim who uphold Torah, so he's got to find some way to criticize them? (Assuming that chareidim are more likely to be crooks than non-religious Jews, which seems to border on anti-Semitism.) Or does he like to say whatever will make the Beth Sholom-niks feel at home--telling them they're ahead of the game because they don't steal, and we'll put off a discussion on the importance of the whole rest of the Torah to an undetermined later date?

Moses Mendelssohn, really?

Who ever heard of the founder of Reform being quoted in an Orthodox synagogue, from the pulpit, in a lesson on parashat hashavuah? And, apparently, in the weekly chumash class as well?

Mendelssohn, for those whose knowledge of evil is incomplete, was the 18th century German Jew who basically catalyzed the formation of the Reform movement, the source of destruction of a large part of European Jewry. To quote him in a shiur is not only wrong, it's laughable. Who's up next for reference? Jesus? Martin Luther? It's bad enough that we use the Hertz chumash, with its Conservative dominated translation taken from the Jewish Publication Society of America, and its commentary, which straddles the line between Orthodoxy and Conservative. But to quote a guy who set in motion the greatest defection from Torah our people has ever known, a man who was so "great" at perpetuating the Jewish people that none of his descendants is today Jewish, just defies logic.

Devorah

Typical soapbox preaching this week.

Assertion: Some people want to edit out this haftarah (presumably because it talks about a woman singing, or being a judge, or a prophet, or some made-up reason).

Fact: No one wants to edit out this haftarah. Everyone from Modern Orthodox to Chareidi/Yeshivish/right wing/black hat reads it.

Assertion: Devorah judge, Devorah prophetess, women singing, back of bus, women do lots of things in this day and age, yada yada yada.

Fact: Devorah was a prophetess, no one has any problem with that. The navi also states that she judged Israel at that time. The question is, how does that comport with halacha? The generally accepted halachic opinion is that a woman cannot be a judge. Since we learn from verses in the Torah that a woman can't be a witness (in a trial where witnesses are required, not just a witness to clarify facts), and anyone who is prohibited from being a witness is prohibited from being a judge, a woman can't be a judge. Therefore, the usual explanation is that Devorah did not judge in the usual sense, but rather, that people sought her sage advice on a non-binding basis, or that she "judged" via her prophetic abilities, or some other explanation along those lines. There is a minority opinion that a woman is allowed to be a judge even though she may not be a witness, and therefore according to that opinion there would be no problem with Devorah being a judge even with the usual understanding of the term.

Men and women can't sing together. Men can't listen to women singing. That's the basic halacha. There are exceptions according to certain opinions, such as, maybe, allowing a group of men and women to sing zemirot together if we are afraid that discouraging the women from singing will turn them off to Judaism. And there may be an exception for men to listen to a group of women singing, because no one voice is heard clearly, or an exception for hearing a woman without seeing her, such as on a recording. But the basic halacha is as articulated above; the Talmud clearly states that a woman's singing voice is in the same category as certain parts of her body--private, and not to be seen by men. So in the haftarah, Devorah and Barak sang separately, just as in the parasha, where it states clearly that the men and women sang separately following the miracle at the sea.

Halacha is eternal and unchanging. Sometimes the application of the law may change, when the halacha itself says it depends on the situation. But other times it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't really matter if women are doctors or lawyers, or if the world has become more "egalitarian", etc.-- men still can't listen to them sing. It's no different than if the whole world eats pork--Jews still can't eat pork; or if all women in the world wear sleeveless dresses--Jewish women still can't wear sleeveless dresses. Even if Jewish women are out in the workplace and have significant roles in society and non-Jewish society says there are no differences between men and women--halacha is what halacha is. And this dovetails nicely with what we've said in the past--we don't look to non-Jewish, secular society to tell us what's right and wrong and how we should behave, because those "rules" were made up by human beings. We look to Torah, which is the set of rules promulgated by God.

Tefillin for women?

This past week's parasha mentioned the mitzva of tefillin. The question was asked why women are exempt from this mitzva. An unsatisfactory answer was provided, with a lot of hemming and hawing, making it seem like Rabbi Block had something to hide.

In fact, although one could come up with tefillin-specific explanations, the main reason that women are exempt is that it is one of the class of time-dependent positive commandments, and women are exempt from most of these, such as keriat shema, tzitzit, shofar, lulav, and sukka. A simple, straightforward answer such as this, coming from the pulpit, would have been preferable to the evasive response that was given.

Next, the statement was made that women are permitted to put on tefillin if they wish. While there is nothing intrinsic to the mitzva of tefillin that precludes women from performing it, this was, basically, an incorrect response, or at the very least, a misleading one, on a number of fronts.

For one thing, even men put on tefillin as little as possible. The wearing of tefillin requires a "guf naki", a clean body, i.e. free of passing gas, etc. This is the main reason that we do not wear tefillin at night, since when one falls asleep, one can't prevent these things from occurring, and the sages were concerned that if one wore tefillin at night, he might inadvertently fall asleep. In the past, people were on a very high level of holiness, and were able to guard their bodies while wearing tefillin all day long, and so they were worn throughout the day except for meals and bathroom breaks. Nowadays, we wear them only for shacharit, so as to have them on for shema and amidah, but we remove them afterwards, so as not to run into problems. Since women don't have to wear tefillin, says the Aruch Hashulchan, why should they purposely risk not having a guf naki while wearing them?

There are other issues as well. Halacha prohibits men and women from wearing each other's clothing or bodily adornments, and from performing various grooming functions unique to the other. It is quite possible that for a woman to wear tefillin violates this prohibition (in fact, this statement is made explicitly in the Targum Yonatan). I suppose if a woman were to wear tefillin purely for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva, she might not be transgressing this prohibition, but if she wore them for feminist reasons, "to be like the men", she would very likely be in violation.

We are prohibited from emulating the ways of the non-Jews ("ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו") and from subscribing to anti-Torah ideologies. Again, if a woman were to wear tefillin with impure motivations, such as wanting to do what the rest of the world tells her to do, namely, to be egalitarian or feminist or some such credo, she might be guilty of violating the prohibition of  ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו.

Finally, some people like to point out that Rashi's daughters as well as Michal, the daughter of King Saul, wore tefillin. On the first point, there is no evidence that Rashi's daughters did so; this is the stuff of urban legends. With respect to Michal bat Shaul, the Talmud Bavli states that the sages did not protest her doing so, but the Talmud Yerushalmi records a dispute as to whether they protested or not. Further, even if they didn't criticize her actions, it remains a question as to whether what she did was appropriate or not.

The bottom line: the Shulchan Aruch states clearly that if a woman puts on tefillin, "mochin beyadam", we are to protest, i.e., it is not to be done.

And the 600-pound gorilla in the room: why couldn't this have been explained from the pulpit? Is Rabbi Block embarrassed that women don't put on tefillin, that the Torah's ideology differs dramatically from that of the society in which we live? We embrace the Torah's way of life rather than that of Gentile society--we eat beef instead of pork, we work six days instead of seven, and we learn from Hashem's prescription for differences between people and their ideal roles in society, not from invented humanistic ideologies of sameness and egalitarianism.

Agudah

Oh gosh, how could I have forgotten, of all the things to totally slip my mind...

 

We were recently given the following psak halacha: "the Torah prohibits having an organization with the name "Agudah.""

 

Hmmm. Well. That's quite a bold statement, to say the least. What was the rationale?

 

The chumash in Devarim says, "lo titgodedu," which contextually means that we are forbidden from injuring ourselves as a sign of mourning. This was, apparently, an ancient pagan practice, and the Torah forbids it. However, our sages derived another sensible law from this verbiage: we must not have divisions in halachic practice among groups of Jews. Now, the parameters of this rule are too complex, and the various rabbinic opinions too numerous, to discuss on this blog (for an exhaustive treatment, see here). Suffice it to say, the halacha is that we may not have one group of Jews practicing one way and another practicing another way in one city where all Jews are expected to be of the same group. Naturally, in this day and age where there are mixtures of Jews from various traditions in almost every city, the applicability of this law is diminished. For example, Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews can certainly continue to abide by their respective customs without violating the law.

 

Oddly enough, nowhere does the halacha say that one may not have an organization named "Agudah." Of course, we all know that, and the "psak" was clearly a dig at Agudath Israel, or Agudas Horabbonim, because of the unwritten rule in the Roslyn Synagogue that all rabbis and organizations to the right of Rabbi Block are bad. Nonetheless, it was clearly a lie.

 

Not only that, but with this statement, countless Jewish organizations from across the religious spectrum were instantly indicted. Not only Agudath Israel, which Rav Soloveitchik was a member of for a time (until he joined the Mizrachi, but that was because of Aguda's position on the State of Israel, not because he objected to the name of the organization). But also the following organizations:

• Agudah for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender in Israel
• אגודת הסטודנטים באוניברסיטה העברית aguda.org.il
• Agudath Achim Synagogue
• Congregation Agudath Sholom The Voice of Peace
• Congregation Agudas Sholom of Chelsea, Massachusetts
• Aguda Lema'an Hachayal (The Association of the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers)

 

etc
etc

 

And last but not least, the line from the machzor for yamim noraim:
"veyei'asu chulam agudah echat la'asot retzonecha belevav shalem" (all the nations will form one union to do Your will with a complete heart), taken from the pasuk in Shmuel Bet 2:25: "vayitkabetzu benei vinyamin vayihyu la’Agudah echat.”

 

A heavy list of "agudot" to be dissing, indeed.

Rabbi Tokayer

Our synagogue recently had a Sunday morning breakfast with Rabbi Marvin Tokayer, recognized expert on Jews and the Far East. He gave a talk that was both informative and enjoyable, appealing to a broad cross-section of the membership.

At the end of the talk he entertained a variety of questions. One question concerned his relationship with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Rabbi Tokayer naturally declined to answer the question, correctly pointing out that it was not the topic of the day. For this, he was naturally praised by Rabbi Block.

Of course, Rabbi Tokayer had a long relationship with Rabbi Schneerson. For one thing, the Rebbe was the one who told Rabbi Tokayer to go to Japan in the first place:

"When the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, arranged for a young Rabbi Marvin Tokayer to serve Jews across Asia from a post in Tokyo, the former U.S. Air Force chaplain didn’t understand why he had been singled out for such a task. Sure, he had been stationed in Tokyo during his stint in the military, but he didn’t speak Japanese. He was engaged to be married to an Israeli woman who wasn’t too keen about travelling to such a foreign land. And he wasn’t even a Chabad-Lubavitch Chasid."

For the rest, click here.

And Rabbi Tokayer's relationship with Rabbi Schneerson predates his Far East mission, going back to his college days:

"I wrote a letter to the Rebbe, in Hebrew, outlining what I was studying, and explained that I had some philosophical questions that I would like to discuss with him, if possible.

"Within a couple of days, I was contacted by the Rebbe’s secretariat and given an appointment for three weeks later at 3:00 AM."

For the rest, click here.

Of course, we wouldn't necessarily assume that Rabbi Tokayer would approve of Chabad philosophy, or of the activities of certain Chabad groups after the Rebbe's passing. In fact, we can't even necessarily assume that Rabbi Tokayer approved of everything the Rebbe himself said or did. What we do learn, though, is the most normal Jewish people don't consider Rabbi Schneerson or Chabad to be the big bogey man that some people would have us believe.

The beracha on potato chips...

...is borei peri ha-adama.

This is the virtually universally-held opinion among the poskim. Actually, I couldn't find anyone who said otherwise, I'm just covering myself by using the term "virtually."

Of course, there were (mainly chassidic) poskim who held that the beracha on a potato itself is shehakol. They assumed that it was more like fungus than a vegetable, and the beracha on a fungus (like a mushroom) is shehakol, since it doesn't really grow from the ground, more like on the ground. But we don't go by that opinion regarding potatoes, we make a ha-adama on potatoes, and therefore we make ha-adama on potato chips.

Frankly it's absurd that anyone would even suggest otherwise, knowing full well what the correct beracha is, but unfortunately that's what we have to put up with regularly at The Roslyn Synagogue. And that's also why, unfortunately, no one can expect to learn halacha and how to live a Jewish life at The Roslyn Synagogue--a lot of talk about scotch, the Mets, Catholic Israel, and how all right-wing rabbis are bad, but not very much in the way of, um, you know, practical Torah observance.

Japan

At the end of services this past Shabbat, Rabbi Block made a last-minute announcement, conveniently timed so that no one would have the opportunity to debate the point. He stated that we don't know why the earthquake occured in Japan, and anyone who says they know is completely wrong, and we should walk away from such a person.

This bears some explaining, since (1) most members of the congregation probably have no idea what he is talking about, and (2) this statement, typically, throws the baby out with the bathwater.

In 2008, three Israeli teenagers were tricked into unknowingly smuggling drugs into Japan. A religious-appearing individual had promised them $1000 each to take a suitcase with "antiques" hidden in a secret compartment "for safekeeping" to be sold at the Tokyo Art Fair. Of course, the suitcases contained narcotics. The boys were promptly arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms. One was transferred to a prison in Israel and has since been released. The other two are languishing in a Japanese prison.

Predictably, some have suggested that the earthquake is God's way of punishing the Japanese for subjecting these youths to harsh treatment despite their obviously unwitting participation in the crime. Now, everyone will readily admit that we don't definitively know the reason behind God's actions. However, to use that concept to prove that we can't draw any lessons or conclusions is preposterous. For one thing, we are always speculating about why God does certain things. For example: if I asked why God split the Red Sea during the exodus instead of building a bridge across it, don't you think the Rabbi would have suggested an answer? Now, no one would think that the Rabbi was stating definitively that he knew God's thought process, but we would accept his (or any congregant's) idea as a reasonable suggestion, as a point to ponder.

Similarly, the Talmud tells us the reasons behind various events. For example, the first Temple was destroyed because of various heinous offenses committed by the nation. The second Temple was destroyed because of internecine hatred among Jews. Of course, we do not have the ruach hakodesh that the chachmei hatalmud had to be able to understand the specific reasons for things occurring nowadays, but the concept that people might know why God does such and such is not foreign to Judaism.

Actually, the gemara indeed indicates to us, by way of general rules, why certain things happen. For example, the Talmud in Shabbat 119b tells us that fires occur in places where there is desecration of the Sabbath. Now, does that mean that we know that a specific fire occurred because of a specific act of shabbos violation? No, of course we don't. What it means to tell us is that when there is a fire, God forbid, we consider that chillul shabbos may have been occurring, somewhere, at some point, and we want to take steps to rectify it. So when certain people attributed the fires in Northern Israel late last year to chillul shabbos, it was with this context in mind,  that it is a general attribution only, and meant to prod us to improve our ways, not to ascribe specific punishments to specific actions.

The events in Japan are to be viewed in a similar fashion. The Talmud in Berachot 59a states that when Jews are being tormented by the nations of the world, God cries two tears into the ocean and causes an earthquake. (Two God-sized tears must cause quite a wave, don't you think?) Now, if that doesn't sound like what happened in Japan, I don't know what does. Again, no one is saying the we definitively know that this specific statement in the Talmud was carried out here, or that it was the result of Japan's imprisoning the two youths. However, the parallel is extraordinary and it would be silly to ignore.

In Berachot 5a we are admonished to treat punishment as an opportunity for introspection. We don't know exactly why certain events occur, but we can think about possible reasons, using our traditional sources as a basis. Moreover, we must certainly learn lessons and sublimate the memory of the events into a clarion call for teshuva.

Mishloach Manot

The recent shul mailing on mishloach manos, at the bottom, was misleading regarding the minimum parameters of the requirement.

It is two food items to a single individual.

Conservative Day School

Recently the Rabbi made a statement from the pulpit which, by mistake, could have sounded like he was describing a Conservative day school as a place of Torah.

This must have been a mis-speak. A Conservative school, or any place that teaches apikorsus, such as the idea that Torah is not from heaven, God forbid, is most certainly NOT a place of Torah.

• It is forbidden to learn heretical ideas except for specific purposes, such as debating heretics.
• It is forbidden to send one's children to such a school--doing so would be tantamount to spiritual child abuse.
• One would be better off going to public school, ideally followed by an Orthodox Hebrew school in the afternoon, than to attend a place that teaches heretical ideas. It is clearly better to learn nothing than to learn a mixture of good and bad, when one does not posess the ability to discern the difference. For example, which would be better--to learn how to install a light fixture from a book that was half correct and half not, or to not learn how to install a light fixture at all? In the latter case, the worse that can happen is you sit in the dark. In the former, you might blow up your house! Going to public school means you sit in the dark. Conservative blows up our house.

Again, I can only pray that the Rabbi mis-spoke when he said what he said. Let us all pray that this is the last we hear of such mis-speaks.

Kids' Area

A beautiful Bar Mitzvah was celebrated in shul this past shabbos. Great family, great kid, great laining, great food. One additional advantage--the kids' area (the "stage" at the east end of the kiddush room) was curtained off.

This was terrific! Fran and the kids had a partitioned area to play in. Wouldn't it be nice to have it like that every shabbos? There have been plans to build a wall to separate the play area for a year now--what's going on? It took nine months to build a new house near me...and it's taking a year for the shul just to figure out how to build a wall?

Philosophy Priorities

Another quote from the shul website:

The warm atmosphere of The Roslyn Synagogue reflects the philosophy that the viability of our congregation, and of American Judaism, is dependent on the enjoyment of observance by current and future generations.

That's a very interesting philosophy. I didn't know that the key to American Jewish survival was enjoying observance. So if only people liked keeping kosher, the majority of American Jews would keep kosher? If only people liked walking to shul on Shabbos, the majority of American Jews would keep Shabbos?

This seems very unlikely. Jews who live their lives according to halacha do so because they are convinced it is important, because they believe that that is what Hashem wants us to do. Certain aspects of observance may or may not be enjoyable, but that's not why people are religious. If we are going to rely on the enjoyment factor to get people to be observant then we are not likely to succeed, because there will always be something more enjoyable coming around the bend that will supersede Judaism in that regard. Jews need to understand the necessity and importance of being observant, and have enough faith in Hashem and His Torah to make that commitment; relying on the entertainment value of religion isn't going to cut it.

Building Priorities

A quote from the shul website:

The Roslyn Synagogue is currently undergoing an expansion. Recently completed, the newly redesigned kitchen is beautifully upgraded. An enlarged children’s area is currently in the planning stages.

This is a great example of a shul whose priorities are all wrong.

1. The first things upgraded were the kitchen and mens room. Now, the kitchen is used by, at most, 10% of the membership (how many people actually go into the kitchen?) Not a wise way to spend a limited amount of funds.
2. The mens room was not redone properly. In a small bathroom, there isn't room for two stalls; at most a stall plus a urinal. If the door to the bathroom can't be closed, then clearly the bathroom was remodeled incorrectly. In fact, already the door to one of the stalls doesn't even close or lock.
3. Not only wasn't the mens room done up wrong, it shouldn't have been remodeled at this point at all. The ladies room should've had a much higher priority. Let's face it, if a couple is visiting the shul, and the guy has to use an old bathroom, he's not going to care much either way. But when his wife has to use the poor excuse we have for a ladies room, I guarantee they're not coming back for a long time.
4. See the quote above: the kitchen (irrelevant) has been redone already, but the children's area (most important) is only in the planning stages. So our liquor is taken care of well, but our children are kept in a gross room with no walls, conducive to wilding and injury but not to learning and proper behavior.

Back to Business?

Yes, there have been no comments for a while. I wish I could say that that's because everything is hunky-dory. But rather, it's because there's so much to comment on, and nothing changes, it's easy to get pessimistic about accomplishing anything.

It's kind of like when you read a newspaper that always has mistakes--if you write a letter to the editor every time you catch an error, you'd be writing letters every day.

But I'm back to being optimistic again. Or at least, I've got the guts again to fight the good fight.

Forum

Besides this blog, which people are always welcome to leave comments on, there is now a Google Group for people to comment on anything about the shul that crosses their mind:

Subscribe to Roslyn Synagogue

Email:

Visit this group

Shavuot

Excellent speakers all the way around. They were interesting to listen to, kept us awake in the middle of the night, and taught us.

But...

What does it say that none of the shul members was asked to speak? It's almost as if it was felt that no one in the shul could possibly give a Torah lecture, and that's why a whole bunch of outsiders had to be brought in instead.

I think that there are quite a number of members who could give a devar torah, or summarize a Torah book that they read, etc. In most shuls that's how it's done--the members speak on Shavuot night.

Unfortunately this is a recurring theme in the Roslyn Synagogue--the members are treated like babies. Most are never asked to lead the tefilot, never asked to give a devar torah, etc. If you treat people like they're unable to do something, that's how they'll certainly remain.

Scholar-in-residence

A very enjoyable and informative scholar-in-residence program has passed.

1. When will the next one be? Another year? Or, hopefully, sooner.
2. Who will the speaker be? The last one was from YU, this one was from Roslyn (originally), perhaps the next one could be more than one degree of separation removed from the shul. Of course, there is a shul in Queens whose most recent scholar in residence was their own rabbi, so I guess we are a bit more sophisticated than other places.
3. How many people will attend? The showing was a bit on the light side, to say the least.

Explanation of Rabbi's Comments

Rabbi Block delivers a wealth of information in each week's drashot and other speeches. Occasionally specific points need clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Here we will try to address any areas of potential confusion.

Statement: 1. Shaving with a razor prohibited (for men) on the face. 2. Sideburns (at least enough to grasp with the fingers) must be maintained at least down to the bone in front of the ear.
Explanation: The face can be shaved with an electric shaver (provided the blades can't cut on their own, only against the screen--"v'lo tashchit et pe'at zekanecha"). The sideburns can't be shaved even with an electric shaver and can only be trimmed (by any means) to the limits the rabbi mentioned above--"lo takifu pe'at roshchem".
Statement: "We say hanerot hallalu after lighting all of the
candles"
Elaboration: There is an alternate opinion (of equal or greater validity) that hanerot hallalu is said after lighting the first candle, while lighting the others.

General Comments