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.