Years ago, I approached a member of my shul and asked if something was bothering him. “You seem to be acting distant” I candidly said. “Well rabbi, to be honest, I am a little hurt. Why didn’t you call me last week? I wasn’t by davening for a few days and you never once reached out to see if everything was ok”.
I apologized, took his rebuke seriously, and pledged to do better in the future.
A year or two goes by, and I noticed he was once again missing for a few days. I tried calling, but after several attempts there was no answer. I left a message saying, “Hi, it is Rabbi Taub calling just to make sure everything is ok, as it’s not like you to be missing from shul. I hope you are healthy and that the family is well. I will try calling again later”.
About an hour later he was back in shul for mincha. I again sensed a coldness coming from him. “Is everything ok?” I asked following davening. “Well, rabbi, to be honest, I am a little hurt. IS this a high school?! I simply had strep. Do I need a note from my parents for being absent? Having my rabbi call to check in on me felt as though you were ensuring I had a good excuse for my absence”.
People are complicated and unpredictable, and we can only try our best.
Now, if one induvial can be difficult to satisfy, imagine how much more challenging it is to satisfy two different people, or a whole kehilla!
Several years ago, an organization arranged for a young rav -who is also a well-regarded singer/composer- to give a guest shiur in town. I was approached and asked if our shul could be the host venue. “Of course!” I responded, “Any ben Torah – and baal mesorah – rebbe, rav, or mechanech is welcome to teach Torah by us!”
The shiur took place on a Monday night and, for whatever reason, it was arranged to be given in our beis haknenneses. I still recall the beautiful Sfas Emes he shared, as well as his overall poignant message.
At some point, surprisingly to me, he pulled out his guitar and sang a soul stirring melody that brought his message home. As I was making away to my office afterward, a prominent member asked to speak with me.
“Rabbi, you allowed a guitar to be played inside a beis haknesses?!”
I replied by first agreeing with his central point.
Many poskim are indeed adamant that we should never allow any such instruments inside our battei teffilos (see shu”t Shevet HaLevi 1:25).
The Chasam Sofer was most strict about this (see shu”t Chasam Sofer oh’c 182-184 and c’m 190/192). This was not due only to the reformers of his time, but also because such instruments take away from the fear and holy joy we are to be aiming for in such holy spaces.
I then shared the flip side. “Just the other week we were together at so-and-so’s wedding.” “So? I don’t get the connection” “Well, the chuppah took place in a beis haknnesses (conducting chuppos in shul’s sanctuary is a separate, and lengthy, discussion), and the band certainly played music! Also, what about a hachansas sefer Torah? Don’t many shuls allow instrumnets to be played then, and inside a shul? Rather, the minhag among many (in chutz l’aretz) is to allow this, at times, so long as it is for a davar mitzvah, done only on rare occasions, and never during davening.
“While I do not know what I would have answered had the speaker asked me first, once he began, I decided to leave him be”.
Fast-forward to sometime later, during Covid, one of the local frum schools contacted me explaining that they were looking for a place to hold some classes that would allow for greater distancing. They were willing to pay a fair price to use our building during the daytime, but would need to utilize the beis midrash and beis haknneses as well.
“That is fine, and you may have access to all our rooms and areas. However, the beis midrash and beis haknesses are off limits unless being used for Torah classes”, I responded.
The reader should note the words of the Aruch Hashulchan that any mundane talk-even that which relates to parnassah-must be avoided in such holy spaces (siman 151:5). This time the pushback came in the other direction.
A board-member of that school called and calmly articulated his disappointed in my decision in not allowing something in such mekomos kodesh.
Being a knowledgeable man, he recited the view of Rav Yaakov Yechial Weinberg (d. 1966) in his shu”t Seridei Eish, sharing with me, “Many years ago, he allowed even concerts to take place in a shul! Even more so here when all that is being taught -other than Torah-would be math, history, science, etc.!”
Having been asked over the years to host lag ‘b’omer concerts, I was very familiar with this teshuvah. It has become the go-to argument from those who wish me to permit such events. I have learned that – often, although not always – those who marshal this source have rarely taken the time to look at it inside; to read what he actually put to parer (shu’t Seridei Eish, 1:16, new edition, Vaad L’Hotzaos Kisvei Rav Weinberg).
He closes this lengthy teshuva by organizing a final review of his psak. There, he writes:
“Frum concerts (Jewish music) [in a shul] is not something that is imbued with the spirit of chazal. However, if it can lead to a machlokos, perhaps then there is room for leniency.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement! However, more significant than this is the critical historical context he gives at the start of this teshuvah.
“This responsa was written during the tumultuous years under the Nazis ym”s….for many reasons, Jews are unable to gather anywhere, save for in their shuls…during this unique time when Jews are in pain…we have a mitzvah to be michazek them…”
Today, while we too need kosher chizuk, we have other places in which to enjoy them. Indeed, the entire concept of not listening to music during our present sefira mourning period is not brought in the classic early sources (cf. Leket Yosher in the name of the Terumas HaDeshen) and is, as the Minchas Yitzchak writes (1:111), a minhag:
“Even if not listening to instruments during this period is but an added chumrah…it should be enough for us not to permit it”.
Whether music during sefria, in our shuls, or the combination of the two, our minhagim are not to be challenged. I often share that challenging mesorah -both written and received-is akin, lahavdil ad lanetzach, challenging Waze: there is still a chance you may wind up at your destination, but it will be a far lengthier and circuitous route. While we can never make everyone happy all the time, and while we should always hear out voices of dissent, a rav must always resign himself to our mesorah. I ended that call by sharing another example. “In our generation, we are analogous to the person who is asked to move a Jenga piece on the 18th turn. The klal is in such a precarious time in our present galus that I just don’t want to as much as breath on it, let alone touch a single piece! Perhaps avoiding tampering with our mesorah will serve as a zechus to have our universal shul -Hashem’s and our bayis shlishi-return.
“…No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”
–Article VI. Of the Constitution of the United States
In another post we shared a letter from Benjamin Rush -a signer of our Declaration- to his wife describing a religious Jewish wedding he attended.
That wedding was was for the daughter of one Jonas Phillips.
Just who was this orthodoxJew, Jonas Phillips, and why would a founding father attend his daughter’s wedding?
Jonas Phillips (d. 1803) was one of the founders of the famed Mikveh Yisroel shul in Philadelphia and had fought valiantly in the American Revolutionary War.
He was the patriarch to an American family of consequence and askanus.
We owe muchto him and his progeny.
The Little Red Trunk
In 1894, a small red box in the Department of State was opened. Rumor then had it that it was placed there by none other than Thomas Jefferson. Upon opening, a handwritten note was discovered pasted to its inside, signed by Daniel Brent, who was the Chief Clerk of the Department of State from 1817-1833.
The note read:
“This trunk contains the Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution of The United States… The Original Books and Papers were deposited in the Department of State in 1796, by President Washington, he having been President of the Convention, to be there preserved. D. B.” (See Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 1917, Samuel Oppenheim)
In it was was “Letter no. 8”, which Brent recorded as: “Letter from Jonas Phillips, a Jew, dated Sept. 7. 1787, to the President and Members of the Convention.”
What I am about to share is this amazing letter, written to George Washington from Jonas Phillips (I changed only his spellings for the ease of the reader).
The fact that this is one of the relatively few items that Washington saved it should be very telling for historians.
He opens with painting a picture of their achroyos and chosen-ness:
“Sires, with leave and submission I address myself To those in whom there is wisdom understanding and knowledge, they are the honorable personages appointed and made overseers of a part of the terrestrial globe of the Earth, namely the13 United States of America in Convention Assembled, the Lrd preserve them, amen”.
He then gets to his focus:
“I the subscriber being one of the people called Jews of the City of Philadelphia, a people scattered & dispersed among all nations do behold with Concern that among the laws in the Constitution of Pennsylvania, there is a Clause (to affirm belief in the books of Christianity)…To swear and believe that (these books) was given by divine inspiration is absolutely against the religious principle of a Jew,
and is against his conscience to take any such oath. By the above law a Jew is deprived of …[the] unalienable right to worship Almi-hty Gd according to the dictates of their own conscience and understanding and that no man can be compelled to attend any religious worship or creed, or support any place of worship…”
Perhaps so as not to seem only as a faultfinder, he adds:
“It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful whigs [here meaning: patriot; against the king], and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and assisting the states with their lives and fortunes, they have supported the cause, have bravely fought and bled for liberty which they cannot enjoy [due to this, and similar, oaths and provision].”
Back to his complaint:
“Therefore, if the honorable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath…then the Israelites will think themself happy to live under a government where all religious societies are on an equal footing – I solicit this favor for myself my children & posterity, and for the benefit of all the Israelites through the 13 United States of America.
He ends with a beautifully composed teffilah:
“My prayer is unto the Lrd: May the people of these States rise up as a great and young lion and prevail against their enemies. May… the honor of the president of the Convention, George Washington, be exalted… May Gd prolong his days among us in this land of liberty…May Gd extend peace to them and their seed after them so long as the sun and moon endure, and may the Almi-hty Gd of our father Abraham, Isaac and Jacob indue this noble assembly with wisdom, judgment and unanimity in their counsels, and may they have the satisfaction to see that their present toil and labor for the welfare of the United States may be approved of through all the world, and particular by the United States of America, your most devoted obedient servant, Jonas Phillips, Philadelphia 24, Elul 5547 or Sept. 7, 1787.”
An influential American reform Jew, Judge Phillips J. Joachimsen, wrote an article in 1879 asserting:
“I wish to remark that it was due to Jonas Phillips that the article on religious liberty …was made a part of the Constitution of the United States…” (see Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 1903, pp. 53-73).
While this is almost certainly an exaggerated framing, there is a modicum of truth to this.
James Madison was the driving force behind Article VI. He wrote in The Federalist Papers (51), “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights”. His reasons were not based on kindness alone, but also pragmatism, arguing that a large republic with many competing groups (including religious sects) would prevent any one group from dominating: “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States” (10).
In 1785, he anonymously penned the influential Memorial and Remonstrance, defeating Patrick Henry’s bill for tax-paid Christian teachers, arguing that fusing politics and religion would work to corrupt both.
At the Convention, most of his opponents were not coming with evil intent, rather they feared that allowing politicians who were either non-believers or atheists could erode the country’s morality.
Jonas Phillips’ petition was no doubt crucial timing. It provided a concrete, human example of the disorder that could arise, e.g. loyal Jewish veterans forced into such oaths or excluded from office. This made an abstract principle urgent and visible to Washington and the other delegates, reinforcing why the clause was essential.
Imagine the concern of those early Jews, Phillips’ anxiety, and the nechama that finally came when it was passed.
This law is now a cornerstone of American religious liberty, causing Washington to save that letter for us to read today.
Reviewing the laws & categories of ‘Food Respect’ in Halacha
Originally published in Ami Magazine October 2025
Rabbi Moshe Taub
I. Fun Chol Hamoed Shailos
“Is this allowed?”
When I receive a text message like that -without supplementary context -I am confident that an image of a rare hashgacha logo is on its way. By far, those are the most common ‘picture’ shailos that I receive. Being that this was over sukkos, I wondered if perhaps the incoming image would be of an esrog with an odd stain, or a piece of its pittum missing.
Instead, the picture that soon came through was of this person and his family at a pumpkin farm.
‘Did he send the wrong picture?’ I wondered. While delighted that he was on a pleasant chol hamoed trip, I failed to see the halachic significance.
“Zoom in”
I followed his instructions and, in doing so, I grasped the purpose of this picture and the nature of his shailah.
The farm had set up a game of ‘bowling’ where pins were corn stalks and, instead of a standard bowling ball, a pumpkin was being used!
In the image’s background, one can see many other families playing this game, and the many decimated guards as its result. It looked like a mash of flesh and seeds.
“I love it!”, I responded…talking about the shailah, not the game!
Realizing he may think my excitement was in reference to bowling with pumpkins, I called to explain.
I shared how on each chol hamoed new and sometimes fascinating shailos arise, like the fellow who answered a Hatzala call during pesukei d’zimara on Shemini Atzeres and, upon his return, was about to davenshachris. For the tzibbur however it was before mussaf, and the gabbei yelled out, “Mashiv HaRuach…”.
Would he need to say this new addition in his shachris?
While that issue can be found discussed by the poskim, other yom tov shailos are far more unique. More, they can often relate to the rest of the year.
This pumpkin shailah was one of those.
II. The Three Sections of ‘Food-Respect’
Ostensibly, such questions relating to the treatment of food can fall into three main halachic categories of concern:
Baal tashchis
Bizuy ochel
Kavod pas
To best understand how to apply these to common (and uncommon) cases, it is critical to review the basic premise of each of these prohibitions
Baal tashchis:
In its most common form, this refers to the wasting of food. Perhaps the most well-known of the above three, we should point out that there is some debate if in relation to food (and, perhaps, even regarding wasting time – See Chayay Adam 11:31) it is a rabbinic or Torah prohibition (as opposed to cutting down a fruit tree which will certainly be a Torah question).
Bizuy ochel:
Simply put, this concerns treating food in a disparaging manner. While this often gets confused with baal tashchis – and they can often arise in tandem -bizuy ochel is a separate matter. This can be seen from the Rambam, who brings these two categories separately (in hil. melachim 6:10, and, hil. berachos 7:9, respectively). Chazal give the example of serving perfectly edible human food to an animal (tannis 20; some posit that this concern is only when feeding someone else’s anima, shu”t Kesav Sofer, 33; as to feeding birds from our challah crumbs on Shabbos shirah, throwing candies or mezonos at simchos, etc. this is beyond our scope. Everyone should follow their minhag). Bizuy ochel may occur with no baal tashchis, such as in a case when leftovers may be discarded (e.g. when it is something forbidden, or, if there is less than a kezayis remaining, see Pri Megadim to siman 296, a”a, #3), yet playing basketball with it to get it into the garbage would violate bizuy ochel. Rashi (ad loc.) explains that by treating food disparagingly we are thereby demonstrating that we have forgotten its source, the Riboneh Shel Olam.
Kavod Pas:
Bread and all baked mezonos items from the five grains, are held to an even loftier level (cf. Gra and Pnei Shlomo who state that mezonos is not included in this concern). Chazal allude to this issue in several places (see berachos 50b with tosfos, pesachim 111b, chullin 105b etc.). While some rishonim see no difference between all foods and bread, (see e.g. Rashi to berachos ibid. and Levush to siman 171), most others do see a distinction. For example, the Mishneh Berrura states that while no food should be thrown, even toward a guest, this is only if it may become ruined through such action, whereas breads/mezonos may not be thrown even if there is not such risk (171:9 and 167:88). We should point out, that some are meikel on Shabbos when serving the slices of lechem mishneh, and everyone should follow the minhag of their homes and rebbeim. Furthermore, the Shulchan Aruch tells us that although the tiny bread crumbs left on the table at the end of meals may technically be disposed of -as, like all types of foods that are less than a kezayis, we are lenient -when it comes to bread, the negative treatment of even its crumbs may lead to poverty, l”a (180:4). The Mishneh Berurra explains that that the chief concern is stepping on such crumbs (#10). It is for this reason Jews have always been careful to sweep right after the Shabbos suedah and, especially, the Pesach seder. The Dirshu brings from Rav Elyashiv and Dayan Fisher that to sweep these crumbs directly from the table into the garbage is itself a denigration of bread. They therefore recommend to first collect these crumbs separately in a bag -or perhaps even a plate-and throw them out this in/with that bag/utensil.
Now that we have explicated the issues, we may return to pumpkins.
It would seem from all of the above that while such a farm may indeed have extra pumpkins in abundance – so that baal tashchis would not be an issue – bizuy ochelwould likely be a concern.
This would seem to also be true even with a used and inedible pumpkins more than a kezayis.
In the future, iy”H, I hope to investigate the many other common issues that arise from the three categories above, but for now, and at the very least, this farm gave us the chance to review a topic that often go unchecked.
A True Story of a Chance Encounter and Mutual Inspiration
Rabbi Moshe Taub for Ami Magazine, Pesach 5786
Everyone knows that rabbis sometimes have an odd mix of guests at their Sedarim—chasidim and Litvaks, baalei teshuvah and askanim, converts and…terrorists?
Indeed, that happened to us one year.
This past Seder, as I began the simanim, I made a humorous reference to this event, only to discover that my youngest daughter had no idea what I was referring to; she hadn’t been born yet when it occurred.
And so, with our guests listening closely, I shared the follwing story:
It began at JFK International Airport in January 2006. I was returning from drawn-out meetings, and Terminal 3 was packed.
Suddenly, and through the haze of people, I spotted him out of the corner of my eye.
Something was different about this man.
Post-9/11 trauma and paranoia were still very much with us, and our imaginations were apt to run wild. But this time I wasn’t imagining things. The man I was watching had trained with Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who would later become the second-in-command of al-Qaeda, and for a time, he had appeared on the watch list of every intelligence service from the CIA to the Mossad and Interpol.
He had deep black eyes and jet-black hair, and was most likely Egyptian. I was the only visibly Jewish person in the terminal, and he couldn’t seem to take his eyes off me.
Then I saw him walking straight toward me.
“Excuse me,” he said in a thick Egyptian accent. “I would like to give you my seat.”
“No, thank you,” I said, turning away.
“Please, I insist.”
Dozens of people were standing in that terminal. Why offer his seat to the man in the religious fedora?
Too nervous to push back, I accepted. “Suicidal empathy,” they call it. I slowly lowered myslef onto a seat that I was about 23% sure was wired to a weight-censored bomb.
After surviving the seat, I breathed a sigh of relief. The man again smiled at me, as I convinced myself that he wasn’t even on my flight and that this whole awkward saga would soon be over.
Of course, he was on my flight. And to my horror, he asked the flight attendant if he could sit next to me -as if we were old buddies!
Please recall how paranoid we all were back then, so perhaps the reader can excuse any honest uncouthness on my part thus far described.
In any event, we boarded, he sat down next to me, and extended his hand.
“My name is Tawfik Hamid. Are you a rabbi?”
*GULP*
“Yes.”
After all, I figured that if I was going to be a martyr then I should do so with pride.
To this confirmation, he responded:
“That is why I offered you my seat. Whenever I see a Jew, especially an Orthodox one, I go out of my way to help them.”
“How nice….Um…Why?”
“Because of respect…and guilt. I was once a trained terrorist. I had nothing but unsophisticated interpretations of the Quran. Just before 9/11, I saw the error of my ways and repented. I now dedicate my life to combating radical Islam.”
He was returning from briefings on Capitol Hill and meetings with then Senator Carl Levin of New York. He was now en route to speak at the University of Buffalo. We were soon deeply engaged in conversation, and the flight went by in an instant. We exchanged contact information, and he joked that this would make a great JetBlue commercial.
I was not convinced Park Avenue would concur that such a campaign would sell out any flights.
At the terminal in Buffalo, we shook hands and went our separate ways.
Tawfik Hamid
I thought that maybe I’d get a good drashah out of the incident, but otherwise that was the end of it.
A few months later, a professor at UB, called to apologize in advance for the unorthodox nature of her forthcoming request. She and Dr. Hamid were friends, she explained, and he had expressed a wish to attend my Passover Seder.
Would I be willing to host him?
(Incidentally, there are some halachic considerations involved in inviting a non-Jew to a Seder or any Yom Tov meal. One should consult a competent halachic authority if such a situation arises.)
My wife’s entire extended family would be with us—my in-laws and many of their raucous grandchildren. One more guest seemed manageable.
I said yes—but only remembered to tell my wife on Erev Yom Tov.
My mother-in-law was, to put it mildly, ‘displeased’.
“You invited a terrorist to the Seder?!”
Sheesh, she was making me feel that I was the first Rabbi son-in-law in history to have such a guest.
I tried to calm everyone down, noting that this was probably not the culmination of an elaborate plot, decades in the making, all to be carried out in our Amherst, NY dining room.
Then, remarkably, a miracle!
That Erev Pesach, the guest editorial in The Wall Street Journal was written by…. Dr. Hamid!
This certainly helped ease the tention in the air…a little.
The night arrived. Dr. Hamid understood his role as an observer; for example, he was not given a piece of the afikoman, but he asked good questions, and he cried when we sang “B’chol dor vador.” He marveled at the fact that the Seder is largely oriented toward children.
I felt bad for him, as he was probably did not eat all day, awaiting brisket and other delights that would be served. While we indeed eventually serve such delectables, he likely was not warned that he would have first have to wait three-hours to earn it.
Worse, I could only image his shock when we first passed around celery and salt water!
When we finally reached ShulchanAruch, and the Haggados were set aside, Dr. Hamid clasped his hands and said with great feeling:
“Forget torture. Forget Guantánamo Bay. We should force Islamic radicals to watch a Seder so that they can see with their own eyes what Judaism is truly about—the beautiful people and faith they want to destroy.”
Quixotic, perhaps, but it was astonishing to hear this from a man of his background.
Then, at the strike of midnight, he apologized and asked to be excused since he had an early flight. I couldn’t resist making the obvious joke: “But the Seder is about Jews escaping Egyptians at midnight, not the other way around!”
As I finished telling this story at our Seder this year, my daughter and the guests all turned to my wife, too polite to ask me directly whether any of this was true.
It occurred exactly as written.
After my wife confirmed these details, the guests turned back to me and asked, “So Rabbi—what’s the lesson?”
There is, of course, the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 6:5), who explains that the Egyptians were punished even though they fulfilled Hashem’s decree to Avraham. Why? because the decree was not directed at any particular individual, and each taskmaster chose to act cruelly of his own free will.
In other words, any one of them could have done what Tawfik Hamid did and backed away, refusing to inflict pain.
But the deeper message is one we must carry with us long after Pesach, into the spring and beyond.
I shared:
“If Tawfik can do it, so can we. Here was a man who had once appeared on terrorist watch lists…and was now briefing world leaders.
“He had risen from the depths of darkness to defend civilization.
“What a vivid illustration, l’havdil, of Yetzias Mitzraim itself -where a nation at the lowest rung of tumah would stand at the foot of Sinai only fifty days later.
“The sefarim stress how Pesach should serve to remind us that no matter how bleak things may appear for the klal, no matter how low a person feels he has sunk, Hashem is eager for us to return.”
“I’m going on a business trip during aseres yimei teshuva. They usually feed me from a local cholov stam shop. What do I do now?”
“I’m not using the eruv during aseres yimei teshuva. May I still ask my wife to carry for me?”
“Must I be mattir neder after assuming these aseres yimei teshuva chumros?
“If this is the appropriate path, why are we told only to take them on only for these ten days?”
“Is this not ‘arama’ (subterfuge), or playing tricks/games with teshuva?”
These are a good sample of the common questions rabbanim receive relating to the following minhag recorded in the Shulchan Aruch:
“Even one who’s not careful regarding pas palter [during the year], during the aseresyimeiteshuva he should be careful”
Shulchan Aruch, oh”ch 603:1
To best understand this halacha, we must first disentangle a misconception.
II. A Minhag Defined
There’s a horrible misconception. Many mistakenly define a ‘minhag’ as any action/abstention untethered to either Torah or Rabbinical halacha; the unique familial/communal customs relating to Jewish life that are source-less in our legal cannon.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, all minhagim must have a real-although minority- halachic viewpoint that is being followed or be grounded in the words of chazal (see, e.g. shu”t Noda B’Yehudah, 2, evh’a, #79; see also Tzava Rav Yehudah Hachasid, Otzar HaPoskim edition).
This does not mean that we must first discover each-and-every minhag’s source before acting on them. Rather, that our reverence for our rebbeim and ancestors allows us to be confident that such sources already exist; are known to their creators.
A helpful illustration would be a 1969 letter from Rav Yechezkel Grubner, famed rav of Detroit (d. 2009) to Rav Moshe Feinstein (shu”tIgros Moshe oh’c 3:3) regarding the minhag to fast for a fallen sefer Torah, R”l. Now, one may think that such a minhag is self-evidently appropriate, requiring no source. But this would be an error. If we were allowed to invent actions simply because they ‘felt’ right, Yiddeshkeit, in time, may become unrecognizable, R”l (see, e.g. Rosh, end of rosh hashana, in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, how such invented ‘beautifications’ is what caused the true ‘teruah’ to become forgotten).
So, Rav Grubner sent Rav Moshe the many proposed sources that admorim and roshei yeshiva had marshaled over the years to back-up this minhag. Rav Moshe then proceeds to dissect these potential sources. showing how each would affect the practice of this minhag, He finally settles on one chazal that he felt was the most likely source (see taanis 16a).
All this is not to chalila dimmish minhagim – on the contrary! We now see how well cosseted they are!
With this in mind we can now discuss the minhag of aseresyimei teshuva, its source and possible limitations.
III. The Source
The Tur is the first of our classic codes to bring this minhag. He does so in the name of his father, the Rosh, who im turn bases it on a chazal found in the Yerushalmi (shabbos 1:3; using the Raavya’s understanding):
“Rav Chiya explicitly told Rav: “If you are able to eat ordinary food b’tahara(in a state of ritual purity) all year long, do so. But if you cannot, at least make sure to do sofor seven days out of the year.”
What ‘seven days’ was he referring to? The Ravya (Avi HaEzri; d. circa 1220) interrupted this to refer to the seven days in-between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
Based on this, the Tur concludes:
“…theminhagdeveloped inashkanazthat those not careful regardingpas goyimshould be careful during theaseres yimei teshuva”.
The Beis Yosef (Rav Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch) notes how Rav Chiya did not make a suggestion to Rav relating to a halachic matter, rather one of minhag. After all, there is no obligation for one to eat food b’tahara! Rather, he recommended an extra holy step for these seven days of the year.
Based on this, the Beis Yosef rejects the Tashbeitz’s concern for either hataras nedarim following Yom Kippur, or being forced to abide by these ten-day chumros for the rest of the year.
How does the Beis Yosef answer this? We will now explain…
IV. Why Bread?
The Beis Yosef goes on to explain that this is why the Tur chose, out of all chumros, to be machmir during aseres yimei teshuva regarding, specifically, pas akum.
Without getting too in the weeds, although the mishneh teaches us that such bread was banned (avoda zara 35b), when it comes to non-Jewish bakeries/stores it is not so clear if this decree was ever rescinded (see Tosfos s.v. bklal). The Rosh (2:23) explains that since bread is fundamental for life, we were not able to abide by such a decree, at least fully (see Yerushalmi, avoda zara, 2:8).
To what extent has it been nullified?
While pas akum (privately baked goods/not for sale) are almost never allowed (y”d 112:8),pas palter (sold baked goods) is based on minhag. While the Rema allows buying from a non-Jewish baker, the Shulchan Aruch only allows it if there’s no Jewish alternative and also, according to some, when the pas palter options are better (112:2-5).
This stringent minhag of the Shulchan Aruch is not active if one needs to travel a great distance to attain the pas yisroel (112:8).
Now we understand the Beis Yosef’s response to the Tashbeitz:
“The concern for now having to keep this chumra the rest of the year is not a tayna (argument) as pas palter’s prohibited status is not at all clear, rather it’s only a minhag, and therefore when he abstains his mind is not to continue in this practice…”.
V. Application
Based on this the Mishneh Berrura, the Magen Avarham and others limit the aseres yimei teshuva minhag to be machmir not to surpass the actual halachos of pas palter. Meaning, if one is stuck somewhere without access to pas yisroel, he may eat pas palter. This is because the chumrah can’t go beyond the minhag as recorded by its laws where even the stringent view allows pas palter in such a case!
The Aruch Hashulchan takes this all one step further (603:2), stating that the aseres yimei teshuvachumros are only regarding minhagim, but not actual halachic debates of interpretation among the poskim. Based onhis view, such ten-day chumros would not relate to issues like cholov yisroel when one is following their posek. Whereas the avoidance of using any city eiruv during these days would be an acceptable temporary chumra, as poskim indeed record a minhag of being machmir on all eiruvin.
Rav Shmuel Kamanetzky goes one step further, arguing that this chumraminhag of aseres yimei teshuva is limited only to the halachos of pas yisroel (Kovetz Halachos, p.268, note #3).
Based on the Chayay Adam (Chachmas Adam 25:2), bread is essential to life and is therefore used as a tool of awakening toward general -and more longstanding- growth and change.
While I have always paskened to only be machmir during these days on ‘minhag halachos’, others disagree. Minchas Yaakov (klal 75:1) as well as the Piskei Teshuvos imply that one can apply these temporary chumros to any halacha (the latter states that hataras nedarim would still not be needed. His proof, however, is difficult to fathom, as he derives it from the same Beis Yosef above who stressed that this is unique to minhagim).
VI. Trickery?
There are many explanations of this minhag and how it is not a contradiction if we know we will not continue.
Due to space, bl”n we will save this question for next year. However, Iwill leave the reader with one approach to take into this holy week. The Alef L’Magen brings from the Ramak: “…this is appropriate even if we do not continue with this middas chassidus afterward. This is because if Hashem is acting toward us during this time with chassidus, is it not appropriate if do the same…”.
May we take advantage of Hashem’s extra rachamaim during this time, while being halachtav bdrachav -mirroring His actions. Both toqard halacha and toward eachother.
(One question that we are now left with: Based on the above, the minhag is to take on something that is meaningless halachikly. While this answers the classic “tricking” and “subterfuge” questions, it invites a new one-What is the point? How is this the one minhag for these days?! For the answer to this question see sefaria source sheet)
The Complex Halacha of Reneging On An Agreement Or Purchase
Rabbi Moshe Taub
March, 2026, Ami Magazine
Part I
Imagine a choleh who calls his frum pharmacist and says, “I have a horrible case of strep. Do you have antibiotic X?… You do? Great! I will be sending over my chavrusa to pick it up.”
After the choleh hangs up, his doctor calls. “Good news! It was a false positive! It’s just a bad flu—no need for antibiotics.”
Would the choleh be violating any halachic or ethical boundary by canceling the prescription—an agreed-upon business transaction?
Here’s another scenario:
Say someone negotiates a price of $10,000 for a new dining-room set and agrees to pick it up and pay for it the next day. That night, a long-lost cousin dies, leaving the shopper a stunning…dining-room table!
Must he nevertheless pay for the set he agreed to purchase?
Category One: Giving One’s Word and ‘Mechusar Emunah‘
Chazal state that someone who reneges on a verbal business agreement—whether the buyer or the seller—is called a mechusar emunah (literally, one who lacks complete faith in G-d).
Many sources and allusions to this law are cited by Chazal and poskim.
These include, but are not limited to:
the vitality of honesty (Shemos 23:7);
the demand that we speak only the truth (Devarim 23:24, with Chida in Pnei David);
the need to be true to ourselves—echad b’lev v’echad b’peh (Tehillim 15:2);
and admonishment against words of deceit (Tzefaniah 3:13).
Chazal also find reference to this halachah in the pasuk mandating that we have correct weights and measures (Vayikra 19:36). The Torah uses the examples of two weights, the eiphah and the hin. Why both? Chazal remind us that “hin” can also mean “yes.” The Torah is telling us that one’s “yes” and one’s “no” must be solid and reliable, just like weights (BavaMetziah 48-49).
This same halachah is taught in another mishnah from a more positive perspective, in that our chachamim are pleased with those who keep their word when they conduct sales (Sheviis, 10).
Although a minority opinion interpret these sources as establishing a Torah law (Sema, 204:12), the vast majority see this demand as rabbinic (which can affect the final halachah in some cases, see, for example, shu”t Shevet Halevi, 4:206).
Importantly, most poskim extend this injunction to matters other than money, such as promising someone a gift, a job, or a ride. Some poskim posit further that this prohibition even covers backing out from what one said to a third party—for example, “I will take Yankel to the airport” (see shu”t B’tzel Hachachmah 5:160).
There are also unique cases where this halachah may not apply. An example of this is when the person asserting the fact does not have the power, or sole power, to give the promised item. An example of this may be a school board member assuring a teacher that he will be hired, or a shul board member promising to hire a rav (see Piskei Hamishpat, p. 163, note 25).
Another example would be the assurance of a very large matanah (see Shulchan Aruch with meforshim, Choshen Mishpat, siman 204:7-9; see further in shu”t B’tzel Hachachmah, ibid.).
Of course, any promise regarding a mitzvah may involve separate concerns. For instance, although a minority of poskim contend that a gemach that needs to backtrack on a promise may not always be in violation of mechusar emunah (since the items aren’t gifts per se, but loans; cf. shu”t Shevet Halevi 4:207), nevertheless, because the promise entails a mitzvah, it may constitute a neder (see Piskei Hamishpat, ibid., #19; see also the Rema, yoreh de’ah, siman 264:1, about reneging on the hiring of a mohel).
This brings us to the common refrain “bli neder.” Although many people say this habitually and often needlessly— e.g., “I will take my suit to the cleaners today, bli neder”—regarding tzedakah and other mitzvah matters we should accustom ourselves to saying it .
When Circumstances Change
What if circumstances change? Is it ever permissible to default on a promise or business arrangement?
There are certain situations termed treitar’i, an open, changing, or mixed market where defaulting on a verbal agreement would fall into the category of normal business conduct and therefore be allowed.
For example, let’s say Reuven did his due diligence in his search for a contractor. Finally, he makes a verbal agreement to hire Dovid’s company for a given sum. The next day, a young kid knocks on his door, explains that he’s just starting out, and offers a half-off deal. According to many poskim, reneging on the initial verbal agreement would be permissible.
The same principle is true even when money is not the issue. For example, if someone agrees verbally to hire a certain moving company and then discovers another one that can do the job in half the time, he may back out of his original agreement.
To gauge these subjective changes, the Sema offers us the following guideline. In any case where you never would have agreed to the original deal if you had known about the second offer, a rav should be consulted, and you may be able to backtrack on your word (Sema, siman 333:1; for trei tar’i to be considered a possibility, the person’s initial research must have been thorough enough that he would not have missed an obvious second option—see Piskei Hamishpat, note 30).
These cases can become complex when one is searching for a chasunah hall, a band, a summer rental, or another such need, and a rav must be consulted (see Shulchan Aruch 333:8 and 334:1, Pis’chei Hachoshen, kinyanim, especially shu”t Chasam Sofer in several places).
In the cases of the pharmacist and the dining-room table, one may, perhaps, be able to rely on trei tar’i. Nevertheless, a rav should be consulted.
Part 2
Before further exploring these complex halachos of mechusar emunah—Chazal’s harsh designation for a buyer or seller who backs out of a deal -let us quickly review what we have learned thus far:
According to many poskim, the demand that we stand by our verbal agreements applies equally to non-monetary commitments—for example, making a pledge to clean up one’s office by a certain time.
Above we discussed the common situation called trei tar’a, where a verbal agreement is made regarding an open, changing, or mixed market—a situation where defaulting on a verbal agreement would be considered normal business conduct, and would often be permitted.
For example, one may make a verbal agreement to hire a builder, only to discover another builder who can do the work for half the price or in half the time. In such a case, he may be able to back out of the original agreement.
A more common example of this nowadays would be reserving several flights, Airbnbs, or rental cars until one settles on the cheapest or most convenient option (when not actually purchased or a down-payment given).
We ended above with the Sema’s simple gauge for testing such a change. In any case where one can honestly and fairly claim that if he had been aware of the second offer earlier, he would never have agreed to the initial offer, he should call a rav as he may be able to back out of the deal (Sema, siman 333:1).
An important caveat to the Sema’s rule: even in a case where the Sema would otherwise allow one to back out, it would not apply if he did not do thorough-enough research that would have led him to the second option before committing to the first one (see Piskei Hamishpat note 30).
Now let us move on:
Mi Sheparah
So far, we have been discussing verbal agreements, where no money has changed hands. A much more severe category of these halachos is called “misheparah.”
This is a case that has extended past a verbal agreement, where either money has been exchanged or some other accepted form of transaction has taken place. In such a case, even though the buyer has not yet taken possession of the item, the Mishnah teaches that if either the buyer or the seller backs out, he is subject to a klalah (curse): “Mi sheparah… He Who exacted recompense from the dor haflagah shall also exact retribution from those who do not abide by their word.”
The Gemara cites a debate in which Rava opines that we do not simply inform the person of this curse; instead, beis din actually pronounces it against him (Bava Metzia 48b)!
Although it is not commonly practiced in this manner today, the Maharam Mintz (d. 1480) quotes the Mordechai who describes the procedure of giving just such a curse.
“He [perhaps the rav] stands on the migdal [tower or highest stage] in front of the tzibbur and announces, ‘Mi sheparah… He who exacted…shall similarly exact from Ploni ben Ploni’” (see shu”t Maharam Mintz, 101, bottom of second column in the 1851 edition).
The Rema alludes to this opinion in stating that some add the word “mimcha, from you” at the end of the curse, as opposed to “from one who.”
More frightening is the fact that the Gemara adds to the curse, and it is this lengthier version that is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat, siman 204:4):
“He Who exacted recompense from the people of the generation of the flood, from the citizens of Sedom and Amorah, from the men of the dor haflagah, and from the Egyptians who were drowned in the sea shall also exact retribution from those who do not abide by their word.”
Many seek connections among these examples.
For some time, I suggested an approach that I recently learned was for alluded to in the writings of the Avnei Nezer, who says that he heard it directly from the Chiddushei HaRim (shu”t, chelek 7, end of teshuvah #32).
Each of the situations mentioned in this curse occurred before MatanTorah. The Jewish people were not Jewish yet, and the wrongs committed by the members of these generations involved breaches of basic morality that would be commonly understood to be wrong even without a Divine command.
Furthermore, these people had a rationale for their behavior. For example, they abided by the letter of the law, stealing items that were worth less than a perutah. In the case of the Egyptians, they could have claimed that enslaving the Jews was simply a fulfillment of the decree at the bris bein habesarim. But the fact is that they breached human decency and committed injustices that make it impossible for a society to function normally.
(Indeed, Ramban says that although the Egyptians were fulfilling the will of Hashem, they could have refused to be the vehicle, and, they also went much too far in their brutality.)
Here, too, a beis din may not be able to enforce retribution—but Hashem is aware and will make sure justice is carried out.
When it comes to a case of mi sheparah, where money has already changed hands—as opposed to the category of mechusar emunah—the principle of trei tar’a would not be enough to enable one to back out of the deal. But what if something occurs that is beyond his control?
For example, say a person gives a down payment on a new dining-room table. On the way to pick it up, he discovers that a long-lost cousin has died and bequeathed him a beautiful dining-room table! Must he still go through with his purchase?
Although there is a minority opinion that would permit a person—in an extreme case and in a situation of trei tar’a— to back out of a deal even after money was paid, most disagree (see shu”t Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, 120, discussing a case of yerushah; see also Tosfos on Bava Metzia 47b, s.v. v’iy).
Nevertheless, each case is different, and a competent posek must be consulted.
According to many, mi sheparah applies to a seller who accepts payment but does not have the item in stock. Should he fail to retrieve it, he will have fallen into the category of mi sheparah (Rambam, mechirah, 22).
What about a case where one writes his name down as a commitment to purchase an item, or one who says, “I will buy it; take the money out of what I owe you”? Would these cases constitute mi sheparah if he reneges? And what about land purchases, which also fall into this halachic category (see Beis Yosef)?
The goal of this post is to remind ourselves of these two critical halachos, and to emphasize the need to consult a rav when such an issue arises.
The Vilna Gaon shares a secret that is contained in this curse (Sefer Yehoshua, perek 4). He writes that speech is made up of saliva (water), ruach (air), and heat (fire). In fact, the letters in the word “amar” (to speak) stand for eish, mayim, and ruach. Each of the first three incidents mentioned in the curse represent one of these: the dor hamabul was destroyed by water; the dor haflagah was destroyed by wind in the sense that the people were scattered; and Sedom and Amorah were destroyed by fire.
In other words, what mi sheparah has in common with these events is the misuse of speech.
May we all succeed in our business dealings and in our speech. May we speak only divrei emes and utter tefillos that will be immediately accepted! ●
Is his significance to the revolution over-exaggerated or undervalued?
By Rabbi Moshe Taub for Ami Magazine, Summer 2026
In honor of our Bicentennial in 1975 the United States Postal Service issues the ‘Contributors To The Cause Series’. One of the stamps featured Haym Salomon.
In pale green ink directly on the gum (glue) side of the stamp, was written as follows:
“Financial Hero-Businessman and broker Haym Salomon was responsible for raising most of the money needed to finance the American Revolution and later to save the new nation from collapse.”
This is a bold claim. Is it supported by the facts?
Let us investigate…
I. Nusach, Origins, & Mystery
My curiosity regarding the life of Haym (Chaim) Salomon began innocently. While researching another matter, I stumbled upon many of Haym’s papers and records that are preserved by the Smithsonian.
I was amazed to discover that even his kesuba (Jewish marriage contract) still survives.
Haym Salomon’s kesuba- religious marriage contract
Among the items I perused were the Salomon family siddurim (prayer books), including one titled ‘Prayer book for the Fast Days, according to the custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ (published in 1810; it likely belonged to his wife, Rachel, niftara/dying in 1818). This seemingly inconsequential discovery of sefardisiddurrim (Spanish prayer books) unleashed in me a wave of questions, and only deepened the enigma of Haym Salomon.
For starters, Haym hailed from Lissa, Poland – far from a bastion of Sefardi Jews.
One may be tempted to brush this off as a minor curiousty, explaining that the Solomon family simply followed the customs of their new shul on their new land – the Mikveh Israel synagogue in Philadelphia. After all, most synagogues at the time were comprised of Jews with Spanish or Portuguese pedigree and customs.
However, Mikveh Israel was founded already in 1740 by Nathan Levy, a German who imposed ashkanazinusach on the congregation. In fact, they only switched to nusach sefard in the late 1770’s, around the time when Haym joined.
While this is all, perhaps, an innocuous anomaly, I then learned how this prayer book is used by others as a lynchpin in one of the many layers of myth-making surrounding Salomon.
For example, both Wikipedia and The World Encyclopedia assert that Haym’s family actually derived… from Spain! His sefardi ancestors, however, were forced to flee that home in the late 15th century, due to the Inquisition.
Some go even further, adding colorful and detailed ‘historical’ elements to this tale, such as how, in 1588, his ancestors accepted the invite to Poland from Jan Zamoyski, the powerful Catholic nobleman who encouraged sefardi merchants/professionals to move to his newly founded ‘renaissance city’ of Zamosc (Poland). Motivated by what he perceived as Jews’ expertise, Zamoyski granted Jews special privileges and safety.
This Salomon legend concludes that the family indeed settled there, all the while preserving elements of their sefardicminhagim/nuschoas/heritage…hence the Sefardi prayer books. (Perhaps they would also argue that this is the reason why this Philadelphia shul changed its liturgy to sefard around the time of his arival!)
However, many historians – such as Max Kohler (d. 1934, vice-president of the American Jewish Historical Society) – reject this claim, writing that there is “not a particle of evidence” for such a history. As for the sefardi prayer books, Kohler explains that Salomon was, as I initially thought, simply following the nusach of his new American shul (see ‘Haym Salomon, the Patriot Broker of the Revolution-His Real Achievements and Their Exaggeration’ 1931; It should be noted that some of Salomon’s later descendants promoted this Spanish tale).
In a contemporaneous obituary, the Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia) mentioned only his Polish background:
“Thursday last, expired after a lingering illness, Mr. Haym Salomon, an eminent broker of this city; he was a native of Poland, and of the Hebrew nation.”
After this unexpected research, I decided to discover just who this Haym Salomon was, and how his legend came to be.
II. They Don’t Make Socialist Like They Used To!
From the USPS’s commemorative stamp, it’s seems Haym’s vital role in this country is largely settled, However, Haym’s legacy was once the subject to great debate.
Among those who supported the more fantastical accounts of his legend and footprint was one Charles Edward Russell (d. 1941).
Russel was a fascinating American, winning a Pulitzer Prize in 1928, being the editor of several newspapers, working as a journalist, and becoming one of the founders of the NAACP, and was aligned with the early Democratic Socialists – known as The Social Democratic League of America.
Charles Edward Russell
In fact, he famously ran for Mayor of New York City, as well as governor, and then for senator of that state – all on the SDLA ticket (while losing by large margins, his running elicited fear among the establishment that he could bring an air of legitimacy to socialism). The SDLA of Russel’s day greatly differs from today’s social democratic organizations. While they would agree on the evils of capitalism, his SDLA prioritized robust American patriotism and, amazingly, pushed for global military intervention.
Russel was also different than today’s Democratic Socialists in that he was an admirer of Jews. As we will see in the upcoming weeks, he would play a large role in revivifying the contributions of Haym Solomon, writing the 1930 blockbuster bestseller ‘Haym Solomon & The Revolution’.
I recently stumbled upon his daring 1931 op-ed titled ‘Wanted: Jews In Politics’. Inspired by the love of Salomon, he wrote:
“…Historically, Jews have always been closely interwoven with America, from the first movement to finance Columbus down to the present moment…As a rule, Jews in America have been exceedingly capable, diligent and useful public servants. What I am plugging for is to have more of them there…Certainly, there is no higher code of public affairs than the Decalogue of Moses and the methods of governmental uprightness revealed in the Book of Judges…the principles of honesty and ethics laid down by Moses and cherished by all the generations of Jews ever since…I don’t mean that the Jews should come forth and announce that they know how to run the machine better than anybody, in accordance with the fictitious Jew that prejudice and malice have imagined, but that is not in accordance with the real Jew as I have known him…”
He then shares the following anecdote:
“They need never fear that to do so can be in any way derogatory to their religion or inconsistent with its exercises. The story of Haym Salomon shows that a man can be an ardent patriot and a devout Jew, careful to perform every religious duty.”
“We need in public affairs the strong asset of Jewish ethics…the spirit of democracy that breathes through the Jewish sacred writings and is apparent in the Jewish history and traditions… wherever there has been a struggle against oppression, Jews have been on the side of liberty. They were so conspicuously in the immortal conflict that founded this nation…the addition to American politics of people that have this background and tradition would be an asset of inestimable value. I hope to see it realized.”
-Published in multiple papers, our version is from The Detroit Jewish Chronicle, January 2nd 1931).
Russel is one of the few historians from whom Haym’s story is known, with many details below and in the coming chapters derived from his – and his interlocutor, Max Kohler’s – research.
We will share Haym’s story, also utilizing some of Haym’s own writings, below.
To give the fullest picture, we will begin with the discomfort and fear that galvanized young Haym to sail across the Atlantic in search for a Land of the Free.
III. The Birth of ‘Galicia’…and Haym
From the mid-13th century until the late 18th century, Poland was a uniquely (and mostly) safe harbor for Jews. It was during those years-in 1569- when Poland and Lithuania united into what would become known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
But this all changed almost overnight.
In 1772 Poland was vulnerable. With its king weak and its army depleted, her three powerful neighbors -Russia, Prussia, and Austria- swiftly and easily took control of almost one-third of the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth. Austria took parts of the south, renaming the region ‘Galicia’; Prussia took parts of the north, calling it ‘West Prussia’; and Russia took parts of the east, territories already known as ‘Belaya Rus’/Belarus, and now officially so (Brisk [Brest-Litovsk] would remain part of Poland until 1795, when it was partitioned as part of Russian Belarus).
What is now known as the ‘First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’, took place on August 5th, 1772, during the ‘Nine Days’’, corresponding to 6th of the month of av (see note for the significance of this date).
For non-Jewish readers, some helpfull context:
When the spies caused panic in the desert (Book of Numbers), Jews cried in fear, a trepidation in defiance of Gd’s promise to protect them in battle. In the bible, months are named simply by number, making the date of that event the ninth day of the eleventh month, or 9/11.
[It would not be for another thousand-or-so yearsuntil our numbered months were also given proper names – this tenth month would be called ‘av’].
The Talmud shares how in response, Gd punished the Jews, marking this as the date that will cause true tears throughout our exiles. Indeed, both temples were destroyed during these days, and other painful events occurred then, or during this month, as well, such as the The First Crusade; the 1290 expulsion of Jews from England; the 1306 expulsion of Jews from France; Germany’s entrance into World War I; the order for the ‘Final Solution, etc.
For this reason, every year, the first of that month until the 9th -known as ‘Tisha B’av/The Ninth of Av – is treated as an ominous time, when Jews avoid dangerous acts, extra pleasures, while also fasting and mourning both temples.
Negative events in Jewish history that fell during this period are often, therefore, highlighted.
Back to Haym:
Haym’s First Escape
This was the backdrop of Haym Salomon escape to America. Historians debate if he arrived at New York that same year or, three years later, in 1775, but agree that his motive for leaving Poland was this treacherous takeover, with Russel writing, “In 1772, when Haym Salomon, insubmissive to the destruction of Poland, was looking for a freer world…”
He was either thirty-two or thirty-five years old and multilingual from years of travel across Europe. Most saliently, he was skilled in the art of moving money between merchants of different lands. His knowledge of French, Polish, Russian, Italian, English, German, Yiddish (and, likely, lashon hakodesh/ancient Hebrew) allowed his reputation as a polymath to quickly spread.
Haym soon went to work as a broker. In those days there were almost no real banks. Trade and government business ran on what was called ‘bills of exchange’; written promises (often by governments, like France) to pay money. Now, writing such promises was easy; the hard part was finding people willing to trust its value and buy it for actual cash or goods, especially when times were uncertain.
This became Haym Salomon’s expertise.
Already the Talmud discusses the sale of similar promissory notes (see bava metzia 20ff), and the mishneh (56b) teaches that certain aspects of the prohibition of onah (price gouging/severely over-or-under-charging) are curtailed for such sales. Buying such notes comes with inherent risk -e.g. the debtor may not pay, or claim it was already paid, or the debt could be forgiven, etc. – therefore these bills/debts – then as now -were well below sold below market value.
Haym’s Second Escape
Haym quickly joinedNew York’s Spanish-Portuguese synagogue and settled into the merchant world. As the conflict with Britain deepened, he sided with the Sons of Liberty (a secretive patriot resistance network of the likeminded) and others who desired independence from Britain. Such a public stance in his new home was perilous (especially in British-run New York), and some Jews even desired the status-quo, siding with the loyalists. However, it seems to me that Haym was influenced by his rabbi, Rev. Gershom Seixes, one of the most vocal patriots in New York (R. Seixes would soon go as far as shutting down his synagogue when he thought the British were about to win -not wishing to lead a flock under tyranny!).
Rabbi Gershon Seixes
In the summer of 1776, the British – reinforced with hired German troops known as Hessians – soon captured New York, becoming the main British base in North America. Even after the Declaration of Independence, the British held the city, too valuable to surrender. It would not be until the treaty of November 25th 1783 that the last of the British troops left, a day known as ‘Evacuation Day’.
Salomon stayed in occupied New York, and soon the British rounded up all those suspected of patriot sympathies.
Haym was arrested as a suspected spy.
According to Haym’s own account, he was taken up by General James Robertson, the British military commander of New York, and locked in the Provost, their dreaded, dirty, and dangerous army prison.
James Robertson
Luckily, Lieutenant General Heister, the senior Hessian commander, needed someone who spoke French (and other languages), as well as someone who understood business. He requested the British to release Haym to his watch, putting Haym to work in the Hessian commissary.
Haym soon began using his relative freedom to aid American and French prisoners with money, information and, sometimes, escape. He even convinced some exhausted Hessian officers to desert!
Haym’s Third Escape
By the summer of 1778 the authorities were on to Haym’s clandestine activities and arrested him again. Then, on August 11th, 1778 (the 18th of av) he escaped, but not before the British seized all of his money and property.
Haym arrived in Philadelphia with almost nothing.
In a 1840 manuscript from Haym’s son, there’s a more dramtic telling of these events (A Sketch of Haym Salomon –from an unpublished manuscript in the papers of Jared Sparks, 1894):
In this telling, in 1778 Haym received secret orders from none other than General Washington to burn the British fleet and destroy their storehouses! Haym attempted to carry out the mission and caused significant damage, leading to his second arrest, which was made by General Sir Henry Clinton, the British Commander In Chief! Haym was then formally sentenced to death. Awaiting his execution, Haym used smuggled gold to bribe a guard, and escape under cover of darkness, fleeing to Philadelphia, where he wold later bring his family.
IV. Penniless in Philadelphia
On Tuesday the 11th of August 1778, Haym Salomon slipped out of British-occupied New York and arrived in Philadelphia, nearly destitute, two weeks later.
He immediately composed a letter to congress detailing his experiences, which was submitted on August 25th, 1778. This memorial remains the single most important primary document for this stretch of his life. It is noticeably free of the perhaps exaggerated stories that later generations would add, although it may be argued that Haym, in this letter, was more focused on getting to his central points.
Writing in the third person, however, it seems clear that he wished this to be seen as the authoritative telling.
To the Honorable the Continental Congress,
The Memorial of Haym Salomon late of the City of New York Merchant humbly sheweth [shows]:
That your Memorialist [Haym] was some time before the Entry of the British Troops at the said City of New York, and soon after taken up as a spy by General Robertson committed to the Provost. That by the interposition of Lieut. General Heister he was given over to the Hessian Commander who appointed him in the Commissary Way as Purveyor chiefly for the Officers. That being at New York he has been of great Service to the French & American prisoners and has assisted them with money and helped them off to make their escape. That this and his close Connexion with such of the Hessian Officers as were inclined to resign and with Monsieur Samuel Demeres has rendered him at last so obnoxious to the British Head Quarters that he was already pursued by the Guards and on Tuesday the 11th inst. he made his happy Escape from thence. This Monsieur Demeres is now most barbarously treated at the Provost’s and is seemingly in danger of his life and the Memorialist begs leave to cause him to be remembered to Congress for an Exchange. Your Memorialist has upon this event most irrecoverably lost all his effects and credits to the amount of five or six thousand Pounds Sterling and left his distressed wife and a child of a month old at New York waiting that they may soon have an opportunity to come out from thence with empty hands. In these circumstances he most humbly prayeth to grant him any Employ in the way of his business where he may be enabled to support himself and family. And your Memorialist as in duty bound to be etc.
Haym Salomon Philadelphia August 25, 1778
I was unable to discover anything about this Demeres character (sometimes spelled Demezes). He likely was not Jewish. It is testament to Haym’s passion for justice that although now penniles and worried for his family back in New York, he pushed congress to aid this poor and suffering Frenchman patriot.
Absent from this letter is any claim of a secret commission from Washington, a dramatic prison break, and even his death sentence. More saliently, Haym makes no demand for compensation for past services -as others would later do. He states only the facts of his arrest, the help he gave prisoners, the pursuit that forced his flight, the total loss of property, and speaks of his family still trapped behind enemy lines. He requests but honest work “in the way of his business.”
In response, Congress gave him no formal post or job.
From late 1778 through early 1781 Haym sought to rebuild his brokerage business from almost nothing in a city already crowded with refugees and merchants. Slowly, and using his language skills, he re-established commercial networks, and his wife Rachel and their infant child eventually reached him. Soon, a second son was born, and the family settled into the small but active Jewish community centered around Congregation Mikveh Israel.
Their kehilla (congregation) at the time was itself still finding its footing, with no permanent building of its own. In 1782 the decision was made to purchase land and construct a shul.
Salomon left a manuscript account of this project, still held by Congregation Mikveh Israel (a facsimile is available through the Philadelphia Congregations Early Records Project). In it he records his own major pledge of one-fourth of the total cost, “be it what it might”. He also describes serious conflicts with Jonas Phillips, then serving as parnas (sextan; see post relating to Phillips’ own fascinating life and his ties to many founding fathers) According to Salomon’s account, these grew severe enough that it almost led to Phillips’s nidui (excommunication). Phillips had written objections to the proposed building plan, of being too close to neighboring houses, an inconvenient door placement, etc.
Mikveh Israel
In fact, a year later, Jonas was noticeably absent from the December, 1783 Mikveh Israel petition to the Pennsylvania Council of Censors protesting Pennsylvania’s religious test oath (it seems that those historical sources that list Jonas among the petitioners are in error).
As mentioned in our separate post discussing the patriotic life of Jonas Phillips, Phillips had sent his own letter to Washington relating to these matters -specifically, the requirement in Section 10 of the 1776 Pennsylvania Frame of Government that every member of the General Assembly must swear: “I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration”, effectively barring observant Jews from serving in the state legislature.
As for the letter sent by Salmons inter alia, here is an excerpt:
To the honourable the Council of Censors, assembled agreeable to the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania.
The Memorial of Rabbi Ger. Seixas of the Synagogue of the Jews at Philadelphia, Simon Nathan their Parnass or President, Asher Myers, Bernard Gratz and Haym Salomon, in behalf of themselves and their brethren Jews.
…By the tenth section of the frame of government of this commonwealth, it is ordered that each member of the general assembly of representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe a declaration, which ends in these words, “I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration,” to which is added an assurance, that “no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.”
Your memorialists beg leave to observe, that this clause seems to limit the civil rights of your citizens to one very special article of the creed…it is asserted without any other limitation than the professing the existence of God, in plain words, “that no man who acknowledges the being of a Gd can be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments.” But certainly this religious test deprives the Jews of the most eminent rights of freemen, solemnly ascertained to all men who are not professed atheists.
May it please your honors: Although the Jews in Pennsylvania are but few in number, yet liberty of the people in one country, and the declaration of the government thereof, that these liberties are the rights of the people, may prove a powerful attractive to men, who live under restraints in another country.
Your memorialists beg further leave to represent, that in the religious books of the Jews, which are or may be in every man’s hands, there are no such doctrines or principles established as are inconsistent with the safety and happiness of the people of Pennsylvania, and that the conduct and behaviour of the Jews in this and the neighbouring States, has always tallied with the great design of the Revolution; that the Jews…have distinguishedly suffered for their attachment to the Revolution principles…The Jews of Pennsylvania in proportion to the number ..have served some of them in the Continental army; some went out in the militia to fight the common enemy; all of them have cheerfully contributed to the support of the militia, and of the government of this State…
It was signed by:
Rabbi Gershom Mendes Seixas
Simon Nathan (Parnas / President)
Asher Myers
Bernard (Barnard) Gratz
Haym Salomon
The matter was largely ignored until in 1790, when this oath was finally removed.
It was at this point when the government called upon Haym Salomon’s financial expertise, as we will now share.
V. Was He Important to Our Founding?
As we have seen, Haym was in-and-out of prison from 1776-1778. By the time he was a free man in Philadelphia the Declaration had already been adopted. This being the case, how did the myth of Haym Salomon as the financial savior to the American Revolution ever maturate? Any aid provided from this point on may make him a patriot, but not a hero!
However, as a point of fact, when Haym Salomon arrived in Philadelphia in late August 1778, the Revolution was far from secured. The British still held New York, Svananh, Charleston, etc. Making things more precarious, the Continental currency was collapsing, leading to soldiers being unpaid and cuasing real fears for a mutiny. Worse, the foreign loans to the patriot cause was not easy to turn into usable currency. The Revolution was being held up by a house of cards.
It is here where the legend of Haym was born in earnest, and from which it is still debated.
To understand the varying views of Haym’s importance, we will center on these years, and the one man who brought Haym into the fore.
Get Me The ‘Jew Broker’!
Robert Morris is one of only two men (along with Roger Sherman) who signed all three of the nation’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution.
Robert Morris
Morris was born in Liverpool in 1734 and raised in Philadelphia. By the 1770’s he built one of the largest and most successful mercantile businesses in the colonies and widely regarded as one of the wealthiest men in America and,in 1775, Pennsylvania sent him to the Second Continental Congress. Interestingly, he initially voted ‘absent’ regarding the Declaration, thinking that this step was premature, only later signing, explaining that a good citizen should support the final vote.
In congress, he quickly became vital in dealing with procurement, serving on the Secret Committee and the Committee of Secret Correspondence, which helped arrange for armaments.
As the Revolution was in severe financial danger, in February of 1781 Congress created a new executive office, Superintendent of Finance. They unanimously elected Robert Morris to fill this role, a forerunner to the Secretary of Treasury. There, he created the Bank of North America and repeatedly used both public and private means to keep the army supplied and paid.
It was during this period that he frequently turned to Haym Salomon as a broker to sell foreign bills of exchange, thus raising needed cash.
Morris kept a meticulous diary that remains the single most important contemporary record of Revolutionary finance. Beginning in mid-1781, the name Haym Salomon appears in it more than any other broker. So much so, that by 1782 Morris formally authorized Salomon to title himself ‘Broker to the Office of Finance.’
Some excerpts: On August 26, 1782, the diary records: “I sent for Salomon and desired him to try every way he could to raise money.” Two days later: “Salomon, the broker, came and I urged him to leave no stone unturned…” These entries continue through 1782 and into 1783, the critical years after the ‘Siege at Yorktown’, when military victory had been won but the financial urgency continued.
In addition, Haym also advanced personal loans. On August 27th, 1782, James Madison wrote to a friend “I have for some time been a pensioner on the favor of Haym Salomon, a Jew broker.” A few weeks later (September 30th, 1782), Madison referred to Haym again, added a better picture:
“The kindness of our little friend in Front street, near the coffee-house, is a fund which will preserve me from extremities, but I never resort to it without great mortification, as he obstinately rejects all recompense.”
Madison is sharing the fact that Haym would not take interest from him!
This is the entire record of Haym’s aid. While significant, it only began in the 1780’s, ending with Haym’s untimely death in 1785.
But just how significant?
VI. Numbers Game
“Thursday, last, expired, after a lingering illness, Mr. Haym Salomon, an eminent broker of this city, was a native of Poland, and of the Hebrew nation. He was remarkable for his skill and integrity in his profession, and for his generous and humane deportment. His remains were yesterday deposited in the burial ground of the synagogue of this city.”
– The Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), January 1785
Sadly, Haym died destitute, perhaps due to him asking for no or little interest.
The official inventory of Haym Salomon’s estate, filed in the Philadelphia probate court on February 15th, 1785, recorded the following:
Loan-office certificates -$110,233.63;
Treasury certificates-$18,244.88;
Continental liquidated dollars-$199,214.45;
Commissioners’ certificates-$17,870.37;
Virginia State certificates-$8,166.00.
This comes to the total of $353,729.43, perhaps owed to Haym.
A few decades later, Haym’s son would claim an additional $211,678 advanced to Robert Morris, and $92,600 in promissory notes.
The total now comes to $658,007.43.
However, even if we accept this number, the total estimate for Continental spending in the years of 1780–1783 were about $12 million. Meaning, at most, Haym aided in providing between 5-6% of all funds.
While certainly no small figure, it would not make Haym the most essential fundraiser for the cause.
However, even this figure is questioned by many. Where these securities evidence that Salomon had personally advanced his own money, or were they securities he acquired in the ordinary course of his business as a broker? he was holding on to in order to exchange, or, what was given to him in payment for a bill? Either way, this would mean these monies were not Haym’s but rather owed back to the government.
This distinction is the heart of the argument between noted historians Charles Edward Russell and Max J. Kohler. Russell’s 1930 book Haym Salomon and the Revolution saw the sheer frequency of Morris’s diary entries as evidence of near-dependence on Haym, thus portarying Salomon as an indispensable figure who kept the financial machinery moving. While Kohler’s accepted that Salomon was a capable and patriotic broker, he rejected the larger claims. Using estate records and Bank of North America accounts, Kohler showed that Salomon had not personally lent vast sums from a private fortune, as his estate was insolvent at his death. Rather, he was a middleman.
Later scholarship has largely settled somewhere in the middle: Salomon was not the legendary personal financier, but he was a real and significant broker upon whom Morris relied at the most difficult moments.
Haym Salomon coin – The Skirball Museam
VII. Haym’s Last Word
Haym’s life and influence still echoes today, in our new age of antisemitism.
In early 1784, Philadelphia was in the middle of a sharp public argument over banking. A proposal to create a new Bank of Pennsylvania had drawn criticism, some of which turning antisemitic.
A Quaker lawyer named Miers Fisher attacked Jewish brokers, implying they charged excessive interest and were harmful to the public interest, painting Jewish merchants in general as greedy outsiders.
A reply to this charge appeared in the Independent Gazetteer on March 13th 1784, and signed “A Jew Broker.” Most historians believe Haym Salomon either wrote it or was closely associated with it.
He stated:
“I am a Jew; it is my own nation; I do not despair that we shall obtain every other privilege that we aspire to enjoy along with our fellow-citizens.”
The writer states how Fisher’s words had injured not only him personally but “every other person of the same religious persuasion,” and insisted that this new country and its principles allowed him to live openly as a Jew.
The minhag of tekios elul -blowing the shofar after shachris throughout the month of elul -leads to commonly asked questions.
How far must one go -in time, distance, or loss – to hear this shofar?
If one is not davening with a minyan, or if he stepped out during its blast, should he make up this shofar himself? Must he?
Is there a need for a shul to make-up for a missed/forgotten shofar?
In the 1970’s, a rabbi by the name of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank shared with Rav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg (d. 2006) his views relating to these questions (shu”t Tzitz Eliezar, 12:48).
This rav is not to be confused with the more famous posek and chief rav of Yerushalaim of the same name -as the latter was niftar thirteen years prior to this teshuva’s composition!Nevertheless, this unrelated and younger Rav Frank was a talmud chacham himself,and his sefarim bear haskamos from Rav Abramsky and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach.
This Rav Frank argued that one must privately make-up any missed elul tekios. He then sought Rav Waldenberg’s approval to this psak.
Rav Waldenberg , however, dismissed this ruling out of hand, writing:
“Never have we heard, even among the most precise and pious of individuals, that – should they have needed to daven alone during the month of elul – to then [need to bring] them a shofar from which to blow…”
While this testimonial/mesorah may be enough to dissuade people from privately making up missed tekios, he goes on to independently prove why such make-ups have no basis in minhag.
To explain, let’s first review the provenance of our elul tekios.
The standard source for this minhag comes from the Tur, quoting a midresh:
On rosh chodesh elul, Moshe went up to har sinai to receive luchos shniyos. Before he went up, a shofar blast was sounded throughout the entire machaneh, demarcating the date and time. The purpose of this was so the date of his departure be made clear so that a repeat of the last miscalculation error -which led to the chet haegel –be avoided.
Pirkei D’Rav Elezar, perek 46
The Tzitz Elizar explains that a minhag can never fully depart from its original source, and since the tekios performed the day Moshe went up were blasted/heard throughout the machaneh -i.e., in a public setting – so too our minhag is only for a public setting, i.e. in shul with a minyan.
He further posits that this holds true even according to those rishonim who offer another source for this minhag, pointing to the following pasuk:
“Would not a shofar blast in the city cause people to shake?…”
-Amos (3:6)
Even there, it references the unique inspiration and drive drawn from a public setting (“…a city...”).
Rav Waldenberg concludes with one final – and fantastic! – proof to his ‘shul only’ verdict:
As most are aware, halacha demands that we cease these elul tekios on erevrosh hashanah to create a clear separation between the minhag blasts of elul and the biblically mandated ones of rosh hashana.
Interestingly, the Magen Avraham and others are lenient on erev rosh hashanah when done for practice and in one’s private home.
Meaning, in the Magen Avraham’s view, elultekios in one’s home are not even at the level of minhag! For if they were, separating minhag from obligation would apply at home as well!
Accroding to the Tzitz Eliezar, this alone demonstrates that there is no significance to such tekios.
I would humbly offer another proof to the Tzitz Eliezar:
The Maharam M’Ruttenberg explains the minhag of elul tekios as based on practical concerns: So that the baal tokeah has a chance to train and preparefor rosh hashana!
In fact, this goes beyond mere basic practice. For him to blow in a shul setting also allows him to train in an environment of eimsah d’tziburra (stage fright; with an audience).
So that, according to this approach to the minhag as well, the Tzitz Eleizar remains sound, as blowing at home would be illogical for anyone other than the baal tokea! And, perhaps even for the baal tokeah himself too there may have no reason to make these up – as such home-practice would be weakened by the lack of a kehilla present!
(On this concept of ‘nerves’ and the chazan/baal tokea, see, e.g. Rambam, hil. tefilla, 10:3 w/ mishneh, berachos 34a and Yerushalmi, berachos, 5:4)
Based on the Tzitz Eliezar: A person alone need not blow; A shul need not make up missed elul tekios
This would be true whether the source for elul tekios is the A) midresh by Moshe, B) the pesuk in Amos, or C) for the baal tokea’s practice.
Some poskim, however, slightly differ or add caveats.
While agreeing that tekios elul is not an obligation, some praise those who privately, at home, make these up. They explain that, in the final analyses, the goal of the these tekios is to awaken us to teshuva. While perhaps of no minhag consequence, such action may still offer aid in inspiration (see Siach Yitzchak, et al.)
Relating to this last idea, Rav Moshe Feinstein explains that the reason why we choose the very end of our first teffila of the day for these blasts:
“…so as to cause awakenings of teshuva in order that one perform their business b’derech haTorah“
– shu”t Igros Moshe, oh”c, 4:21;5
Rav Moshe then writes:
“…in any event, if the shul did not to blow shofar in the morning, they should do so by mincha”
-Ibid.
Of course, this too would be a public setting and wouldn’t be proof regarding a private individual’s need for a make-up.
At this point, some may be wondering: “What difference does it make? After all, there is no harm in making up such a missed shofar blast privately!”
However, such an assertion is not as simple as it may seem. Poskim will always defend historical practice and be suspect toward a personal practice of ‘minhag invention’.
(For a deeper dive, see Igros Moshe who questions even the minhag of fasting for a fallen sefer Torah – unless, of course, a clear proof from chazal can be found. See ‘Fasting For A Fallen Sefer Torah where this is explored in detail).
There is much more to discuss, such as which blasts do we make during elul, why before l’dovid, as well as why we start this practice only on the second day of rosh chodesh, etc. Perhaps another time, iy”H.
For now, we will conclude with the following thought:
How does the one-day shofar blast in the desert lead to our month-long shofar blowing?!
I would suggest that the solution comes from the end of that source (Pirkei D’Rav Elezar, ad loc.), which concludes:
“and Hashem lifted Moshe up along with the sound of that shofar blast…”.
Perhaps, then, our minhag is to recall not that one day they blasted the shofar in the midbar, rather to remind oursleves how that one simple blast lifted Moshe higher – how on each of day of elul, with just one tekiah, one push to grow, Hashem can lift us the rest of the way.
B’Sikum:
An Individual:one who missed davening or who is davening alone during elul need not blow shofar nor make it up. Indeed, the custom was only to blow shofar in a shul and with a minyan. If one chooses to anyway make it up, he has what to rely on – so long as he is aware he is not accomplishing a minhagyisroel, per se. A Shul/Minyan: a shul or minyan that missed/forgot a morning tekiah during elul should make it up by next mincha, if possible.
BY: Rabbi Moshe Taub (Written in 2000, a few years before Rav Singer’s passing)
This is an Elul story.
This is a Rosh Hashanah story.
This is a story of Jewish survival.
It is a story of a beracha from the Frideker Rebbe of Chabad;
The words of Torah from Rav Moshe Feinstein;
And, a promise made a century ago to Rav Aaron Kotler.
It is now 5780-1, and these Berachos and promises are now being fulfilled;
And they can grow still ever more…
Personal Preamble
Elul always reminds me of Rav Shlomo Singer.
It is no secret that one of the best and sharpest yeshivashiurim given today is Rav Meir Stern’s brilliant shiur in Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic.
Aside from the bnei hayeshiva and the yungeleit that attended his daily shiur was one Rav Singer, a retired individual living in Passaic.
For two years –some 20 years ago –I sat mere feet from him, but we never spoke until this summer.
Like the nephews of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Gudgada (see Chagiga 3) who would make sure to sit in front of Rebbe Yehudah Hanassi, Rav Shlomo Singer would sit almost directly in front of the rosh yeshiva with a tape recorder and intently focus on the words being taught.
I was told he was a local retired chazzan, who went by ‘Cantor’ Singer.
I assumed he was a baal teshuva, or someone without a classic yeshiva background who upon retirement asked Rav Stern to attend his shiurim.
Looking back, that (self) explanation made little sense. Young men begged and clawed to get in to this shiur, and even then they had trouble fully understanding it until after a number of reviews.
But Rav Singer did understand the shiur.
How do I know that?
You see, as the zman went on I witnessed this ‘Cantor Singer
do something so different, so revolutionary, that I can honestly say that it has inspired how I act today as a person and as a rav.
When I first saw him do this it blew-my-mind.
Rav Singer was involved in kiruv rechokim, and he has had the privilege of bringing back many to the fold.
But here is what was inimitable: while other kiruv workers give lectures on light topics, or subjects that they think will draw people inside a shul, regardless whether it’s misleading/misinformed or not (‘Kabbala in the 21st Century’, is always popular), he would invite these unaffiliated men inside one of the most prestigious yeshivos in the world and give a class on…Rav Meir Stern’s shiur!
That’s right! He would stand before men who never saw the inside of a chumash – let alone a gemara – and first slowly and carefully explain the gemara under discussion, go-over the points of Rashi or Tosfos or any other rishon that will be needed to understand what was to come.
Then, slowly and painstakingly he would pierce it, drawing their attention to the apparent inconsistencies or chakiros, and finally penetrate the sugya and tie it all together in a bow with the rosh yeshiva’s analysis and explanation of the pertinent achronim.
Rav Chaims; Reb Elchanans; The Ketzos vs. the Nesivos; Rav Barush Ber, etc., nothing real-and-true was off the table.
And, he was successful – he made people frum this way!!!
It was a lesson that while the not-yet-frum may not know a lot of Torah, we err when we treat them as a remedial group.
Years ago, I received a letter from a chashuveh rosh kollel. “I was passing through Buffalo and stopped into your shul for Mincha and Maariv. When you spoke in-between, you talked about deep halachik topics that, while interesting, were likely above the heads of your audience, and not what they needed to hear” he wrote.
Respectfully, and while I understood where he was coming from, he could not have been more wrong. He never saw Rav Singer in action.
Aside for the fact that every member there that night was already frum, even if this rosh kollel assumed they did not have a yeshiva education, they too can understand a ‘Rav Chaim’, they too can see the intellectual marvel of chochmas haTorah. Why should we deprive them of the very thing that gives us the most simchas hachaim – Simchas Torah?!
Why not explain the reason behind the psak? Why not challenge them?
This brings me to Elul. Throughout the year we convince ourselves that we are not at ‘that’ level. We see others, or read about others whose ways are inspiring and the kinas soferim, a healthy jealousy and pining, begins to stir within us.
Elul is when we all attend -metaphorically speaking – Rav Singer’s class. When we all walk into Passaic Yeshiva, don one of those silk-like yarmulkas found in a basket and sit and bask at who we can, one day, become.
‘Taylor’ed Beginnings
R’ Shlomo Singer comes from Torah royalty.
His father, Rav Dovid Yehudah Singer, was a rav in Taylor, Pennsylvania where he sought for many years to spread yiddeshkiet in the early part of the 20th century.
He would soon move his family to Scranton and open a sefarim printing company.
He was a known talmudchacham raising frum children in America (not so common in those days, sadly), and so one day he received a plea from Rav Meir Greenberg.
Rav Meir Greenberg was an emissary of the friedekerrebbe of Chabad. Rav Meir was a massive talmudchacham, and had spent years learning under Rav Shlomo Heiman, and received semicha from Rav Moshe Feinstein.
Rav Meir would later become the rosh yeshiva of the central Chabad yeshiva of Paterson, now in Morristown.
I had the zechus to have met Rav Meir Greenberg on many occasions before his passing. He was a chavrusah with both Rav Shustel and Rav Shisgal zecher tzadikim l’breacha (their nickname in yeshiva was ‘the three musketeers’).
Rav Meir’s son, Rav Heshel Greenberg, a gaon in his own right, has been a rav in Buffalo for many decades, and his father Rav Meir lived with him until his passing. I had the zechus to talk to Rav Meir in learning, and even see his notes on the Chidushei Rav Akiva Eiger, and ask his about the time he received a psak from Rav Menachem Zembah hy’d (alas, I will have to share more about him in another article, iy’H)
In any event, Rav Meir called Rav Singer to plead with him to bring his family and children to New York. Spreading Torah is vital, but now he must make sure his children themselves would become bnei Torah. Before we re-build Torah, we first need bnei Torah!
And so, Rav Singer senior sprung into action, and with no money brought his family to the Lower East Side.
Young Shlomo Zalman was sent to Crown Heights to learn –after all it was the rebbe who had reached out to save them and have them raised as bnei Torah.
Rav Singer recently related to me, “I can still remember bringing the rebbe milk in his study. When I walked in their it was like walking into ganeden! Not just because of the kedusha in the air, but in the rebbe’s smile”
Little Shlomo Zalman’s brother had one of the first Bar Mitzvah’s to ever take place in 770.
“I can still remember being brought with my brother to the rebbe for a beracha. ‘Be a yoreishomyaim and grow in gadlus b’Torah!’ the rebbe said”
It was only a matter of time that young Shlomo Zalman would take advantage of his living location. After spending some time in RJJ, he went to Mesivta Tifferes Yerushalaim, led by Rav Moshe Feinstein, mere blocks from his house.
And so, together with a young Jackie Mason (“Jackie’s father was one of gedolim of the last generation” Rav Singer shared with me) enrolled to learn under Rav Moshe.
“Rav Moshe would always ask Yaakov Moshe (Jackie) to emcee events. Rav Moshe loved to see the talmidim happy and laughing”, he shared.
During his time by Rav Moshe Fenstein, he learnt the power of middos tovos and hasmada. When Rav Singer contracted pneumonia, Rav Moshe traveled aline to his house to visit in person! And as for Rav Moshe’s legendary hasmada, Rav Singer –being close friends with Rav Reuvein, would from time-to-time sleep over in the Feinstein’s apartment. To get to the bathroom in the middle of the night, one had to pass by Rav Moshe’s room where he learnt. Once, in the middle of the night he looked in and saw Rav Moshe learning, in a chair without a back, and with his feet in a bucket of ice so he would be able to stay up!
While continually growing in his own learning, he also kept hearing about this ‘Ari Shel Torah –Lion of Torah’, by the name of Rav Aaron Kotler.
Rav Aaron was a legend of Torah even while still in Europe, and his arrival to America was a watershed moment in Jewish history.
“I wanted to meet him, to see him”.
And one day he got his chance.
Rav Moshe and the entire yeshiva were heading to Boro Park to celebrate in the siyum of another yeshiva.
As Rav Shlomo Zalman was leaving, his friend tugged at his sleeve. “Shlomo! You wanted to meet the Ari Shel Torah? Well, he is right over there waiting for a taxi!”
They ran toward Rav Aaron, grabbed his suitcase, hailed a cab for him, and escorted him into the taxi.
The destination of Rav Aaron mattered little to these two yeshivabachurim; Wherever Rav Aaron was heading, they would follow.
“As soon as I closed the door, and the taxi drove off, I thought to myself, ‘What have I done?! What have I gotten myself into?! He will talk to me in learning! He will see I am nobody in Torah! But he never did, You know why? Because he didn’t want to embarrass or hurt me. Instead, Rav Aaron only asked me personal and sweet questions about my life. And, when he arrived at his destination, he gave a tip to the can driver like you would not believe!”
“So when did you go learn by him?” I asked.
“The next day”!
The Lion Roars
Rav Singer was trying to explain to me who Rav Aaron was.
“Rav Aaron would clean your house, he would polish your shoes, if it meant you would come learn in yeshiva. He was fighting for the very survival of Torah!”
I’ve spoken to Rav Singer many times in preparation for this article, and each time he shares a different event to capture Rav Aaron’s milchama for Torah in America.
“Once, I was in his home when a cousin was mentioned. ‘Where does he go to yeshiva?’ asked Rav Aaron. ‘He doesn’t. He is going to law school in the fall’, I answered. Rav Aaron then asked me to dial his number, and as soon as he came on the phone Rav Aaron quickly grabbed the phone from me. ‘You are coming to yeshiva!’ Rav Aaron ordered into the phone!”!
Each time, another story to illustrate Rav Ahron’s passion for American Torah growth.
In fact, just last month, the OU’s Jewish Action published an interview with Rabbi Berel Wein. He quoted Rav Soloveitchick who told Rabbi Wein that the students he had in the later years were much more proficient in learning than the early days of YU. Rav Soloveitchick said this was all due to Rav Aaron Kotler’s long fight for classic limud Torah in America! (Jewish Action, Fall 5781, p. 58)
Rabbi Singer continued:
“I saw with my own eyes the assimilation at that time. When I first came to Passaic there were ten frum families I saw growing up men with longa burds (long beards) whose kids intermarried, Rachamanal’tzlan!
“Rav Aaron had to ‘kidnap’ people to come to his yeshiva. But he was fighting for our survival. He killed himself! And for what? Look around! Find me a major city without a kollel today!”
Mishnas Rav Singer
While learning in BMG –which at the times had about one-hunded students, everyone would struggle to understand the breadth and depth of Rav Aaron’s shiurim.
Together with Rav Shneur Kotler, Rav Shlomo Singer got a hold of a reel-to-reel recorder, created a surreptitious hole in the ceiling and lowered a microphone.
For some time he recorded the rosh yeshiva’s shiurim, allowing bachurim and yungeleit the amazing opportunity to hear it again and again, until they ‘got it’.
There was one problem. How will they break this news to the roshyeshiva? Perhaps he didn’t want these shiurim recorded.
So, a plan was set. When Purim came around, one of the bachurim went up to a shtender during the yeshiva’s seudah. With Rav Aaron in attendance, this bochur was to give over a drasha or shiur imitating the style and speech patterns of Rav Aaron, all in good humor. What Rav Aaron –and most others- didn’t know, however, is that instead of speaking, they would simply play a recording of one of the secretly taped shiurim with this bachur simply mimicking the gestures of Rav Aaron.
The bachor stood by the shtender and began to ‘speak’. Rav Aaron sat and listened and… was enjoying the Torah! This was not Purim Torah, this was deep stuff! Keep in mind, such recordings were not common in those days, and coming from Kletzk, this technology was not on Rav Aaron’s mind.
Rav Aaron was nodding in agreement and enjoying the Torah, when suddenly it dawned on him that he was listening to himself deliver a shiur!
Rav Aaron put everything together, and did not get upset that his most precious Torah was being recordered. Rather, he made them promise to keep these tapes safe. Today, it is these reel-to-reel tapes that are still utilized by BMG in their production of Rav Aaron’s writings in Mishnas Rav Aaron!
A Promise To Rav Aaron
When Rav Singer was preparing to leave Lakewood, Rav Aaron asked him, “Will you open a yeshiva?”
“No” said Rav Singer.
“Maybe you will enter the rabbinate”
“That too is not for me”, he honestly responded
“Well, what will you do?”
“I will be a chazzan”
“A Chazzan! You can sing! And you never sang for me and the yeshiva!?”
Then Rav Aaron commanded the following: “Wherever you go, whatever shul you work for, you must work to turn that shul into a yeshiva! No balla buss is below learning deeply, with chaburos, in depth b’iyun rabba. It is not enough to make them shomer Shabbos. They must know how to delve into the amkusshel Torah (the truest de;th and brilliance of Torah)!”
“I promised my rebbe” said Rav Singer, now crying. “I promised me rebbe! And forty years ago is when the yeshiva I have today began.”
Rav Singer continued sharing, “I want you to know, this was not my rebbe’s message unique just to me. Rather he told this to everyone who went into rabbanus: ‘A Shul must be a yeshiva! A rav must be a a rosh yeshiva!’”
Rav Singer accomplished a lot in Adas Israel as cantor. This includes serving as the menahel and opening of a Hebrew Day School, under the guidance of Rav Moshe. There he taught many.
“I didn’t care to teach them ‘Bar Mitzvah’ laining and a speech –and I am a chazzan and could have taught them this! Rather I focused on amkus shel torah!Now, so many of these students are in eretz yisoel. Many of these boys came from deeply conservative homes.”
It was over forty years ago is when Rav Singer invited a balla buss Bruce Goldberg to his house on Shabbos for some kugel, cholent and in-depth Gemara.
Soon, the entire dining table was filled with men learning the depth of the yamhatalmud. Then it stretched into the kitchen.
Soon, there were so many attendees; they had to move to his garage.
Eventually, Rav Meir Stern urged Rav Singer to use the yeshiva.
This was close to 25 years ago, when I first saw Rav Singer.
Soon, he realized that he needed his own building.
He told his late wife, “We need a place where people from all backgrounds could attend shiurim and give real chaburos, say chiddushim in Torah, experience the beauty of real learning, each on their own level. In-depth learning for balla battim”.
She got nervous. “How will we pay for the mortgage?”
“But we both understood they that Hashem had a lot of money”
Rebbetzin Ita Singer, was niftar just a few years ago. She was the emotional and financial support for tis yeshiva throughout its early and challenging phases. She also urged a focus on women who need classes and shiurim in depth.
“The address of our new, and first home, was street number 441 Passaic Avenue”, exclaimed Rav Singer.
I started to quickly think what the significance of this number was.
Rav Singer explained, “441 is gematriaemes! How amazing is that!”
He Just Needs a Gemara
Rav Singer has the secret to kiruv: He truly loves every Jew. It drips off of him.
One of his children shared an amazing story. Growing up, their Shabbos table was always graced by Jews of all paths. “A yid is always special” Rav Singer would say.
Once, the Sukkos after 9/11, a young man, maybe twenty years old, arrived for the seudah in their sukkah.
The world was still on edge, and this young man was a committed Leftist. He blamed democracy, Israel, America, etc. for these horrific events, focusing on their ‘treatment’ of Arabs as the cause for their own chosen actions.
“I had enough” one daughter told me. “There has to be limits to can come to our home. It was so soon after 9/11, I simply could not bare taking any more of this man’s childlike view of the world”.
“My father told me, ‘You are wrong. His values may be corrupt but they come from good middos. It is his pinteleh yid for rachmanus that is behind his Leftism.
“You see”, explained Rav Singer, “All he needs is a gemara, to be trained in learning, and he will be an amazing Jew!”
That young man is now married and living in Bnei Brak!!
This love for all Jews, and for their potential, is seen in the shul/yeshiva still today.
VII. Ner Boruch/PTI (Passaic Torah Institute)
Today, Rav Singer has a new beautiful building on the way (still at ‘441’), with over 200 balla battim from all backgrounds attending shiurim and learning b’chavrusah per week.
Sure, there is davening, and shaloshseudos on Shabbos, but this shul is the fulfillment of a dream – it is also a yeshiva!
In-depth shiurim are given for different all levels of backgrounds. The attendees prepare chaburos, give over their own chiddushim.
The only difference between their learning style and a yeshiva is that of age.
Rav Baruch Bodenheim –one of Rav Singer’s son-in-laws –is the accsosiate rosh yeshiva at PTI, along with a group of talented maggideishiurim.
“I want you to know” says Rav Singer, “This is not created just for those new to Torah. What will be of the kollelyungerman who leaves the walls of the beismidrash to go to work? What? He will learn the daf? That’s great, but what of the amkus of Torah, its true depth and simcha?!”
He continued, “When I would speak to Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky about my idea, he too would scream ‘Lomdus! Its all about lomdus!’”
As his rebbetzin urged, Rav Singer also has a slew of classes and shiurim for women of all backgrounds, housed in a separate place. This women’s learning program is called Ateres Beracha/Nvei TTI.
I could spend the rest of the article speaking about Ner Baruch/PTI, but this is not what Rav Singer wants.
“I am 86 years old. I have to spread the message that every shul can be a yeshiva! We have to share with the world the sweetness of amkus haTorah! This is what I promised my rebbe, Rav Aaron.”
On this last point, a video spread around after this past year’s Tisha B’Av.
It was the renowned rav Rav Zev Leff speaking to his shul by kinnos.
“A rav in Pasaaic, Rav Shlomo Singer, he has a shul where the balla battim learn, but not just stam learning daf yomi, or learning something peripheral, but learning mammashb’omek. Ad kdei kach, that these balla battim write chaburos! And, they are mechedesh chiddushim!
“And he feels that this is something that is crucial. Torah b’amkus is not just for bneihayeshiva, but every shul should be like a yeshiva.
“I heard this not just from him, but from Rav Mordechai Schapiro zt’l, that Rav Aaron said every shul should be a yeshiva.
“A shul should be a yeshiva!”
I should here make the obvious point, that all of the above is not, chalilla, to disparage dafhayomi (which I myself do), rather to challenge ourselves if in addition to that general crucial knowledge, if we need to go deeper.
The Dream
Rav Singer shared with me, “Many years ago, when Torah Umesroah was successful in placing Day Schools all across the country, they held a special event in Lakewood.
“Principals from North Carolina, Tennessee, and all over the country came. While the goal was to give a mazaltov and mach ah shehechiyanu, the principles arriving looked despondent.
“I mean, put yourself in their shoes! They were dealing largely with families not interested in Torah-true Judaism. It was an uphill battle. They would teach the essentials and then see these children go off to public schools or college and forget their yiddeshkiet. It was a painful job to have back then.
[What follows is Rav Singer’s recounting of the speech]
“But Rav spoke last, and he stole the show. I still have this recording.
“Rav Moshe asked, why do we bless our children to be like Efraim and Menashe?
“Perhaps you will say that its because they were raised in Torah in the depth of tumas mitzriam…and that is true, but its also a lie! Our children cant reach that level. We can try they becomes a Rebbe Akiva, an Abayay, but Efraim and Menashe?
“Rabbossei, we bless our children this way, even though its impossible, even though it is but a guzmah (an exaggerated desire). Because to succeed in chinuch we have to compare them to the best there ever was. If you wish to succeed in chinuch you can just teach them the essentials, but rather to teach them as if they could become the next Menasheh and Efraim!
“And if you wonder, how indeed was Yosef so successful? It is because he taught them from Yaakov, the personification of pure, unbridled, unfiltered, unwashed-down Torah. This is how we succeed in chinuch! Hold them to the highest potential!”
Rav Singer said that every menahel walked out of that speech with a new mission: they will not shy-away from teaching youngsters amkushaTorah.
“Look at Passaic today. So many mosdos. How did this happen? I remember when it was a midbar! I came for parnasa, and to fulffil the promise to my rebbe. I would never have dreamed Passaic would be what it is today.”
Rav Singer, paused, and then again began to cry.
“Yes, there have a lot of chashuveh and hard working rabbanim, but it all could not have happened if Rav Meir Stern didn’t walk into to town so many years ago with ten talmidim!
“AmkushaTorah is the only future cities have for growth. And now we have baruch Hashem reached the point in American Jewry where it need not be reserved just for yeshivaleit!”
In other words, and as Rav Moshe expressed in that speech, for a school, city, kehilla to thrive they must have the highest, even impossible to reach, goals. They must be able to witness Torah at its deepest levels. Without that ingredient –without a kollel or a yeshiva, and without a roshyeshiva or a rosh kollel for their children to look up to –it is hard to grow a town.
This brought to mind growing up in Toronto, and the influence of Rav Shlomo Miller and Rav Hirschman’s Kollel Avrechim –founded by Lakewood –and its mark on the city of my youth, as well.
Rav Singer concluded our conversation. “I am just a talmud trying to fulfill the promise to his rosh yeshiva. Help me spread the word, help me share how successful this can be.
“Every shul can become a yeshiva!”
Rav Singer’s dream –and sole reason for agreeing to this interview –is for this vision to spread.
“Every town needs a real yeshiva for balla battim. Not only will one make more people frum by utilizing this derecho, but the bnei yeshiva who are working are thirsting for this. There are local talmidei chachamim in every town who can use extra parnassa, who have the ability to give high-end shiurim, to challenge these older students. They will then give chaburos, write chiddushim. Shuls will publish sefarim!”
“My rebbe wanted this so much. I saw its success in Passaic, and I know it can happen everywhere.
“Many shuls already have a few in-depth shiurim. But this has to be a program, a night seder, where the balla battim too give-over Torah.
“This can change the Torah world!”
Rav Malkiel Kotler, Rosh Yeshiva of Beth Medresh Govoha of Lakewood, addrssing PTI
As Rav Bodenheim shared with me, “It is not just these ballabattim that grow, but time-after-time their children who watch them come home arguing over a Rav Baruch Ber become superstar talmidiechachaim and geonim. We literally see the fruits ever day”
Wives & Husbands, Sefard, Ashkanaz, Chassidesh, Kitniyos, Cholov Yisroel, and more.
Every year as Pesach approaches, my sister-in-law asks, “Is there any way I can get out of adopting my husband’s minhag not to eat gebrokts?”
She is not the only one frustrated by this problem. Some even take it to ridiculous levels; several years ago a group was formed called the Kitniyos Liberation Front (really). Unfortunately, much of their activity demonstrates an embarrassingly low tolerance for critical thinking and yedios haTorah.
It goes without saying that there are many wonderful Pesach minhagim, and it is important that they be kept. Pesach observance is a serious matter; we know the Arizal’s statement that one who is careful to get rid of even a tiny amount of chametz will be protected from sin all year. Our intent is not to trivialize minhagim—on the contrary—but to determine whose minhagim get the ‘right of way’.
It is safe to assume that for hundreds of years it was quite rare for two people from divergent backgrounds to marry. Travel was a luxury most could not afford, and many people died never having gone very far from their place of birth.
Husbands and wives generally shared, if not the same rav ha’ir, the same basic communal or provincial minhagim. It was certainly rare for a Sefardi and an Ashkenazi to meet, let alone marry. For this reason, discussion of these halachos began in earnest only about a hundred years ago.
The very first to discuss this issue1 was the Tashbeitz, Rabbi Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (d. 1444). In a brief discussion,2 he makes it clear that there cannot be two customs under one roof. The example he gives seems to be an allusion to Pesach: “It is obvious, and there is no doubt, that we cannot have two people feasting at the same table separated by their doughs.”
There remain two questions: Who assumes whose minhagim? And in the event of death or separation, R”l, would a spouse revert to his or her former minhagim?
As for the first question, the Tashbeitz cites the principle of ishto k’gufo—literally, “his wife is one with him”3—which would indicate that a wife must assume the husband’s practices. We find this concept as well in the case of a bas Yisrael who marries a kohen and thereby gains the right to eat terumah. And if the husband should pass away first, as long as they had children together, she may continue to eat terumah until she remarries.
All this, says the Tashbeitz, would apply to minhagim as well.
While this conclusion was affirmed in later sefarim,4 it wasn’t until the modern era, when many free countries became cultural “melting pots,” that almost all major poskim discussed the issue.
Rav Moshe Feinstein stated as much when he was asked this question: “For here in New York people retained their distinct city minhagim from across Europe, whether lenient or stringent…”5
Interestingly, in this teshuvah Rav Moshe does not mention the Tashbeitz’s opinion at all, but based on a separate precedent, he comes to the same conclusion.
He explains that just as it is an established halachah that if one moves to a new city he must adopt its minhagim, so too a wife “moves” into her husband’s home. It is irrelevant whether they move to the husband’s city or to hers, or whether her family purchased a house for them; the Torah’s concept of marriage, either physically or metaphysically, involves the woman moving into the abode of the man (especially when we consider the chuppah; see Ran in Kesubos).
Is this rule set in stone?, Are there exceptions?
There would have to be! Consider that there are numerous minhagim, and even halachos, that exist only because of women.6 How would these practices have been perpetuated if each woman had to yield to her husband’s customs? If that were the case, these minhagim and halachos would already have been lost.
Indeed, we do find several exceptions to this rule in the poskim:
A spouse may not force the other to abide by his or her personal chumros.7 Rav Chaim Jachter 8 cites Rav Ovadia Yosef, who says that this principle would also pertain to the issue of a wife following her husband’s minhagim; all matters of chumrah are not included (for example, if a husband does not rely on any eiruvim, the wife may still choose to carry on Shabbos inside an eiruv).
In fact, Rav Jachter (ad loc) quotes Rav Moshe Snow, who testified that while Rav Moshe abstained from eating chalav stam, he did not interfere when his wife chose to do so.9
Another exception to the rule is that a husband can be mochel in the matter of minhagim and allow his wife to retain her family customs. However, should she first accept her husband’s minhag and only laterdecide to revert to her own, a rav should be consulted and hataras nedarim should probably be performed.10
A third exception is that mitzvos that are incumbent only or mainly upon women may follow the practice of the wife’s family. This would explain how minhagim originated by women were able to survive over the centuries. Rabbi Neustadt argues for this principle at least in the case of lighting candles, where a woman may follow the minhagim of her mother.11
Rav Elyashiv held that certain customs are more stringent than minhagim and carry the status of kabbalos or gezeiros. He argues that eating kitniyos on Pesach falls into the latter category, and therefore holds that an Ashkenazi girl who marries a Sefardi must continue to abstain from kitniyos on Pesach. Based on the position of the Tashbeitz that we don’t want a husband and wife with separate dishes at the same table, this is difficult to understand. Perhaps in such a case, the Sefardi man would adopt the chumrah of abstaining from kitniyos!
When Yosef and Binyamin were reunited in Mitzrayim, they both wept. Most understand that this was because they had a vision of troubles and destruction that would befall klal Yisrael in the future. The Maharal, however, understands that these were tears of joy; the brothers were relieved to foresee a future in which all the tribes would be reunited.12
May the current period, when we see Jews from so many lands coming together in communities and in marriage, herald a greater future of unity and peace.
NOTES
1. Noam, Vol. 23, p. 155.
2. Shu”t 3:179.
3. Based on Vayikra 18:14; see Sanhedrin 28b.
4. See Rav Chaim Pelagi, Moed Kol Chai 2:23, for a very strong ruling on the matter.
5. Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 1:158, see also Even Ha’ezer 1:59; O”C 3:158.
6. See shu”t haRashba 2:228; hakdamah perishah to Tur Yoreh Deah 2 in the name of his mother as to the order of lighting candles for Yom Tov; Niddah 66a; et al.
7. For example, Igros Moshe Even Ha’ezer 2:22 near the end, inter alia.
8. Grey Matter, Vol. 3, p. 132. 9. This example would not apply for those who reject the concept of chalav stam as a matter of halachah. 10. Rav Shlmo Zalman Aurbach, as quoted in Halichos Baysa; Yom Tov Sheni K’Hilchasa; Shalmei Moed. 11. Weekly Halachah, Vayera. 12. As told to Yechezkel, ch. 37.
