Author: Moshe Taub

  • Houdini & his Rabbi

    Houdini & his Rabbi

    A exploration of magic in Halacha, and how Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle played a significant role.

    Written by Rabbi Moshe Taub for Ami Magazine December, 2021

       Having recently constructed new book shelves, my sefarim, yarchonim (Torah journals), notes etc. were scattered for some time around my house and various offices.

        Recently I took the time to gather them together to place them on my new shelves. In that process, I came across sefarim I thought were long lost. I also rediscovered English books I had forgotten that I owned.

        One of these was a book published in 1948. It was purchased from the Cornell University Library by an unknown person.

          The title of this tome is ‘The Unfailing Light’. That it is an autobiography is not what makes it unique, rather what does is that it one written by a rav about his life in rabbanus.      

          Rabbi Bernard (Dov Ber) Drachman was one of the first American Orthodox rabbis to both be born a in America. Born in 1861, he was raised in Jersey City. It was a disappointment to many of his reform teachers and their leaders when this smart and energetic young man returned from studying in Europe with a semicha and declaring himself Orthodox.

        He would later go on to become the president of the Orthodox Union – which he actually assisted in forming, with the direct purpose of slowing the tide of Reform -he was a supporter of Rav Yaakov Yosef, and even translated some of Rav Hirsch’s works, specificly parts of ‘The Nineteen Letters’ (this was stunning, as some of Rabbi Drachman’s own ‘Orthodox’ teachers were named by Rav Hirsch as dangerous to our mesorah). He would even become a finalist to serve as the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, losing in 1913 to Rav Yosef Tzvi Hertz (d. 1946; today best known for his translated-to-English ‘Hertz Chumash’).

           Over Sukkos, I wrote a feature on the history of mechitzah in America -where the first synagogue without one first occurred. There we recounted, briefly, Rav Eliezer Silver’s famous testimony in the case of the Cleveland Jewish Center.  He asserted the central role of halacha in general and mechitzah in particular. But he was not the lone voice.

        The JTA reported at the time (November 4th, 1927) “…So far the testimony of Dr. B. Drachman, Rabbi Leo Jung, Rabbi M. S. Margolies, Rabbi Eliezar Silver of Springfield, Rabbi J. L. Selzer of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Union of Orthodox Congregations and Mr. Gedaliah Bublick, editor of the Orthodox “Jewish Daily News” has been taken.  The witnesses are asked to answer to 33 questions which pertain to the charges brought by the Orthodox committee against Rabbi Goldman. Among the charges are that Rabbi Goldman had denied the Sinaitic origin of the Torah and the Decalogue, that he had permitted men and women to sit together in the synagogue…”

         What I did not know at the time of that writing is that this was not the first time Rabbi Drachman fought such a Torah battle. After serving Oheb Shalom of Newark for two years, in the spring of 1887 Rabbi Drachman was hired by Congregation Beth Israel Bikkur Cholim to serve as their rav. Rabbi Drachman was engaged to be married, and very much needed this parnasah. But soon the winds of change swayed the fragile among his flock, and those susceptible to cultural swings soon demanded that their shul too shall demean the mechitzah to a religious artifact. Although he fought against it, ultimately it was up for a vote which mechitzah did not win (p 200).

        Now married, and with a family he would need to support, what was he to do? The first Shabbos after the vote he arrived in shul as if nothing happened. Likely the congregants believed that, like them, he too quickly adapted to change thereby compromising his morals.

        After leining, when the Torah was put away, it was time for the rav to speak. Many articles recount what happened next with simplicity, but his autobiography demonstrates how he had to still defeat the yetzer hara in his ear. He wondered to himself not if he should acquiesce but rather if he should choose a less dramatic venue and method to be mocheh (protest).  

         “Perhaps I should switch to an innocuous sermon” he thought to himself (p. 202). In the end, he gave his planned remarks. He was also helped by the fact his father-in-law, Mr. Weil, stopped by his home before davening to express his pride in what his new son-in-law was about to do.

       And so, to the shock of the audience this typically soft spoken man saw his voice steadily rise in passion as he discussed halacha, mesorah and the future of the children in the attendance. “I spoke with a fire and force quite unusual for me…but my feelings on the subject were so deeply stirred that once I began to speak I put my whole sould into my words”.

        He concluded his drasha with the following words, “Since they had acted in direct opposition to Biblical passages and Talmudic dicta…I no longer consider[ed] the rabbinical post at this congregation worthy one, and that, with the conclusion of the present service, I would cease to be their spiritual leader”.

            Perhaps the greatest surprise in reading him tell the story of his life is that he almost became an essential part to my background and that of both of my parents. In 1925 Rabbi Drachman was invited to become the rav of Toronto. Although tempted by the offer, he did not accept this position because his wife had just died (p.393). Toronto already had a great gaon -Rav Graubart-but perhaps the need for a new rav came when the Rav Graubart announced his departure for St. Loise (he would soon after return to his position in Toronto). Rav Graubart’s life and geonis will have to wait for another article (see HaPardes, November 1937 p.5ff for an article about his life).

         There is so much more discuss about Rabbi Drachman’s life – including working with Rav Hillel Klein to found the Vaad L’mishmeres Shabbos (Rabbi Klein was married to the granddaughter of Rav Hirsh) and his being the rabbi of one of the most famous Americans of his day…Houdini!

         Indeed, it is this last point that I want to focus on, as it relates to a serious shailah I just received. We will iy’H discuss what that current issue in the next chapter.

        II.

    Above, we introduced the reader to the fascinating life and career of Rabbi Bernard (Dov Ber) Brachman.

         Rabbi Drachman dedicates a chapter of this book describing the sad state of affairs when it came to the observance of Shabbos, along with his efforts to repair it. He opens this chapter by expressing his surprise that here in America when we were finally granted a constitutional right that protects religious liberty in galus is also when so many turned away from yiddeshkeit. Of course, this is an old conundrum.

        While he writes with great passion in defense of Shabbos, he also describes with delicate sensitivity the non-observant and the challenges they faced that may have led to this unholy breach.

         Together with his brother, Gustave, Rabbi Drachman worked with politicians to change New York’s laws so that the shomrei Shabbos would be better fiscally protected. He also helped found an organization helping to educate Jewish Americans about the vitality of shemiras Shabbos. He was very successful in both of these endeavors.

        Humbly, he does not mention in his book that he was elected the president of this early American vaad l’shmiras Shabbos organization, and it was left to the editors to add this fact in a footnote (p. 229). When I saw this, I was reminded of the great quote often attributed to Sir Winston Churchill that should inspire all those involved in tzarchei tzibbur b’emunah –“It is amazing what can be accomplished if one does not care who gets the credit”.

         A more humorous portion of his story is his recounting of his and other early rabbanim’s relationship with chazanim. One of the chazanim tenured at Ohab Zedek was none other than the famed Yoselle Rosenblatt. The senior rav at the time was Rabbi Phillip Klein, grandson in-law of Rav Hirsch. Rabbi Klein and Rabbi Drachman worked well together, so when the shul requested an English speaking rav to work together with Rabbi Klein, Rabbi Drachman was the obvios choice (p.278). Rabbi Drachman would switch off each Shabbos between his main shuk -Zichron Ephraim -and Ohab Zedek each week. In any event, the latter had a rotation of chazanim, no one of which impressed Rabbi Drachman. Although an appreciator of music, he would describe some chazanim by their “sometimes joyous, sometimes pathetic rendition of the prayers”. Yet, because many of these members did not have a sophisticated understating of yiddishkeit, often chazanus was their only way to feel close to Hashem. IN fact, Rabbi Drachman reports that when Rabbi Klein would give his Shabbos Hagadol derasha -which was chock-full of lomdus and erudition – “…to the ordinary layman [in attendance] they were absolutely unintelligible”. He goes on to explain that therefore “To have a chazzan for Shabbos was the highest delight of the old-time Jew…Listening to those melodious outpourings, he forgot all about the hard realities of the unkind present and felt himself transplanted to a holy realm, in the company of the saints and sages of Israel’s past”.

        As for Rosenblatt, Rabbi Drachman records that the annual income to the shul that this one chazan would bring in annually was $25,000, which corrected for inflation would equal about a quarter of a million dollars each year for the shul!

        However, as anyone familiar with rabbanus is aware, rabbis and chazanim were often like oil and water. After recounting the large funds that just Yoselle Rosenblatt brought in to the shul, he immediately then writes, “In the matter of chazanus I did not see eye to eye with my congregants”. Before explaining his reasoning, he first wants the reader to be aware that he too loves music. He spends significant space recounting yiddeshkeit’s important connection to music. He then goes on to explain how too often the chazan’s role in the shul becomes exaggerated. Davening loses its religious function and becomes more of a concert. While he admits, “Even in the case of Joseph Rosenblatt, who was a sincerely devout Jew and strictly observant in the Law -which not all chazzanim are -his repute was not due to his [very real] conscientious piety and religious loyalty, but purely his musical ability.

        Rabbi Drachman’s concern was specific for his time, when people would only come to shul for the concert, rarely daven themselves, and most certainly did not stay for the derasha.

        He goes on to express his frustration in the constant repeating of words that some chazanim utilize. He recounts, “On a certain Shabbos, a chazzan –not Joseph Rosenblatt -was conducting the service.” It was rosh chodesh, and they were saying a piyyut that referenced the idea that we can’t bring the day’s korbonos because Titus destroyed the beis hamikdosh. When the chazan got to the words of that rasha “…he repeated them no less than eight times, each time in a different tone of lamentation and threnody”.

       When after a davening a member asked the rav how he enjoyed the chazan, he replied, “He is worse than Titus!” “How can you say that” asked the befuddled congregant?” “Very simple” replied Rabbi Drachman, “Titus harasha destroyed Jerusalem but he did it only once, but this chazan destroyed the Holy City and the Temple eight times!”

          Perhaps the most fascinating element of this autobiography is his description of his deep relationship with arguably the most person on earth at that time -Harry Houdini. It is hard today to understand just how celebrated this man was across the globe.

        Ironically, or perhaps by design, there is a lot of mystery surrounding Houdini’s background. While we know his real last name was Weiss, there is some debate if his father was trully a rav. In addition, many say his first name was just simply Eric/Erich. According to Rabbi Drachman, his father was a rav, and his Houdini’s real Jewish first name was Yaakov (p. 337). Rabbi Drachman even shares how Houdini and his tw siblings went to Rabbi Drachman’s shul’s cheder,which was held inside Congregation Zichron Ephraim!

         The Jewish life of Houdini, his relationship with his rav, as well as some more on Rabbi Drachman will all be discussed in the next chapter, when we conclude the story of his life and rabbanus.

    III.

        Why would Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -famed creator of Sherlock Holmes– quote a hesped from a rav, and do so with the express purpose  of the world reading it?

         The above question is intriguing, based on real history, and one of the oddest sentences I’ve ever put to paper.

        We ended the last section with a selection from his published (1948) autobiography, where he makes mention of his close relationship with Harry Houdini, who was, arguably, at one time the most famous man on earth. We discovered that Houdini’s first name was Yaakov -and not simply Eric(h), as all historians believe, and how as a young child, he and his brother and sister attended the Hebrew School housed in Rabbi Drachman’s shul. We will now pick up from there.

         Houdini’s father is described by Rabbi Drachman as a rabbi, although refers to him as ‘Dr.’. I have indeed heard this fact before, and often repeated, “Did you know that Houdini was not just Jewish, but that his father was a rav?!” ‘Rav’ may be a strong term. Meir Samuel Weiss was a part of a lesser-known movement in Budapest called ‘Neolog’, a close cousin to modern-day conservative Judaism, although even this is a broad-brush description. An older woman in my shul who grew up in pre-war Hungary remembered her father not allowing her to step foot in those shuls. The full story of the Neolog’s, and how even Hungary’s Ksav Sofer once tried to approach them, will have to wait for another time, perhaps. Regardless, Rabbi M. S. Weiss was certainly learned.

           Houdini’s greatest escape may have been at the age of three, when his father fled the poverty suffered in Hungary. R. Weiss would soon become the first rabbi in Appleton, Wisconsin. Sadly, he was let go after a just a few years.

         Penniless and without skills, the Weiss’s would find themselves in New York where both father and son Eric(h) would support the family through working at the R. Richter and Sons tie factory.

       It was at around this time when Rabbi Drachman began to study with and oversee a young Yaakov/Eric(h)’s, initially preparing him for his bar mitzvah.

        Although Houdini would soon, R’l, leave yiddeshkeit, he retained his relationship with Rabbi Drachman, even during the peak of his fame. Rabbi Drachman would have Houdini to his home for seudos and sought to keep Houdini connected to the shul of his youth as much as possible.      

        Rabbi Drachman shares an amazing story of how his shul wished to raise funds so as to pay off their mortgage. He called Houdini when he had already “become a world-renowned and wealthy man”. After meeting with Houdini, he agreed to donate five-hundred dollars -which would be the equivalent of about fifteen-thousand dollars today. But Houdini had one condition (the following quote is taken directly from the book):

        “I will gladly assist your synagogue. I will give five-hundred dollars toward your fund. But I want you to do me a favor too”. Rabbi Drachman wondered what the request may be for. Houdini continued, “You remember that set of Maimonides [the Rambam’s Yad Hachazaka] you bought of [from] my father? I would like to keep it in his memory”.

       Within twenty-four hours of return the set of Rambam, the shul had the check from Houdini. Rabbi Drachman then records, “I considered it an extraordinary act of filial devotion on the part of Harry Houdini that, although his Hebrew attainments were extremely weak, and could not [himself] read the code of Maimonides, he desired to keep it out of respect for his father” (p, 338-339).

         Later in his book, Rabbi Drachman discusses the death of Houdini and he being the rabbi who ran the levaya (p. 417). This recounting brings us back to how we opened this column, as it is here that Rabbi Drachman mentions how Doyle used his hesped in one of his books.

        To get the basic background, Houdini spent his life disputing the occult, and explaining that all magic is but trickery and sleight-of-hand. In this, his view, lahavdil, matched the words of the Rambam who states that such matters are “emptiness and vanity which attracted the feebleminded” (yad, avodah zara 11:16; cf. Biur Hagra to siman 179 s.v. af al pi)).

        In this point in history, the world was obsessed with the accult and black magic, ad it was Houdini who almost single handedly taught the world that these were all fakers, actors and charlatans. He thereby changed how the world approached magic shows, and while many poskim still forbid them, some poskim were far more lenient, now that world became aware that this is simply a human skill that can be practiced and learned by anyone (Rav Moshe, Chazon Ish, Klausenberger rebbe, etc.; next week many sources will be shared).

         But not everyone was ready to let go of their ‘beliefs’. Many even believed that Houdini himself -although trying to disprove sorcery -was himself a sorcerer, and his outward cynicism was but a red-herring, a ruse, so that no one would catch on.

        One of these true believers was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who, while writing about great detectives was a horrible one himself. After the death of Houdini, he published a bestselling book, a collection of essays, titled ‘The Edge of the Unknown’.

         There he writes, “At that burial [of Houdini] some curious and suggestive words were used by the presiding rabbi, Barnard Drachman. He said: ‘Houdini possessed a wondrous power that he never understood, and which he never revealed to anyone in life.’ Such an expression coming at so solemn a moment from one who may have been in a special position to know must show that my speculations are not extravagant or fantastic when I deal with the real source of those powers. The rabbi’s speech is to be taken with Houdini’s own remark, when he said: ‘There are some of my feats which my own wife does not know the secret of.’…”

       Rabbi Drachman was aghast that his hesped was used by some as proof that their unsophisticated worldview was correct. He explains that he meant those words in “their narrowest and simplest sense”. Simply, that Houdini was talented, and had the ability to capture attention, etc.

         But the story doesn’t end there. As we will see in the next chapter, Houdini, his relationship with Rabbi Drachman, and the returned Rambam has an impact on psak halacha till today.

     

    INSERT -ONE ARTCILE OF HIS ARRIVAL, AND ANOTHER OF HIS DEPARTURE:

    Friday, March 23, 1883, edition of The Courier-Journal. Aside for describing his upcoming class on Eishes Chayil, note how it also inconceivably asserts Dr. Weiss as being “one of the most learned Rabbis in the United States”

        The Appleton Post from Thursday, August 10

    IV.

    One of Houdini’s life missions was to prove that magicians have no special powers. He travelled the word seeking to disprove the acts of psychics, shamans and other artists of the ‘occult’. The reader should note that until this undertaking, most audiences earnestly believed that magicians had special powers. The magicians themselves not only did nothing to dispel this thinking but would advertise as being the real deal! (See the book ‘Learned Pigs’ by R. Jay where he describes how these acts were presented and were viewed by audiences throughout history).

    Therefore, not wishing to admit being bamboozled, many attacked Houdini’s mission. We even made mention how Sir Author Conan Doyle sought to use Rav Drachman’s hesped for Houdini to prove that even Houdini’s rav was aware of his ‘secret powers’.

    But there was one story that is steeped in irony, that will then lead us to our shailah -Houdini’s Rambam.

    After Houdini agreed to donate five-hundred dollars to Rabbi Drachman’s shul -a huge sum in those days – he had laid-down one condition (what follows is verbatim from his autobiography).

    “You remember that set of Maimonides [the Rambam’s Yad Hachazaka] you bought of [from] my father? I would like to keep it in his memory”.

    Rabbi Drachman then records, “I considered it an extraordinary act of filial devotion on the part of Harry Houdini that, although his Hebrew attainments were extremely weak, and could not [himself] read the code of Maimonides, he desired to keep it out of respect for his father” (‘The Unfailing Light’, p. 338-339).

    Little did Houdini know that the Rambam may have held the strictest view when it came to the practice of magic. In line with this new 20th century movement, after describing all matters of the occult -from witchcraft, incantations, talking to the dead, magic, etc. -the Rambam concludes with the following words (Yad, avodah zara, 11:16):

    “All the above matters are falsehood and lies…. It is not fitting for the Jews who are wise sages to be drawn into such emptiness…Whoever believes in [occult arts] of this nature and, in his heart, thinks that they are true and words of wisdom yet are forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and feebleminded…The masters of wisdom and those of perfect knowledge know with clear proof that all these crafts which the Torah forbade are not reflections of wisdom, but rather, emptiness and vanity which attracted the feebleminded and caused them to abandon all the paths of truth. For these reasons, when the Torah warned against all these empty matters, it advised (Devarim 18:13) ‘Be of perfect faith with God, your Lord.’”

    After speaking to magicians -both frum and non-Jewish -in preparation for this article, it is clear that today any magician who even hints at having any ‘special powers’ is mamash excommunicated from their community. In other words – Houdini had great success in his mission.

    In fact, any magician today who claims to have true powers will be ostracized from his peers. James Randi, a legend in the magic world, spent the better part of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries debunking such claims, and spreading the mission of magicians as being “Honest Liers”.

    Does this in any way effect halacha today? Does the fact that the audience is keenly aware, that it is fake, change its halachic status? Can we assume that they all have such an awareness?

    Many camps, Bais Yaakovs, Shuls, etc. hire (frum) magicians from time-to-time. Should their rabbanim put an end to it?

    Some may opine that, it would appear, according to the Rambam who mentions specifically the prohibition of ‘achizas aneyim’- which seemingly means stam illusions -Houdini’s influence on the world is then of no matter. For, Rambam appears to hold that magic has always been fake, and therefore that is precisely what the Torah prohibited! (For explanations as to how Rambam could hold a view that seems counter to many chazals, see Vilna Gaon in his Hagoas HaGra to Shulchan Aruch, yoreh deah, siman 179; shu’t Rashba 413; shu’t Radvaz 5:63; see below shu’t Igros Moshe for a novel reading of Rambam; see also the yarchan ‘Talpiot’, Tammuz 5709)

    However, many others – such as the Ramban to Devarim ibid., Nemukei Yosef to Sanhedrin 16b, Rav Yehudah HaLevi in Kuzari 1:79, Maharal in Gur Aryeh to Bereishis 25 and Shemos 8, Ramchal in Derech Hashem 3:3, et al. – differ from Rambam and discuss the concept and the force behind real magic (still forbidden to practice!), as well as why it was created, and if this tradition is still known today.

    The famed R’ Menashe ben Yisroel – about whom we spent much time discussing in our summer history series – writes that while the real forbidden magic about which the Torah speaks is no longer fully extant, it may still be found in pockets of India (Nishmas Chaim, p.186 in Hebrewbooks edition). Rav Shach is famously quoted as relaying a mesorah from the Chofetz Chaim that remnants of this forbidden tradition are found today mostly in Africa, somewhat in India, and a little among Native Americans.

    Some would assume that this debate among rishonim -and lahavdil the mission of Houdini – is at the heart of how to view sleight of hand today, where the magicians wants the audience to know it is not real.

    Before sharing the views of the major chadisheh and litvehshe poskim, it is fascinating to point out how some linguists trace the word ‘magic’ to a gemara in Sota 22a. There the gemara speaks of someone who issues halachic rulings without understanding the background. One view there states that such a person is like a ‘magush’; meaning a magician who says incantations without knowing their meaning (see ‘A Jewish Guide To The Mysterious’-with haskomos from gedolim -p. 291 note 3).

    A more known connection to yiddeshkeit may have as its first source Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s hakadama to Sefer Yetzira (p. xvi). The gemara famously shares how Rava created a golem. The expression used is rava bara gavra (Sanhedrin 65b). He goes on to suggest that the term ‘Abracadabra’ comes from the Aramaic term ‘abrey k’adabrei -I will create as I speak’.

    A few years ago, a sefer was published with haskamos from many leading poskim – like Rav Shlomo Miller – and written by Rav Rephoel Szmeria of Lakewood. In it, the author explicates the views of the rishonim regarding any alternative medical therapy and if violates any number of halachos. He wonderfully elucidates the above Rambam and how it applies to many things around us that science may have a hard time explaining. I highly recommend this sefer, titled ‘Alternative Medicine in Halacha’, Feldheim, especially the latter (Hebrew) section of this sefer. Indeed, I often call the mechaber when issues that relate to his focus come up in my shul or work.

    So, how do we rule? Can one’s shul hire a magician for Avos U’Banim?

    Of course, the rav of each shul will have to decide.

    For instance, the Radvaz, (Metzudas Dovid, #61, first column) states “It is difficult for me to comprehend that the Torah prohibits mere trickery and sleight-of-hand”. Rav Moshe Feinstein, who after an innovative approach to the Rambam, demonstrates from the speed of Naftali, the strength of Shimshon and other natural-but-rare skills found in tanach that natural talent- no matter how baffling- would always be allowed. He says, however, that he would seek to avoid answering a direct shailah relating to magic (Igros Moshe, y’d 4:13). The previous Klausenberger rebbe was similarly inclined to be lenient, but wished to keep it theoretical (Divrei Yatziv 1:57; see also Sefer Hachinuch 250) and lhbch’lch Rav Moshe Shternbuch felt that so long as the magician makes it clear that it is all illusion and sleight-of-hand it is allowed, although regarding certain illusions stringency may be warrented (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 1:455).

    However, many other poskim follow the words of Rav Avraham Danzig (d. 1820) who disallowed even a badchan who performs tricks for a chosson and kalla (Chochmas Adam 89:6). Although, even regarding this strict view, some differentiate depending on what type of magic is being performed (Btzel HaChochma, 4:13 end of os vav)

    Everyone should of course follow the psak of their own rav.

    Let us end with the words of the Nefesh Hachaim (3:12; see A Jewish Guide, ibid. p. 313), that we should approach our lives with temimus, and put our faith only in Hashem.

    I wish to thank Shlomo Levinger-a wonderful young magician -who helped in answering some technical questions about his profession as I prepared this monograph.

  • Understanding Yartzeit Customs: A Deep Dive

    Understanding Yartzeit Customs: A Deep Dive

    Tikkun? Candle? Aliyos? The Shabbos Before? Yartzeit Questions, Answers and Conundrums

    November, 2021

          My eldest daughter was named for my mother a’h. This was an easy choice, as she was born on the third day of shiva. That daughter is now back from seminary and entering shiduchim; it’s hard to believe how fast time has flown.

         My mother was the consummate rebbitzen -having fed thousands and thousands, as well taught many (including innumerable kallos)-and was taken young.

         As this is the week of her yartzeit, it is a good opportunity to discuss some interesting yartzeit issues, relating to rabbanus, hashkafos and interesting shailos.

        This week we will focus on some of the fascinating minhagim we tend to associate with yartzeit.

    1.  Birthday or Day of Death?

          A member once asked me, “If we wish to celebrate and remember a life lived and deeds accomplished, would it not be more apropos to accomplish that task by using their date of arrival into this fleeting world, as opposed to their departure from it?”

         This question was posed by, among others, Rav Chaim Friedlander (Sifsei Chaim, moadim, vol. 2, p. 44).

         He explains that when a person is first born he is an empty vessel. His bechira may bring him to choose good, or, R’l, bad. It is only now, when they are niftar, when we know for certain who they became. More, we are commemorating the day that the niftar himself discovered who he was -when they received a full account and schar for a life well-lived.

       In other words, one’s yartzeit is not so much their ‘day of death’, but rather their true birthday, when they first entered the kingdom of their olam hanitzchi (their eternal world).

           Rav Moshe Heineman of Baltimore added to this idea by suggesting a novel insight. The word for mourner in lashon hakodosh is avel.     

          Perhaps that root was chosen so as to be shared with the word aval which means the ‘kushta d’milsa -essence of truth’, as in ‘…aval anachnu v’avosienu chatunu’. An avel too only now can testify as to the essence of who this person was and how they ended-up living their life (quoted in the astounding Kol Bo L’Yartzeit, vol. 1, p. 71 note 97, by Rav Aaron Levine zt’l).

    1. Tikkun?

       As I have gotten older, I try not to eat anything heavy in the morning. But as a rav this presents a problem when after davening someone announces “I am making a tikkun in the beis midrash, on the back table, for my father…” There one finds cakes and cookies, as well as kol minei mashkeh. Well, it wouldn’t be right of I didn’t eat anything….

         What is the source for this practice? What is its purpose?

    What makes this minhag even more peculiar is that, if anything, there is a concept of fasting on a yartzeit (Shulchan Aruch, Rema, yoreh deah 376:5 in the name of the Rivash), and although today many, if not most, are lenient, why would we publicly do the opposite?

       Indeed, Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky once commentated that in Europe he saw many who put out a tikkun on a yartzeit, yet only in America did he first see the baal yartzeit himself also be from those who ate from it (ibid. p. 287, note 197).

    • The main source behind this custom comes from a sefer titled Chesed L’Avraham/Shaar HaEmunah. In its introduction to its commentary to the Mishnah it states: “…we can no longer (easily) fast on a yartzeit…we therefore fulfill the mitzvos of tzedakah and hachnasas orchim instead…by gathering a group of friends to have a joyous and unified food and drink, as a seudah among friends is also hachanasas orchim….achdus is what Hashem wishes for…such a meal has the status of a korban…because some may not be able to afford a lavish feast, nevertheless they simply put out some mezonos and whiskey…this is a great tzedakah -to give a friend some whiskey to drink [especially on an empty stomach -see Nachalas Shiva], as this works to strengthen their heart…”

        It is magnificent that we all make a simple a tikkun for the benefit of the poor; if only we would do the same for weddings.

    • Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Weiss (d. 1989; shu’t Minchas Yitzchak 6:135) offers further rational for this minhag. He reminds us that a yartzeit is an ominous day, specifically for one’s mazal. Therefore, having friends wish him a l’chaim on this day is no small matter. He goes on to point out that the gematria for l’chaim is minhag! In that, by simply keeping a minhag -like the tikkun- one can nullify a negative din.
    • There are many others who seek to explain the reasoning behind the tikkun. In the sefer Hadras Kodesh (78) he suggests that since the atonement for stealing when one doesn’t know from whom he stole is to do tzarchei rabbim, so as to protect the niftar from any unkown theft for which he now has no way of returning the children peform this pubic service.

         In fact, the previous Klausenberger rebbe posited that the tikkun helps the neshama more so than davening for the amud (first edition Piskei Teshuvos to Shabbos, p. 68)!

    II. Flames and Forgetfulness

       Several years ago a member of my shul called in a state of panic. Through tears they explained that they misunderstood when the first yartzeit would be for her father. Now, four days later she realized her error. He chief concern was that she did not light a yartzeit licht.

         Perhaps the most famous minhag for a yartzeit is to light a candle, as indeed these types of candles bare the name ‘yartzeit candles’.

        Many may be surprised to learn that this minhag is not mentioned in the classic poskim, first mentioned by Rav Shlomo Luria (d. 1573; shu’t Mararshal # 46).

        The closest remez we find in the Shulchan Aruch is by hilchos yom kippur where the Rema tells us that we are to light a ‘ner neshama’ for departed parents before Yom Kippur (siman 610:4).

       However, although only a minhag, many seek sources from the times of chazal. For instance, the Mishnah makes reference to a flame for the departed (Berachos 8:1); the midrash teaches us that when Avraham stumbled upon maaros hamachpeilah he found Adam and Chava laying down ‘sleeping’ with neros upon their heads (Pirkei D’Rav Elazar, ch.36); some sefarim conjecture that the ner maarivi of the menorah in the beis hamikdosh that was always lit was for the departed neshamos of klal yisroel (see Darchei Chaim, and ibid. p. 303 note 219); most famously is the verse ‘ner hashem nishmas adam-the lamp of Hashem is the soul of man…’ (Misheli 20:27; see sefer Nachamu Ami p. 50 for more suggested sources for the yartzeit candle).

        Nevertheless, the sifrei kaballah speak about the great importance and power of the yartzeit candle, even expressing the nachas ruach (peaceful state) it can bring to the departed (see Maaver Yavak, ch. 15).

       So, what about this woman who forgot to light?

           Unlike the requirement of Shabbos candles – for which there may be a fine should one forget – a forgotten yartzeit candle would not carry such a penalty (however, see shu’t Minchas Arhon 2:66, p. 221 who indeed does suggest such a fine -to light two candles every year going forward!).

        If one remembers when it is still the yartzeit -even moments before sundown – then they should of course light right away.

        But in a case when only remembers the next day, Rav Chaim Kinievsky told Rav Ahron Levine zt’l that one may light the next night (this is not an ayin hara). However, both Rav Scheinberg zt’l and Rav Elyahsiv zt’l told Rav Levine that there is no purpose to light after the yartzeit has passed. Rather, one should simply give to tzedakah the amount of value of a candle and oil.

         Some sugesst that one should pay for candles/electric costs of the neros by the amud (shu’t Be’er Moshe 8:112).

        In fact, the Chasam Sofer writes that giving to tzedakah is always the better option for the neshama than lighting a candle (shu’t Chasam Sofer, 6:27, s.v ya’an).

        Although we do not follow the view of the Chasam Sofer, I told the woman that she will be able to follow his minhag just this year, and next year she can return to the Maharshal and others who say to light.

    III. Source For Yartzeit?

      It is indeed fascinating that the development of the yearly yartzeit is without a clear marking point. While some point to tanach (see Shoftim 11:40; II Divrei Hayamim 32:33; II Shmuel 1:12), most dismiss these as being the source for our current minhag.

        Even the minhag of simply reciting kaddish on a yartzeit is without clear provenance. While some claim it was a takana from ashkanaz (Keser Shem Tov vol. one p. 101), others suggest that this minhag dates back to the days of Rav Hai Gaon (see Otzar HaGeonim, mashkin, p. 79).

        Some point to various gemaras that may allude to our minhag of a yearly yartzeit (see, e.g. nedarim 12a and shavuos 20a).

        Whatever its source -it is certainly a part of the fabric of yiddeshkeit after it became accepted practice, we must wonder what precise purpose it serves.

    • Now, the average person may say, “It is simply a day to remember one’s parent”. While that reasoning may sound unsophisticated, it is in fact one of the many reasons given. The gemara teaches us that the mitzvah of kibbud av v’em applies even after a parent’s death (kiddushin 31b), and based on this the Torah Temima states, “There is no greater failure in proper kavod (for one’s parent) than forgetting them and their memory after their demise, for this demonstrates that (the child) lacks recognition as to their importance and feelings of love toward them…and since chazal state that forgetfulness begins after twelve months…we establish such a day every year (every twelve months)…” (Mekor Baruch 2:15; see also Sefer Chasidim #231).
    • Some explain that the minhag of a yartzeit is due to the fact that each neshama is judged on the day they departed from this fleeting world to see if it should be granted an even higher position in shomayim. Their progeny therefore performs special acts, and certain mitzvos, in their zechus (see Panim Yaffos to parshas Bahaloschah).
    • Others take an entirely different approach. Because the day one commemorates a parent’s yartzeit is a day of ‘reyah d’mazlei -bad mazal’(and because of this, one commemorating a yartzeit avoids travel etc.), the child spends the day in taanis and teffila in order to protect themselves. Indeed, the Chasam Sofer writes that such days should be considered as yimey teshuvah for the rest of one’s lives (shu’t Chasam Sofer, y’d 156).
    • There are many more approaches, but there is one final one I wish to share, as it had a tremendous impact on those in my in shul with whom I shared it. Kol Bo L’Yartzeit brings from Rav Dovid Asaf (sefer Yalkut Das V’Din, p. 76) that the goal of and the particular sadness we feel on a yartzeit is due to the fact that we are victims of our own success. Every mitzvah we peform, any chesed we do and all the Torah that we learn is all due to those who raised us. These zechusim cause our parents to ascend even higher into heights of shomayim. Therefore, since it is on the yartzeit when they receive their new elevated status (see below for more details), each year we become more and more distant from them, as they ascend. We are mournful of the now even greater distance between us!

         IV. Rabbis First?

    I have written in the past regarding what to do when a rav is one of a few who share a yartzeit, I see my job by such conflicts as being the mevatter; as this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to congregants how to act and avoid machlokos. Not all rabbanim agree. They cogently argue that the zechus for one’s parent’s neshama is not the child’s to be mevatter. However, my feeling is that if my precedent can help avoid many future fights this may be the bigger zechus. In fact, Rav Nosson Gestetner tz’l lists nineteen reasons to be mivatter the amud or kaddish if it may avoid machlokos (kuntros Mikdash Me’at, ch. 7).

        The other week was my first year I can recall where -as a rav -I had the amud and maftir all to myself -as the one member with whom I shared this yartzeit moved to eretz yisroel.

    V. The Shabbos Before

        There is a minhag that the Shabbos before a yartzeit one should seek to get an aliyah (Shaarei Efraim 9:42) and daven for the amud (Rav Chaim Vital). What is the reason behind this custom?

    • The sifrei kabala teach us that the main judgment for an aliyah for each neshama is done each year on the Shabbos before a yartzeit Therefore, we try to perform extra mitzvos on that day in their honor.
    • One of the reasons given for our reading of the haftara each Shabbos is due to a historical gezeira against us disallowing public reading of the Torah. Because this represents a dark period, we end with berachos that include being ‘ne’eman’ in the ‘tzikkus’ of Hashem. This is reminiscent of the tziduk hadin said at a levaya.
    • Since these berachos make specific mention to ben–dovid and the coming geulah, they are reminiscent of kaddish.

           In fact while not mentioning this specific practice, the Shulchan Aruch does mention the idea of an avel getting maftir throughout his first year (Rema, y’d, 376:4).

       Nevertheless, and while an important minhag, because its origin is not clear, such an aliyah is last in line. A chasan (on the Shabbos before and after his weeding), bar mitzvah, father of a newborn etc. may all take precedence.

        This minhag can also lead to rabbinic quandaries. Several members may have a yartzeit during a coming week. How does a shul choose who gets maftir, an aliyah or is given the amud? While the Magen Avraham (siman 324) says to make a gorel/lottery between them, there are poskim who offer a different calculus. For example, the Chofetz Chaim (Biur Halacha, siman 237) says that if one of the sons is a talmud chacham he should be the one to get it. In modern times, such a practice can lead to its own machlokos, as the reader can only imagine. How would explain my decision? “You sir are an am Haaretz, so sorry”? (see also mishneh to gittin 59a for a similar concern).

        Others suggest the opposite approach: since the talmud chacham will have others ways to uplift their parent’s neshama, let the simpleton have this zechus (Chida; see Shaarei Rachamim to Shaarei Efriam 2:5 and 9:19).

       Some suggest that a father’s yartzeit takes precedence over a mother’s. This is due to the fact that we have to assume a male -with more mitzvos, and for other reasons -may have more sins to atone for than a woman (Kol Bo L’Yartzeit, p.354 note 23)!

        However, in practice we always view to members as equals. As Dayan Felder from Toronto cogently points out, this is not about kavod but rather a mitzvah. Therefore, all are deemed equal (Yesodei Yeshurin vol. 2).

       

  • Guns & Halacha: In Shul & On Shabbos

    November, 2021

        Among the many shul and rabbinical challenges over these difficult past two years was the issue of security. Cases of hate ‘events’ against shuls and frum people were on the rise -from the severe to the petty -and balla battim were understandably concerned.

       For some, the additional security apparatuses we put in place was enough -from panic buttons fashioned all around the shul to security guards. But others wished to have even more reassurance.

        These people requested that those members with active carry licenses should be able to bring their gun to shul. More, I was informed that there are frum organizations that train members in creating a wise protection and defense group within the shul. They give courses in shooting, defense and fighting.

        Suffice it to say that most shul memberships are divided on these issues, as the topic of gun control is a hot button issue. So while many would feel more at ease if responsible and trained members have guns, others feel the exact opposite.

        This is a debate that far proceeds American politics, and it is indeed one that goes back to parshas Bereishis (4:23 with Kli Yakar s.v. ki and yeled)).

         Lemach had three sons. The first he taught shepherding, the second music, and the third he taught war and weapon fashioning and handling.  His wives were not happy with this last development. But Lemach responded (and this is a direct translation) “It is not weapons that kill people, rather people kill people, and this can be done with no weapons…” So we see, clearly, ein davar chadash tachas hashamash -there is nothing new under the sun!

        In addition to the politics is the issue of the halacha of guns in general and in a beis haknesses.

         In the parsha of Pinchas killing Zimri, we find Pinchas making a point to first exit the assembly of bnei yisroel and to only then take his weapon:

         “Vayakom m’toch ha’eidah, vayikach romach b’yado -He arose from amidst the assembly and he took a spear in his hand” (Bamidbar 25:7)

       From this pasuk chazal conclude:

         “From here, we learn that one does not enter the beis hamedrash with a weapon” (Sanhedrin 82a).

         However, curiously, when the Shulchan Aruch records this halacha (151:6) he does so in a measured way, and specifies a particle type of weapon: “Some say that it’s forbidden to (even) enter (a Shul) with a long knife…”

          Why would the Shulchan Aruch write ‘some say’ when it is a clear gemara?

       Some suggest that this because the gemara only references a beis hamidresh which has a higher degree of kedusha than a shul, so perhaps this ruling does not extend to a shul (see sources in shu’t Tzitz Eliezar 10:18).

      Nevertheless, we pasken like this halacha, disallowing weapons even in a shul.

        The poskim explain the reason behind this halacha as being due to teffila carrying the power to extend life. We therefore avoid materials that could, chalilah, shorten it.

         Based on this reasoning, this halacha would apply to any deadly weapon, not just a knife or spear. Also, because it is the act of teffilah that invites this concern, some suggest that even one davening at home should remove all weapons from that room during that time.

          Some poskim suggest that the reason the Shulchan Aruch specifies a ‘long knife’ is due to the fact that it is difficult to conceal. A short knife may therefore be allowed (see, e.g., Taz at length). Some see this as a possible allowance for guns in shul as well –when held discreetly in holsters or covered with one’s tallis.      

         However, even if one accepts this sevara, a tool, unlike a knife, that is only used as a weapon of war, like a gun, may still be a concern in just being in a shul, even if concealed (see Tzitz Eliezar ibid.).

       In the end, we seem to pasken that it is best not to bring even a small, concealed gun into shul. If that is difficult, then one should remove the bullets. At the very least, no one should be able to sense that the gun is there.

        However, in the words of the Tzitz Eliezar, the above is only true in times of low/no security risk. Yet, if there is a threat, then of course a gun would be allowed in a shul (although it should still be concealed if possible). He goes on to suggest that a soldier may have an additional heter in that his gun is seen simply as part-and-parcel with his standard attire and his weapons therefore do not bring any unique attention that counter teffila.

        But the above halacha is not the only concern. Most balla battim who are demanding guns in shul are asking for this specifically on Shabbos.

         Now. there is some debate at to which category of muktzah a gun falls under –which makes a significant difference in how one may or may not handle such weapons when not in a moment of danger (see Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchoso ch.20 footnote 29; cf., e.g., Shulchan Shlomo 308:16, Nishmas Avraham 308:19;6, and shu’t Rivivos Efraim 4:88).

        Most assert that a gun does have a usage that concerns no melacha, making it a kli shemelachto l’heter (Shulchan Shlomo, ibid.)and allowed to be handled on Shabbos.

        What is this usage> Well, by simply brandishing a gun one can put fear in the heart of one’s attacker. Indeed, that may be guns most common usage -not being used to shoot but rather to scare.

        Many of us have seen frum IDF soldiers carry guns on Shabbos even when in a safe and protected area. This is the IDF’s policy, and found in their ‘Toras HaMachaneh’: all soldiers should carry weapons on Shabbos when active, even when not for protection.

        Yet for non-soldiers, what type of risk would allow one to carry a gun on Shabbos, both in lieu of those who say it is indeed a muktzah concern, and in a place with no eruv?

       After the Har Nof massacre in a shul, their Chief Rabbi, Rav Dovid Yosef (son of Rav Ovadia) ruled on this and a number of Shabbos/gun issues (interview on Kol B’Rama radio, 26th of cheshvan 2014).

        He first made a point to state that while it is true that nothing stands in the way of pikuach nefesh, this doesn’t mean that we should have a needless amount of protection on Shabbos kodesh. “One needs to act based on the potential of saving even one life, and not based on sheer panic or dread”, he said.

       However, he continued to state that due to the pressing threats, all those who own a gun should have it on their person on Shabbos.

        Dealing with issues of carrying is far more severe, as one may be potentially dealing with a deoraisa. Therefore, a rav may suggest that such weapons be kept safely in shul, or to carry with a shinuy.

      Some may wonder that, perhaps, we should hire a private, non-Jewish security force be hired to avoid these issues. However, the Shulchan Aruch rules (328:12) that when it comes to sakana it is wiser to have a Jew be the one to be mechalel Shabbos (cf. Rema; see Aruch HaShulchan at length).

          While we hope that the risk today in America is nominal at worst, each rav will have to decide what is best for their individual shuls. As Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in a teshuva, emunas chachamim in our leaders –and their decisions – alone can be its own great source of protection and beracha.

  • Rabbanus, Family & My First Grade Rebbe

    Rav Dovid Moseson, z”l

    October, 2021

         I am allergic to peanuts. Indeed, when I was growing up my allergy was so unheard of that many teachers thought I was making it up. I share this bit of personal information so that the reader does not find what I will write next to be coming from a place of insensitivity.

        In the late 1990’s, congress had the idea of developing nationalized testing for school-age children. A committee of veteran educators and a prominent publishing house were brought together to create such workbooks.  The goal was to make any material interesting, to use vital information to tell a story. But the censors always seemed to find a reason to disallow material.

        One example: for younger grades, they chose to teach about the clash of civilizations in the New World through the story of peanuts. Peanuts were first cultivated by Natives of South America and were then brought to Europe. The booklet taught how this legume would soon become vital in the Slave Trade, and, in a twist of irony, would give the black inventor of many additional uses for peanuts much acclaim, etc.

        The reader can guess why this was rejected: “…A fourth grade student who was allergic to peanuts might get distracted if he or she encountered a test question that did not acknowledge the dangers of peanuts”.

       Even if true, who, pray tell, will teach kids the skill of avoiding the temptation of distraction?!

         What started twenty years ago has spread and increased. In 1998 the government funded a book titled Quit It! geared to teachers. There it was suggested that through the third grade the following exercise should be considered before a game of ‘tag’ by recess:

    “Before going outside to play, talk about how students feel when playing a game of Tag. Do they like being chased? Do they like doing the chasing? How does it feel to get tagged out?”

       Today, in many school districts across the country, the game of Dodgeball has been banned (Boston Globe, march 29, 2001). One director of Phys-Ed in his district said that we should “fire immediately” any coach who allows Dodgeball (it’s a good thing they never heard of machanaim!).

        Of course, I am not dismissing the need for sensitivity and originality in our chinuch. Rav Yaakov Weinberg, the late rosh yeshiva of Ner Yisroel once spoke at an Agudah Convention about his distaste for Color War, as it divides a whole camp, or yeshiva, for an extended period of time, risking turning them against each other.

        There are reasons to take a fresh look at everything, but there also must be limits.

         I bring up this subject due to an ‘experience’ I recently had.

            In the midst of a busy yom tov season, a rav can forget that he has a family. My wife sometimes even has a friend text me her own shailos just so I don’t push it off and will indeed get back to her right away (see Yevamus 65b)!

          One morning, as I was leaving a shiva house, my wife called and said, “Where are you? He is waiting for you at the door. He looks so cute in his new knapsack!”

         It was my son’s first day of first grade, and in the hubbub of yom tov preparation it had completely slipped my mind. I rushed home, picked him up, and before we knew it, we were on our way to his first day where he will be sitting behind a desk.

        We have kn’h four girls, and our youngest is our only son, so as I looked at him through the rearview mirror, I could not help but to flash-back to my time in first grade (or ‘Grade One’, as we called it in Canada).

        Suddenly, I was right back in the classroom, I could even smell my tuna sandwich leaking through the paper bag, and the aroma of the stained copies off the old ‘ditto’ (mimeograph) machine.

         One can learn a lot about a person by discovering their earliest memories. Childhood Amnesia is a real concept, finding that most adults have no memories before the age of about three, and many more retain little before the age of ten. This is an area of increasing study.

         I went to Eitz Chaim of Toronto. It was an amazing chinuch, filled with talented rebbeim and michanchim. The reader is very familiar with the staff of my youth -even if they do not realize it. The popular Marvelous Middos Machine series was a creation – together with R’ Abie Rottenberg – of the rebbeim, their friends, and many of my classmates (alas, I couldn’t carry a tune, so one won’t find me in the liner notes).

        My first grade rebbe was Rabbi Dovid Moseson. He was gentle, kind and most importantly, sincere.

         He had already taught first grade in Toronto for many decades at the point. He was an old-time Williamsberg-er, having leant in Torah V’Daas in its early days.

         But that morning, just weeks ago, only one memory came forth. I do not know why this is the one my brain had collected for its hard drive. Indeed, when calling old classmates this week to hear their memories, each shared something different (I did not remember that he was a talented artist who would draw for frum publications, and, compose an artist’s rendering of each week’s parsha for the class).

        That one and only memory I had was the following:

         We were sitting in the classroom with the lights off. Rebbe had put on a record (remember those?!). It was a story, acted out. There was the chosid, the town rav and the nearby rebbe. I can still hear the sound effects of the baal agalah galloping-away in my ear.

         Rebbe’s head was down, but he was clearly listening to every word of that story/album. One of the characters said, “…but he passed away many years ago…”.

       Suddenly, we all heard the scratch of the needle being pulled away, and rebbe quickly turned on the lights.

        “Kinderlach”, he began ever so gently, “We will get back to the story in a minute”. Long pause. “Did you all hear the words he just said? Does anyone hear know what that means, to ‘pass away’?

        I remember still thinking then that I did not know what that term meant.

          Ever so gently, tenderly, he explained to us the concept of death, olam habah and techias hameisim. As first graders, we were certainly all aware of the concept, but now we were getting an ‘official’ explanation to this scary mystery. I still recall a wave of relief falling over me and the shedding of fear from deep within me.

         I do not know if schools would allow rebbeim to talk about such topics today, but that would be a shame, if placed in the right hands. Children are far more resilient than we often give them credit for, and indeed sometimes desire frank explanations (again, if done by a proper mechanech).

         There is also another lesson in chinuch we should take from this. We often put on tapes or music to quiet our children. How often has Schwekey or Mordechai Shapiro babysat our children? We may use these tools to shut off the noise around the house, but we did not shut down our children’s’ minds. They are processing everything they hear and see.      

        Sometimes we have to stop the record -of the MP3 -and explain what they just heard, especially when it’s a difficult topic. 

          We just may create a hashkafa and a memory that will last forever.

  • Hoshanos: Understanding the Hoshana Chart & Daily Order Found in the Siddur

    Hoshanos: Understanding the Hoshana Chart & Daily Order Found in the Siddur

    And Some Calendar Anomalies

       October, 2021

    The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, was formalized under the Bush administration. Its mission is self-explanatory.

          Leading into our current yom tov season, when the blunder in Afghanistan began to unfold, SIGAR published a one-hundred-and-forty page document titled ‘What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction’.

       It is an intense and eye-opening read, and opens with these introductory remarks:

    “‘What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction’ is the 11th lessons learned report issued by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction…”

    What an amazing quote, their 11th ‘Lessons Learned’ Report?!

       I told my kehilla that this is the perfect introduction to the yom tov season, as depending on our age, this will be our own ‘Xth Lessons Learned Report’.

       I was not referring only to the yimei hadin and our need to always assess our standing, but the yimei simcha of sukkos as well.

        Things change, causing many changes and reevaluations, be it in theatre of battle, or even. lahavdil, our actual calendar.

        In this column I will demonstrate the many unique qualities of this coming year.

         A member commented to me that we ‘never’ have Sukkos in September. This is a misconception. Sukkos occurring at all in September happens about fifty percent of years. To have it fall like this completely in this month actually happens about thirty percent of years (34.4% to be exact).

         Many have suggested that this year is unique in that it is both a Shemitta year and a leap year. This is an understamble concern, as we would be extending a difficult year for farmers. Indeed Rashi makes this same point when the gemara teaches us that we may not create a shemitta during a leap year (Sanhedrin 12).

       So how come we see this phenomenon somewhat regularly? We last saw this type of leap/shemitta year in 2008, and we will iyH see it again in 2043. Rav Heber of Baltimore, in his sefer Shaarei Zemanim (siman 9) explains (see also shu’t Seridei Eish 1:39) that rule of not extended a shemitta year by adding an extra adar is when the desire to do so is due to communal concerns – such as giving time to fix roads before the annual Pesach pilgrimage. However, for the other reason leap years are mandated, we can and must do so, even during shemitta. The Torah teaches us that Pesach must be in the spring. One of the goals of a leap year is to keep each yom tov in its proper season. This concern trumps the Shemitta concern.

       We see this concern this year beginning to creep up now –as elul zman began mid-August. In order to fix this  

    Growing time-gap, a leap year is now critical.

          But this year has been a unique calendar yom tov season too, especially for a rav.

        Whenever there is a year when erev Pesach will be falling out on Shabbos, that year’s Rosh Hashana will be falling out on a Tuesday, and Sukkos Monday night. This happened only twelve times in the 20th century, and will happen twelve times in the 21’st (2199 being its last). So don’t fret just because this year’s chol hamoed schedule is not made for long trips; it happens rarely.

        Leading into this yom tov season, this came to mind as I read the pizmon ‘im avoneinu’ and all ofthe ‘seventh day’ selichos – as they to are only recited about twelve times a century!

        It being an earlier yom tov season also allowed for Shabbos shuva to fall on September 11th, the 20th anniversary of that fateful day, thereby creating an opening to give over a derasha that seaks directly to our vulnerability and the fleeting nature of hai almah.

       A member approached me after the derasha with an amazing thought. I had mentioned the question regarding the term ‘ashamnu m’kol am-we are more guilty than any nation’. How could this be? I asked. Not ‘than some nations’, but ‘all’?!

         Many answers have been proposed. Rav Levi Yitzchok suggested that perhaps our translation of this phrase is askew. Instead of translating it ‘worse than all nations’, this phrase can also be read as follows: “ashamnu? M’kol am! –are we guilty? If so this is due to the influence of and pressures from the other nations’.

         Rav Sorotzkin suggests this phrase should be perhaps rendered as a question, “Are we worse, more guilty, than the other nations?’

        This balabuss however had a different approach. Klal yisroel is given this gift of elul, selichos, teffilos Rosh Hashana, aseres yimei teshuva, the ninth of tishrei, Yom Kippur, Sukkos, Hoshanah Rabbah and Shemini Atzeres. All of these days are designed to allow us space to revaluate our relationship with Hashem and with each other. But with this gift comes responsibility. If we waste these days, if we retreat and disregard the influence of these days than we become culpable; maybe even more so than all other nations.

       Perhaps this is why we chose the pizmon ‘im avoneinu’ to be said only during this type of year. Precisely because we have an extra day of selichos, an extra day to become close to Hashem, our responsibility is that much greater, and so we beseech Him over-and-over again in this pizmon, “Do not rebuke us in Your anger…’

     Interestingly, this is not the earliest that Sukkos could fall out. In 1994 the yom tov season began two days earlier (September 5th). This will happen again in 2089 and 2146. After that, the next time this will happen again for another….seventy-five thousand years!

         Because of the early nature this year –and the days on which the yom tovim fall –rabbanim had but a day-and-a- half to prepare Shabbos shuva, and shuls such as ours that sell daled minnim had to begin this work early in the summer.

          As it relates to Sukkos, this year is anomalous for a different reason –its anomaly is that its normal! What do I mean?

       Each day of Sukkos we have hoshanos. Every reader is familiar with the chart in each siddur explaining how each day’s hoshanos may change depending on which days Sukkos falls out.

        The Machatitz Hashekel states (siman 662:4) “The reason for this order I have not found, save for in the words of the Levush…”.

    He goes on to give us the reasons for some of this ordering:

       The day before Hoshana Rabbah should always be Adon Hamoshia. This is because it references rain, and rain on Sukkos is a siman kelela, so we save it to the end.

    The first day of chol hamoed should always be E’Erach Shuey. This is because it references our prayer and fasting, i.e. Yom Kippur. While we should really begin yom tov with its recital –as the Rokeach and others indeed argue – however due its acting as a formal prayer and because the first day of chol hamoed is the same day of the week Yom Kippur falls, we save it for then. And, of curse, the first day of Sukkos is always to be Lmaan Amituch.

        However, there is a hiccup. On the Shabbos of Sukkos the hoshanah is always to be Oim Netzorah.

        This means that if Shabbos is on the first day –when Lmaan Amituch should be said – or on the first day of chol hamoed –when E’Erach Shuey should be said – Oim Netzorah would push them to another day.

       Because of this, each year the standard order needs to be modified every year….accet this year!

        This is the one calendar year Sukkos (out of four options) where all the hashonos stay in place! This can only happen when Shabbos does not take place on the day Yom Kippur fell (thereby moving E’Erach Shuey) or if Shabbos falls out the day before erev Hoshana Rabbah (thereby totally removing the hoshana for rain), or if Shabbos is the first day of Sukkos (thereby pushing aside the typical first hoshanos of L’maan Amituch).

        In the midst of this anomalous year, and after all the strangeness, horror, and tragedy of the past twenty months, it is nce to have something stay unchanged.

        May the only change to come next be the arrival of moshiach tzikainu!

       Good yom tov!

  • The ‘Second Day’ of Yom Tov Explained

    Why Do we have a Yom Tov Sheni?

    Do we still need this Halacha today?

    Why do some festivals not have one?

    October, 2021

    For a discussion regarding a visiter to Israel for Yom Tov, see linked post here.

    Space, Time and the Second Day of Yom Tov

    I.

       Every year at this time I receive two common, albeit conflicting, questions. The first goes something like this:

       “Rabbi, this particular yom tov season is so exhausting. Of course we thankful for all the amazing mitzvos with which Hashem gifted us, but are two days of yom tov still necessary?”

    The second, usually asked by younger members, is as follows:

    “Rabbi, should not Yom Kippur have two days our of doubt, like any other biblical day?”

         So many mitzvos come down to the two factors of space and time.

     Zman itself may share its root with zimun, order. Without time there is no order, and without order there is no halacha.

          For this reason did the Syrian-Greeks wish to ban the keeping of Rosh Chodesh. Without our calendar our system collapses.

           Kedusha can also exist inside a vacuum of space. Sometimes we create it (a shul, a beis midrash) and sometimes it is imbued so from above (the macheneh shechina, the beis hamikdosh, not to mention the heady topic of tzimtzum). Indeed the word for space –makom – is often used as a term of endearment for Hashem, as it is He, and His Torah that imbues a space with its holiness (See Meshech Chochma to Moshe’s smashing of the luchos for a fundamental discussion of this point).

         Sometimes these two values of space/time can merge, such as by a shemitah year, like we just entered into. On the one hand it comes about but once every seven years; and on the other hand it exits only within very specific boundaries.

         However where the time-space dichotomy is most mystifying, most vexing to common halachik practice is Yom Tov Sheni Shel Golyos.

         There is no greater example of a seemingly purely zman-based mitzvah than our yomim tovim – zman simchaseinu, zman cheiruseinu, etc. -and yet, which days are kept hinges upon the makom, the space, of the individual.

       Let us start at the beginning…

    II.

    Yom Tov, the Calendar, and Chazal

           The gemara (Shabbos 75a) teaches us that when the Torah exclaims that our nation’s wisdom will be apparent to the nations of the world (Devarim 4:6) it was referring to the art of calendaring, which in its classic and most basic form is a system of witnesses testifying to beis din regarding a new moon.

        Rav Yitzchak Hutner (Sefer Zichronos, pp. 164-165) wonders what is so special about the calendar that it demonstrates our wisdom; are we not simply following a simple system of witnesses? Furthermore, Rav Hutner wonders, why this was also  our first mitzvah (Bo, 12:2 the mitzvah of sanctifying the month i.e. our calendar system)? Certainly we must have always had some form of time-keeping method before this! Would it not therefore have been more symbolic to introduce us to the Torah with something more novel?

        Before sharing his stunning answer, let’s propose the following. What if we never sanctified the months one year during the time of the beis hamkidosh; would yom tov happen with-or-without us? The Raaved (Toras Kohanim, Emor) is of the opinion that the moadim will spontaneously exist on their respective dates even if we do not sanctify and/or declare the months. The opinion of the Ritvah however is that the chachamim were actually given full power, in that if they do not declare it, even the moados cannot take place (Chulin 101b, s.v. eleh)!

         In fact the shu’t Avnei Nezer (301:6) suggests that when chazal teach (Sanhedrin 10b) that should no witnesses come then shomayim sanctifies the month, it only means that Hashem, as it were, gives His stamp of approval on beis din’s own declaration.

          Rav Hutner, based on this profound power given to us, explains that it is that very novelty that Hashem chose with which to introduce us to His Torah. As if to say, look at the power with which I am entrusting My nation!

          The Gemara (Chulin ibid.) tells us how during a time of persecution the sages of eretz yisroel sent word that Yom Kippur would be postponed until Shabbos –not its true Torah date –thereby fooling the Romans as to why we were in shul. Based on this, the Gemara teaches that whereas the day of the week Shabbos falls Shabbos has been already set in motion since creation, Yom Kippur (and all the yomim tovim, presumably) is dictated by beis din. (See also Klei Chemda, Bo)

            The Pnei Yehoshua (Beitza 5a) shows how chazal’s ability to control the calendar was even used to support even a minhag (such as aravos).

        In Rosh Hashana 30 we are taught how Rav Yochanan changed the calendar system to preserve the daily shir. There, the Pnei Yehoshua comments just how much power the chachamim had when it came to the calendar.

        Concepts such as lo a’d’u rosh, etc. are tools uniquely in man’s domain so as to create zman as chazal and mesorah see fit.

        The present Second Day of yom tov is not, then, merely a necessary annoyance, rather it is a beautiful affirmation of the power Hashem gave over to His nation.

        More, the present yom tov sheni is not even the first of its kind. We already find in the days of the beis hamikdosh that many would keep two days of Rosh Hashanah, and even those in Yerushalaim would, at the very least, keep the first night out of doubt (as to how they acted that night, see Meiri to Beitza 5a; Rashi and Ritva to Rosh Hashana; Rav Zevin, Moadim B’Halacha p. 26 s.v. b’rishonah; Chazon Ish, oh’c 141:6).

         In fact, we already in tanachwe find a two-day Rosh Hashanah! (Nechemia 8:13. See also Beitza 6a)

         Nor was this was not limited just to Rosh Hashanah. Already in the early days of our settlement in eretz yisroel it was difficult to get the word out to all Jews if the last month was 29 or 30 days, and those living far from the declaration would have no choice but to keep two days.

          Some even suggest that the concept of Jews who lived far from beis din’s declaration observing two days on each yom tov is a halacha Moshe m’sinai! (Rav Hain Gaon; See Chasam Sofer, Beitza 4b)

          We continue to see the power chazal had over the calendar some time later when Rav Yochanan ben Zakei created a system just for Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashana 30) whereby, under cetain conditions, two days of Rosh Hashana would be kept even in Yerushalaim.

         We see from all the above that irrespective of why chazal instituted yom tov sheni (see below), our second day is by no means unique when one looks through the prism of our long history.

    III.

    New Calendar System

         The Rambam and Rambam have a fundamental debate. (See Sefer Hamitzvos, aseh, 153; Yad, Kiddush hachodesh, chapters 5 and 6; Peirush Hamishnayos, Rosh Hashanah 2:6).

          According to Rambam the standard way to establish the month is through eyewitness accounts of the new moon. Nevertheless, there is a halacha Moshe m’sinai that if the sanhedrin is no longer active, and hence no witnesses are testifying, then a beis din may establish the months based on calculation alone. (See Kisvei Rav Chaim, 46; Brisker Rav in Chidushei Hagriz, kuntros Kiddush hachodesh, p. 10)

         Ramban disagrees with Rambam, and argues that our present system is not an ongoing sanctification; rather it was a system ordained and sanctified from the days of Hillel, which took place in the year 4119/359 (year based on shu’t Rav Hai Gaon). Hillel, seeing the end of the era of true semuchim, had the semuchim in his day empower each of our past, present and future months with the needed kedusha.

          Moreover, we even find many rishonim (Rav Sadia Gaon; shu’t Ri Migash siman 146; Rabbeinu Channel) who suggest that sanctification through calculation was a tool that was always in use. Rabeinu B’chayay (Shmos 12:2) even wonders how the yidden would even have been able to sanctify the months through eyewitness accounts in the midbar, as the anneinei hakavod were blocking their sight! (See Chazon Ish, oh’c, siman 140:3; Netziv to Sifrei, Bahaloschah; Chazon Yechezkal, et al. who all question and seek to explain this view. See also Otzar Iyunim to Mesivta Rosh Hashanah pp. 50-56)

    IV.

    Two Days…Still?

          As seen thus far, a two-day yom tov was not a novelty. However, once Hillel established his calendar it would seem that its need vanished. For now we know when rosh chodesh falls.

         The Gemara (Beitza 4b) explains that because this has been the minhag in chutz l’aratz (see above) and because the calendar is so complex that havoc or decrees can cause us to forget even the system we have now (the Syrian/Greeks tried!), we must continue in what we had been doing –keeping two days of yom tov outside of eretz yisroel. Some rishonim apply it in eretz yisroel too, in the cities where the sheluchei beis din would not historically reach. See Mikroei Kodesh, pesach vol. 2, siman 57.)

     Halacha has to survive long trials of galus. How many people does the reader know who can figure out even Hillel’s calendar should all communications suddenly cease?

    V.

    Yom Kippur

         As for Yom Kippur, historically some would fast for two days, and the sefarim, including the Mishnah Berrura, discuss these halachos. This does not mean that the Chofetz Chaim condoned such behavior, rather that he was recording more ancient discussions on the subject. Indeed he writes (siman 624:17) that since even in the days of the beis hamikdosh they did not fast two days out of doubt there is no minhag to emulate here! This is based on a chazal where those fasting two days yom kippur were reprimanded (Yerushalmi, Challa, 1:1). Already in the days of the Bach we find him and others saying that they have never heard of anyone taking on this stringency.

        Others suggest that fasting two days would mitigate the mitzvah to dafka eat the day before yom kippur!

         May we soon merit the words of the Chasam Sofer (to Beitza 4), that when moshiach comes there will still be a second day of yom tov, but instead of being called yom tov sheni shel golyos (second day of exile) it will be called yom tov sheni shel geuloseinu (the second day of our redemption)!

  • An Interview with Professor Joe Regenstein

    Cornell Professor on ‘Kosher’

    September, 2012

    When I began my work in Kashrus, one of the names I heard quoted often was that of Professor Joe Regenstein. A professor emeritus at the prestigious, ‘Ivy League’, Cornell University, he offers the only accredited course on Kosher in the country.

    He is often seen seated quietly in the corner of a meeting of heads of major Kashrus organizations, taking everything in.

    Over the years, I have turned to him for advice and for his expertise. For this year’s Ami Kosher issue, I wish to present him to the reader

    Thank you for taking the time to talk! I understand that you are in Chicago celebrating a granddaughter’s bas mitzvah. Mazel Tov!

    Please let the reader know your official job,  title and your educational background

    I am a professor emeritus in the Department of Food Science. I received a B.A. in chemistry from Cornell`s College of Arts and Sciences, an MS in dairy chemistry from CALS, and a PhD in biophysics from Brandeis University. I am the head of of Cornell Halel and Kosher initiative, and member of their Jewish studies program. Aside for government and Kashrus agencies I work with a slew of food agencies. In fact, I have even worked for Ami before! I refer however to AMI (American Meat Institute).

    What is the Cornell Halel and Kosher Initiative?

    Now that is a reasonable question! It is an effort where together with my colleagues, we provide research and educational outreach. We are a land grant for New York.  This is an 1865 program to serve as outreach in agriculture and the world beyond campus.

    May I ask what your Jewish background is?

    I grew up in New Jersey. My mother came from an Orthodox family. My father was raised culturally Jewish. He was trained of butcher. I was raised in a home where Butchery was discussed. One day my father was sick, when I was about two, and he was home and asked to meet the Kosher butcher. To his shock, he discovered that this particular butcher was purchasing trief meat! Sadly, that was the end of our kosher home. But my mother still wanted me to know about kosher even though we did not practice it. But later, together with my wife- who came from a kosher home – we decided to keep a kosher home.

    How did you come to teaching a course at Cornell on Kosher law?

    I was teaching a course on the slaughter of fish and poultry and a professor came to give a class on kosher slaughter. And, as a Jew who was keeping a kosher home, I found this to be fascinating. Half the class was made up of farm boys who might never knowingly even met a Jew!  After commenting on my interest in this subject to the professor, he suggested that I give this class the next year. This was before I was tenured. Eventfully, I went on to write an article for Food Technology, a monthly journal read across the industry, that explained kosher to the food industry and academic food science world.

    Rabbi Lipshitz [now of the NK, based in Monsey] was at the time the head of the OU and was also a peer reviewer for this journal.

    Anyway, the article was soon published and Rabbi Wikler, who started Kashrus Magazine, strongly recommended my article as a way to explain Kashrus to the unaffiliated or to a gentile.

    What Year was this?

    1978

    What does you course at Cornell focus on?

    The course is on Kosher and Halal, but the bulk is about kosher law. Kosher law is simply more intricate than Halal. My Kansas State class s a two-credit class, and at Cornell it is three-credit.

    How often to you get to sit in on Kashrus meetings with the Rabbanim and major organizations?

    I try to go as often as I can. I don’t have the time always. Lately the focus of rabbanim has been dedicated to defending shechita in Europe, an important issue.

    Have you noticed any trends, or changes since 1978?

    When I started the policy was to keep kosher law close to our vest. Now many agencies recognize that when a gentile makes a mistake in his factory that effects kosher law it is often due to lack of knowledge. So, the more information a certifying rabbi can provide will only help the process, to catch potential errors quicker. This is a major change from years ago, and a positive one.

    What is the greatest misconception that you have found your college students have about Kashrus?

    Greatest misconception? That’s an easy one, That kosher means the rabbi makes a blessing! I beat them over the head about this issue. I also give a one hour talk all over the world on Kashrus and the first thing I teach is that this kosher is an exhaustive audit and not a blessing. It is about following the rules. And how do you convince the world that you follow the rules? You have rabbi certify your company. It is as simple as that.

    Are you audience’s impressed by what you teach them about Kashrus?

    They are certainly surprised at the complexity of it all. Who would not be?

    Even as a rav hamachshir I sometimes hear complaints of kashrus being Kosher Tax. This is an old anti-Semitic canard.  I would imagine you have rune into this.

    I have had to deal with that occasionally. I point out, and always say, especially in my one hour talks –that this is a business decision that individual companies make. Unless your company is making more money from becoming Kosher, then don’t do it. Of course, I do explain, that for, say, a frum business owner, he indeed may do it at a loss. But generally smart people can easily have it explained that Kashrus works with incremental sales, all your fixed costs are absorbed, and eventually there will be significant gains that will offset any small initial cost/loss.

    Other than the kosher tax, and the blessing misconception, what other fallacies exist regarding Kosher?

    Well there is this false two-fold assumption one sees. 1) not stunning an animal before slaughter is always worse for the animal [stunning animals before shechita –something Halacha disallows-has been tried to be forced upon Jews since the 1860’s and has succeeded still today ion some countries, such as Switzerland. American Jews are protected by these threats by the Humane Slaughter act of 1958] , and B) many ‘intellectuals’ find it difficult to accept that something developed 3000 years ago, and without the help of enlightened Europeans, can’t be of any real value.

    How do you respond to attacks on kosher slaughter?

    Temple Grandin [perhaps the most esteemed and famous animal scientist in the world –books and films have been made about her life] who few can dispute says that when she observed shechita done correctly she was very clamed and relieved.

    Have you worked wit Temple Grandin?

    Sure! We have even published together. We even designed a small scale slaughtering pen together.

    What books to you and your students use for your courses? Certainly you all don’t open a Shulchan Aruch!

    Rabbo Zushe Blech’s “Kosher Food Production”

    As an objective observer, what should the kosher consumer be made aware of?

     They to learn which symbols are truly reliable, and why. They should all be reading kashrus magazines and articles, checking for recalls, etc. It’s a

    Any area of change and need of improvement that you would suggest to us in Kashrus?

    Labeling of food products should have POSITIVE labeling, in my humble opinion; such as Pareve and DE (dairy equipment).  I know this a controversial issue, but there should be one common rule across the reliable agencies so as to ‘un-confuse’ the costumer.

    Every product should have something next to the kosher symbol, ‘N’ for neutral/parve; ‘P’ for Passover, etc. No product should just have a symbol alone. We would thereby cut down on mislabeling.

    Do you think the government’s involvement in Kosher law in some states is a positive development ?

    Well, yes. Truth in labeling is what matters and must be consistent. The governed has the power to protect the Kosher consumer in this regard.

    What do you think will be the biggest change we will see in Kashrus in the next decade or so?:

    Interesting.  I would watch carefully the field of biotechnology. I had the honor of giving the first talk to rabbanim on this issue. This is going to make big changes in a lot of things, interesting questions.

    Please offer the reader a little tease as to some of these issues

    Well, genetic manipulation now seems acceptable, but lipase –an enzyme that could come from a non-kosher animal source and is used in many food areas –is now a big issue.

    Has your teaching influenced Cornell in any way?

    The Cornell dairy plant is the only college dairy plant under kashrus, the OU. All of our ice cream and sour cream, and soft dairies, are certified.

    What can we let readers know about the rabbis you have met in the Kosher industry?

    I am always impressed the amount of work and information they need to have. Equipment knowledge, ingredients, technology. There are rabbis in the kosher industry who have dedicated decades just to piping.

    Has the globalization of the food supply been met by the kosher community?

     Yes! I was by a ingredient show in China-of all places- and four major hechsheinm had booths! Some of these kosher booths were even staffed with employees representing them that spoke Chinese!

    Thank you for your time

    My pleasure. Not only am I familiar with Ami Magazine, but it used to be printed in Ithaca (the home of Cornell)!

  • The “Kosher” Shabbos Switch

    The “Kosher” Shabbos Switch

    Does a New Invention Circumvent Halacha?

    By Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Published in Ami Magazine, 2015

    Preamble

    In talking with many people about this new device and the controversy surrounding it, I have found that many well-meaning and sincere people think the poskim are looking for ways to forbid this device even though it may not actually be problematic halachically.

    The fact that some poskim have considered the idea of allowing such a device for cholim and the infirm only works to strengthen the notion that the concern here is merely “pseudo-halachic.”

    In other words, many believe is that although the idea of using this device may sully the spirit of Shabbos as we know it, it does not breach any halachah. Among the terms that have come up in these discussions are “zilzul Shabbos” and “the spirit of Shabbos.”

    Since this invention is on people’s minds, I feel we can turn it into an opportunity. In this brief monograph I will seek to review issues surrounding this device, hilchos Shabbos and piskei halachah.

    My hope is that readers will come away with a keen understanding of why many of our greatest poskim have spoken so harshly against this invention, why its use presents a real halachic problem, and why some (but by no means all) may wish to allow its use for those who are infirm.

    Among other things, we will discuss the following questions:

    • What is grama?
    • Is it allowed on Shabbos?
    • Is the Kosher Switch, as is claimed, even less than a grama (“un-grama,” as it is termed)?
    • How does this device compare to other famous grama devices, such as the Yom Tov-mode oven and the Shabbos wheelchair?
    • When is halachic novelty embraced and when is it shunned?

    As the Noda B’Yehudah states about much more serious innovations, it is not our place to assert that that the inventor of the Kosher Switch had anything but the best of intentions. Like many before him, he likely simply wished to create a device that would make Shabbos observance easier for many (although hopefully without giving the impression that Shabbos law is a “nuisance, a problem to be solved,” as Rav Belsky writes).

    Our question is this: Did he succeed in his noble task?

    Working under the temporary assumption that zilzul Shabbos is the main issue relating to this invention, and that zilzul Shabbos is but a derabanan. The reader should however note that Rav Moshe Feinstein argues that zilzul Shabbos is in fact a violation of the positive mitzvah d’Oraisa (biblical mitzvah) to honor Shabbos.1

    I. D’Rabbanans on Shabbos: A Unique Category

    The terms “uvdah d’chol” and “zilzul Shabbos” are hard to outline and circumscribe. Does this generic category not open itself up to capricious and mercurial rulings? Would wearing sneakers for a far walk on Shabbos be a problem? What about throwing a football on Shabbos? In fact, the Chazon Ish is quoted as ruling that these are indeed pragmatic principles and that in each generation our leaders alone choose how and where to apply them.

    A rav who asserts that the Kosher Switch is a rabbinic issue of zilzul Shabbos is in effect applying a very real, and necessary, rule of Shabbos observance—or, more aptly stated, of Shabbos survival.

    While not a melachah, zilzul Shabbos represents an aspect of the Shabbos experience that often goes unnoticed—the general category of d’Rabbanans. There is even a special title given to d’Rabbanans that is exclusive to hilchos Shabbos and not used anywhere else—shvus (plural shvusim).

    Remarking on this special term, the Gemara exhorts us in the name of Rav Yochanan not to take these types of d’Rabbanans lightly2, and how, at times, certain mitzvos are pushed aside for their protection. Many Rishonim prove from various sources that rabbinical law, while always critical, plays an even more serious role when it comes to hilchos Shabbos.

    Chazal say as much.

    The Mechilta 3, in two places, and based on two separate pesukim, seems to make the point that shvusim are, if not actual d’Oraisas, somewhere in between rabbinic and Torah law. The Ritvah4 says that they are “k’issurei Torah,” like Torah prohibitions.

    The latter Mechilta gives us a source for the shift from the typical term “d’Rabbanan” to the Shabbos term “shvus”:

    “The verse says, ‘Ach es Shabsosai tishmaru’. What does this pasuk come to add? From the pasuk ‘Lo saaseh kol melachah,’ we would know to refrain only from the melachos (of Shabbos). From where do we know to abstain from shvusim as well? Therefore, the Torah here tells us ‘Shabsosai,’ to include prohibitions of shvus.”

    Ritvah5 and Ramban6 try to understand how it is possible that d’Rabbanans, at least as they relate to hilchos Shabbos, could ever carry the weight of a Torah law. They both give a fascinating illustration of what the Shabbos experience would look and feel like without chazal, without any shvusim. Here is the powerful picture painted by the Ramban:

    “[Shabbos would be] a day of measuring produce and weighing fruit; moving utensils and [heavy] stones from place to place…and within courtyards; [Jews] riding upon animals; the marketplace would be filled [with Jews] active in commerce; [Jewish] money- changers and lenders would be out in the markets; [Jewish] day laborers would be rising early to be hired in the marketplace… Shabbos and Yom Tov would turn into a day…”

    Without the Torah exhorting us to follow the decrees of the Rabbanan, especially on Shabbos, Shabbos as a day of menuchah would simply vanish! There is therefore a positive Torah mitzvah to guard the spirit of Shabbos, which chazal—going back to Moshe rabbeinu—began doing through the creation of rules, guidelines and procedures that were accepted throughout the generations, until they were all codified and organized in the Gemara.

    Surprising though it may be, even the prohibition of working on Shabbos—arguably the touchstone of Shabbos observance—does not involve any melachah but falls under the rubric of shvus. The concern involving working is that of mekach u’memkar, buying and selling, which may lead to kesivah, writing, one of the thirty-nine melachos.

    Otherwise, what would be the Torah issur of working on Shabbos? (Only rabbis get to work on Shabbos;)

    Our relationship with Shabbos was designed by the Torah to be this way, so that even the maxim “Ain’t gonna work on Saturday” is indeed rooted only in a d’Rabbanan (or shvus).

    Now that we have a better idea why the use of a device that involves no melachah may still be considered a major violation of Shabbos, and why if so it is the rabbis who get to decide this, we can move on to the rabbinic rulings that may be violated by its use. We will also investigate whether any actual melachah is at risk.

    II. Zilzul Shabbos and Beyond

    We pointed out above that even if zilzul Shabbos were the only issue with the Kosher Switch, Rav Moshe Feinstein contends that disgracing or dishonoring Shabbos itself is an issur mi’d’Oraisa.

    While largely unrelated to the issue of the Kosher Switch, an apt illustration would be Rav Moshe’s ban on most Shabbos Timers.

    A ruling that many do not accept, it nevertheless serves as an important template for what a posek must consider in evaluating new technologies. For those who argue with Rav Moshe relating to timers do so largely based on his application of his concern but not due to the concern itself, as we will now explain.

    Some question whether Rav Moshe, in banning most timers, is enacting a new gezeirah 7. However, as technology advances at a rate so stunning that it is on the verge of producing driverless cars, some of Rav Moshe’s arguments must be made known to the public so that we can better deal with the questions of tomorrow.

    Rav Moshe explains that he is actually not introducing anything novel but is simply extending an existing halachah. One of the explanations offered by the Rishonim for the limitations on amirah l’akum is that without this clear prohibition, this red-line, Shabbos would disappear, since one could then perform any weekday task by asking a non-Jew to do it. He therefore writes,

    “There is no greater zilzul Shabbos than this…and it is clear that if the Tanna’im and Amora’im were here today, they would enact this ban (on timers)… And in any case, (timers) likely already fall under the rubric of (the existing halachah of) amirah l’akum.”

    In 1977, when this teshuvah was written, Rav Moshe already saw a future in which technology could cause the holy Shabbos to fade away. While many argue that timers do/did not have this same effect, one cannot ignore Rav Moshe’s larger point as we move into the realm of grander and more profound technological possibilities.

    Furthermore, even Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who does not accept Rav Moshe’s chumrah as it relates to timers, explains that a timer is certainly not allowed for the performance of a noticeable task that is not done that way during the week either. To decide to use a timer to send a text, for example, which is not a typical method during the week, would certainly be forbidden on Shabbos if it would be noticeable to others 8.

    The use of a device that does not look radically different – in either appearance or action – than it would during the week, may be cause for concern 9.

    Thus far we have three concepts: A) Zilzul Shabbos is an extremely serious violation. B) The Chazon Ish explains that the definition of zilzul Shabbos is left to the poskim of each generation. C) Even if one could argue that the use of a device like the Kosher Switch does not constitute zilzul Shabbos, its ramifications must be taken into account, with a view to what Shabbos would look like in twenty and even one-hundred years from now if we embrace it. This is part of our role as shomrei Shabbos, the guardians of Shabbos.

    Now for the meat and potatoes—the actual halachic concerns about the Kosher Switch.

    III. Grama

    Grama is too difficult a subject to explain fully. For our purposes, we will work under the assumption that grama means either an indirect or delayed (re)action.

    Now, it is true that it is not possible to cook two pieces of chicken by rubbing them together to create self-generating heat. Cooking and a few other activities among the thirty-nine melachos are always performed by way of grama, a delayed process, and yet they are forbidden 10!

    So what is the source of the idea that an act performed by grama is less of a halachic concern?

    Chazal 11 teach that one may put out a fire on Shabbos using certain types of grama. From here the Shulchan Aruch 12 rules that gram kibuy (extinguishing a flame, which is a melachah) through a grama is allowed. This rule is true for the other thirty-nine melachos as well 13.

    However, it would seem that other melachos are, by their very nature, performed through grama, and yet they are prohibited. In fact, another Gemara 14 gives the example of winnowing (throwing grain into the air so that the wind filters out the chaff), which is clearly performed through grama. The Gemara says that although as far as the laws of damages are concerned one is not liable for grama, in the case of Shabbos one is liable!

    How do we reconcile these two Gemaras, one teaching that grama is allowed on Shabbos and the other that it is forbidden (biblically)?

    A number of Rishonim and Acharonim offer varying approaches, but the Rama15 cites the view of the Mordechai that grama is allowed on Shabbos only when there would otherwise be the possibility of financial loss.

    However, the Shulchan Aruch—who does not say that the possibility of financial loss is necessary to allow grama—appears to hold that grama is always permissible on Shabbos (and he accepts other approaches to the contradictory Gemaras).

    But even according to the Shulchan Aruch, allowing the use of a device because of grama would still not be so simple, as can be seen from other rulings of his. He states 16, for example, that one may not open a door near a candle because the wind that comes in may extinguish it.

    But wouldn’t this be grama, which he allows in all cases?

    Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains 17 that when a melachah would occur naturally but something is keeping it from happening (e.g., a door is holding back the wind) and one then comes and removes that blockage, that is not called a grama even according to the Shulchan Aruch 18!

    With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at the Kosher Switch.

    IV. The Switch

    The switch works by creating a temperamental yet inevitable light pulse that is paired as a receiver and a transmitter. In order to turn on the light, these two must communicate. When an impediment is placed between the transmitter and receiver (the “switch”), that light pulse is blocked. The creators claim that by removing that impediment, which is just a simple piece of plastic, only when the indicator is green—which means that there is no current light pulse anyway—one is not only avoiding a grama, but even less than that; it is what they call “un-grama.”

    I agree! It is not a grama, because removing an impediment is assur—and likely at the biblical level!

    What about the fact that the Kosher Switch notifies the user before he lifts the impediment that there is no current light pulse? Wouldn’t this make the act permissible? In the case of wind, it is only assur to open the door when one knows there is currently a breeze outside. Wouldn’t it be true that in the case of the Kosher Switch, although we know that the “wind” will eventually arrive, the green light tells us that it isn’t there at this moment?

    The Magen Avraham proves that in the case of an average temperamental wind the fact that it is momentarily not active would make no difference. Later, the Shulchan Aruch teaches that one may not open a door even near a large flame or torch, out of concern that there may be an exceptionally strong wind. The Magen Avaraham points out persuasively that if we are concerned about a rare exceptional wind that has not yet and may never occur the entire Shabbos, then we are certainly concerned about an average wind that continually waxes and wanes, and will almost certainly reappear in moments!

    While the Gra and most others19 follow this sensible proof, there are a few who are indeed lenient when it comes to opening a door if there is currently no wind. This is what prompted the Chofetz Chaim in his Biur Halacha (ad loc) to say that in cases of need one may be lenient and follow these other views. Now we can understand why some allow this device for the sick and infirm.

    V. Melachah

    But what about the many poskim who do not even allow this device for the sick, claiming that its use fully violates a melachah?

    The first thing to keep in mind is that there is a misconception among many that grama—regardless of the ambiguity regarding when it is allowed—at the very least automatically removes the violation from the biblical category. At worst, they say, one who performs an issur Shabbos through grama is only violating a d’Rabbanan.

    The consensus is that this theory is mistaken. Rav Shlomo Miller, in an important article written for the Torah journal Yeshurun nine years ago, explains why. A case of grama is either allowed on Shabbos (to prevent financial loss only, according to Rama) or it is assur mi’d’Oraisa; there is no in-between 20.

    Furthermore, Rav Chaim Ozer 21 and many others point out that even when grama is allowed on Shabbos, it would only be in a case where one’s main goal is not to perform that melachah (in the case of fire, it would only be permissible to place pitchers of water around the fire for the purpose of stopping it, not to put it out).

    Further, Rav Shlmo Zalman taught 22 that even when grama is allowed, it would not be permissible to use it consistently for a particular purpose. (The Zomet Shabbat Scooter, created upon the suggestion and with the involvement of Rav Shlomo Zalman, has a power button that operates through grama, which is allowed, even according to the Rama, for someone infirm. But the scooter itself is powered by modulating currents—an entirely different halachic subject regarding which Rav Shlomo Zalman has always ruled leniently. Indeed, many people with hearing aids raise and lower the volume on Shabbos based upon the same halachic principal 23)

    Rav Chaim Ozer, and to some extent Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 24, explain that the performance of a melachah through a grama (even an allowable one) on a consistent basis becomes pure meleches machsheves—the essence of chillul Shabbos (meleches machsheves refers to the need for a melachah to be performed in a purposeful manner in order to be liable).

    One last point of contention: There is a view, accepted by most, that even the Rama agrees that grama is allowed on Yom Tov 25. If so, why not allow the Kosher Switch at least on Yom Tov?

    First of all, as we just explained, removal of an impediment, according to many, is not called grama, so this would not be an example of grama to begin with. We mustn’t forget that doing melachah on Yom Tov is only less severe in terms of punishment, but the prohibition against doing melachah on both Shabbos and Yom Tov is biblical, and the same laws govern them.

    We should note that Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1934) and the author of the Aruch Hashulchan (1903) wrote teshuvos that would allow the use of certain (regular) electric switches on Yom Tov because of grama 26.

    However, as pointed out above in Rav Chaim Ozer’s response to this very heter, it must be rejected out of hand 27.

    For these reasons, perhaps, Rabbi Yisroel Belsky wrote that if the Sanhedrin were in power today, “the use of this switch would call for misas beis din.”

    Even if one wishes to find some point in this debate that would permit the use of the Kosher Switch, remember that we are dealing at best with a safek d’Oraisa, for which we do not seek heterim, and in the case of which we are obligated to be stringent (safek d’Oraisa l’chumrah).

    It is of interest to note that we already have a built-in heter in regard to lights on Shabbos; Rav Moshe, who was opposed to Shabbos timers in general, did allow them for light switches.

    Shabbos is given to us under the command of “shomer.” We do not only “observe” Shabbos; we are charged with guarding it, safekeeping the holy treasure it is.

    NOTES


    1. Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:60.


    2. Chagigah 16b.


    3. In Mishpatim and Ki Sisa.


    4. Rosh Hashanah 32.


    5. See Aruch Hashulchan siman 243:1-3.


    6. On Vayikra 23:24; see also his comments in Sefer Hamitzvos, shoresh 6.

    7. See Shu”t Be’er Moshe, Kuntrus Electricity, siman 50, which questions the poskim who seem to do just that.

    8. Shu”t Minchas Shlomo 1:9 and 2:20.


    9. See also Shu”t Beis Yitzchak 2:31 regarding riding in the first electric cars of Lemberg on Shabbos.


    10.See Chazon Ish siman 38 and Even Ha’ezer siman 328; cf. Rambam 9:4 with Mirkeves Hamishneh. But see Iglei Tal, tochen, siman 5, and Chazon Ish ibid., sif 3.

    11.Shabbos 120.


    12.Siman 334:22.


    13.See Biur Halachah.

    14.Bava Kama 59-60.

    15. Ibid.


    16. In siman 287.


    17. Ibid. 2:31.

    18. Cf. Machezeh Avraham siman 52.

    19. See Biur Halachah, s.v. k’darko.

    20. Rav Heinemann of the Star-K may disagree; see his exchange with Rav Miller in Yeshurun vol. 20 pp. 503-512..

    21. Achiezer 3:60.

    22. Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 13:58. See also Minchas Yitzchak 2:16. Even in cases, like refrigerator door, where Rav Shlomo Zalman was lenient due to grama even though it used this way consistently he explains that this would only be true where the resulting melacha is not within the purpose of the action (i.e. opening the door for food and not so that, or even concerned regarding the motor going on now).

    23. See “Deafness in Halachah” by this author in RJJ’s Journal of Contemporary Halacha.

    24. Even Ha’ezel 230:4.


    25. See siman 514:25 in Mishnah Berurah.


    26. See Encylopedia Talmudis 18, p. 178, notes 254-255.

    27. For more on this history and a list of the sages who sought to prove this theory incorrect, see Rav Miller’s article ibid., Chashmal L’Ohr Halachah, ch. 2, in its entirety.

    Deafness in Halacha
    Swimming on Shabbos?!

  • The Life and Works of Rav Aaron Levine, tz”l

    He Was the Source for Many of the Modern Pesakim on Aveilus and Beyond

    January, 2020

    “Rabbi, you still did not get back to me regarding my shailah”.

    It was true, I hadn’t.

    Weeks earlier this member asked an off-the-beaten-path question. After the milchama, her grandparents discovered that their own parents as well as their siblings and their families were wiped out, hy’d.

    There are no kevarim or known yartziets, yet her surviving grandparents chose a certain date on the calendar to mark their passing as a zikaron. On this date someone in the family will light a ner neshama, say kaddish and even daven for the amud if available.

    This has been kept in the family for several decades now, and through many new generations.

    Nowadays, its her son-in-law in eretz yisroel who commemorates the date with kaddish. He is four generations removed from the niftarim.

    “Rabbi, I am just curious…While it is by no means a burden, how long should our family continue to do this? Should my daughters’ children continue, and their children, ad bias goel? Perhaps it more b’kovidik to end it officially, rather than have it un-purposefully wither and over time become forgotten”

    Now of course this is not a pressing matter, rather an interesting curiosity.

    Her question opens up many imponderables.

    The importance of choosing some date for a yartziet in such cases is mentioned in early sources (see, e.g. Magen Avraham 568:20).

    However, just how to go about choosing such a date is more complicated, and the poskim discuss various fascinating methods. 

    Some write that if the year of their passing is known, then one should choose the last day of the year (due to one’s chezaka of being alive, see Igeress Hakodesh to the Lubavtzher rebbe, Rav Yosef Yitzchak Schneirson, chelek 9).

    Others suggest the fifth of teves to be chosen as, should one have the custom to fast on a yartziet, it will be short taanis (M’orei Ohr quoted in Moed Kol Chai 2:21).

    Rav Felder z’l, the av beis din of Toronto (Pri Yeshurin p. 246) says that since chazal already stated (Sanhedrin 47b) that Hashem completes the years of the righteous, and we know that those killed by the Nazi’s y’s are considered kedoshim, then we should simply choose their birthday(s) as a likelihood of their day of death!

    [On this idea that all Jews killed at the hands of the Nazis’ have the status of ‘kedoshim’, there are a myriad of teshuvos and kesavim, see Hidden in Thunder, volume 2, pages 439-475]

    Rav Shterrbuch (shu’t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, 2:588) suggests selecting Yom Kippur; still others suggest using the date of one’s discovery of their death as the yartziet (see, e.g. Pachad Yitzchak, erech ‘taanis’), and Rav Yechezkal Abramsky suggests that, whichever month one chooses, it is best to pick the fifteenth day of the month of the day of the molad (Sefer Zikaron Rav Abramsky, p. 238, and shu’t Be’er Moshe 8:112).

    But what about her question –for how long, or how many doros –should such a date be a remembrance?

    I told her that I just do not have an answer.

    You see, for all my years in rabbanus, whenever any interesting issue came up relating to death, aveilus, bikkur cholim and all other interrelated topics, there was a recognized expert whom I could call:

     Rav Aaron Levine.

    Sadly, he was niftar last week after a long battle.

    So the reader understands how important he was to rabbanim, every single wonderful source brought above is taken from his sefer on yartziet –a two-volume magnum opus titled Kol Bo LaYartzeit (volume 1, p. 153160).

    Whenever I wrote in these pages on topics relating to his expertise I would first confirm sources and receive guidance from him.

    His sefarim and research in these matters were recognized throughout the Torah world.

    When his son Rav Yitzchok Levine –the current CFO of Lakewood yeshiva, BMG –was a bachur he went to Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach for a beracha.

    When asked about his family, he spoke about his maternal grandfather, Rav Moshe Nussbaum, an important askan and Torah builder.

    “But what is your last name”

    “Levine”

    “Rav Aaron Levine is your father?”

    “Yes”

    “Well where is chelek beis of sefer Zichron Meir?!” the great posek asked.

    Zichron Meir is a much admired sefer on the laws of aveilus. It was published many years ago as ‘chelek aleph’, but due to his many sefarim being written in the interim, the second part was never completed.

    Rabbanim have gained so much from his life’s work, even if they do not know his sefarim, virtually every modern likut –English or Hebrew –culls from his material. Aside for American gedolim, his sefarim received glowing haskamos from Rav Shach and other eretz yisroel gedolim.

    But he also wrote books for the public.

    Many years ago he was asked to speak about ‘Jewish Grief and Counseling’ before a Jewish but not frum group. Before his turn to speak to the audience, a man got up and said something about grief and faith that I will not even quote here.

    Rav Levine was shocked and disgusted by this, and realized the need for another work geared also toward the more secular Jew setting down the proper hashkafos for suffering and mourning, ‘To Comfort the Bereaved: A Guide for Mourners and Those Who Visit Them’ was thus born. I recommend it often to anyone going through a crises of faith after a tragic loss, l’a.

    He could reach such people not only because he had the proper hadracha, but because he and his Rebbitzen Chani Levine suffered from their own grief, as I shall soon explain.

    At the age of 12, he arrived to Toronto from England, and by the late 1950’s would find his way to Telshe, Cleveland.

    American bochurim in those days were not like today. Entry fahers were not as intense, to say the least. One boy arriving in yeshiva at that time was asked by Rav Mottel Katz one question to gain entry: Was Noach a tzadik or a rasha?

    The boy responded honesty: “I don’t know”.

    “Exactly right!” cried out Rav Mottel. “We don’t know, and Rashi gives both views. Welcome to Telshe!”

    After spending time in Ner Yisroel, Baltimore, Rav Levine would go into chinuch, soon serving as the menahal in Ner Yisroel, Toronto, and then Eitz Chaim.

    Before those posts, he began in Savanah, Georgia, in the late 1960’s early 1970’s, where he served as a principal.

    My parents were living there at that same time, also to spread Torah, and our families remained close ever since.

    The Levine’s would then move to Deal, N.J. where he continued in chinuch.

    It was there when horrible tragedy struck. Their second son, Efraim, was niftar on his second birthday.

    Years later, growing up in Toronto, their son Chaim was a close friend. His full name is Chaim Efraim, named for his brother he never met.

    In the hakdama (introduction) to his first sefer on these topics he explains that while sitting shiva he realized the need for sefarim and books on these topics, to guide people in the proper halachos and outlook.

    Thereby, Rav Levine turned his son’s short life into Torah that will live on forever.

    There is much more to say about Rav Levine, his Rebbitzen and his family. But in addition to the bounty of Torah and psak he left behind (much still to be published iy’h), let me conclude with a story about who he was as a person and a michanech.

    While serving as menahel in Ner Yisroel, there was a series of thefts in the dorm. It got so bad that the hanhala was considering bringing in the police to put an end to it.

     Rav Levine interceded and asked if he can try to discover who the ganaf was before such drastic measured need to be taken.

    He decided he will meet with each and every boy of the large yeshiva, starting from the ninth grade through the beis midrash, a time consuming task.

    One by one, he would sit down each boy in his office. “This is very serious. If you tell me know it was you it will never leave this room. But if not, well, its about to get very serious, with police, etc. And then I will have no control…”.

    The idea worked, and the bachur who was doing the geneiva admitted his guilt to Rav Levine.

    Yet, amazingly, Rav Levine didn’t stop the one-on-one integration. Rav Levine continued to meet with every boy from each and every grade, giving them the same third-degree. He did this so that no one would ever figure out who the guilty boy was. And indeed, no one ever did find out, baruch Hashem.

    May Rav Levine’s middos, emes, and Torah be a meilitz yashor for his Rebbitzen, children and all of klal yisroel.

    (Following this article’s publication, Rav Aaron’s son, Rav Shneur Levine of Waterbury, shared with me a private correspondence that Rav Avraham Ausband sent him during shiva. I can share that as a younger bochur in Telshe, Rav Ausband looked up to Rav Aaron Levine)

  • Tu Bishvat & The Baal Shem Tov’s Tree

    Tu Bishvat & The Baal Shem Tov’s Tree

    January, 2021

    See separate post regarding the sources for a Tu B’shvat ‘seder‘, new fruits, and more.

    Rav Yaakov Teitelbaum (d. 1968), the beloved mara d’asra of Kahal Adas Yereim for twenty years, held his shul’s grand annual seudah on, of all days, Tu BiShvat.

    Rabbi Paysach Krohn, who grew up in this shul and under the tutelage of Rav Teitelbum, recently shared with me:

    “This [seudah] was his ‘State of the Union. Even the counselors at Camp Agudah -where Rav Teitelbaum served as the rav in the summers-shlepped all the way to Queens on Tu BiShvat to hear this important drashah.”

    The date chosen for this “State of the Union” address might have seemed odd to some, but I have a theory about why he chose it.
    Allow me to give some quick background first.

    Rav Teitelbaum was a tremendous talmid chacham.

    Rav Heschel Greenberg, who has served as a rav and shaliach in Buffalo for the past 45 years, shared his has fond memories of Rav Yaakov coming often to Crown Heights from Queens to farher the Lubavitch bachurim. This was a major event, and a stressful one, for the bachurim.

    In fact, when I recently spoke to Rav Yosef Teitelbaum, one of Rav Yaakov’s sons, he shared how the Lubavitcher Rebbe chose his father to test the boys because he wanted an outsider – an unbiased participant- to best, and honestly, gauge how the bachurim were doing in learning.

    Many readers may be more familiar with Rav Yaakov Teitelbaum’s other son, Rav Eli Teitelbaum (d. 2008), an early developer of technology l’maan haTorah (among his many projects was Dial-A-Daf; today his organization is still active as ‘Torah Communications’).

    Their father, Rav Yaakov, was born in 1897 in Husyatin, Galicia. When World War I broke out, he was only seventeen. His family, along with many others, fled to Vienna, where he became a student of the illustrious posek Rav Meir Arik (d. 1925), from whom he received semichah.

    Rav Yaakov published a sefer titled Kol Yaakov. It was in this sefer where I discovered a story that may explain his enchantment with Tu BiShvat.

    He shares a story that he heard from his rebbe, Rav Arik.

    We are aware that communal custom was sacrosanct throughout Europe. For example, the great tzaddik and gaon Rav Nosson Adler was famously put in cherem when, whilst in Frankfurt, he adopted a nusach sephard siddur, sephardi pronunciation, and other sundry anomalous practices.

    Rav Arik shared how something similar occurred to the Baal Shem Tov.

    When the Baal Shem Tov was about twenty years old, he moved to the city of Brody, where he became a melamed.

    One year in Brody, he longed to have new fruit for Tu BiShvat (see Magen Avraham 131:16, or the post where I discuss the sources behind this minhag in detail).

    Before refrigeration, as well as our ease of shipping, fresh fruit on which to make a shehecheyanu during the winter was rare.

    The Baal Shem Tov was unable to attain any such ‘new’ fruit.

    At that time, the kloiz of Brody, headed by the gaon Rav Chaim Rappaport, heard rumors about this new melamed, how he was teaching unique concepts and, generally, who had his own way of doing things.

    Rav Rappaport demanded that the melamed come to the beis din of Brody to explain his actions.

    The day the Baal Shem Tov was supposed to meet with the beis din was…Tu BiShvat.

    Rav Rappaport’s brother-in-law, the esteemed Rav Zev Volf Kitzem, came upon the Baal Shem Tov on his way to the beis din and watched as he took a circuitous route through a snowy forest.

    He decided to follow him.

    He watched as the young Baal Shem Tov stopped by a barren tree and cried out words from the Yom Kippur davening:

    “V’yeida kal pa’ul ki Atah pe’alto, v’yavin kal yatzur ki Atah yetzarto—All of Your offshoots know that You are their Maker, and all of Your creations know that You are their Creator.”

    Suddenly, and to Rav Kitzem’s astonishment, dates appeared on the tree, as if out of nowhere!

    The Baal Shem Tov, he observed, was giddy with joy. He watched as he made a shehecheyanu with great intent.

    • (The question of whether birchas ha’eitz or shehecheyanu should be recited first is a serous debate in halachah, and one must speak to his rav about what to do – See Be’er Heitev 225:6; Pri Megadim, #7; Magen Avraham, 225:9;shu”t Kesav Sofer, ohch, siman 25;shu”t Avnei Nezer, 250:6.)
    • (The question of if ‘miracle’ items have the same status as the item they are intending to imitate is deep, yet it is a subject well beyond our brief sharing of this story. This question touches upon issues such as the beracha on mann, or un-kosher intent on it, as well as the view that klal yisroel had ‘miracle’ grain in the desert, etc. See Shalal Rav, Chanukah in the name of the Brisker Rav [regarding if miracle oil would even satisfy the menorah’s mitzvah requirement], and see as well as Rav Yosef Engle’s notes, as collected recently in Asifas Yosef, sefer shemos)

    As soon as the Baal Shem Tov was out of sight, Rav Kitzem gathered some of these ‘miracle’ dates in his basket and ran to the beis din so that he could offer clear proof that the young melamed was a person of remarkable holiness and should be left alone.

    As he breathlessly entered the beis din, they were already in the midst of interviewing the melamed, the Baal Shem Tov. Rav Volf Kitzem interjected, “You won’t believe this! This man should be left alone as he is a real baal mofes—a miracle worker!”

    He opened his basket to show the members of the beis din the miraculous fruits that had appeared on the tree; but alas, all that he found inside was snow!

    The Baal Shem Tov turned to him and said, “One should not try to gain victory in a beis din through miracles. Even in shomayim they do not desire such an outcome. There are other ways to triumph.”1

    I shared with Rav Yosef Teitelbaum, Rav Yaakov’s son, my hypothesis for why his father had chosen Tu BiShvat for the shul’s main dinner each year—that he wanted to celebrate his rebbe’s story about how the Baal Shem Tov was matzliach on this day.

    Rav Yosef considered it but was not entirely convinced.

    “Perhaps,” he responded. “But there is another explanation. In my father’s sefer, in his drashah for the 1951 Tu BiShvat shul event, he spoke about the significance of this date. He mentioned that twenty years earlier, on February 2, 1931 (15 Shevat 5691), the very first Siyum HaShas for the Daf Yomi took place. My father may have felt that Tu BiShvat was special due to this more recent event.”

    That Tu BiShvat, some 89 years ago, was indeed special. The major venue for the Siyum HaShas was the newly opened Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin, and Rav Meir Shapiro opened the siyum by having his yeshivah choir sing his newly composed (and now famous) song “Kad Yasvin Yisrael.” (There is still some debate who composed this niggun and its lyrics, and if it predated this event)

    In America, there were smaller celebrations that took place in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    Either explanation for Rav Yaakov Teitelbaum’s minhag is fascinating!

    Let us hope that this Tu Bishvat we can see the realization of both of these theories: a growth in the klal’s learning, and, our own vindication in the beis din shel maaleh.

    1. The story is told how the Baal HaTanya was on a boat and, in his desire to recite kiddush levanah, requested the captain to row toward its visibility.
      The captain refused this request, however the ship, as if becoming animated, began to head on its own in the needed direction, only stopping when in perfect view of the moon. The captain and his shipmates were in awe of the miracle they had just witnessed.
      They were therefore shocked when the Baal HaTanya requested they row/sail just a bit more.
      “Why? Hasn’t Gd already brought you to a most pristine area at which to witness the moon!”
      The Baal HaTanya explained that Gd desires human effort, rather than mitzvos fulfilled through nissim (miracles).
      [Heard in the drasha from the shliach at Chabad of Diana Beach, near Hollywood, Florida, parshas Bo, 5786] ↩︎
    A Tu BiShvat ‘Seder’ & Other Secrets of the Day