Over the years, we have, b’chasdei Hashem, dedicated this space during Chanukah to share and uncover secrets, mysteries and enigmas relating to these days.
These have varied from the complex – e.g. why there is no mention of Chanukah in al hamichya; the historical –e.g. sourcing the story of Yehudis; and even the mystical –e.g. is there really an issur of blowing out candles?
This year, I wish to share the background to another puzzling element of Chanukah, one that speaks directly to the purpose, and name, of this column.
Every yom tov has a ‘Shul’, or communal, element peculiar to it alone. For example, the first days’ nightly hallel’s recital –reserved for the hagada – is said by many in Shul as well as a part of, or following, maariv; only on Sukkos do we find a yom tov’s special mitzvah (the daled minim) carry an element that can only be done in a shul (the hakafos; on Shavous our batei midrashim are filled with the sound of, and the morning’s re-acceptance in, Hashem’s Torah.
Chanukah is no exception to this pattern.
Imagine if on Pesach night, after davening, the rav announces that the shul will say the hagada together first, before we all go home and perform it as a family.
How odd this would be! The mitzvah on Pesach night is hagadita l’bincha –to say over the story at home, with one’s children – not in shul to ourselves!
Why then on Chanukah –whose lighting requirement is ner ish u’beiso, davka on the home – do we light the menorah in shul?
There is an important corollary to our question. Chazal state (Sukkah 44b) that although we can make a beracha on a mitzvah/chiyuvderabanan (Shabbos 23a) we do not –and can not –make a beracha on a minhag.
This minhag of lighting in shul in not even found in the gemara. While the rishonim make clear that lighting in shul is a “minhagvasikin –a devout/precious custom” (shu’t Rivash 111, see below) – would not its beracha be a berachal’vatala?!
Let us explore the background to this unusual minhag, and the numerous explanations for it that have been given through the centuries.
II.
The History
While I do not know precisely when this minhag began, I can surmise that it first became universal at some point after the mid 1300’s. In the late 14th century, the rav of Granada, Spain, Rav Amram, wrote to Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshes (d.1408) with eighteen questions. These shalios ran the gamut from queries relating to serious matters of marriage, money and death (shu’t Rivah 102-119).
His tenth question was this rav’s concern over the minhag of lighting the menorah in shul, and with a beracha. We will quote the Rivash’s response below.
It is then likely that this minhag, although peformed by some some time before this, was just then becoming popular.
III.
The Reasons and their Complications
Rav Yosef Karo, in his Beis Yosef (siman 671), bring several ways to explain this minhag of lighting the menorah in shul –and with a beracha – including the answer the Rivash provided to Rav Amram.
We will list each of his reasons –as well as further suggestions brought by other poskim –below, along with some of the difficulties in each:
– Two years before Rav Yosef Karo was born in 1488, a likut of halacha, titled Kol Bo was published, whose author is today unknown. Rav Karo brings from here (siman 44) that there is nothing so novel about this minhag. Similar to how chazal instruct us to make kiddush Friday night in shul (Pesachim 100b) for the orchim (guests) and the aniyim (poor), we do the same for them in shul on Chanukah. The Levush (ibid.), Tanya Rabasi (35) and the Shiblei Haleket (185) also give this reason.
There are many difficulties with this approach. First, when it comes to the comparison to kiddush in shul Friday night, Rav Karo himself rules (siman 407:2) that on Pesach night we do not make kiddush in shul because the community is required to provide every poor person with wine to perform this mitzvah at home. The same would apply to Chanukah whose mitzvah is at home! In fact, Rav Amram and the Rivash –although living before the Shulchan Aruch – both make this argument so as to dismiss this first approach!
However, if one looks at some of the sources who offer this approach to the minhag the they add the fact that these poor people are sleeping in the shul, making it their guest-house for the nights of Chanukah. This explains not just why we light, but why a beracha is would be required.
But this begs the question: today, when there are no guests in shul, why do we still light?
This same question is asked by many regarding kiddush in shul Friday night: since there are no longer poor people or guests staying in the shul, how is this Kiddush -with no seudah to follow –still being performed?
However, the poskim (see, e.g. Mishna Berrura 269:5, inter alia) offer a number of rationales for this practice. Amazingly, the 13th century shu’t Min Hashamoyim (siman 25) compares our ability to still make kiddush in shul with our ability to also light Chanukah lights with a beracha even though, in both cases there are no guests who need it!
2- Next, Rav Yosef Karo brings another answer from the Kol Bo. We light in shul, and with berachos, to lay before the congregation the way to light and the order of the berachos.
The fact that we would be allowed to recite a Beracha for such a need would make sense, similar to teaching a child to make a Beracha where Hashem’s name may be used (see, e.g. Shulchan Aruch 196:19).
3-Finally, he brings the answer that the Rivash gave to Rav Amram: the reader may recall that last year we dedicated this space to discuss the minhag to still light indoors even though the danger seems to have passed. The Rivash suggests, that whatever the reason we no longer light outside, we still need a public display, a true pirsum haness, and shul provides this.
This explanation brings with it many questions that are beyond the scope of this column (see, e.g. Igros Mosheoh’c 1:107 and Minchas Shlomo 2:51), but the most salient issue with this response is why make a Beracha? It is still but a minhag –even if to be mefarsem haness! To make matters even more confounding, the Shulchan Aruch itself rules (siman 422:2) –as is the minhag sefardim – that on Rosh Chodesh one does not make a Beracha on hallel as it is but a minhag!
Rav Yaakov Emdin (Mor U’Ketziasiman 672) answers that on Chanukah the berachos themselves are a part of the mitzvah of pirsum haness!
The rosh yeshiva of Lakewood, Rav Yerushum Olshin (Yerach l’Moadim, p. 194-195) gives an additional explanation how according to the view that we light in shuls simply because of the extra minhag of pirssumhaness we can then also make a beracha. Based on the words of the Brisker Rav, he demonstrates that only a stand-alone minhag (like aravah) do we not a beracha on; however, a minhag that is represented by the action of a pre-existing mitzvah (such as lighting the menorah), we can!
This explanation would seem to fit with the words of the Vilna Gaon. He explains our lighting with a beracha in shul on Chanukah as being similar to ur making a Beracha on hallel on Pesach night in shul. We may explain this connection as both hallel and hadlakos neros chanukah as being a cheftza shel mitzvah –a pre-existing commandment, even if now we are doing that same action/recital as a minhag.
–Finally -but by no means exhaustive! – Rav Moshe Shternbuch (MoadimU’Zmanim 8:89) suggests a novel understanding of this minhag of lighting in shul. Originally, the gezeira for Chanukah was just to hodos u’l’hallel. Indeed, in maoz tzur there is no mention of our lighting. Only later, when the beis hamikdosh was destroyed did chazal then institute a public lighting outside our homes. However, due to danger, we had to move that lighting inside. And so, as to retain a semblance of a public lighting –as chazal first established after the churban –did we then also choose to light in shul so as to retain a veneer of the original, public, mitzvah.
There is much more to say on this topic –many more explanations to the minhag, and many more ramifications to each approach.
But for now, let us end as we always end the Chanukah column –there are so many secrets in even the minhagim of klal yisreol!
Over the past decade, we have often singled out the week after Thanksgiving to discuss many of the questions that surround this secular day – such as the halachic issues involved in its celebration, the kashrus of turkey, and the etymology/shoresh for the name of this fowl in many laguages –e.g. turkey/indik/ hodu.
This year, I wish to share something both lighter and fascinating.
Sarah Halen (d. 1879) is most famous today for composing Mary Had a Little Lamb. But she is also responsible for making Thanksgiving an accepted national holiday in all states when she convinced Lincoln of its virtue (he also saw it as a way to unify the country after the Civil War).
In one of her many editorials arguing for its permanence in our calendar, she writes, “The noble annual feast day of our Thanksgiving resembles, in some respects, the Feast of Pentecost, which was, in fact, the yearly season of Thanksgiving with the Jews”
While some wish to argue that Thanksgiving is not a religious day –and therefore issues of bchukoseohem lo seileichu do not enter the equation – historically this is grossly inaccurate (I refer only to its religious nature, if this also then makes it assur is up to each reader’s posek).
Indeed, when Washington issued the first such proclamation in 1789, he stated:
“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of A-mighty Gd, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…
“…Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be…”
Later presidents would issue similar proclamations, only varying in formalities and dates. In fact, Jefferson was the first president to not issue any such Thanksgiving proclamation…precisely because he did not believe in Divine intervention, R’l!
In fact, the religious connotation to this ‘secular’ holiday goes all the way back to the ‘thanksgiving story’. William Bradford –who arrived on the Mayflower and would serve as the Governor of Plymouth Colony – came with a bible and had the passengers read psalm 107 upon their arrival.
Amazingly, the following Rambam (!) is written in this bible in English:
“And from this Psalme, and this verse of it, the Hebrues have this
Canon; Foure must confess (unto God) The sick, when he is healed;
the prisoner when he is released out of bonds; they that goe down to
sea, when they are come up (to land); and wayfaring men, when they
are come to the inhabited land. And they must make confession before
ten men, and two of them wise men, Psal. 107. 32. And the manner of
confessing and blessing is thus; He standeth among them and blesseth
the Lord, the King eternal, that bounteously rewardeth good things
unto sinners, etc. Maimony in Misn. Treat. Of Blessings, chap. 10,
sect. 8.”!
Mary Hale and William Bradford’s connection to Yiddeshkeit’sthemes were not lost on the public. For many years after Washington passed away, one Orthodox Rabbi’s Thanksgiving sermon was often found re-published in local papers.
Rabbi Gershom Seixes served as the preacher and guide (semicha did not yet fully exist on these shores) to the famed Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue in New York City (a shul still extant today).
We discussed his amazing life and dedication to Torah, as well as to his new country, at great length this past summer.
Leaving aside for now the halachic issues invloved, the very first Thanksgiving after Washington’s Thanksgiving Declaration, Seixes delivered remarks in his shul that were published that year and years after in the local (non-Jewish) papers.
Amazingly, some contemporaneous accounts report that they even omitted tachanun in his shul on that day!
Here is an excerpt from the first famous Thanksgiving Day Sermon, that just happened to be given by a frum leader:
“In considering the duties we owe to ourselves and the community to which we belong, it is necessary that we, each of us in our respective stations, behave in such a manner as to give strength and stability to the laws entered into by our representatives; to consider the burden imposed on those who are appointed to act in the Executive Department; and to contribute, as much as lays within our power, to the support of that government which is founded upon the strict principles of equal liberty and justice…
“If, to seek the peace and prosperity of the city wherein we dwell, be a duty even under bad governments, what must it be when we are situated under the best of Constitutions? It behooves us to unite, with cheerfulness and uprightness, upon all occasions that may occur in the political as well as the moral world, to promote that which has a tendency to the public good. As Jews, we are even more than others, called upon to return thanks to God for placing us in such a country – where we are free to act according to the dictates of conscience, and where no exception is taken from following the principles of our religion.
“…And lastly to conclude, my dear brethren and companions, it is incumbent on us as Jews, in a more special manner, seeing that we are the chosen and special treasure of God, to be more circumspect in our conduct – inasmuch as we are this day, living examples of His Divine Power and Unity. So may we be striking examples to the nations of the earth, as it is mentioned in Sacred Scripture: ‘Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation!” For this purpose, let me then recommend to you a serious consideration of the several duties set forth this Day: to enter into a self-examination; to relinquish your prejudices against each other; to subdue your passions; to live as Jews ought to do – in brotherhood and amity with all our neighbors, ‘to seek peace and pursue it.’ So shall it be well with us, both here and hereafter, which God in His infinite mercy, will grant to us all!”
Whatever our halachic views toward Thanksgiving may be, the closing sentiment of this drasha is still critical for all of us today.
We must show thanks to Hashem for placing us here, have daily hakaras hatov to our government, and all the while remember that we are still in galus so as to only seek to make a Kiddush Hashem.
The holy Tchebiner Rav, Rav Dov Beresh Weidenfeld (d. in Yerushalim, 1961) was a rav in Trzebinia, Poland, just outside of Auschwitz. The great historian of Galiztieneh gedolim, R’ Meir Vunder records that when the famous Nazi propaganda newspaper, ‘Der Sturmer’, published the caption ‘The Three Greatest Talmudic Scholars’, Rav Weidenfeld was one of the three pictures – along with the rebbes of Belz and Gur. Due to this underside ‘publicity’ he was in grave danger, and escaped with his family to Lvov/Lemberg. He was soon taken by the Russians and sent to a labor camp in Siberia. While many made efforts to save him, he always refused, exclaiming that how can he save just his own family while his brethren were left behind!? (To read more about this amazing gadol, read the wonderful biography, ‘Sar HaTorah: The Life and Times of Hagaon Harav Dov Berish Weidenfeld’, Israel Press)
Since the story I will share in a moment involves sleep, let me share one last anecdote about his life. Rabbi Paysach Krohn records (ATMT, p. 160) that when he was older and needed surgery, the doctors feared that he may not wake up from the anesthesia.
What did he do? Well, he had the surgery, but put his teffilin on first. Since halacha forbids sleeping with teffilin (siman 44), his yirasshomayim was able to able to keep him from sleeping during the entire procedure!
A true gadol in Torah, yirah and in middos.
Now to our story. By 1946 he settled in Yerushalaim and was viewed as one of the gedolim and poskim of that city and the world.
One Shabbos afternoon there was a knock on his door. The Tchebiner Rav was laying down for a brief rest at the time and so at first did not hear it. Then another knock, and then another.
Thinking that perhaps there is an urgent shailah or concern, he quickly got up from his rest to answer the door.
Standing there was a young boy. “I have just finished a mesechta in yeshiva” exclaimed the child with innocent pride. “I was wondering of the rav can farher (test) me on it”.
This was and still is common practice, but to do so unprompted, and by the rav’s house no less, is unusual.
The Rav smiled, and responded to the request, “My sweet child. First, mazal tov! I would be delighted to farher you. But let me first ask you a question: If you knock on someone’s door Shabbos afternoon and there is no answer, and you knock again and there is still no answer, do you maybe consider that the person is laying down for a Shabbos nap?”
The boy responded, “Of course! I would never knock more than once if it was not urgent. However, this time, I was knocking on the Rav’s door –and it never even entered my mind that the holy Tchebener Rav would waste even a moment of his Shabbos afternoon napping”!
From that moment on, the Tchebener Rav never again napped on Shabbos!
Many rabbanim can relate to this story for a myriad of reasons. For one, many times the innocence of children puts the rav center stage. A child in the shul may be stuck on a Rashi somewhere in the middle of Tanach and will just assume that by telling me the pasuk I will be able to tell him what Rashi says.
But more, a knock on Shabbos afternoon is one of the most common features of the Rabbinate. Indeed, it is the last remnant of what it was like to be a rav in Europe. Before telephones and secretaries and email, knocking on the rav’s door was a daily part of the job.
However, like the Tcheibener Rav alluded, most people hesitate to knock on the rav’s door at this time, out of fear he is resting, so when they choose to do so it is usually an interesting question that they have.
This past Shabbos I received one of these knocks…and I was reminded for yet another reason of the holy Tchibener Rav.
Allow me to explain…
When I opened the door I saw two brothers standing there and still arguing –politely.
They explained that their meal went on longer than usual and they each wanted a coffee so that they could avoid a nap before Mincha.
The older brother went into the kitchen to make the two coffees, and yelled into the dining hall that he will be making each of them a ‘Whipped Coffee’.
The younger brother felt this was assur on Shabbos.
As I listened to the shailah, I realized we had a bigger problem – – -I didn’t know what a Whipped Coffee even was!
My wife quickly came to my rescue and described what it is. In fact, most readers likely know what this is, as it is all the rage now, along with other whipped beverages. Whipped Coffee, also known as Dalgona Coffee, exploded in popularity during the Covid lockdown.
Basically, one takes some instant coffee, sugar and hot water and beats it until it becomes a thick, foamy ‘drink’. It is so thick in fact, that many eat it with a spoon.
It is Shabbos afternoon, I am at home –while most of my sifreihalacha are at my shul office –and this was a complicated shailah.
Can one make this on Shabbos?
What follows is halachav’lol’maaseh, and everyone is urged to speak to their own rav.
The first thing that came to my mind was… the Tchibener Rav!
In his shu’t Dovev Meisharim (1:55) he writes a tremendous chiddush (novel ruling), stating the just like one may not actively turn ice into water on Shabbos (by, say, crushing it; ice letting in a cup of soda on its own is fine), so too one may not turn water into ice on Shabbos. This is due to nolad, the rabbinical prohibition of creating ‘new’ items on Shabbos.
Based on this alone, it would seem that such Whipped Coffee would be forbidden to make on Shabbos, as one is changing the structure of an item.
However, most disagree with this opinion (see Piskei Teshuvos, Shabbos, chelek 2, p. 554 footnote 170 at great length for sources).
Nevertheless, when it comes to, say, making Jell-O on Shabbos, Rav Vosner (shu’t Shevet Halevi 7:41) argues that one should be strict. Once again, this would seemto apply to Whipped Coffee where, like Jell-O, the structure of the food item is modified.
Finally, there seems to be another concern with this Whipped Coffee on Shabbos: the Shulchan Aruch rules (321:17) that one may not create mixtures on Shabbos that are of great effort and create a new entity. While it may be unclear how and when to apply this halacha, Whipped Coffee on Shabbos would take much time to create, making it certainly an effort. Further, it would seem to be a ‘new entity’; as the Pri Megadim (ad loc. #24) explains, any item that is manipulated in texture would seem to similar to the melacha of lush (kneading).
So, what did I tell the two arguing brothers? “I am not the Tchibener! I need my nap. Avoid the coffee for now. Let’s talk Mincha”!
On July 26, 2013, The Wall Street Journal published a story about the ethical dilemmas facing Google and other companies working on “driverless cars.” It is only a matter of time before these cars, which are already being tested, are on the road. The cars have computers with built-in algorithms that are designed to respond to any scenario—a speeding car, oncoming traffic, yellow lights, bikers.
But how should they be programmed to respond when faced with a choice that has no clear moral authority? What if a driverless car needs to choose between swerving so as to avoid a crowd and plowing into a smaller group of people?
Several years ago I came across a book by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel, who has invested a great deal of time and effort exploring the subject of justice as it pertains to these intriguing, often disturbing, ethical dilemmas. His bestselling book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? is a fascinating study of our moral compass and how we might handle the many situations he paints on the canvas of “What if?” His thinking has inspired many, which is evident from the fact that a video of one of his lectures pulled in over five million viewers.
As I read parts of his book, I thought not so much about how I would deal with these situations but about what halachah would say.
One of his dilemmas mirrors the problem Google is now facing. Let us briefly review it, consider his students’ response, and discover an inherent contradiction that it presents. We will then review the halachic key to both the dilemma and the contradiction.
A writer for TheAtlantic Monthly discusses a lecture given by Sandel, who presented this scenario: “Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. You notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can’t because your brakes don’t work. You know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. You feel helpless until you notice that off to the side, there’s a side track. And there’s one worker on the side track.
“The question: Do you send the trolley onto the side track, thus killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do you let events unfold as they will and allow the deaths of all five?”
Then Sandel asked about a popular variation of the problem. “The same trolley is careening toward unsuspecting innocents, but this time you’re an onlooker on a footbridge, and you notice that standing next to you, leaning over the bridge, is a very heavy man.
“You could give him a shove. He would fall over onto the track, right in the way of the trolley car. He would die, but he would spare the five. How many would push the [heavy] man over the bridge?”
A few hands went up.
“And that’s exactly why,” Sandel concluded, “some scientists argue that this well-known ‘trolley dilemma’ shouldn’t be used for psychology experiments as much as it is.”
How could it be, many scientists wonder, that while most people would cause the trolley to veer, only 11 percent would push the man to save the many? Don’t they both involve the very same moral dilemma?
Many explanations have been offered, none of which satisfied me. However, halachic historymay hold the key to this inconsistency.
ShmuelII (20) tells us that Serach bas Asher, who was 684 years old, made a deal with Dovid Hamelech’s general that instead of killing many of the inhabitants of her town, they would kill the one man who was guilty of rebelling against the king—Sheva ben Bichri—and deliver his head. From here it is derived that one may hand over one (guilty) person to the authorities to be killed in order to save many (innocents). The Gemara2 debates whether this principle would apply in a case where handing over an innocent person would save the lives of many.3
The Rambam rules famously4 that one may hand over only a guilty person in order to save the many. Many disagree with Rambam, and indeed, Rama5 mentions both views.
The TzitzEliezer cites a discussion found in the writings of the Chazon Ish,6 who wonders about a case strikingly similar to the trolley scenario. If an arrow is heading toward a group of people and will certainly kill them, and one has the opportunity to divert it so that it will kill only one person, what should he do?
Much of the halachic discussion hinges upon how action is defined. As we know from hilchos Shabbos, not all actions are equal. There are gramas, koach sheni, psik reisha, and others—various forms of indirect or noncommittal action, not all of which are actually deemed actions by Torah law.
The Chazon Ish suggests that one who diverts the arrow can consider this not as the killing of one but as the saving of many. In other words, it is not comparable to handing a person over to be killed because the diversion of the trolley/arrow can be viewed as a unique manipulation of the laws of physics in order to save people. The ultimate result of this act of salvation may not be our concern.
Yet the Chazon Ish was hesitant; after all, the case of the trolley/arrow may be worse in that we are causing death by our action, as opposed to simply handing someone over to death. There is no precedent to allow actually killing someone!7
The TzitzEliezer is more certain. He proves that inaction, the principle of “Shev v’al taaseh (sit and do nothing),” is better, implying that in such a case, an “error” of omission is always safer than one of commission.
Returning to Dr. Sandel’s trolley paradox presented in The Atlantic Monthly, perhaps inherent in our moral compass is the sense that flicking a switch—similar to handing someone over—is much less of a concern than actually murdering someone with our own hands in order to save others. One is an act of murder, while the other is closer to an indirect result.
It would seem that the Chazon Ish would agree that pushing the man over the bridge to stop the trolley would be forbidden, and that it is certainly different from the original scenario, in which the choice would be to divert the path of the trolley.8
Based on halachic compartmentalization, then, it appears that there is really no inconsistency in this moral dilemma and that the students at Harvard were on to something when they differentiated between hitting a switch and pushing a man.
(According to some,9 non-Jews must look to halachah as their guide in determining how to observe the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach. Perhaps, then, Hashem implanted in their psyches a moral sense that enables them to inherently feel what may take us years of study.)
Sadly, in Dr. Sandel’s brilliant book on ethical dilemmas, I saw not one mention of the Talmud. It is my hope that Dr. Sandel, who is a Jew, will someday discover the beauty and realism that is halachah—and the heritage that no doubt imbued him with the exquisite sensitivity with which he has been marveling at the world.
As for driverless cars, perhaps, like many modern ovens, they will one day come with a “halachah mode”!
NOTES
Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:70.
Yerushalmi, Temurah, ch. 8; see also Tosefta there, 7:23.
The Gemara only discusses handing over the one to save the many but not killing him with one’s own hands. Perhaps, as the Chazon Ish posits, this is due to Sheva’s rebellion against the king, which was a unique case and for which crime the townspeople could even have killed him themselves.
Yesodei HaTorah 5:5.
Yoreh Deah, siman 157.
Choshen Mishpat, Sanhedrin 25.
Unless that someone is the very person trying to save the many himself. See Taanis 18b with Rashi regarding the story of Paypus and Lolnus.
See also Shu”t Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:358. See Ramban
Ramban to ParshasVayeishlach and Shu”tRama 10. When Yaakov’s sons go out to return Dina they kill every male in the city (ibid. verse 20). Ramban wonders how such righteous men like Shimon and Levi could kill what would appear as innocents. He first quotes Rambam (hilchosmelachaim 4:9) who states that non-Jews who transgress or fail to fulfill any of their seven mitzvos deserve the death penalty (sayeph). Ramban disagrees, challenging Rambam that if he is correct wouldn’t Yaakov –not only not later reprimand Shimon and Levi (ibid. 30) –but would have, indeed, been the first one there to kill members of the city?! Ramban then posits a different reading of the Rambam’s source for his view (Sanhadrin 57a) and says: “…They (non-Jews) are commanded in the laws of geneiva, v’ona’ah, v’oshek, v’shcar sechir, v’dinei hashomirim, v’oness, umephateh, v’avos nezikin, v’chovel b’chaveiro, v’dinei malveh v’loveh, v’dinei mekech u’memchar, and similar matters, ‘k’inyan’ the laws of the Jewish people.”
Now, many of the laws that Ramban brought as examples would seem to be unique to Jews, and are certainly not mentioned as any of the Seven Mitzvos. Therefore many understand that Ramban is asserting that the mitzvah demanded upon non-Jews of, say, not stealing, is not a generic term up to them to categorize, rather it must confer with our laws. Meaning, just as Jews have clear definitions of these categories based on the Chazal and the Shulchan Aruch non-Jews too must search these very sources for their definitions, categories, and fines. I would suggest, lulei d’sitapineh, that Ramban may not be saying that at all; rather he is simply stating that their mitzvah of not stealing should not be seen by them as Pollyannaish or pro-forma, instead they must, like us, take these seriously and apply them to the real world, real cases and possibilities. They too need laws of shomrim, workers’ rights, loans and securities, etc. So that he is not suggesting that they must use are categories, per se, and certainly not our very rules, rather they simply need to model themselves after a system of jurisprudence based in the real world.
Three bochurim visiting eretz yisroel – one from Lakewood, one from Yeshiva University and from Morristown (Chabad) – walk in to the Jerusalem Plaza Hotel on the second day of Sukkos.
“Gut Yom Tov!” the Lakewood bochur says.
“You mean, a gutta moad” the Chabad student responds.
“No, he meant both gut yom tov and a gut moad!” the Yeshiva University bocher suggests.
Sound like the setup for a punch line, right? Perhaps, but it is also a great illustration of the complications, confusion and differing opinions regarding yom tov sheni shel golyos.
As we shall see, each one of these bochurim would be right, as each may simply be following the view of their respective poskim.
How such disparity is possible, as well as other complications involving traveling and yom tov sheni will be discussed below and explained.
Say one goes to Israel to learn in yeshiva or to go to seminary for one year, how many days do they keep? What about a person visiting for yom tov? For one month? For a job program?
And, what about the other way around, a visitor to America or Britain from Israel?
Before I moved to Buffalo the last set of halachos I learned were hilchos yom tov. After having gone through tractate Beitza from a halachik perspective I thought I knew the halachos of yom tov fairly well.
But then reality hit.
My first Sukkos as a rabbi a guest from Israel approached me with a list of questions: when should he make havdala? Should he join duchanim (he was a kohein)? Should he daven in shul or at home with his teffilin on?
The, before Sukkos, a family from my shul was about to depart to Israel and needed to know the exact protocol to follow. May they ask an Israeli to do melachai for them on the second day? Should they even keep a second day? If so, should they make or join a minyan of bnei chutz l’aratz?
Last year I received a phone call from a prominent milemed in eretz yisroel, a talmud chacham of note.
A member of my shul was in his yeshivah for the year and was told by me to keep both days of Pesach. Most of the class, however, would be keeping one day, based on this teacher’s ruling.
The rebbe wanted to know if I could help him find meals for the second day…or better yet, if I would perhaps consider this student taking his (the rebbe’s) view of observing but one day. He went on to explain the efficacy of his position (discussed below).
I softly argued that both issues are codependent. If he does indeed have the status of a ben chutz l’aratz in the eyes of halacha then the ruling that he received from his rav from chutz l’aratz should not be trifled with; if, however, he is to be considered a ben eretz yisroel then, by all means, try to convince him to also take upon himself a new rav there as well.
Close to thirty years ago the rosh kollel of Dallas, Texas, HaRav Yerachmiel Dovid Fried shlit’a, composed an entire sefer dedicated to these issues. Every rav and talmud chacham is indebted to his tireless efforts in researching these difficult matters. His work, Yom Tov Sheni K’hilchasah became an instant classic, reprinted more than six times!
While we cannot here cover everything related to these issues, we can try to give the reader a cursory background to the essential material and debates.
Already in the sifrei ezra (Nechemia 8:12) we find reference to a two day RoshHashanah, and some of the geonim place the idea of a second day of yomtov all the way back to Yehoshua!
This is important so as to correct the common misconception for some that our present Second Day of yom tov is merely a necessary annoyance of exile; rather it is something that has been observed since our early days as a nation.
Although the necessity of a two-day Rosh Hashanah –when the declaration of beis din of the new month and yom tov happen in tangent – is the most obvious of them all
(FOOTNOTE 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), all yomim tovim would also find need for it. Already in the early days of our settlement in Israel it was difficult to get the word out to all Jews if the last month was 29 or 30 days. When a new month would begin that contained a yom tov people living far from the declaration would have no choice but to keep two days out of doubt. (There was a brief period that) We were able to circumvent this doubt through a torch warning system [Rosh Hashana 22], however this project was soon sullied by some who wanted to sabotage the system, and it had to be abandoned. See Enclopidia Talmudis, erech Yom Tov Sheni, column 2 where it would seem that they understand that the torch system was in affect for some time, even before beis sheni. However according to the views of some of the Geonim, and as the history as clarified in the appendix [#1] to the Artscroll, Rosh Hashana, it would appear to have taken place for a brief time. See also Yom Tov Sheni p. 8 note 7)
all yomim tovim would, and various times, necessitate two days.
In fact 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!
(FOOTNOTE Rav Sadia Gaon. See Chasam Sofer, Beitza 4b)
However, once Hillel established his calendar it would seem that its need vanished. After all, now we know when rosh chodesh is, could there be any doubt, any need to keep two days!?
The Gemara (Beitza 4b) explains that because this has been the minhag and because the calendar is so complex that havoc or decrees can cause us to forget even the system we have now, we must continue in what we had been doing –keeping two days of yom tov outside of eretz yisroel.
(FOOTENOTE: That these are two separate reasons is a matter of debate. This that yom tov sheni is based on ‘minhag’ does not mean necessarily that it is a minhag alone without the additional weight of a takana. See Ritvah, Rosh Hashanah, 18a. Cf. Tosfos, Sukkah, 44b. The Brisker Rav as well many others go into this at great length. See Yom Tov Sheni, miluim 3)
What may surprise many is that although from the simple understanding of history it may be that the term ‘yom tovsheni shel golyos’ may itself be a misnomer, as many living in the far reaches of even eretz yisroel itself, perhaps, would also have difficulty receiving the beis din’s calendarial information. Because of this there have been some gedolim living within the boundaries of eretz yisorel who have been strict regarding the second day, to some degree.
(FOOTENOTE See Minchas Chinuch 301; Chazon Ish oh’c siman 132; Sheilas Yaavetz siman 168; Yom Tov Sheni, miluim, siman 4. It was the minhag of the Brisker Rav to be strict on the second day of yom tov even in Yerushalaim! Much of this debate hinges upon the ambiguousness language found in Rambam, kidush hachodesh ch. 5. The halacha follows the view that the current yom tov sheni is unique to chutz l’aretz, see shu’t Avnei Nezer oh’c 392. See also Mikroei Kodesh, pesach vol. 2, siman 57. The status of new cities in eretz yisroel, and of places that might not be within its halachic boundaries, such as the city of Eilat, is beyond the scope of this chapter.)
So those I vhutz l’aratz not feel burdened, we find a stunning teaching from the Ramah M’Pano: since the Torah was given in chutz l’aratz Hashem allowed it to be gifted with the potential of a yom tov day all its own.
(FOOTNENOTE Although this was specific to Shavous, see the words of Rav Yitzchak Hutner found in Sefer Zichronos, pp. 164-165 and in Pachad Yitzchak, shavous 15)
The modern era has caused a veritable explosion of new questions relating to the halacha of yom tov sheni, specifically as they pertain to travelers.
This has led to confusion and debate not only among the layperson, but even talmidei chachamim as well. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach once remarked that precisely because many of these issues are more recent, there is a paucity of mesorah on how to pasken on many of them, leading to much debate.
(FOOTNOTE Yom Tov Sheni K’Hilchasa, hakdama, p. 12).
Why is this? What changed?
From the Ramban to Avraham Avinu, the pure sacrifice that one had to endure just to breathe-in the avirad’arah (the air of eretz yisroel) was staggering. This was not a journey taken, rather an odyssey endured. Indeed, over the centuries, many died on their way there. Others, who made it there safely, often had to live out the rest of their lives separated from their family, dying physically alone, yet close to the Riboneh Shel Olam.
Yet, today, someone in Brooklyn can become inspired from one shemonehesreh by shachris, decide to go to eretzyisroel and be by the kosel by netz the next morning…and be well rested too!
Our ease of travel has taken a rarity (i.e. a ben chutz l’arutz visiting Yerushalaim for succos) and turned into one of the most common shailos of the yomim tovim!
Let us go back to the three bochurim. What are they arguing about?
Amazingly, the Shulchan Aruch does not mention the case of a visitor to eretz yisroel from chutz l’aretz, making these questions even more perplexing! (Although, as mentioned below, Rav Yosef Karo does mention it in his teshuvos)
The Chofetz Chaim writes in his Mishnah Berrura (496:13) that the majority of poskim rule that one who is visiting eretz yisroel from chutz l’aratz “should keep both days of yom tov. Nevertheless he should daven yom tov prayers privately. However, if he does not plan on returning…or even if he travels for business (not knowing for certain when or if he shall return) but brings his wife and family with him, then… he would have the status of one who does plan on returning”
Based on the simple meaning of his words, bachurim and seminary girls who only go to Israel for a year or so, with most of their belongings and support back home, should keep both days.
However, as anyone who has visited eretz yisroel on yom tov is keenly aware, the ruling of the Mishnah Berura regarding davening alone does not seem to be followed; rather minyanim forvisiting bnei chutz l’aretz abound!
Some explain that today, when travel is so easy, the bnei eretz yisroel do not see such minyanim as a breach to their own yom tov practice. Others suggest that such minyanim usually take place in private homes or halls, but not public shuls. Rav Elyashiv, however, is quoted as allowing even bnei eretz yisroel to help complete such a minyan if there is at least six visitors.
As for such a ben chiutz l’aratz asking a ben eretz yisroel to perform melacha for the on the second day, while this is a longstanding debate where Rav Moshe Feinstein warns one to try to be stringent and Rav Elyashiv allows it only for a mitzvah, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach gives an ingenious reasoning to accept what has become this prevalent practice.
The Shulchan Aruch rules that one who accepts Shabbos early may ask another Jew who did not to do melacha on their behalf. The Magen Avraham explains the calculus of this ruling to be because the Jew who accepted Shabbos early did it by choice; should he have desired oherwise, then, for him too it would not be Shabbos yet.
Explains Rav Shlomo Zalman that this same logic should apply to our case. Should a ben chutz l’aretz simply decide to stay in Israel then that day would become chol (a weekday). Since the decision is up to the visitor, he/she may ask another Jew to perform melacha on their behalf!
(FOOTNOTE: It is interesting to wonder what would happen should a visitor suddenly decide, on the second day, to live in Israel. While Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasah quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman to be in doubt on the matter, in his teshuvos [1:19;3], and those of others [Minchas Yitzchak 7:34] there seems to be a ruling that one can then immideatly treat the day as chol! Yom Tov Sheni quotes Rav Elyashiv as agreeing with this ruling only if this hachlata was made before halachik midday.)
Nevertheless, a ben chutz l’aretz should not do anything that would lead to a zilzul yom tov (such as getting into an Israeli driven cab or bus).
While the Chofetz Chaim’s ruling that a visitor must keep both days is clear, in his Shaarei Tzion (#18) he refers to another view that is found in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. The latter rules that even a visitor to Israel only keeps one day. While there is some debate (even in some Chabad circles) if the baal HaTanya meant this as a final ruling, if he did, he would not have been alone. The Chacham Tzvi (shu’t 167) and others agree. The Zohar too would seem to imply this as well (Reya Mihemane, Emor).
The reason for these two divergent ways of viewing a visitor to Israel is due to the two ways we can view the second day of yom tov and the original minhag/takana: is it an obligation on the individual –if so then one who is defined as still living in chutz l’aretz must abide by the stringencies of the place from which he stems –or, if the creation of this halacha based upon makom/space –if so then regardless from where one comes from they must abide by the set laws of that makom.
In addition, the Chacham Tzvi points out that when the bnei yisroel would visit Yerushalaim on yom tov in the days of the beis hamkidosh they certainly followed local custom, and we should not be more stringent than they were then!
(FOOTNENOTE: Perhaps we can suggest, however, that today with the advent of easy travel the Chacham Tzvi, inter alia, may have considered treating modern visitors differently than in the turn of the century)
Because of this, while in our opening case the Lakewood bochur would follow the majority opinion of keeping a second day in Israel (which goes all the way back to Rav Yosef Karo in his teshuvos), the Chabad bochur in our story would consider it chol.
What about the boy from Yeshiva University? Rav Shmuel rules that visitors follow the Chacham Tzvi and the Baal HaTanya’s one-day approach, while at the same time keeping the stringencies of the other views. How does one accomplish this? They simply treat the second day in Israel as a weekday in terms of teffilin and liturgy, while at the same time abstaining from all melacha.
Three bochurim, three opinions, and all toras emes!
Last week I shared several stories about food and kashrus; specifically relating to Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt stores.
We ended with my assisting of a former assistant of mine –now a rav on his own of a community within the New York City area. His name is Rabbi Daniel Rosenfelt, and his shul is the Fleetwood Shul in Mount Vernon, NY, a beautiful tree-lined community just outside New Rochelle.
We explained how his area of the city has few kosher options –outside of the supermarket –so when the Indian owner of the local frozen yogurt shop approached him to see what it would take to make his store kosher he was ecstatic.
“How complicated would this be for me as the shtut rav to offer my certification to this store?” he asked.
Last week we explained how we discovered and got around an issue of tummasmeis (of all things!) so to allow entrance inside this frozen yogurt store.
I concluded the column by stating: “As I entered the yogurt shop I saw something; something else that would throw a monkey-wrench into this rav’s ability to certify this store”.
Just what did I see?
Well, let me first start at the beginning.
When a rav hamchshir –in this case the local rav –first walks into a store he should view it as a riddle to be solved.
I remarked to Rabbi Rosenfelt, “Always imagine that there is a major issue, and you have to find it”.
The first question I asked the kind proprietor was, “Where do you store the food and your bulk ingredients”. Knowing the storing location is vital, for an owner shows the customer only that which he wishes them to see.
A storage area leaves little to the imagination.
Before going to a storeroom area, always bring a menu from said store. Everything on the menu should have a match, if it can’t be found this means it is stored somewhere else; or worse bought in small packages and put away from the rabbi’s view.
Once that is complete, one must discover when and from whome deliveries are. This is important information for a number of reasons. First, and just one example, knowing who a supplier is can tell the rav hamachshir if an ingredient under a generic label must always be checked. Certain restaurant supply chains change their manufactures frequently, so, say, a parve whip cream one month could be dairy (not cholov yisroel) the next, or not kosher at all –and all with very similar packaging.
The above is strongly suggested when it comes to factories a great tool; a mashgiach should collect all the ingredient panels from their packaging labels before checking the ingredients. This way he can then make sure that he has accounted for every single item listed on their own packaging as being in their product.
When I once made a bakery in a supermarket kosher and pas yisroel, I didn’t bother to check if they changed their computerized ingredient panel to reflect the new suppliers.
The first week they went kosher I had knocks on my door throughout Shabbos. It turned out that their bilkilach had on their ingredient panel ‘milk’ – as that was indeed in their old product! Of course, now they were parve –as was their oven –but I was impressed with carefulness of these consumers!
Once a rav hamachshir feels that all all ingredients have been accounted for, he can move on to various other issues.
It was at this latter stage when I saw the concern with which we opened this column.
Coming up from the basement to the main area I saw a large flattop cooking area.
It was here –we were informed – that they made crepes –a huge seller.
“Oh boy” I thought to myself, “this is not good”.
To understand my worry, a short halachik background is crucial.
The Shulchan Aruch rules (beginning of siman 112 in yoreh deah) that while some only eat pas yisroel, others are not as careful, especially in a place where no pas yisroel is available. The Rema adds that this lenient view is even activated in a place with freely available pasyisroel product – or even if one already has a pasyisroel product but would prefer the pas palter (see BadeiHashulchan ibid biurim for a discussion refarding the last statement).
The above lenient minhag –we should point out –is only true by bakers or stores, whereas a privately baked bread or bread-item by a non-Jew reminds forbidden for all (how to define these two catergories is beyond the scope of this week’s column).
Based on the above, many vaadim certify non pas yisroel products for the who eat them. (The issue of certifying something that the rav hamachshir himself would not eat for others–and if this is lfnei iver –will be bl’n returned to in a future column –see this writer’s article in Yarchon Ha’emek, Toronto, 5768).
Both the ShulchanAruch and the Rema recognize an important distinction that now must be made.
Whereas some may allow the eating –and the giving hashgacha –of pas palter, no one would sanction eating or giving a hechasher to bishul akum.
It is therefore essential to establish which foods are considered baked –and therefore pas, and consequently have the potential to receive a hashgacha -, and which are considered halachikly as cooked –and therefore forbidden to be given a hashagacha (unless a frum person turned on the cooking devices).
In the examples given of which foods are considered baked and which food are cooked, the Rema even mentions ‘kichilach’!
The reader can pause reading for a moment, put down the magazine and try to create in their own minds how they would define these two terms.
Now, with this introduction to the issue, we can return to crepes.
Waffles, for example, are according to many poskim a baked item.
Therefore, a store that wishes to be certified can make and serve waffles even if cooked –or should I say baked –by a goy. While it will be labeled as pas palter, it still will be kosher (some poskim may disagree, and the reader is remnded that just because a store has a reliable hashgacha does not mean that his own rav will necessarily agree with all decisions).
But what about crepes? Would one consider those baked or cooked?
This is not a small question. This owner spent thousands on this flat top, and a not insignificant part of his business comes from the sale of crepes.
There was also another issue to figure out. Let us assume for a moment that a crepe is not considered a pas item but rather a cooked item. There are still options to allow the proprietor to serve it. A frum jew could come in every morning to turn it on –which is, of course, not so simple.
Next week I will continue this story with how these issues were resolved.
For now, let me end with the following.
I told this rav that the issue of the crepes is a serious one, and he should speak to a major posek. He should do so both for hadracha, and so he has a name he can quote should anyone question him.
I suggested a posek.
That week he called to inform me that while he spoke to the suggested posek –and had a wonderful first conversation –the posek said he wanted to think about the crepe issue a little more and that he would get back to him in a day or so.
“It has been three days, and now he is not returning my calls” he explained to me.
This seemed odd.
This posek understood that time was of the essence in this case.
We are always told to judge everyone l’zechus, sometimes we forget that our leaders are included in the above rule.
Ten minutes after that phone call, my wife texted me.
You see the posek recommended was none other than Rav Gissinger from Lakewood, who had advised many kashrus agencies –especially the Kof-K.
The text said he was just niftar.
Instead of wondering why he didn’t call back, we were both now amazed that in his last days of his illness he took a call from a small –town rav. More, he hoped to have the time to think more about the issue.
Next week I will share what Rav Gissinger was able to share on that first phone call and how this issue here –and in other similar establishments –was resolved.
To Be Continued iy’H…
Part 2
This week, like last week, I will begin with a perhaps apocryphal story.
Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (d. 1940) was known as a unique iloy among gedolim. While we have all heard stories of genius about our leaders,Rav Chaim Ozer was in a league of his own. I recall as a child hearing that he was able to write two teshuvos in halacha, at the same time and with two different hands, while on the phone and also answering a shailah being asked in person. Of course this is an exaggeration (as he also did not have a phone on his office!) but they do not say such stories about anyone but him.
During one of the first Agudah conventions Rav Chaim Ozer was staying in a hotel under a pseudonym. He was understandably exhausted after a long journey and needed the time and space to consider the many decisions that were facing the klal.
However, a determined young yeshiva bachur did not wish to allow an opportunity to meet this gadol b’torah slip by him, and was able to discover where he was staying.
The young man knocked on his door. Rav Chaim Ozer knew that he could not simply send this young man away, and asked him to be brief.
“I just wish to discuss a sugya” said the young man.
“On what topic?” asked the gadol hador.
“Hilchos berachos” the bachur replied.
Rav Chaim Ozer responded, “I just came from a very long journey. Please, choose another sugya other than hilchos berachos”.
I always share this story with the balla battim in my shul, as it best illustrates how complex these particuler laws are, even to a great iloy like Rav Chaim Ozer.
All the more complicated when writing a brief article that touches on many of these issues –the reader is now warned!
Several years ago I had to take a trip for the vaad to Bangor, Main. There was a company that we certify who had purchased several blueberry farms as well as a manufacturing facility. They wanted to pick, wash, and freeze the blueberries and then sell them to companies with our certification. Although this was pretty much an innocuous enterprise in terms of kashrus, we needed to make an initial inspection at this facility to make sure that what they had described was in fact what they were doing. In addition, there is a minor bug issue with blueberries and I wanted to make sure that before our imprimatur went on any packaging that I was confident that their ‘quality control’ had a system to seek, find and eliminate any infestation. Lastly, we had to verify that the equipment they were using, if bought already used, was cleared from any cross-contamination.
While the above reasons were enough to justify this trip, I did have another, personal, reason for wanting to go. For a number of generations there has been some debate as to what the proper beracha is for blueberries, as the issue of what is considered a pri etz and what is a pri adamai brings one into a thicket of opinions.
There are many indicators that could help determine the appropriate beracha of a fruit or vegetable (for a complete list of criteria, as well as the many differing views regarding them, see V’sen Beracha by Rabbi Bodner pages 422-423). The most critical information needed for this determination in the eyes of halacha is to know if its tree or bushel –roots and trunk (or shoot) – remain alive from year to year. The strawberry plant and the banana tree whose roots remain alive during the winter whereas its visible portion dies off during the winter would then require a haodama (cf. the opinion of Rosh and Rabeinu Tam who believe that the fact that the underground roots stay alive would suffice and would therefore actually require that a haeitz be made. Due to their opinion if one accidently made a haeitz on a banana he fulfills his obligation).
Now, the custom (see Igros Moshe, orach chaim 1:85; Mishna Berrura siman 203:3) is to make a hadamo on all berries, regardless if its roots and stems last from year to year, so long as they grow under three tefachim in height (between 9-11 inches) so the next step was to determine the height of the bushels on which blueberries grow.
To my surprise, in every one of the blueberry fields I inspected the bushels were very low-lying; meaning their beracha would be a hadoma. Interestingly most modern sefarim (see the wonderful The Laws Of Berachos, Rabbi Forst, page 282) assume that the blueberries we eat today grow on tall tree-like bushes. While it may be true that most commercially sold blueberries is of the “high-bush” variety (haeitz), as just demonstrated this is not always the case and one should check with their rav as to the final halacha.
Over the last few weeks I shared a story of one frozen yogurt shop that I rav friend of mine wished to certify. We shared all the complexities involved –from, of all things, tumas meis, to strange and questionable toppings.
Last week we ended with a shaila that he posed to Rav Gissinger the week of his pertira about crêpes –and if these items are considered pas akum (allowing the rav to certify them without turning on the stovetop) or bishul akum (which would demand that they turn on the ovens each and every day!).
Let us continue from there.
I often share in shiurim that there is no such thing as a pure chumra or a kula, rather, and only, consistency.
Crêpes is a great example of this.
In one of the most confounding simanin in Shulchan Aruch (orach chaim, 168) we are explained what makes an item hamotzi, mezonos and all points in-between. The popular questions of croutons, pizza, and washing for a shul kiddush are all to be found here.
So imagine you go to your rav and explain that you wish to eat several delicious crêpes for breakfast. The halacha is that for most mezonos items, should one be koveah seudah (have it as their meal) they would need to wash and bentch (ibid sif 6). When it comes to crêpes one would like to be told by their rav that they need not worry because crêpes are to be considered a cooked item.
Most ‘cooked’ items that are mezonos do not require hamotzi and benthcing even when eaten as a meal (e.g. pasta). Even though it may be cooked through heat, depending on the thinness of the batter, or how it was or was not kneaded could impact this halacha greatly.
Ah, but here is the catch. Should a ravpasken that bentching is never required for crêpes may cause the petitioner to think that they received a kula; but it is in reality also a chumra –because now a restaurant that wishes to serve crêpes needs to worry about bishul akum –as it is no longer considered a pas palter product! (See Magen Avraham ad loc, 40 and 41; and from a conversation with Rav Binyamin Cohen of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin and the author of the famed Chelkas Binyamin on these halachos who shared with this writer that indeed the poskim tie these two halachos –berachos and bishul/pas akum – together).
Indeed, many hold that thing blintzes, and likely crêpes are indeed mezonosalways, even if one is koveah seuda on them (see Magen Avraham ibid, Be’er Heitiv 34, and Mishneh Berrura 38, et al).
The above would then mean that this frozen yogurt shop would need to have their oven turned on daily by a shomer Shabbos!
In fact, when Triscuits became certified by the OU the question was posed if such items would require washing and bentching if enough were eaten. Furthermore, would the OU need to turn on the oven each day? Now we understand how both of these questions are related to each other!
Rav Belsky and, lhb’ch’lch Rav Shachter disagreed on the matter, however, and for differing reasons, agreed that whether due to it not being kneaded or to it being considered a mere ‘biscuit’ one would never bentch on it (the OU website also directs the reader to see Shu’tShoelU’meishiv, telisa 230 to understand why they do not demand a mashgiach turn on their ovens).
There is a lot more we can talk about – like if a vaad hakashrus should allow ‘glow lights’ in cases such as these when it may be a question of bishul akum.
But for now, I hope, the reader has a headache, and better understands the complexities of the world of kashrus and halacha.
It is a story of a beracha from the Frideker Rebbe of Chabad;
The words of Torah from Rav Moshe Feinstein;
And, a promise made a century ago to Rav Aaron Kotler.
It is now 5780-1, and these Berachos and promises are now being fulfilled;
And they can grow still ever more…
Personal Preamble
Elul always reminds me of Rav Shlomo Singer.
It is no secret that one of the best and sharpest yeshivashiurim given today is Rav Meir Stern’s brilliant shiur in Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic.
Aside from the bnei hayeshiva and the yungeleit that attended his daily shiur was one Rav Singer, a retired individual living in Passaic.
For two years –some 20 years ago –I sat mere feet from him, but we never spoke until this summer.
Like the nephews of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Gudgada (see Chagiga 3) who would make sure to sit in front of Rebbe Yehudah Hanassi, Rav Shlomo Singer would sit almost directly in front of the rosh yeshiva with a tape recorder and intently focus on the words being taught.
I was told he was a local retired chazzan, who went by ‘Cantor’ Singer.
I assumed he was a baal teshuva, or someone without a classic yeshiva background who upon retirement asked Rav Stern to attend his shiurim.
Looking back, that (self) explanation made little sense. Young men begged and clawed to get in to this shiur, and even then they had trouble fully understanding it until after a number of reviews.
But Rav Singer did understand the shiur.
How do I know that?
You see, as the zman went on I witnessed this ‘Cantor Singer
do something so different, so revolutionary, that I can honestly say that it has inspired how I act today as a person and as a rav.
When I first saw him do this it blew-my-mind.
Rav Singer was involved in kiruv rechokim, and he has had the privilege of bringing back many to the fold.
But here is what was inimitable: while other kiruv workers give lectures on light topics, or subjects that they think will draw people inside a shul, regardless whether it’s misleading/misinformed or not (‘Kabbala in the 21st Century’, is always popular), he would invite these unaffiliated men inside one of the most prestigious yeshivos in the world and give a class on…Rav Meir Stern’s shiur!
That’s right! He would stand before men who never saw the inside of a chumash – let alone a gemara – and first slowly and carefully explain the gemara under discussion, go-over the points of Rashi or Tosfos or any other rishon that will be needed to understand what was to come.
Then, slowly and painstakingly he would pierce it, drawing their attention to the apparent inconsistencies or chakiros, and finally penetrate the sugya and tie it all together in a bow with the rosh yeshiva’s analysis and explanation of the pertinent achronim.
Rav Chaims; Reb Elchanans; The Ketzos vs. the Nesivos; Rav Barush Ber, etc., nothing real-and-true was off the table.
And, he was successful – he made people frum this way!!!
It was a lesson that while the not-yet-frum may not know a lot of Torah, we err when we treat them as a remedial group.
Years ago, I received a letter from a chashuveh rosh kollel. “I was passing through Buffalo and stopped into your shul for Mincha and Maariv. When you spoke in-between, you talked about deep halachik topics that, while interesting, were likely above the heads of your audience, and not what they needed to hear” he wrote.
Respectfully, and while I understood where he was coming from, he could not have been more wrong. He never saw Rav Singer in action.
Aside for the fact that every member there that night was already frum, even if this rosh kollel assumed they did not have a yeshiva education, they too can understand a ‘Rav Chaim’, they too can see the intellectual marvel of chochmas haTorah. Why should we deprive them of the very thing that gives us the most simchas hachaim – Simchas Torah?!
Why not explain the reason behind the psak? Why not challenge them?
This brings me to Elul. Throughout the year we convince ourselves that we are not at ‘that’ level. We see others, or read about others whose ways are inspiring and the kinas soferim, a healthy jealousy and pining, begins to stir within us.
Elul is when we all attend -metaphorically speaking – Rav Singer’s class. When we all walk into Passaic Yeshiva, don one of those silk-like yarmulkas found in a basket and sit and bask at who we can, one day, become.
‘Taylor’ed Beginnings
R’ Shlomo Singer comes from Torah royalty.
His father, Rav Dovid Yehudah Singer, was a rav in Taylor, Pennsylvania where he sought for many years to spread yiddeshkiet in the early part of the 20th century.
He would soon move his family to Scranton and open a sefarim printing company.
He was a known talmudchacham raising frum children in America (not so common in those days, sadly), and so one day he received a plea from Rav Meir Greenberg.
Rav Meir Greenberg was an emissary of the friedekerrebbe of Chabad. Rav Meir was a massive talmudchacham, and had spent years learning under Rav Shlomo Heiman, and received semicha from Rav Moshe Feinstein.
Rav Meir would later become the rosh yeshiva of the central Chabad yeshiva of Paterson, now in Morristown.
I had the zechus to have met Rav Meir Greenberg on many occasions before his passing. He was a chavrusah with both Rav Shustel and Rav Shisgal zecher tzadikim l’breacha (their nickname in yeshiva was ‘the three musketeers’).
Rav Meir’s son, Rav Heshel Greenberg, a gaon in his own right, has been a rav in Buffalo for many decades, and his father Rav Meir lived with him until his passing. I had the zechus to talk to Rav Meir in learning, and even see his notes on the Chidushei Rav Akiva Eiger, and ask his about the time he received a psak from Rav Menachem Zembah hy’d (alas, I will have to share more about him in another article, iy’H)
In any event, Rav Meir called Rav Singer to plead with him to bring his family and children to New York. Spreading Torah is vital, but now he must make sure his children themselves would become bnei Torah. Before we re-build Torah, we first need bnei Torah!
And so, Rav Singer senior sprung into action, and with no money brought his family to the Lower East Side.
Young Shlomo Zalman was sent to Crown Heights to learn –after all it was the rebbe who had reached out to save them and have them raised as bnei Torah.
Rav Singer recently related to me, “I can still remember bringing the rebbe milk in his study. When I walked in their it was like walking into ganeden! Not just because of the kedusha in the air, but in the rebbe’s smile”
Little Shlomo Zalman’s brother had one of the first Bar Mitzvah’s to ever take place in 770.
“I can still remember being brought with my brother to the rebbe for a beracha. ‘Be a yoreishomyaim and grow in gadlus b’Torah!’ the rebbe said”
It was only a matter of time that young Shlomo Zalman would take advantage of his living location. After spending some time in RJJ, he went to Mesivta Tifferes Yerushalaim, led by Rav Moshe Feinstein, mere blocks from his house.
And so, together with a young Jackie Mason (“Jackie’s father was one of gedolim of the last generation” Rav Singer shared with me) enrolled to learn under Rav Moshe.
“Rav Moshe would always ask Yaakov Moshe (Jackie) to emceeMC events. Rav Moshe loved to see the talmidim happy and laughing”, he shared.
During his time by Rav Moshe Fenstein, he learnt the power of middos tovos and hasmada. When Rav Singer contracted pneumonia, Rav Moshe traveled aline to his house to visit in person! And as for Rav Moshe’s legendary hasmada, Rav Singer –being close friends with Rav Reuvein, would from time-to-time sleep over in the Feinstein’s apartment. To get to the bathroom in the middle of the night, one had to pass by Rav Moshe’s room where he learnt. Once, in the middle of the night he looked in and saw Rav Moshe learning, in a chair without a back, and with his feet in a bucket of ice so he would be able to stay up!
While continually growing in his own learning, and becoming close to (and even sleeping from time-to-time at the home of) Rav Moshe Feinstein, he also kept hearing about this ‘Ari Shel Torah –Lion of Torah’, by the name of Rav Aaron Kotler.
Rav Aaron was a legend of Torah even while still in Europe, and his arrival to America was a watershed moment in Jewish history.
“I wanted to meet him, to see him”.
And one day he got his chance.
Rav Moshe and the entire yeshiva were heading to Boro Park to celebrate in the siyum of another yeshiva.
As Rav Shlomo Zalman was leaving, his friend tugged at his sleeve. “Shlomo! You wanted to meet the Ari Shel Torah? Well, he is right over there waiting for a taxi!”
They ran toward Rav Aaron, grabbed his suitcase, hailed a cab for him, and escorted him into the taxi.
The destination of Rav Aaron mattered little to these two yeshivabachurim; Wherever Rav Aaron was heading, they would follow.
“As soon as I closed the door, and the taxi drove off, I thought to myself, ‘What have I done?! What have I gotten myself into?! He will talk to me in learning! He will see I am nobody in Torah! But he never did, You know why? Because he didn’t want to embarrass or hurt me. Instead, Rav Aaron only asked me personal and sweet questions about my life. And, when he arrived at his destination, he gave a tip to the can driver like you would not believe!”
“So when did you go learn by him?” I asked.
“The next day”!
The Lion Roars
Rav Singer was trying to explain to me who Rav Aaron was.
“Rav Aaron would clean your house, he would polish your shoes, if it meant you would come learn in yeshiva. He was fighting for the very survival of Torah!”
I’ve spoken to Rav Singer many times in preparation for this article, and each time he shares a different event to capture Rav Aaron’s milchama for Torah in America.
“Once, I was in his home when a cousin was mentioned. ‘Where does he go to yeshiva?’ asked Rav Aaron. ‘He doesn’t. He is going to law school in the fall’, I answered. Rav Aaron then asked me to dial his number, and as soon as he came on the phone Rav Aaron quickly grabbed the phone from me. ‘You are coming to yeshiva!’ Rav Aaron ordered into the phone!”!
Each time, another story to illustrate Rav Ahron’s passion for American Torah growth.
In fact, just last month, the OU’s Jewish Action published an interview with Rabbi Berel Wein. He quoted Rav Soloveitchick who told Rabbi Wein that the students he had in the later years were much more proficient in learning than the early days of YU. Rav Soloveitchick said this was all due to Rav Aaron Kotler’s long fight for classic limud Torah in America! (Jewish Action, Fall 5781, p. 58)
Rabbi Singer continued:
“I saw with my own eyes the assimilation at that time. When I first came to Passaic there were ten frum families I saw growing up men with longa burds (long beards) whose kids intermarried, Rachamanal’tzlan!
“Rav Aaron had to ‘kidnap’ people to come to his yeshiva. But he was fighting for our survival. He killed himself! And for what? Look around! Find me a major city without a kollel today!”
Mishnas Rav Singer
While learning in BMG –which at the times had about one-hunded students, everyone would struggle to understand the breadth and depth of Rav Aaron’s shiurim.
Together with Rav Shneur Kotler, Rav Shlomo Singer got a hold of a reel-to-reel recorder, created a surreptitious hole in the ceiling and lowered a microphone.
For some time he recorded the rosh yeshiva’s shiurim, allowing bachurim and yungeleit the amazing opportunity to hear it again and again, until they ‘got it’.
There was one problem. How will they break this news to the roshyeshiva? Perhaps he didn’t want these shiurim recorded.
So, a plan was set. When Purim came around, one of the bachurim went up to a shtender during the yeshiva’s seudah. With Rav Aaron in attendance, this bochur was to give over a drasha or shiur imitating the style and speech patterns of Rav Aaron, all in good humor. What Rav Aaron –and most others- didn’t know, however, is that instead of speaking, they would simply play a recording of one of the secretly taped shiurim with this bachur simply mimicking the gestures of Rav Aaron.
The bachor stood by the shtender and began to ‘speak’. Rav Aaron sat and listened and… was enjoying the Torah! This was not Purim Torah, this was deep stuff! Keep in mind, such recordings were not common in those days, and coming from Kletzk, this technology was not on Rav Aaron’s mind.
Rav Aaron was nodding in agreement and enjoying the Torah, when suddenly it dawned on him that he was listening to himself deliver a shiur!
Rav Aaron put everything together, and did not get upset that his most precious Torah was being recordered. Rather, he made them promise to keep these tapes safe. Today, it is these reel-to-reel tapes that are still utilized by BMG in their production of Rav Aaron’s writings in Mishnas Rav Aaron!
A Promise To Rav Aaron
When Rav Singer was preparing to leave Lakewood, Rav Aaron asked him, “Will you open a yeshiva?”
“No” said Rav Singer.
“Maybe you will enter the rabbinate”
“That too is not for me”, he honestly responded
“Well, what will you do?”
“I will be a chazzan”
“A Chazzan! You can sing! And you never sang for me and the yeshiva!?”
Then Rav Aaron commanded the following: “Wherever you go, whatever shul you work for, you must work to turn that shul into a yeshiva! No balla buss is below learning deeply, with chaburos, in depth b’iyun rabba. It is not enough to make them shomer Shabbos. They must know how to delve into the amkusshel Torah (the truest de;th and brilliance of Torah)!”
“I promised my rebbe” said Rav Singer, now crying. “I promised me rebbe! And forty years ago is when the yeshiva I have today began.”
Rav Singer continued sharing, “I want you to know, this was not my rebbe’s message unique just to me. Rather he told this to everyone who went into rabbanus: ‘A Shul must be a yeshiva! A rav must be a a rosh yeshiva!’”
Rav Singer accomplished a lot in Adas Israel as cantor. This includes serving as the menahel and opening of a Hebrew Day School, under the guidance of Rav Moshe. There he taught many.
“I didn’t care to teach them ‘Bar Mitzvah’ laining and a speech –and I am a chazzan and could have taught them this! Rather I focused on amkus shel torah!Now, so many of these studnetsstudents are in eretz yisoel. Many of these boys came from deeply conservative homes.”
It was over forty years ago is when Rav Singer invited a balla buss Bruce Goldberg to his house on Shabbos for some kugel, cholent and in-depth Gemara.
Soon, the entire dining table was filled with men learning the depth of the yamhatalmud. Then it stretched into the kitchen.
Soon, there were so many attendees; they had to move to his garage.
Eventually, Rav Meir Stern urged Rav Singer to use the yeshiva.
This was close to 25 years ago, when I first saw Rav Singer.
Soon, he realized that he needed his own building.
He told his late wife, “We need a place where people from all backgrounds could attend shiurim and give real chaburos, say chiddushim in Torah, experience the beauty of real learning, each on their own level. In-depth learning for balla battim”.
She got nervous. “How will we pay for the mortgage?”
“But we both understood they that Hashem had a lot of money”
Rebbetzin Ita Singer, was niftar just a few years ago. She was the emotional and financial support for tis yeshiva throughout its early and challenging phases. She also urged a focus on women who need classes and shiurim in depth.
“The address of our new, and first home, was street number 441 Passaic Avenue”, exclaimed Rav Singer.
I started to quickly think what the significance of this number was.
Rav Singer explained, “441 is gematriaemes! How amazing is that!”
He Just Needs a Gemara
Rav Singer has the secret to kiruv: He truly loves every Jew. It drips off of him.
One of his children shared an amazing story. Growing up, their Shabbos table was always graced by Jews of all paths. “A yid is always special” Rav Singer would say.
Once, the Sukkos after 9/11, a young man, maybe twenty years old, arrived for the seudah in their sukkah.
The world was still on edge, and this young man was a committed Leftist. He blamed democracy, Israel, America, etc. for these horrific events, focusing on their ‘treatment’ of Arabs as the cause for their own chosen actions.
“I had enough” one daughter told me. “There has to be limits to can come to our home. It was so soon after 9/11, I simply could not bare taking any more of this man’s childlike view of the world”.
“My father told me, ‘You are wrong. His values may be corrupt but they come from good middos. It is his pinteleh yid for rachmanus that is behind his Leftism.
“You see”, explained Rav Singer, “All he needs is a gemara, to be trained in learning, and he will be an amazing Jew!”
That young man is now married and living in Bnei Brak!!
This love for all Jews, and for their potential, is seen in the shul/yeshiva still today.
VII. Ner Boaruuch/PTI (Passaic Torah Institute)
Today, Rav Singer has a new beautiful building on the way (still at ‘441’), with over 200 balla battim from all backgrounds attending shiurim and learning b’chavrusah per week.
Sure, there is davening, and shaloshseudos on Shabbos, but this shul is the fulfillment of a dream – it is also a yeshiva!
In-depth shiurim Shiurim in-depth are given for different all levels of backgrounds. The attendees prepare chaburos, give over their own chiddushim.
The only difference between their learning style and a yeshiva is that of age.
Rav Baruch Bodenheim –one of Rav Singer’s son-in-laws –is the accsosiate rosh yeshiva at PTI, along with a group of talented maggideishiurim.
“I want you to know” says Rav Singer, “This is not created just for those new to Torah. What will be of the kollelyungerman who leaves the walls of the beismidrash to go to work? What? He will learn the daf? That’s great, but what of the amkus of Torah, its true depth and simcha?!”
He continued, “When I would speak to Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky about my idea, he too would scream ‘Lomdus! Its all about lomdus!’”
As his rebbetzin urged, Rav Singer also has a slew of classes and shiurim for of all backgrounds, housed in a separate place. This women’s learning program is called Ateres Beracha/Nvei TTI.
I could spend the rest of the article speaking about Ner Baruch/PTI, but this is not what Rav Singer wants.
“I am 86 years old. I have to spread the message that every shul can be a yeshiva! We have to share with the world the sweetness of amkus haTorah! This is what I promised my rebbe, Rav Aaron.”
On this last point, a video spread around after this past year’s Tisha B’Av.
It was the renowned rav Rav Zev Leff speaking to his shul by kinnos.
“A rav in Pasaaic, Rav Shlomo Singer, he has a shul where the balla battim learn, but not just stam learning daf yomi, or learning something peripheral, but learning mammashb’omek. Ad kdei kach, that these balla battim write chaburos! And, they are mechedesh chiddushim!
“And he feels that this is something that is crucial. Torah b’amkus is not just for bneihayeshiva, but every shul should be like a yeshiva.
“I heard this not just from him, but from Rav Mordechai Schapiro zt’l, that Rav Aaron said every shul should be a yeshiva.
“A shul should be a yeshiva!”
I should here make the obvious point, that all of the above is not, chalilla, to disparage dafhayomi (which I myself do), rather to challenge ourselves if in addition to that general crucial knowledge, if we need to go deeper.
The Dream
Rav Singer shared with me, “Many years ago, when Torah Umesroah was successful in placing Day Schools all across the country, they held a special event in Lakewood.
“Principals from North Carolina, Tennessee, and all over the country came. While the goal was to give a mazaltov and mach ah shehechiyanu, the principles arriving looked despondent.
“I mean, put yourself in their shoes! They were dealing largely with families not interested in Torah-true Judaism. It was an uphill battle. They would teach the essentials and then see these children go off to public schools or college and forget their yiddeshkiet. It was a painful job to have back then.
[What follows is Rav Singer’s recounting of the speech]
“But Rav Moshe Moshe spoke last, and he stole the show. I still have this recording.
“Rav Moshe asked, why do we bless our children to be like Efraim and Menashe?
“Perhaps you will say that its because they were raised in Torah in the depth of tumas mitzriam…and that is true, but its also a lie! Our children cant reach that level. We can try they becomes a Rebbe Akiva, an Abayay, but Efraim and Menashe?
“Rabbossei, we bless our children this way, even though its impossible, even though it is but a guzmah (an exaggerated desire). Because to succeed in chinuch we have to compare them to the best there ever was. If you wish to succeed in chinuch you can just teach them the essentials, but rather to teach them as if they could become the next Menasheh and Efraim!
“And if you wonder, how indeed was Yosef so successful? It is because he taught them from Yaakov, the personification of pure, unbridled, unfiltered, unwashed-down Torah. This is how we succeed in chinuch! Hold them to the highest potential!”
Rav Singer said that every menahel walked out of that speech with a new mission: they will not shy-away from teaching youngsters amkushaTorah.
“Look at Passaic today. So many mosdos. How did this happen? I remember when it was a midbar! I came for parnasa, and to fulffil the promise to my rebbe. I would never have dreamed Passaic would be what it is today.”
Rav Singer, paused, and then again began to cry.
“Yes, there have a lot of chashuveh and hard working rabbanim, but it all could not have happened if Rav Meir Stern didn’t walk into to town so many years ago with ten talmidim!
“AmkushaTorah is the only future cities have for growth. And now we have baruch Hashem reached the point in American Jewry where it need not be reserved just for yeshivaleit!”
In other words, and as Rav Moshe expressed in that speech, for a school, city, kehilla to thrive they must have the highest, even impossible to reach, goals. They must be able to witness Torah at its deepest levels. Without that ingredient –without a kollel or a yeshiva, and without a roshyeshiva or a rosh kollel for their children to look up to –it is hard to grow a town.
This brought to mind growing up in Toronto, and the influence of Rav Shlomo Miller and Rav Hirschman’s Kollel Avrechim –founded by Lakewood –and its mark on the city of my youth, as well.
Rav Singer concluded our conversation. “I am just a talmud trying to fulfill the promise to his rosh yeshiva. Help me spread the word, help me share how successful this can be.
Showing Hakaras HaTov & Reflections of Rav Nechemia Rockove zt’l
October, 2020
I once heard a story about a student of Rav Soloveitchick of Boston. This man, in his 40’s at that time, and a rav in his own right –was sitting in his office learning one night when he stumbled upon a Tosphos. He simply could not understand an element of the logic from this 12 th century French yeshiva. So, he read Tosphos again, and then again, and still, ‘no dice’. He finally thought to himself: What would Rebbe say if he was learning this Tosphos? That was all he needed. In a flash –like a sudden burst of lightning –the correct understanding came to him. Tosphos now may perfect sense! This man was so inspired by this that he picked up the phone and dialed Rav Soloveitchick. “Rebbe” he began, “I know your time is precious, but I felt it was important to tell you that anything I am in Torah, any wisdom that I have learnt, and any abilities I have found in my self, they are all because of you. Thank You!” As soon as he finished saying his part he realized that he may have made a huge error in judgment. The Soloveitchicks are not emotional people, and now he feared he indeed just wasted his rebbe’s time.
The phone went silent for a moment as the student braced himself for a sharp retort. Finally, after what seemed like hours, Rav Soloveitchick responded with the following words: “There is no person on earth, no mater what they have accomplished in this life, and no matter their age, that does not need to hear those two words every once in a while. Those words are ‘Thank You’.
My 9 th grade rebbe, Rav Nechemia Rockove died this week. I never called to thank him.
This is not to say I didn’t have the opportunity. Aside for his always calling at important times in my life –when I became a chosson, when my mother was niftarah, etc. –I would see him from time-to-time. When I was a rav in Buffalo, rebbe would stop in for shachris on his way to New York a few times a year. I will never forget when he davened for the amud in Buffalo. I was a grown man, a rav in his own shul. Yet, due to girsa d’yankusa, I still trembled at the sound of rebbe’s voice. My discomfort reached a fever-pitch when I realized that he was waiting for me to finish the shema. I never felt more out-of-place by the mizrach vant! This is a good time to share with the reader that waiting for a rav for shema or chazaras hashatz is not about kavod. In fact the Rema rules (124:3) that a chazan should not wait for anyone due to
chashivus. The Mishneh Berrura (ad loc. #13) explains that the minhag today of waiting for the rav is due, simply, to pacing concerns. The rav sets the speed of davening so that those who are merely trying to say every word not miss kedusha, etc. By all these occasions, while I was reminded how much he meant to me, yet I never said those words to him. No man is above hakaras hatov (for an amazing idea and story relating to this, I encourage the reader to see ‘Insights’ to ArtScroll Midrash Rabbah on Bereishis, 32: 4) Let me tell you all about rebbe. Rebbe was tough. He was tall and imposing. Most of the boys coming into Ner Yisroel Toronto that year were typical good and wholesome American boys (well, Canadian!). We were solid boys who took our yiddeshkeit seriously. But 13 year-olds need to know how to learn, and he was the one to introduce us into that secret society of the yam hatalmud. He was unrelenting in his demands of us. He informed us on Day-One that he would not respond to us unless we spoke to him in the third-person. Of course, he was not looking for kavod from a bunch of little schnooks, rather he was teaching a new generation what kavod haTorah is all about.
I should point out that his personality as our rebbe was not who he was outside the classroom, and who I saw when I spent time with him years later. His entire persona was an act so as to properly mold righteous bnei Torah. I could still hear him scream, “Reish peh hei!” Reish peh hei (285) is the siman in the Shulchan Aruch that demands that every Jew learn the parsha each week with Targum/Rashi. We even had to sign a paper each week that we learnt that week’s segment on chumash. One day he came into shiur, sat down and made an odd request. “Imagine that on my desk sits an orange” Of course we all giggled to ourselves. “An orange? Imagine?!” But he continued (and if I recall he was quoting from his own rebbe, Rav Elya Svei): “Now imagine that this orange is purple. OK, now imagine that this orange is the size of a grapefruit. And, now, imagine that it is the size of a huge ball –several feet wide –and still sitting on my desk. “Do you have that image of a huge purple ball resting on my desk in your minds right now? Well, that image will be with you for the rest of your life!”
We didn’t know at first what he was talking about, or how this little experiment related to yiddehskeit. But then he concluded. “You may ‘forget’ about it. It may not come back to you ever again. However, the human brain forgets nothing it sees and nothing it thinks about. This purple ball –and any thought you will ever have- can never be
Like that warm city by the Pacific where so many of its citizens began life in another part of the country (or world), much of the English language is made up by words that arrived from other places, most notably French, Latin, Germanic languages, Greek, etc.
This makes for uneven and seemingly capricious rules for spelling.
Growing up in Canada, I spelled ‘color’ as ‘colour’. In fact, I spelled ‘spelled’ as ‘spelt’, making learning about the chamishes minei dagein confusing!
After learning the proper spelling for American English, I had another challenge –transliterations.
As bizarre as English spelling can be, try spelling a Hebrew or Yiddish term!
For example, how does one write the Hebrew name for the middle forefather, the son of Avraham?
Artscroll finds a happy balance in-between the sefardi and ashkanazi pronunciations –‘Yitzchak’–while others spell it Yitzchok, the way most enunciate it.
Virtually every Jewish publishing house has their own rules for transliterations, including Ami. I once published an article for an English Halacha journal. It was close to fifty pages in length with close to one-hundred footnotes. As much time went it to writing the piece, an almost equal time was given to another task. Weeks before publication, I received the article back together with pages describing their specific and exacting rules for how to spell Hebrew names and words, it took me hours to reformat each entry to their liking, e.g. Igros Moshe became Iggerot Moshe.
It was with this in mind that I read a piece of news.
Every year, believe it or not, one of the most followed sporting events in the country is the Scripps Spelling Bee, where kids from around the country compete.
These are not your 7th Grade spelling bee words.
Words like auslaut, erysipelas, bougainvillea, aiguillette, pendeloque, palama, cernuous and odylic need to be spelled (spelt?) correctly, and in a certain time frame. In fact, those were the very words in this year’s final round.
What made news this year was that there was no single winner. Each of the above eight words were spelled correctly by each of the eight finalists making it an eight-way tie.
Because of the above-described complexity of the English language, after a word is given a competitor may ask the judges for certain information.
“Can you use it in a sentence?” is always popular, and allowed. “What is the language of origin?” can be very helpful to figure out how it may be transliterated.
For example, over Shavous we read the chazal relating to Rus and Naomi’s dialogue of gerus. “Where you go, I will go” (Rus 1:16). The Midrash (RusRabbah 2:22) explains that Rus was replying to something Naomi had said. “Ti be Jewish means not going to theaters and circuses”.
Leaving aside the halachic implications of this statement, as well as why -in the entire pantheon of halacha – this was the crucial message to give a potential convert –we notice something else.
The Roman/Latin word ‘circus’ in chazal is spelled beginning with a chuf, not a samech or sin. In other words, it is pronounced kirkus.
This may help explain the ‘soft’ letter C with which it is spelled in English as well.
So why am I writing about the Scripps Spelling Bee? Because, while the news focused on the eight-way tie, we notice something else.
It was the first morning of the first day of the Spelling Bee.
There was electricity in the air. Nervous kids who have been studying for months wiped their sweaty palms on their pants as they anxiously awaited the first words.
Finally, it was time. The first judge spoke, offering the first word of the 2019 competition.
The first word?
Yiddeshkeit.
When a congregant sent me this information, I had a flurry of thoughts.
First of all, I do not even know how to spell that word! As pointed out above, no two frum publications houses could agree as to its spelling –so how can there possibly be a designated national spelling?!
Then I read on and saw that more borrowed terms were a part of the contest. For instance the word ‘keriah’.
My next consideration was if this was a good thing or a dangerous thing.
On the one hand, perhaps that these terms have entered the language shows our influence, but, on the other hand, perhaps they have become just that, words, devoid of their weight, meaning and private significance.
But then I had two final thoughts.
In fact I shared these next thoughts over Shavous, in my yizkar derasha. In my shul, during any yizkar, the room is crammed with Jews of all stripes, levels and backgrounds. Filled with mostly regulars, there are also those who come to shul only for special events or days such as these when they can recall their loved ones.
I explained how I began to fantasize about what it would be like being that contestant; an eleven-year-old kid born in India and raised in Iowa.
The judge says, “Yiddeshkeit”.
The child simply can’t make sense out of the phonetic medley he just heard. He must have kindly asked, “Yiddeshkeit. Can I have the definition, please?”
How many times have I as a rabbi been asked to define my faith, to define Yiddeshkeit?
Can a judge do so in a few words?
How does one define it?!
Then I began to imagine the kid asking the second, most popular of contestants’ questions:
“Yiddeshkeit, Can you please use it in a sentence?”
“Yiddeshkeit, Can you please use it in a sentence?”
“Let us assume” I began “That you are a judge on this panel. How would you use it in a sentence? How do you use it in a sentence in front of family and children?”
We once wrote here how Rav Moshe Feinstein would often warn parents to be careful how they talk about Yiddeshkeit in front of their children. By saying such things as ‘es iz shver tzu zein a yid’ one can destroy their love for Yiddeshkeit.
“Yiddeshkeit. Yiddeshkeit if my raison d’être, my reason for being. Yiddeshkeit” one judge may say.
Another judge, “Yiddehskeit. I feel stifled by Yiddeshkeit. Yiddeshkeit”
Finally, the last judge. “Yiddeshkeit. Yiddeshkeit is a part of, but not the center, of my life. Yiddeshkeit.”
Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend Shabbos in Camp Romimu together with TAG High School for their annual Shabbaton. TAG is the Beis Yaakov of the Five Towns.
Every year they have such a Shabbos at the end of the year, and bring in a rav to speak to them. Among the many shiurim I was asked to give was one Q and A, a question and answer session.
I have done these before, and expected a slew of hashkafic and philosophical questions relating to mesora and the amitoshel torah.
However, I was pleasantly surprised.
“May I still say birchas krias shma if it is after zman krias shma?” was the first question.
What followed was an untold number of questions relating to halacha, teffila and hands-on Yiddeshkeit.
I told the girls, and I shall repeat here, how impressive this was.
They were not looking at Yiddeshkeit from without, but it was their lifeblood, the center of their lives.
The old rabbinical story goes of how a maggid once came to a town.
“What will you be speaking about?” asked the rav.
“Chinuchhabanim” replied the maggid.
“No, no!” said the rav, explaining, “There is breakaway school. Due to politics, you need to stay away from that topic “.
“Ok. Then I shall speak about talmudtorah”
“No, No!” replied the rabbi again, “There is a big fight in the shul as to what type of shiur I should give. Please, do not go near that topic”
“I see” says the maggid. “Alright, I will speak about the importance of kashrus”
“No, no!” exclaims the rabbi, lnce again, “You see, a new, competing vaad opened up in the city. It is too touchy a topic”
Exacerbated, the maggid exclaims, “I cant speak about Torah, you do not want me touching chinuch, and you wish I stay away from kashrus… what should I speak about?!”
The rabbi innocently responds, “Just speak about Yiddeshkeit!”
Yiddeshkeit never needs redefining –we know its essence –it does need re-marketing or a PR rep to bring it to a new generation, chalila. Rather it us that need to redefine our relationship with it.
To re-define Yiddeshkeit for ourselves; as the center of our universe, our very lifeblood.
Yiddeshkeit –We may not be sure how to spell it, but we know what it means!re-define Yiddeshkeit for ourselves; as the center of our universe, our very lifeblood.
Post lag b’omer, leading up to Shavous, is a season for many simchos. Such events, be they weddings, barmitzvos, etc., afford me a wonderful opportunity. As we know, rabbanim are segregated to their own table –although I was once accidently placed at the children’s table, and, while a story for a different time, we actually had great conversations!
Often it is too noisy to have lengthy exchanges with such lofty colleagues, but when there are lulls in the music I like to discuss interesting recent shailos. Often other rabbanim would have already dealt with such an issue, or, will have fascinating insight into the question.
By a recent event, I was speaking to a rav about a shabbos bris we had over sefira and the shailah if, as with a typical Shabbos bris, avharachamim should be omitted from mussaf. Because this teffilah for kedoshim was composed after the first crusades of 1096 –events that were born during the days of sefira – we general recite it during these days, even on roshchodesh. Would we say it even by a Shabbos bris?
After discussing the various sources who speak of the matter, he shared a separate interesting shailah he received. I responded in kind. We went back and forth until we found ourselves discussing some of our more fascinating shailos.
While some of these questions are not for print –either due to complexity, privacy or other reasons –I did share with him the one shailah I think about most often this time of year. It may even be my most favorite shailah –as it relates to nesinas hatorah.
The process of conversion today is, seemingly, far more rigorous and far lengthier than in years past. There is a reason for this. On the one hand a rav wants the process to be painless, although rigorous. Chazal have often described the dangers of pushing potential converts away – in one instance even blaming the birth of Amalek on that very misconduct (Shabbos 88). Indeed, the basic halacha teaches that one need only teach them a ‘few mitzvos’, some light and some more serious ones. Hillel famously converted someone after he simply requested to learn more about the kohein gadol (Tosphos, Yevamus 24b with shu’tRavAkivaEiger # 41. Cf. Maharsha to Shabbos 31a).
Most prominently, we learn from Rus and her conversation with Naomi that a minimal amount of Torah knowledge is all that is necessary. Indeed, chazal further teach that one of the positive goals in our being so spread out in galus is to bring many converts into the fold (Pesachim 87b).
Yet, on the other hand we are taught the dangers of accepting those who are unworthy, the fear of those who come with ulterior motives, and the ills caused by a beis din that accepts a ger too quickly (see Yevamus 109b with Meiri). Some even recommend waiting a full year from the day one expresses their wish to convert in order to assure all parties that this is the right thing to do (See Mishnas Rebbe Eliezar that this has been the longstanding custom of batei dinnim). And, most famously, we are commanded to inform the potential convert of the difficulty of abiding by the Torah (Yevamus 47b) and the hardships of the Jewish nation (ShulchanAruch 268).
So, and for a number of reasons, many rabbanim today not only teach a tremendous amount of halacha and hashkafa to potential converts, but they also administer a test. While many argue that teaching Torah in such detail to an –at present – non-Jew is problematic, others argue that in our times it is the only way to investigate their seriousness (See IgrosMoshe 3:90).
With this in mind, several years ago a man walked into shul. He was from Cuba, raised in a fundamentalist Christian family. Having studied the bible since his youth, he came to the conclusion that yiddeshkeit is the only truth.
Long story short, over the course of a few years we learned everything together, from the aleph-bais to hilchosshabbos. Throughout, we were in touch with a beisdin in Cleveland with whom I kept abreast of his growth.
A few years into his studies and living with the community, I felt it was time to complete his gerus. He made an apartment with the beisdin, and took off to Cleveland.
After all the sacrifice, the learning, the day finally came. I was sitting in my office when his text came through “Geyurgeyarti!!”, I became a ger.
More amazing than this text was a phone call I received from him just several hours later.
It was close to midnight when my phone lit up. Nervous that something serious happened on his trip back, I anxiously picked up the pone. “Are you ok?”
Everything was fine, baruch Hashem, but he had a shailah, his first as a Jew.
“Rabbi, I arrived back about an hour ago. I was so hungry, but all the stores are closed. So, I opened my freezer and took out some leftovers. I placed them in the microwave to defrost and reheat.
“I am now sitting in front of the food about to eat when I realized that I have a serious issue.
“All this food was cooked when I was a gentile, making it bishul akum!”
This was a fascinating shailah, and it demonstrated his level of knowledge even on his first day as a yid!
Can it be that one’s own food becomes forbidden after gerus?
There is logic both ways. Indeed, two likkutim that I own on gerus come to opposite conclusions. GerusK’Hilchasah (p. 69) rules that such food is forbidden –after all, was not this food cooked by a non Jew?
However, MishnasHaGer by Rav Moshe Klein (son of Rav Menahse Klein, p. 175) disagrees.
He points out that the two main reasons for the prohibition of bishulakum do not seem to apply here. Rashi (AvodahZara 38a) focuses on the concern with eating from non-Jews becoming common, thus leading to a great risk of something non-Kosher being eaten. Tosfos (37b) explains the chief concern as being to prevent intermarriage.
According to either view, the concern here is non existent. Indeed, we find in other cases (like a choleh on Shabbos who has a non-Jew cook for him) where many rishonim allow such food for others once cooked b’heter (e.g. BedekHaBayis 3:7).
It was only later that I realized the connection to Shavuos.
One of the minhagim on this yomtov is to eat dairy (see Rema 494). Any number of reasons are given for this minhag. One sefer I own (Otzar HaYidios, Eisenberger, Shavuos ed. p. 69-71) brings twenty-six reasons found in sefarim!
One of the famous explanations is brought in the MishnehBerrura (ad loc. sif kattan 12). There the Chofetz Chaim explains that after nesinas hatorah we went back to our tents to eat. However, since we just received hilchosshechita we were not yet proficient in these laws to have meat right away, so we simply ate dairy.
However, this approach to the minhag is challenged. The Chofetz Chaim later in life pointed out (LikuteiHalachos, end of Chullin) that if we follow the view that the Torah was given on Shabbos then they could not schecht even if they wanted to and knew how!
To explain the first approach, the seferGeulas Yisroel (a collection of Torah from the Baal Shem Tov and early rebbes –its authorship is disputed and unclear) brings a fascinating approach: already by marah the tzivuy of Shabbos was given, so indeed they were not surprised by their inability to shecht, and perhaps they prepared food before Shabbos. Rather, they could not eat their prepared food because it was slaughtered and cooked while they were non Jews!
This may have been the very first instance of the shailah I brought above!
But it gets more complicated. The ShelalRav (Shavous, p. 211) is not satisfied with the above approach.
For, how could their solution have been to eat dairy at harSinai –it was milked when they were non-Jews, making it choluvakum?!
Perhaps then, we can say that 1-they could not shecht fresh meat due either to it being Shabbos or because they were not yet proficient in the halachos of shechita, and, 2 -they could eat their dairy products for, as the MishnasHaGer suggested above, when the reasons for a gezeira are so clearly not present, and when it was made b’heter, it becomes permissible to eat.
From the first moments of mattan Torah the beauty and complexity of Torah was present!
