Author: Moshe Taub

  • Halachic Prenuptial Agreement: Consensus?

    Halachic Prenuptial Agreement: Consensus?

    Is The New Prenuptial Agreement The Solution We’ve Been Waiting For?

    Why Has It Not Caught On In Some Circles?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Winter, 2015

    “The truth is obtained from within, in accord with the methodology given to Moses and passed down from generation to generation. The truth can be discovered only through joining the ranks of the chachmei hamesorah. It’s ridiculous to say ‘I have discovered something of which the Rashba didn’t know, the Ketzos didn’t know, the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge; I’ve discovered an approach to the interpretation of Torah which is completely new.’ It’s ridiculous! One has to join the ranks of the chachmei mesorah, Chazal, rishonim, gedolei acharonim, and must not try to rationalize from without the chukei haTorah, and judge. We must not judge chukim umishpatim in terms of a secular system of values.”

    Rav Yosheh Ber Soloveitchik (in response to an unrelated, and radical, ‘innovation’)

    It should go without saying that the brilliant pre-nuptial agreement of HaGaon Harav Willig and other tzadikim and chachamaim is, of course, unrelated to the innovations referenced in the opening quote. Rather, this quote is simply to set the stage for the general pause some innovations may induce. At times, it may even cause an ‘overcorrection’, such as the initial and harsh response to machine matzos.

    I. [I]nnovation vs [i]nnovation

    Innovation and originality in halacha pesuka can be broken into two distinct categories:

    • Application
    • Discovery

    The former happens all the time and is part of the general halachic process. Cars, electricity, Keurig machines and millions of other items and cases that did not heretofore exist, or were not yet overtly discussed, yet for which we must mine from the Torah’s wellspring of wisdom to discover how halacha seeks we operate.

    This is, primarily, the focus of sifrei shaalos u’teshuvos.

    These may be classified as ‘lower innovation’.

    A simple example of ‘lower innovation’ is the new category of ‘cholev stam’. Chiefly defended by Rav Moshe Feinstein, it was based, in part (in addition to other reasons, e.g. the Pri Chodosh), on the idea that if the Chasam Sofer  -who took the stricter understanding of this rabbinic injunction– would be alive to see certain changes in the monitoring of our milk production he too may/would concur.

    Meaning -the reality changed and a new application was thereby suggested (cf. Pri Chadash). No one denies the obligation of abstaining from choluv akum [1], rather some take the position that modern dairies in many Western countries would avoid that monicker by default. The term cholov stam is a legal fiction created solely so as not to cause the detractors of Rav Moshe’s view to accidentally consume it.

    In contrast, the more precarious type of innovation – ‘higher innovation’ – while at times valid and even needed, is riddled with complexity and is seen, at times, with suspicion.

    What is ‘higher innovation’?

    This is when seemingly nothing has changed, the halachic reality on the ground is the same as it was in the days of Ramban, Rashba, and Rambam – and yet a new approach is offered.

    Even should this new approach seem logical and valid, one can’t help but feel a nagging concern: ‘Why didn’t the Ramban think of this? Or, did he, only to reject it?'[2]

    It was to this type of innovation that our opening quote concerns.

    ‘Mimetic‘ halacha is part of our backbone, our survival. “This is how my mother/father/rav did it” is never something to capriciously dismiss. At the very least, a moment is always taken to try to decode why those before us did not come up with whatever tactic we are inventing.

    It is not surprise then that the relatively modern prenuptial agreement, composed in order to prevent the painful problem of agunas that has sadly always existed, has not spread as fast as some may have hoped. This although some great poskim have supported it.

    Over the past several weeks of this writing, various blogs and postings have asserted that further consensus on this matter has arrived. Quoting numerous charedi rabbanim, the claim is now that the prenup has grown in popularity; has finally arrived.

    The purpose of this short monograph is to discuss, primarily, the rabbinic support for such agreements; a history of psak.

    II. Prenup

    The idea of a prenup may not be as new as one might think, as its basic concept, in some form, is found in early writings.

    In the 1600’s the rav of Bamburg published his seminal Nachalas Shiva which includes many types of halachic contracts, forms and kesubos. In #9 he brings a form that may date all the way back to the end of the 12th century and the takanas sh’um, decrees from the rabbanim (some of whom were baalei Tosphos, or students thereof) of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. This form is in some ways similar to the modern prenup under discussion.

    Even Rav Moshe Feinstein (evh’e 4:107) supported certain types of similar agreements.

    However, both the former and the latter were in support of agreements that forced the husband and wife to either go to a beis din for any divorce proceeding or to follow said beis din’s rulings.

    While not a document that is pleasing to sign on one’s wedding day, there are no halachic concerns involved.

    Nevertheless, none of these would solve the agunah concern. Even the Nachalas Shiva’s form, which includes fines on the husband so long as he does not appear in beis din, never mentions his obligation in giving a get. So long as he shows up the debt is erased.

    Throughout the centuries other ideas have been introduced to solve various agunah concerns, such as Rav Singer of Galicia’s method for soldiers pre-World War 1. Although this method found prominent support, it offers no advantage in a modern setting for reasons too broad to go into here (see Rav Singer’s great nephew’s Grey Matter [Rav Jachter] for further discussion of this method. See also Igros Moshe ibid. 111).

    Other methods have been proposed by such luminaires as Rav Henkin zt’l, but were unfeasible, often dubious and were ultimately retracted (see also Rav Ahron Kotler, Mishnas Rav Ahron 60).

    In the 1920’s a sefer was composed titled ‘Ein Tnai B’kidushin’ which came to oppose directly the many innovative ideas that were being introduced at the time. This sefer comes with a haskama and a halachic history lesson by Rav Chaim Ozer zt’l.

    These names and histories are important because the relatively modern prenuptial agreement comes to assuage many of the known prior concerns.

    The chief novelty of the modern prenup is simple (what follows is not meant as an exhaustive review):

    To take advantage of the husband’s halachic obligation to support his wife.

    The idea is simple and brilliant: Why not put that in writing, either before (prenup) or after (postnup) marriage stating that, should it, chalila, come to such a point, they will settle their divorce through the arbitration of a reputable beis din? But more: The chosson would further agree that should the marriage dissolve to the point that his wife lives away from him –or he from her- then he should pay her $X per day (about $150 changing for inflation and customary needs) in living expenses [an anyway existing obligation of mezonos or extra mezanos] until such time that a get is delivered.

    This would greatly dissuade a husband from withholding or preventing a get, and should secular courts honor such agreements (and it seems as if they would) this would leave him few places to hide.

    The geonim, such as Rav Willig, who helped compose this prenup reached out to prominent poskim in Eretz Yisroel, such as Rav Ovodia Yoseph and Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, who either verbally or in writing supported this new idea.

    While we will name below the many geonim who outright support this prenup, it is important to point out that some supporters’ positions on this matter is not as black and white as it may first seem.

    Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, for instance, certainly does not agree with the composers shlita on every point. Most extraordinary is his point of departure on the knas/fine itself. He points out in his public letter of support that the wife will not in reality have an automatic claim on this money (due to homotzi meichaveiro aluv haraya – as the husband could say ‘kim li’ [a halachic tool beyond the scope of this short monograph])! While he agrees that there is no halachic concern with the prenup, he raises this (and other) weaknesses in the power this arrangement will serve, as well as challenging its historical precedent, most critically that contra Rav Willig, the Nachalas Shiva’s form can not serve as precedent to the modern prenup.

    Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg is also quoted as supporting this prenup, and is listed as such on the RCA’s prenup website.

    However, some have pointed out (see ‘Communications’, Tradition 44:1) that he may have retracted or clarified his position. The idea that the husband obligates himself to waive certain rights and to also finically support his wife daily may only be done, he says, if there is no other ulterior motive involved; it must be done simply so as to attend to his wife’s needs (for reasons made clear below).

    In addition, some of the rabbanim who have been quoted in certain non-rabbinic venues and blogs as newly or for the first time publicly supporting the prenup have a far more nuanced position than as described. Some are listed as supporters simply based on the fact that they are known to support people or organizations that themselves support this new prenup. While these poskim may perhaps also support this modern prenup, such chad gadya’s are not the way of discovery on the matter.

    One prominent posek named in one such article as a supporter shared with me over the phone that he would not urge its use (for reasons beyond the scope of this article) and he only said that such a prenup does not invalidate the get.[3]

    This is an important leniency in and of itself.

    III. A ‘Forced’ Get

    A common misconception among the laity is that we may force a husband to write a get.

    Not only is this false, worse, a get meusah/a forced get is invalid in most instances. Indeed, before a husband gives a get, the mesader get will ask him if there is anything obligating him to give it!

    The Rashba writes in a teshuvah that should a husband even except upon himself a knas (fine) should he not give a get (e.g. “If I don’t give a get in 10 days then I will give $100,000 to Ploni”) such a get would be deemed a get meusa (a forced get) and be pasul. The Rama (siman 134) paskens that we should be machmir like the Rashba.

    Some, then, may argue that the modern prenuptial agreement – where the husband sets a fine for each day that he does not give a get – would be precisely what the Rashba ruled is forbidden!

    Nevertheless, one could easily retort (as does Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, and this other prominent posek with whom I spoke [3]) that this prenuptial agreement does not tie the husband’s obligational payment to giving-or-not-giving the get. Rather, and only that, the giving of a get would stop a already current payment; a payment which regarding which his kesubah already obligates him.

    While there are certainly prominent poskim who support this prenup, such as Rav Ovadia Yosef (although some contest the strength of this endorsement– see R. Shalom C. Spira, 5th edition, A:26) Rav Chaim Zimbalist, Rav Reiss, Rav Shachter, Rav Willig, and many others – there are many who are parve or opposed to it.

    Rav Aviner, one of the leading daati leumi poskim in Israel opposes the prenup and quotes Rav Shternbuch of the eidah hachareidis as saying that it could lead to what would be tantamount to a coerced get (based on the Rashba above).

    Regarding Rav Elyashiv’s view, it gets a little interesting. One of the central debates surrounding the prenup is the issue of asmachta –a commitment that is dependent on other factors and toward which the agree-er does not really expect to happen. A groom signing this document on his happiest day likely can’t truly and honestly imagine getting into a disagreement with his new bride let alone divorcing her! Therefore, perhaps, anything he agrees to in a prenup is voided!

    While many debate this issue back-and-forth, Rav Willig proves from a teshuvah of Rav Elyahsiv (1:163) that this type of asmachta would be of no concern. However elsewhere, ironically, it is Rav Elyahsiv himself -in a latter teshuva in his next volume – who seems to disallow the entire enterprise of such prenups to begin with!

    IV. Lakewood & Beyond?

    Most in Lakewood do not sign these agreements. Some roshei yeshiva tell their students to go out of their way to avoid them. ON matters of such import, they feel, change must come from an overriding consensus of gedolei hador.

    However, all agree that on this matter of prenups, boruch Hashem, all parties involved are talmidei chachamim par excellence and lshem shomayim.

    Consensus, should it come at all, will take time.

    In the meantime, each of us should simply follow our own rebbeim on the matter.

    The goal of this monograph was simply so each talmud can understand the views of their friends who happen to have other rebbeim. So as to avoid machlokos.

    Regrettably, I have heard comments surrounding this topic akin to ‘I guess Lakewood doesn’t take the cause of agunos seriously’, or, ‘The Modern-Orthodox are once-again seeking to “fix” halacha‘. Such statements are not only ugly caricatures, but a perversion of the holy reality, and, it may be a violation of chazal‘s words, warning us against using Torah/halacha as a dagger or spade (avos 4:5; nedarim 62a)[4].

    Let us hope that our respect for the halachik process will be a zechus toward the agunos of today and help prevent any agunah of tomorrow.

    NOTES:

    1 –Pri Chadash aside, it is critical to remember that we ALL eat only Cholov Yisroel. Just becaouse one relies on Rav Moshe in America does not mean he can drink the milk in, say, Peru.
    A few years ago, someone showed me a package with a hechsher from a rabbanut in a small town in Israel, wishing to know its reliability. I gave a quick ‘No’. “How can you know so fast? Do you know their policies?” he gently challenged. I explained, “Listen, it may be fine. Indeed, some rabbanuts and their products I may eat myself. However, in this case, I saw a clue that speaks to serious concerns. On this package {of dairy Cheetos} they write, “Under the hashgacha of the rabbanut of x…this product is cholov akum…”! Cholov akum?! Gevalt! While perhaps an error on the part of the printer, it is highly suspect of kashrus ignorance”.

    2-The famous story of Rav Gifter, the late Rish Yeshiva of Telshe, Cleveland, comes to mind: Rav Gifter was once giving his shiur, focusing on a complicated question Rav Akiva Eiger asked on the gemara. Like many Chiddushai Rav Akiva Eiger, this question was left unanswered. In the midst of explaining Rav Eiger’s strong question, Rav Gifter suddenly shut his gemara and left the room. He went directly into his office, locked the door, and did not leave for several hours. The next day by shiur, he began by explaining his strange actions from the day before. “While I was repeating Rav Eiger’s question, I suddenly thought of a perfect solution; a way to avoid all of his difficulties while keeping the gemara perfectly intact. But then I thought to myself, ‘My answer seems so clear, so correct, how could it be that Rav Eiger himself would have missed it?! So, I went to my office to see where I had gone wrong, and did not leave until I was satisfied that I was indeed misguided”! Rav Gifter then preceded to repeat Rav Eiger’s question, share his initial approach, and then explain, brilliantly, why it was wrong. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it serves to make the greater point.

    3 -I can now reveal this to be Rav Nota Greenblatt tz”l. He also shared that he can’t imagine this would ever have its desired effect in reality or in a secular court. I have since heard that indeed it has been tried in court and was in fact held up.

    4- My wife once was sent me a podcast or video of some type where a woman was making just such a claim. My wife was aghast as her ‘Lakewood-musmuch‘ husband was, at that moment, driving around with Rav Nota and knocking on doors seeking to find a recalcitrant husband. Indeed, Rav Nota alone likely saved 20,000 agunos!

  • ‘Enuf Sed’

    ‘Enuf Sed’

    Spelling, Pronunciation, & Halacha

    An Aide To Hilchos Brachos and Shabbos

    The English language has many nuscha’os. The following history is not only fascinating, but it will serve to highlight the kedushah and gadlus of Lashon Hakodesh—and it will also provide a springboard for a great hilchos Shabbos question.

    Until the advent of the printing press, most people were illiterate. Books were rare; they were handwritten and often chained to the wall. By the sixteenth century, the English language was still relatively in its infancy. Official rules of spelling, grammar, and syntax were, for practical purposes, nonexistent. See here where this realty effects the laws of gittin.

    In the 1700s, all of this began to change. By then, the civilized world had nearly perfected the art of printing and bookbinding. The average person soon became fascinated by the published word, whether in books or in newspapers. But reading and writing in English were complicated endeavors as there was no uniform spelling, and even letter forms had not yet been universally determined. For example, the I and the J were not yet distinct from each other.

    This vacuum of standards was filled by Samuel Johnson, who took ten years to complete A Dictionary of the English Language. It was published in 1755, and it is a feat still celebrated as “one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship ever performed by one individual” (Walter Bate, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of a 1977 biography of Johnson).

    Such an undertaking was highly subjective. For instance, Johnson gave us not only the spelling and definition of his occupation, “lexicographer,” but added his own editorial comment: “A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.”

    Consistent in his somewhat morose approach, he defines “dull” as “not exhilarating; not delightful; as ‘To make dictionaries is dull work.’”

    So why haven’t most readers ever heard of Johnson? Enter Noah Webster of Merriam-Webster fame, who upstaged him.

    A radical patriot and former editor for Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party, Webster wanted to break away from European culture and popularized the term “American values.” In his opinion, those values included spelling and grammar. Hence the title for his 1786 volume The American Spelling Book.

    In 1826 he completed his magnum opus, patriotically titled An American Dictionary of the English Language. Webster learned close to thirty languages during his research!

    Among his “American values” were simplified phonetic spellings. He kept the k in words such as back and luck but expunged it from most others, such as musick (music) and publick (public). In addition, the suffix re changed to er, turning mastre into master. Popular opinion backed him, but remnants of this battle are still evident in the British spelling of words such as centre and theatre.

    {Interestingly. the most public remnant of his phonetic system is in team sports – White Sox and Red Sox, spelled that way (and not ‘socks’), largely, due to the editor of The Chicago Tribune being an advocate for Webster}

    Initially—and to the relief of the British—Webster was not much of a salesman and sold only a few copies of his dictionary. It was only after his death in 1843 that the Merriam brothers purchased the exclusive rights to it, and Merriam-Webster was born.

    The British were enraged and fought back, engendering perhaps the most boring national crisis in history. But Webster’s spellings and definitions soon influenced even the formidable British OED, the Oxford English Dictionary.

    Webster did fail, however, in his desire to simplify spelling and make it more phonetic. He was hoping for soop (soup), tung (tongue), and iland (island), but these and others never materialized.

    Further demonstrating the fluidity of language, this dor haflagah continued into the twentieth century. In 1906, Mark Twain and other American notables founded the Simplified Spelling Board. Their goal was to streamline spelling and pare it down to essentials—for example, det (debt) and giv (give). But that’s a story for another time.

    Why am I sharing all of this? Aside from my history itch, there are a number of lessons here.

    As a bachur, I once met a young talmid chacham named Natan Gamedze. He was born an African prince, and his family’s wealth afforded him an ideal education that was largely language-focused; in fact, he spoke 13 languages.

    In school one day, he saw a boy writing “backward” and asked about it. The boy was writing Hebrew. Intrigued, he asked for a tutor to teach him this ancient tongue.

    He was soon amazed to discover that this language was unlike any other. All other languages were composed of an arbitrary phonetic system and an even more arbitrary system of definition and meaning. Not this one! He recognized that Hebrew words represented the very essence of whatever they described, expressing innate truths.

    Not only was each word’s root, spelling, and meaning unchanging—and unchangeable by human intervention—but its source was Divine. Even the shapes of the letters and their placement in a word held untold mysteries.

    This was what prompted him to start down the path toward becoming a ger tzedek.

    In fact, I once heard from a reliable source that ArtScroll’s bestselling single volume (aside from Gemaras and siddurim) is The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk, a master treatise on this subject.

    There’s a nugget of mussar here. The ability to master the “King’s English” is grand, and many American gedolim, such as Rav Mordechai Gifter, demanded nothing less from their talmidim. But it is no comparison at all to the language of the King of kings. We mustn’t forget that English is recent, arbitrary, and often political. Lashon Hakodesh, in contrast,is Divine.

    This brings us to a halachic issue.

    For many years now, whenever I have the zechus to give a shiur on hilchos brachos, I always start with the same introduction: “Imagine that you are Mr. Noah Webster. How would you define the word ‘bread’ succinctly?”

    Participants quickly volunteer definitions, such as “baked dough.” I then ask, “So pretzels are bread? What about cake?” I then explain that often, the first step in understanding a halachah is knowing the main term’s unchanging definition. Here is the one for bread: “Any of the five grains, ground, mixed into a dough, and baked. If brittle, heavily sweetened or stuffed, it has bread potential if eaten as or during a meal’s mainstay.”

    With this approach, a 30-word definition crystallizes many sh’eilos.

    What about a granola bar? The debate is whether the definition should omit the word “ground.” What about soft pretzels? The sh’eilah is whether the definition of “pretzel” should begin with “a non-snack item made with any of the five grains.”

    Defining the word lechem will also explain why spaghetti and meatballs would never require a Hamotzi even though we make a meal out of it—and that’s because Chazal define bread, or potential bread, as baked, and spaghetti is not.

    With Lashon Hakodesh, we are searching for Divine definition. This does not apply if, l’havdil, we are seeking simply to distinguish between the English words “envy” and “jealousy,” synonyms that developed from the way people used them and not from any Divine truth. 

    Another example comes from a wonderful sh’eilah I recently received: May one use Crest White Strips on Shabbos?

    To answer the sh’eilah with clarity, defining the relevant Torah terms is imperative. For this reason, the poskim debate every definition they give. For example, the melachah of knotting differs from that of sewing, even though they both refer to the joining of two pliable entities. The poskim therefore seek to distill the definition of each melachah down to its essence.

    In the case of White Strips, there may be more than one melachah involved, each with a precise definition. These include melaben (laundering), tofer (sewing or gluing), and tzovei’a (coloring). For several reasons, I feel the only concern here is tzovei’a, even though some strips work by bleaching the teeth.

    But how is coloring defined, and would brightening a preexisting color fall under that definition?

    The poskim discuss at length the definition of coloring (see, for example, the Steipler Gaon in Kehillas Yaakov, Shabbos, #40). According to a number of poskim, it seems that coloring includes the enhancement of an existing color. So if one wanted to shine his black shoes with oil so that the color would be more pronounced, that too might be considered coloring (see Yerushalmi, Shabbos, 7:2; see Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah, 14:154).

    Please consult your rav…and perhaps a Hebrew dictionary as well! ●

  • Tefillin, Chol HaMoed, & Lo Tisgodedu

    Tefillin, Chol HaMoed, & Lo Tisgodedu

    The One-Man Mechitzah

    “Don’t ask Rabbi Taub a sh’eilah unless you’ve cleared your schedule” was a joke one year in the Purim grammen in shul.

    There’s some truth to this. My desire to explain the background to a psak comes in no small part from my own need for chazarah.  There  are other motives as well.

    There is a well-known concept that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Over the years, many of the halachic adventures I’ve shared in Ami Magazine have fallen into this category. 

    A simple illustration is the myth that a utensil does not need tevilah before its first use. This error seems to come from the fact that a disposable metal pan meant for one-time use only does not require tevilah. This“little” piece of information somehow led some people to believe that any first-time of a utensil is permitted without tevilah.

    Not true! 
    Instead, the fact that the metal pan will be discarded after its first use means that it is not considered a real kli; it has nothing to do with first-time use.

    During Sukkos, I saw this principle in action again. The following episode is the newest example to explain why I can sometimes be verbose in my answers to sh’eilos. 

    I was away with my family for Sukkos and was a stranger at a minyan on the second day of Chol Hamoed. The Shacharis crowd was a mix of chasidim and Litvaks, modern and yeshivish—a typical vacation Chol Hamoed minyan.
    Some wore tefillin on Chol Hamoed and some didn’t, and the shul’s rav was supportive of these diverse minhagim being observed together, and at the same time.

    I found a nice quiet corner in the back in which to daven, when, right before shemoneh esreh, I noted a peculiar sight: A bachur took two rolling mechitzos, set them up near the wall to form a triangle, and started the Amidah in his newly-created segregated corner.

    After Hallel, I heard one man joke, “Maybe he’s in cherem.” Another man responded, “Maybe he has tzaraas!”

    In truth, this young man meant well, but because he had limited information, his good intentions failed him. In order to understand why, some background information is necessary.

    Although everyone agrees that we do not wear tefillin on Shabbos or Yom Tov, Chazal do not offer a definitive practice for chol Hamoed. This has resulted in a number of disparate—and strongly held—shittos. 
    The Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed.The Rema disagrees, saying that it is actually a chiyuv.

    While most who wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed do not recite a brachah, some do. This creates the separate issue of whether those who wear tefillin with a brachah should do so in a whisper so as not to cause division among those who don’t (see Shulchan Aruch, OrachChaim, siman 31, “nosei keilim”).

    But what should one do if a shul’s minhag is to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoedbut he doesn’t, or vice versa?

    The Chofetz Chaim rules that in such a case, one should follow the custom of the shul (ad loc. se’if 8). This is due to the prohibition of “Lo tisgodedu,” not causing machlokes within a group setting (Rambam, et al.; cf. Rishonim, who give other reasons for this prohibition). 

    When I was growing up, the minhag in my father’s shul was not to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, and those who did either went elsewhere or davened behind the mechitzah. Other shuls in Toronto had the same policy.

    Over time, however, many shuls began to allow people with both minhagim to Daven together on Chol Hamoed. 
    According to this approach, what happened to the prohibition of “Lo tisgodedu”?

    A contemporary of the Chofetz Chaim wrote, “In his sefer Mishnah Brurah, my dear friend, the gaon Rav Meir of Radin,says that [allowing] those who wear tefillinand those who don’t to daven together isnot appropriate [but not actually assur].This is because when people are simply acting out of doubt about what thehalachah is, it is not clear that this is actually a violation of ‘Lo tisgodedu’ (SdeiChemed, Chol Hamoed, 14).

    Rav Moshe Feinstein went one step further. 

    Before technology and its ease of communication, some had no idea about minhagim in other locations. One’s bris took place in his shul and then his bar mitzvah; he davened there daily, the shul hosted his wedding, etc. making the average person wholly unacquainted with the minhagim in and of other communities. This being the case, one was liable to view any practice that was dissimilar to his shul’s as being in violation of halachah.

    Today it is vastly different. Most people have davened in many different shuls, and even within their own minyanim there are often Jews of all backgrounds. In this melting pot, the mispallelim are aware of the different tefillin minhagim, and a concern about causing machlokes is not necessarily relevant (Igros Moshe, OrachChaim, 5:24;6).

    The sincere bachur whom I saw in shul on Chol Hamoed had no doubt learned theMishnah Brurah advising one to daven separately if his minhag is different from the shul’s. Seeing the mixed group, he must have thought to himself, “Since I’m wearing tefillin but the chazzan and the rav are not, I have to at least daven behind a mechitzah.”

    In fact, I know that’s what he was thinking…because I asked him directly. I then explained to him gently that he had unintentionally caused a “scene” among the regulars in the minyan. I told him that the Netziv once said, “Some people run from the mouth of a fox into the mouth of a lion,” meaning that a person may sometimes think he is being machmir in one area when in reality he is causing a breach in another. In this case, the purpose of thechumrah of davening separately is to avoid machlokes by not acting in opposition tothe established minhag.

    “In this case, the mara d’asra allows the participation of those who wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed,” Explaining, “By creating a mechitzah, you are actually disrupting the very harmony that you intended to protect.” 

    I immediately apologized to him if I had come across as harsh or pedantic, defending myself by sharing, “I heard people making comments and thought you-looking like a budding Talmud chacham– would want to be made aware of the halachic background”.

    It was another great example of how a little information can be a dangerous thing. 

    It is known that Rav Moshe Feinstein (and others) pasken that if one davens regularly in a shul with strong established minhagim, he should follow them—even regarding tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

    On that note, we will conclude with the following story:

    Rav Kalman Winter, a”h, founded the Young Israel of Buffalo in the 1970s. He called Rav Moshe regarding every aspect of the shul, its construction, mechitza, etc.
    Once complete, he once called asking, “The members here don’t wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed. Should that be the minhag of the shul?”

    “Absolutely,” the gadol responded.

    “But I am the rav.”

    “So?” asked Rav Moshe.

    “Well, my minhag is to wear tefillin,”Rav Winter said.

    Rav Moshe laughed and responded, “Not anymore!”

    Meaning, in that case, the rav had to yield to the minhagim of his own shul.

  • Is There A Source for the Kvatter Segula For Having Children?

    Is There A Source for the Kvatter Segula For Having Children?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Published in Ami Magazine, Feb. 2014

    Part 1 -The Question

    What are segulos? It would seem that the best definition of what we colloquially term ‘Segulos’ are deeds that in and of themselves do not bring merit per se (i.e. zchar; e.g. the mitzvah and energy toward honoring parents merits a long life) but rather actions un-tethered to commands yet that can nevertheless marshal forces to our aid that are beyond our understanding.

    Several weeks ago a family in another shul in-town called to inform me of a bris they would be making the next day. After notifying them that I was planning on coming, they let me know that they planned on giving me the kibud of kvatter, explaining that since we have only daughters they wanted us to have the segulah -by way of kvattering – of having boys.

    This was a very nice gesture; although, to be honest, I have never heard of the act of kvatter helping an all-girl family have boys, or visa versa.

    I hung up the phone and began to ponder if there is a source I was missing. It suddenly dawned on me that not only do I not know a source for this segulah but I also have no idea the source for the more famous segulah  that acting as kvatter is a zechus to have children in general!

    Now I am sure that there are many readers with pen already in hand ready to write a letter detailing to me their or an acquaintance’s kvatter story. I too know of many such stories. True, even if a particular segulah is a mesorah does not then mean that it can be found in writing. Yet also true is the fact that even if a segulah has seemed to ‘work’ does not mean that it based on mesorah.

    When I asked the baal simchah how he knew of such a segulah he immediately sent me a picture of a page from a modern halachik work on milah. The source in that sefer was from another modern sefer. Upon looking up the sourced second modern sefer I saw that it simply says that the idea that serving as kvatter is a segulah for children is ‘what people say’.

    While the baal simcha was satisfied with his research, it was clear to me that more investigation was needed.

    I would soon discover that many gedolim were asked about the provenance of this segulah, with some replying that they knew of no source.

    It should also be noted that the entire concept of kvatter is itself shrouded in mystery; we are unsure when this kibud began, nor do we know what the term ‘kvatter‘ even means!

    The Shulchan Aruch (Rama siman 265) states that while a woman may not serve as sandek she may however bring the baby up to the door of the shul and pass the baby to her husband who will then act as sandek. It would seem then that kvatter and sandek were once seen as one in the same. This may explain what the word kvatter means. For sandek is translated as godfather, which in Yiddish or German is GutFetter, which can easily be read as gefatter, or, kvatter.

    Furthermore, the high honor of acting as the sandek is compared to being maktir ketores (offering incense on the mizbeach; see Rama as well as Midrash Rabba, Nasso 14:24). Such an act would be termed ‘Koter’. In Hebrew the ‘o’ vowel would be effected by the letter ‘vav’, which can easily be mistaken as a ‘v’ dound, being read as ‘kvatter’.

    Continuing the idea that the role of kvatter began as the role of the sandek (and his wife) is the idea that a sandek, and perhaps all who take part in helping with the bris, are deemed shluchim of the father – acting on his behalf so that he can fulfill his requirement of performing a bris on his son. Kvatter then could simply be made up by the words of K’fetter, lit. Like the father.

    For whatever reason, at some point in the past 500 years (note that even Siddur Beis Yaakov by Rav Yaakov Emden –late 1700’s –makes no mention of our current practice) we created this new, separate kibud that we call kvatter where a wife gives the baby to her husband who will then bring him to the bris.

    Being that the entire enterprise of kvattering is relatively new what then could be the source for the segula?!

    At first, the only source I found was in my trusty Shaarei Aaron. Each week I study the parsha with this wonderful sefer that seeks to gather the main pshat-oriented interpretations to each and every pasuk of the Torah. At the end of Lech Lcha he points out the correlation of Avraham’s bris and HKBH’s promise to increase his nation’s size generally as well as the promise of Yitzchak’s birth in particular. In pasuk 17:2 the verse states, “I will place my bris bayni u’veyncha –between Me and you – and I will increase you very much”

    The Shaarei Aaron comments that perhaps this is the source for the kvatter segulah, as we see here a correlation between bris mila (or, helping with a bris mila) and having children; as the act of kvattering is the act of helping a bris bayni u’veyncha, between you and the father (or whomever the kvatter passes the baby to)…to which/whom Hashem promised will bring children.

    While an interesting idea I was still not satisfied.

    I then reached out to Rabbi Paysach Krohn, a mohel par excellence. He pointed out that in his book on bris mila (Artscroll) he delves into this issue. He alerted me to a midrash in Bamidbar Rabba, Nasso 14:2 (Vilna ed.). There, chazal teache us that when Hashem sees someone helping another in serving Him regarding a matter for which the helper themselves lacks – say a mohel who does not have kids of his own –then Hashem will grant that person with the opportunity to perform this mitzvah for themselves.

    What a source!

    This would mean, additionally, that anyone involved with helping or assisting in a bris would have this same merit! This may also prove that the baal simcha in my case was correct in that serving as kvatter can help with an all-girl family have boys. For, since one is assisting in a mitzvah that they themselves have never been able to perform Hashem may see this as a reason to grant them a boy to perform it themselves.

    I then recalled a similar idea from the gemara (Shekalim 14a). There, the story is told regarding an individual who helped secure water for the populace. On the day of his daughter’s wedding day she was rumored to have drowned. Rav Pinchas ben Yair, after being informed of the circumstances surrounding her ‘death’, responded by asking/praying “Can one who honors Hashem through water be punished through water?!” And indeed she was found alive. From here we see the idea of Hashem also not punishing one through the very tool that he/she befits others with.

    May we have faith in the surreptitious genius of the Jewish nation and in the mysterious segulos they cite; and may Hashem have faith in us as well through granting us all what we so deeply desire.

    POSTSCRIPT:

    The sefer Zichron Yaakov (65-66), by Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector’s shamash Rabbi Yaakov Lipshitz, writes how in his days the kvatter were little children dressed like adults – The boy wore a shtreimel & the girl wore a tichel!

  • Spilled Ink/Spilled Blood

    Spilled Ink/Spilled Blood

    Selected Speeches, Letters, & Laments of and about the Jews in Diaspora

    Curated by Rabbi Moshe Taub, and published in Ami Magazine, July 2025-Tisha b’Av Issue

    ——————————-

    Ramban (Nachmonides, d. 1270h, after settling in Jerusalem, writing to his son a description of its ruins, circa 1263:


    “I write this letter in ir hakodesh Yerushalaim. For, thanks and praise unto Hashem, I was privileged to arrive safely there in elul, and stayed till the day after Yom Kippur. Now I intend going to Chevron, to maaroshamachpelah, to daven…

    “But what shall I say to you concerning the country? Great is the solitude and great is its devastation…The more sacred the places, the greater their desolation. Yerushalaim is more desolate than the rest of the country: AreiYehudah more than Galil. But even still in its destruction it is a blessed land…

    “[Yerushalaim] has a total of around two-thousand inhabitants, three-hundred of which are Christians who live there after escaping the sword of the Sultan. 

    “There are few Jews. For, after the arrival of the Tartars [Muslims], some fled while others died by the sword. There are only two brothers{!}, dyers by trade, who must purchase their ingredients from the government. There [at their shop] the minyan meets, and on Shabbos we daven at their home.

    “But we encouraged them, and we succeeded in finding a vacant house that we took for a shuland built pillars of marble with a beautiful arch. For the town is without a ruler, so that whoever desires to take possession of the ruins can do so. We gave our offering towards the repairs of the house. We have sent already to Shechem to procure sifrei Torah. These had initially been brought there from Yerushalim upon the invasion of the Tartars. 

    “Continually people crowd into Yerushalaim ,men and women, from Damascus, Zobah[Aleppo], and from all parts of the country, to see the makom hamikdosh and to mourn there.

    “May He who thought us worthy to see Yerushalaim in her desertion grant us that we witness her when rebuilt and restored, when Hashem’s glory will return to her. And you, my son, your brothers, and the whole of our family, may you all live to see the salvation of Yerushalim and the nechama of tzion.”

    Director General of New Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, writing to his colonial bosses of the Dutch East Company back in Amsterdam on September 22, 1654.

    He composed the following letter just two weeks after the arrival of the first group of Jews to arrive to North America:

    (See my book Jews of the New World for a discussion of the few Jews who preceded them, as well as a suggested genesis for Stuyvesant’s rabid antisemitism)

    “…The Jews who arrived would nearly all like to remain here. But learning that they-with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians-were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates…we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and the land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also…that this deceitful race-such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of C- -be not allowed further to infect and trouble the new colony…”  

    This letter was given greater purchase when Domine Johannes Megapolenis, New Amsterdam’s chief minister and clergyman, composed a letter supporting such ugly sentiment, writing later, on March 18, 1655:

    “Last summer some Jews came here from Holland in order to trade… they came several times to my house, weeping and bemoaning their misery…”These gdless rascals, who are of no benefit to the country, but look at everything for their own profit, may be sent away from here…”

    The following diagnosis comes from David Lloyd George 1863-1945, who served as British Prime Minister (1916-1922), speaking on the cancer that is antisemitism:


    “Of all the bigotries that savage the human temper there is none so unwise as the anti-Semitic. It has no basis in reason, it is not rooted in faith, it aspires to no ideal-it is just one of those dank and unwholesome weeds that grow in the morass of racial hatred.
    “How utterly devoid of reason it is may be gathered from the fact that it is almost confined to nations that worship the Jewish prophets and apostles and revere the national literature of the Hebrews as the only inspired message delivered by the Deity to mankind, and whose only hope of salvation rests on the precepts and promises of the great teachers of Judaism.
    “Still, in the sight of these fanatics Jews of today can do nothing right. If they are rich, they are birds of prey. If they are poor, they are vermin. If they are in favor of war, that is because they want to exploit the bloody feuds of Gentiles to their own profit. If they are anxious for peace, they are either instinctive cowards or traitors. If they give generously – and there are no more liberal givers than the Jews-they are doing it for some selfish purpose of their own. If they don’t give- then what would you expect of a Jew?
    “If labor is oppressed by great capital, the greed of the Jew is held responsible. If labor revolts against capital as it did in Russia-the Jew is blamed for that also. If he lives in a strange land, he must be persecuted and pogrommed out of it. If he wants to go back to his own, he must be prevented….

    The following was composed by Rav Chasdei Crescas (d. 1410), writing to the community of Avignon, on the 12th of Cheshvan/19th of October 1391. 

    Here he details the Spanish massacre of the summer of 1391.

    Aside for the ten-of-thousands of slaughtered Jews, hy”d, this event led to the conversion of many, and was the prelude to the Spanish Inquisition, which took place one-hundred-years later. 

    He opens the letter by sharing how is only son was among the martyred, Hy”d:

    “Among the many who sanctified the name of the Lord was my only son…If I were to tell you here all the numerous sufferings we have endured you would be dumbfounded at the thought of them.

    “I will therefore set before you only in brief detail the table of our disaster set with poisonous plant and wormwood [see devarim29:17], giving you a bare recital of the facts so that you may state yourselves on the bitterness of our wormwood and drink from the wine of our grief! …

    “On the day of the New Moon of the fateful month tamuz in the year 5151 [July 1391] Hashem bent the bow of the enemies against the populous community of Seville where there were between 6,000 – 7,000 heads of families, and they destroyed their gates by fire and killed in that very place a great number of people; the majority, however, changed their faith. Many of them, children as well as women, were sold to the Muslims, so that the streets occupied by Jews have become empty. Many of them, sanctifying the Holy Name, endured death…

    “From there the fire spread and consumed all the cedars of Lebanon [talmidei chachamim] in the holy community of Cordova. 

    “And on the day of misery and punishment, on which the sufferings were intensified…in the community of Toledo…the priests and the learned were murdered.

    “In that very place the rabbis, the descendants of the virtuous and excellent R. Asher of blessed memory, together with their children and pupils, publicly sanctified the Holy Name….

    “On the 7th of the month av the Hashem destroyed the community of Valencia, in which there were about a thousand heads of families; about 250 men died al kiddush Hashem the others fled into the mountain, yet some changed their faith…From there the plague spread…. On rosh chodesh elul, the bloodthirsty villains came there, profaned, plundered and robbed them and left them like a net in which there are no fish. Three-hundred died al kiddush Hashem…

    “On the following Shabbos Hashem poured out his fury like fire, and destroyed the community of Barcelona. The number of murdered amounted to 250 souls; the rest fled into the castle, where they were saved.

    “The enemies plundered all streets inhabited by Jews and set fire to some of them. The authorities of the province, however, took no part in this; instead, they endeavored to protect the Jews with all their might. They offered food and drink to the Jews, and even set about punishing the wrongdoers, when a furious mob rose against the better classes in the country and fought against the Jews who were in the castle, with bows and missiles, and killed them in the castle itself. Amongst the many who was mikadesh shem shomayim was my only son, who was a chosson and whom I have offered as a korban without blemish; I submit to Hashem’s justice and take comfort in the thought of his [his son’s] excellent portion and his delightful lot. Amongst them were many who slaughtered themselves and others who threw themselves down from the tower and whose limbs were already broken before they had reached half-way down the tower. Many also came forth anddied al kidush Hashem in the open street. Many. Others changed their faith… Because of our many sins, there is none left in Barcelona today who still bears the name of Jew…

    “In the town of Gerona, where knowledge of Torah could be found combined with humility, the Rabbis of that place publicly died al kidushHashem, and only a few changed their faith. The majority of the community escaped to the houses of the citizens…”

    (Translation of Franz Kobler, A Treasury of Jewish Letters, 1953, p. 272ff)

    Rav Chasdei ends by quoting from eichah “I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath” (3:1), and with the following words of hope, some chizuk upon which we will too will conclude:

    “In spite of this our eyes are directed towards the Father in heaven, that He may be merciful to us and may heal us of our wounds, and keep our feet from wavering. May this be His will, Amen.”

  • Saying ‘Mazal Tov’ for a Get?

    Saying ‘Mazal Tov’ for a Get?

    A Long-Suffering Agunah & Her Seudas Hodah

    Rabbi Moshe Taub, Ami Magazine, April 2025

    1. The Shailah & Its Background

      It is easy to guess and pontificate regarding a seemingly ‘inconsequential’ or ‘small’ hashkafic question; to debate around the Shabbos table.

    Rabbanim, however, do not often share that luxury, as our answers may be taken as fact, acted upon, and quoted.

    We must be careful.

    So when I received the following request, I was uncertain as to the proper course of action.

      “Rabbi, can we sponsor the Shabbos hagadol drasha?”

    “Of course!” I enthusiastically responded.

       “Ok, Rabbi. We will call the shul secretary to make sure it gets put in the flyer.

    “It will say something to the effect:

    ‘Mazal Tov to our daughter Esther [name has been changed] upon receiving her get””.

    I must have been silent for an extra beat, causing these parents to ask, “Is it not proper to say ‘mazal tov’ for such an occasion?”

      I understood their relief, of course. Indeed, I too had been involved in Esther’s plight for many, many years. In fact, my ‘simcha‘ was doubled by the fact that, just days earlier, another woman also received her get after more than a decade of emotional torture.

    As shailos tend to come in pairs, as I was contemplating the ‘Mazal Tov’ issue, this second newly minted gerusha invited me to a ‘seudas hodah’ her sisters were making to celebrate her finally attaining her get.

    “Can you offer some divrei Torah” she requested, adding “Would it be appropriate for us to recite the pesukim for the korban todah?”

    II. ‘Agunah’

    I use the term ‘agunah’ cautiously, judiciously; never weakening its potency. Both of these cases above were divorces concerning true agunos.

    There are the most painful elements of rabbanus; cases where husbands ignore beis din, skirt court orders, and even flee to other countries.

    When I was a rav in Buffalo, I once had a chassideshe posek request permission to send a private detective to our shul on Yom Kippur. In that case, a husband absconded from beis din appointments, disappeared from his Monsey neighborhood, and whose last EZ-PASS entry was a few miles from my home (this case was the subject of another post).

         I have arranged gittin in prison, in medical offices, and in abandoned buildings.

        It may be surprising to learn that not do such men take my calls, but that most relish in them. On the phone, they believe they are in control, allowing them faux-power in their games of deception and manipulation; drawing yet one more person down to their pettiness, anger, and darkness.

    Undeterred after inevitably failing to convince me of their righteousness, their narcissism assures them I will be convinced after the second call, the third, etc.

       Often, the families of such agunos have to suffer the indignity of receiving tzedakah, and in one case, moving with their children into a frum home for battered women, and then -after the children are abandoned by their fathers – watching the horror on their children’s faces as many high schools reject them -just another in their list of men who have let them down. In one case, after showing the administrator how a particular young girl was able to destroy her yetzer and get straight alephs’s, yearly middos awards, no internet -all while living with her mother in an Ohel Home for Battered Women – I was told that they still can’t ‘risk’ having ‘such’ a girl! Unforgivable!

       So, I understood how each of these gittin felt like a ‘simcha’, one worthy of a ‘mazal tov’, even if the mizbeach needed to shed tears (gittin 90).

       I am writing this on the eve of Rav Nota Greenblatt’s yartzeit (28 nisan). I do not know of a single person in Jewish history, or any entire organization around today, that has ended the agunah status for more women than he, having written somewhere between 20,000-30,000 gittin. His own children never saw him during the week!

           Neither of the two women mentioned above are members of my shul, nor do I have much free time in the day. But Rav Nota taught me that nothing is more important than making sure such women have a halachic closure to their pain. Zechuso yagein aleinu.

    III. The Term ‘Mazal Tov‘

    An easy mnemonic to recall one of the first instances of the term ‘mazal tov’ is its roshei teivos, ‘mem teis’, for pesachim daf mem teis (49a). The gemara there shares that the beracha/hope for each zivug, is that the marriage be ‘oleh yaffa’. Rashi explains this term as, “b’mazal tov” (see also Rashi to bereishis 30:1 with Targum Yonasan).

    While the earliest reference to this phrase may be found by kiddush levana (from mes. soferim – ‘siman tov, u’mazal tov…’), we are seeking its provenance qas a term used by simchos.

      One of the earliest mentions of the minhag of using this term at weddings, is the shu”t Maharam Mintz (#109, p. 538).

      A century earlier Rabbeinu Yeruchum (b. 1290) records such a practice in reference to “giving ‘mazal’..” the night before a bris (Toldos Adam v’Chava, 17). However, he then quotes those who were concerned with this practice (see Beis Yosef to y”d 189:4; see also note to Tosefta K’Peshuta, shabbos, 6:4).

        Another generation earlier, we find Rav Yehudah Hachasid sharing a minhag of issuing a ‘mazal tov’ after a birth of a child (Sefer Chasidim, #487).

         As to the meaning of this phrase – and the serious hashkafic questions it brings, alluded to by Rabbeinu Yeruchum, (e.g. ‘ein mazal l’yisroel‘, etc.) – we find many explanations .

    One approach -that this teffilah is to overpower potential negative potencies through Torah, teshuva, and mitzvos – is found in an essay by Rav Gavriel Tzinner (sefer Shiduchim V’Tennaim, p. 470); whereas the shu”t Be’er Eliuyahu (3:55) explains that ‘mazal’ here doesn’t refer to the constellations, but rather to certain melachim of similar names that bring beracha from Hashem, perhaps similar to barchuni l’shalom said Friday night (although, admittedly, a small minority have the minhag to omit that particular stanza).

      As to saying ‘mazal tov’ by a get, I reached out to a renown posek, who has also arranged thousands of gittin. He responded: “I am not aware of a source for such a ‘minhag’ however I do wish each of the parties happiness and success going forward.”

       I think that may be wise-as we should not desire to create new minhagim.

    I then discovered that in the Artscroll ‘Rav Nota‘ biography, it is recorded how Rav Nota too would frown upon saying ‘mazal tov‘ by such an occasion.

    IV. The Hodah ‘Event’

    I walked in to the ‘event’ with my wife only to find seven women around a table -their food untouched – quietly reciting tehillim through tears.

     Mi k’amcha yisroel?!

    I was son introduced to say a few words.

        “I don’t know a phrase to use” I admitted. “Another gerusha this week asked me if we say ‘mazal tov’. I just don’t know.

     “While we must never revel at the dissolvement of a marriage, we can, and indeed must, recognize the yad Hashem and show proper hakara.

     “In two days, we will recall the kriah of the yam suf. By that kriah (tearing) only those humans who were actually saved were given sanction to sing shirah. The melachim, however, were reprimanded when the sought to sing, “My creations are drowning, and you wish to sing shirah?!” (See Mishnas Rav Ahron where he makes a similar distinction between Hashem rejecting the shira of the angels, while reveling in the shira of klal yisroel).

     “So, perhaps, the choice of emotion is up to the gerusha alone. Perhaps she can say that phrase…but not I.

    “More, perhaps this is why chazal compare zivugim to krias yam suf. Chazal conclude that this is referring to one’s ‘second’ zivug. In other words, this kriah – this get – should lead to beracha for you down the road, iy”H.

        “As for reciting the korban todah, the Rema tells us not say this parsha at all over Pesach – due to its rare chometz loaves.

        “Yet, perhaps, this rare feature of the korban todah (as the Torah generally forbids chometz by korbonos) can perhaps provide for us a lesson today. The word ‘chometz’ alludes to letting things fester (e.g. mitzvah bu l’yado al tachmitzena). Todah, hakarah, or gratitude, too, is amplified with time. If an article is found as quickly as it was lost, then the thankfulness may not be as strong as when it was missing for many years.

       “The longer one waits, the more anxiety and worry, the added lost sleep -the surplus of ‘chometz’ as it were- all lead to a todah and relief that is that much more intensified upon release.

       “In your case, there has been much ‘chometz’; much time of waiting – so your hakara must be profound.”

    (Being she was a sefardi, I thought to allow her its recital after I left, see Rema 51:9)

         Rav Chaim Berlin was once imbroiled in a machlokos regarding a get. The rabbanim on either side were at odds with each other. He shared with them that when chazal mention an ‘individual who has mazal’ (bava kama 2b), Rashi explains this as “one who has the wisdom to guard himself”. Rav Berlin explained that Hashem gives us everything, but we can ruin it if we abuse our ‘mazal’. This, he explained, is why we say this phrase at a wedding. We are telling the chosson and kalla, “Be careful! Do not let a bad word or negative mood destroy what Hashem gave you”. (Nishmas Chaim, evh’a, 147).

        He was hinting that their milchama shel Torah should not lead to negative words.

       So, whether the reader is newly married or celebrating their fiftieth year, ‘mazal tov!’

  • E-mailing the Past and the Future

    E-mailing the Past and the Future

    A Rabbi and His Congregants Debate Our Jewish Future

    Published in Ami Magazine in October of 2013

    The October 1 edition of the New York Times published a Pew Research Poll regarding the state of Judaism in America.

    The numbers are a sorry sight. Intermarriage has surged, synagogue attendance has declined, and a large number of American Jews (32%) define themselves as “having no religion”.

    The only growth and stability found in this poll was among the Orthodox.

    What follows is a series of email exchanges between Rabbi Moshe Taub and members of his community in Buffalo, NY on how to deal with these statistics as well as their cause(s). While names, other than Rabbi Taub’s, have been left out, permission has been received from the others to print their emails.

    On Oct 1, 2013, at 1:13 PM, X wrote:

    To: Rabbi Taub

    CC: Y

    You may have seen this article, but I thought I would pass it on.  It

    is sad that less than 70 years after the Holocaust and the founding of

    the State of Israel, Jews, by sheer indifference, begin to disappear.

    After spending 100 hours in Shul in the last month, it is hard to

    imagine that most Jews didn’t go at all!  Not fair!

    On 10/1/2013 4:10 PM, Moshe Taub wrote:

    Yes, very sad, even sadder that I am not surprised.

    Based on these statistics, in two generations Orthodox will be the

    majority -based both on its fast-growing numbers and due to the continuing cultural suicide of the other movements.

    Every few years a poll like this gets picked up and the Reform et al.

    have serious discussions as to what they can do to fix the problem.

    Ironically, up till the late 70’s the Orthodox were seen as a

    disappearing relic and the other movements thought they had a monopoly

    on the future.

    “Chacham Einav B’rosho” The wise man sees far, far ahead, and in the

    40’s and 50’s, while many chose to bend to the will and desires of their

    Congregants -and wer seen as pioneers in the process – the true and great pioneers were in fact the ones who ignored them while simultaneously planting seeds for the next generation.

    Thankfully, what these men planted on these shores was an Ilan Chazak. And like Choni HamAgel, 70 years later we wake up and see the fruits of their tireless labor.

    The saddest part of all this is witnessing the decline of Conservative

    Judaism, both in numbers and in policy. They will feel the brunt of this

    more so than Reform etc.

    Moshe Taub

    On Oct 2, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Y wrote:

    Dear Rabbi Taub,

    I don’t disagree with your assessment.  But there are other matters, perhaps ones which you broach indirectly in mentioning that the saddest part of all this is the decline of Conservative Judaism.  Granted the wisdom of Orthodoxy hoeing its own garden, rather than worrying so much about “outreach,” must not Orthodoxy ask itself if the alienation of so many Jews from Orthodoxy expressed by the very formation of the Conservative and Reform movements does not have something–at least something, if not everything–to do with the way in which Orthodoxy, in its various institutions and functionaries, conceives of itself?  When Conservative and Reform disappear, are we confident that new break-offs will not arise and that those who break off will not do so because they are repelled by Orthodox behaviors, attitudes, ways of doing things?

    And as for Orthodoxy in itself, it is not good that it should be monolithic.  Not good, because sages, wise as they are, have an inherent tendency toward arrogance about their wisdom (I think of kin’as sofrim) and, if not arrogance, at least complacency.  The sin of the people of Babel is that they were all one people speaking one language, and this was equivalent to building a tower to heaven and replacing God with themselves.  God multiplied their languages–not, by my lights, a klalla but a bracha.

    Y

    On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Moshe Taub wrote:

    I hope you won’t be mad if I respond with honesty…

    –  Imagine if there was a breakdown in academia. Schools were closing one after the next, and that scholarly interest, if existing at all, were purely for vocational purposes. Harvard soon shuts down its Humanities Dept. etc., etc., etc. 

    In the entire country of three hundred million there is no more than 1000 people left who know how to read Shakespeare, who have even heard of Plato, who have ever truly read a poem.

    After meditating on that new reality for a minute….

     As a passionate student and teacher of such subjects, how would your plan for fixing this differ than Rav Moshe’s? Would your main focus be to get the 40 year olds back to school, is that where you would spend your energy?

    I hope not. 

    Rather the smarter bet would be to first make sure that these studies can live on authentically. Second, you will work on the upcoming college age kids, while not ignoring the already lost -and certainly composing books geared toward them.

    Infrastructure for the future, preserving an authentic rendering of whichever subject or school, must come first.

    – Would the above be seen as arrogant? Probably. But to define it as ‘hoeing one’s own’ would, I contend, be simplistic, as well as not giving Torah L’Shmah the same urgency as you would your own life focus.

    – As for outreach, Orthodox has not failed. Many more people have flocked to Orthodoxy on serious religious grounds than any of the other movements, which have, often, acted as weigh stations as one’s family and history exits the nation – sadly. Yes, they often extend this life, yet like a hospice, few make it out alive. Indeed, the other movements cannot hold a candle to the energy that the Orthodox have devoted in outreach toward other Jews.

    But perhaps your point is not that we do not reach-out to others, but that we reject the other paths, and they notice this. Which leads to my next point…

    – Your proof from Babel is, in my judgment, misplaced. Again, imagine we are talking about your acceptance of how yeshivos edit Shakespeare’s works for tznius purposes. Do you accept that, and if not, what of alienation? And then what do you do if colleges begin a puritan streak and begin doing the same, rejecting, say, Romeo and Juliet? Do you go silent? Would you worry about alienation above authenticity? We mustn’t have separate rules governing modes of protection for authentic Torah vs. protecting the things outside of faith that we most passionately pursue.

     – Yes, Gd allows each of us to find our own emes (see Bereishis Rabba, bereishis where Gd threw emes to the earth and it shattered into many pieces). But there are limits, as any system must have. 

    Where are those goal posts? That is a question that we all must ponder before discussing inclusiveness, not after. Otherwise one runs the risk of falling into the trap that Aaron fell into (al pi pshat) -a much better illustration in my view.

    So, yes, diversity exists within Torah, as it does within Academia. Yet, in both there are limits -must be limits. You alienate a nice chunk of people who call you ‘Elitist’, as I too am viewed bleakly by many. And we both sleep well at night, confident that we have preserved what we need to.

    A few final points: 

    – Considering my example, you know that if you would allow for the ‘Disney-fication’ of academics, if Readers-Digest-like critiquing is respected, and if you allow those teachers to join you as equals at the table it would influence over time the authentic teachers far more so than the inauthentic teachers. A broom gets dirty as it cleans up (see introduction to shu’t Chasam Sofer from Avraham and Sdom where he wonders just how ‘dirty’ a rabbinic broom must get).

    – Your disappointment would be better directed at the founders of the other failed and inauthentic movements, not those who, whether true or not, did not do enough to clean up their mess. The NYT article was about their failure, not ours.

    –  Lakewood has 6500 students currently enrolled; this is not including the many Lakewood affiliated yeshivos and kollelim throughout that city and the world. Surely you are aware that not all of their students’ grandparents were frum. Compare this number to any of the other schools of higher Jewish learning, even high schools. Lakewood did not succeed alone but with the help of the many other yeshivos and derachim that helped either turn those students’ families onto yiddeshkeit or that produced the rabbanim who inspired them toward change. Remarkable, for had we asked any branch of Judaism in 1950, “Considering that each of you claim a monopoly in saving the future of Jewish America, venture a guess as to the enrollment of all of your branch’s yeshivos, rabbinical schools, and high schools in 60 years, 2013”, no one, aside for Rav Aaron, would have guessed this result (and the design for a 3000 student yeshivah found in his notes following his pertira –at a time when the yeshiva numbered in the low hundreds – is testimony to his confidence in his approach’s future success).

    While some would argue that the number of people enrolled in yeshiva is not the best yardstick, this last poll proves that this is the only yardstick to know what will be in 60 years from now, in 2073.

    On this point, and with respect to the tzadikei shluchei Chabad, Morristown’s enrollment has not shifted much for deacdes. This is not to take away from their amazing work, rather to say that a Top-Down approach -create the highest level Kolellim, Yeshivos, etc. -seems to be a winning one. In my father’s day at NCSY, its Shabbatonim were never seen as an end onto itself, rather sending the girl to Neve Yerushalaim, or a boy t Telshe was.

     – One must be careful regarding inclusiveness; a demarcation between the beauty of outreach and the enticement for overreach. Judaism mustn’t turn into a pyramid scheme. The objective mustn’t be to inspire so that those people can then inspire people so that now those people can inspire people, etc. This is not Glengerry Glenn Ross, rather our end goal is to become, support, strive for, be envious of Elite Torah L’Shmah…the singular book Gd gave us to study and from which to learn, the book that is the envy of every nation and that has been robbed and pillared for every other system, of faith.

    The man alone in the beis midrash learning a ketzos must be seen as the preserver not the ignorer. 

    Otherwise we have become Am-way.

    Lakewood knows this, YU knows this, Chabad knows this.

    When a retired conservative rabbi began to daven in our shul he remarked that in his movement the rabbi is seen as the frum one, the knowledgeable one, on behalf of all others. “He keeps Shabbos so I don’t have to”. He was amazed to see a shul where the balla battim know enough to challenge a rav during a shiur, or even to give a shiur of their own.

    Finally, and to sum up:

    No matter our tiny size, no other religion fills up stadiums every seven years. But it is deeper than that:

    I defy anyone to discover another cause within yiddeshkeit other than Torah study that could fill 100,000 seats in Giants Stadium. No other branch of Judaism could do it, and even the Orthododx would struggle unless it is a celebration of each Jew’s personal authentic Torah study.

    Kiruv could not do that, Hatzala could not do that, Bikur Cholim could not do that.

    You know how I know? Because if they could, they would!

    Of course, we NEED all the above chesadim, and it would be specious and pure sophistry to misread me as diminishing those holy tasks in any way (after all, I myself am a rabbi in Buffalo!)!

    Rather, that the authenticity of Torah and its study, and our preserving of it, must always remain focus number one, for it is the elixir that has always saved us from withering on the vine.

    M

    PS – I would be remiss not to mention that the entire enterprise of outreach has been compromised of late due to the high intermarriage rate. Many Temples have a higher rate of halachic gentiles among their memberships now (especially the children) than halachic Jews.

    PPS –As to who gets to decide what is authentic Torah study, ahhhh, well that is an email exchange for another time…

  • The Secret of the Shlisel Challa

    The Secret of the Shlisel Challa

    A Short Thought Exploring the Tradition of Shlisel Challa

    Rabbi Moshe Taub, April 2013, Ami Magazine

    One of the most interesting minhagim, specifically as it relates to this time of year, is the shlisel challa (literally: the ‘key bread’. In truth, ‘challa‘ does not mean ‘bread’, and how it attained this monicker is the focus of another post).

    For those unfamiliar, the minhag of shlisel challa is where, for the shabbos after Pesach, many prepare their challa either in the shape of a key, or, place an actual key inside the dough before it is baked (for sources, see Imrei Pinchos #298; Ohev Yisroel, likutim, shabbos achar Pesach, inter alia.).

    While we find many unique customs relating to challa throughout the year -e.g. round on yom tov/straight on Shabbos, braids, etc. –shlisel challa has distinctively captured the imagination of many, leading to an abundance of theories and explanations as to its meaning and representation.

    I will, la”d, offer my own theory to this minhag, and why its appeal spread beyond the province of its chassidic provenance:

    The yom tov of Pesach, as the word itself declares, recalls how Hashem passed over our homes as He killed the Egyptian firstborn. Sadly, this was a necessary miracle, being that the Jews at the time were on the 49th level of tumah, underserving salvation on their own merit[1]. To recall this, in our yearly preparation for this yom tov, we clean our homes from even a trifle of chometz – which chazal share is representative of the sneakily metastasizing power of the yetzer hara (e.g. berachos 17a). We do this in the hope that Hashem will continue to protect us; skipping over our homes no matter the storm brewing outside. But now it’s after Pesach, after we have successfully purged our homes from its negative chometz forces. No more do we seek, simply, that Hashem protect us by skipping over our homes, that He not bear witness to our actions inside. Now confident in our bedikah, we – kaviyochel– invite Hashem inside, accentuating this confidence by offering Him an actual key to our abode! It is as if to say, “Riboneh Shel Olam! We are now confident we can be saved based on what we have accomplished therein; Come, and see for Yourself!”

    Notes:

    [1] Why was this strange deed of ‘blood pouring’ chosen by Gd as our means of escape?

    Lulei D’Mistapinah, I will offer a theory:

    The Chizkuni suggests the brothers sold Yosef because they could be not tolerate the uncertainty of the future slavery decree — when would it begin?

    They therefore made the grave error of taking Hashem’s plan into their own hands, acting in Full-Hishtadlus mode (similar to Chizkiyahu’s error-see berachos 10a).

    How did they facilitate this?

    By slaughtering a goat, dipping, and bringing this false evidence to Yaakov.

    To correct this original sin of our entrance to Egypt, a striking parallel was necessary in our yetziah m’sham:

    Same animals (goat/sheep), same dipping in blood — but this time as an act of defiant Bitachon. We dip in blood not to deceive Yaakov but to mark our doorposts, publicly declaring our faith to Hashem alone (Shmos 12:6–8).

    The Korban Pesach is the tikkun for the sale of Yosef. Where the brothers used hishtadlus to take Hashem’s plan into their own hands, we use the same act as a declaration of pure bitachon.

    I have not seen this above connection made by anyone else, and have been pointing this out for years! Whenever I share it, people always assert that this connection must also be a Midrash (it is not).

  • The Amazing Life & Conversion of Warder Cressin

    The Amazing Life & Conversion of Warder Cressin

    A 19th Century American Patriot From Derby, PA who Converted in Yerushalaim

    Written by Rabbi Moshe Taub for Ami Magazine November, 2012

    He arrived on the shores of eretz yisroel in the summer of 1844 holding a dove and an American flag.

    After receiving approval to be the first American Consul to Jerusalem, Warder Cresson was unaware that the President of the United States had revoked his status while already Israel bound.

    Yet this is by no means the most fascinating part of his story.

    ‘Who was Warder Cresson?’ you may ask.

    Well…who wasn’t Warder Cresson!

    Polymath, convert, source of halachic battle, mevakesh, man of history, the list goes on.

    Several years ago my predecessor in Buffalo, HaRav Yirmiyah Milevsky, published a wonderful article researching the life of Warder Cresson. His discovery was passed around rabbinic circles as it resolved an old halachic history that we shall soon discuss.

     Warder was born July 13, 1798 to a deeply devout Quaker family. After some business success, by the age of thirty he began to question his faith. According to the historical research of Dr. Yitzchak Levine, “By the 1840’s he had become, in turn, a Shaker, a Mormon, a Seventh Day Adventist and a Campbellite.”

    Like Yisro, or the King of Kuzar of the sefer Kuzari, who had examining many faiths until discovering Torah and yiddeshkeit, Warder was a searcher, a mevakesh.

    Inspired by the writings of some of the rabbis of his time, his heart began to pine for avira d’arah. Before embarking on this journey he somehow convinced the American government to give him the official title of American Consul to Israel. There were men who knew of Warder, and viewed him as a religious fanatic (we can only imagine how many faiths he had angered by this point!). One man, Samule D. Ingham, who had served as President Jackson’s Secretary of Treasury ten years earlier and who knew Warder wrote to President Tyler’s administration to have Warder’s title revoked. They concurred. But it was too late for Warder to find out before his arrival.

    In time he became dismayed at what he saw. Missionaries living in luxury while the Jews and others lived in utter poverty.

    He also strongly criticized the church’s overt desire to convert Jews. He wrote a parody titled ‘The Society Formed in England and America for Promoting Sawdust, Instead of good Old Cheese, amongst the Jews in Jerusalem’

    In it he compared Cheese to Judaism and sawdust to his and the missionaries’ faith that may look like shredded cheese and be sold as such but was a ruse and not the real thing.

    A few years after, and now almost fifty years of age, Warder Cresson became a ger.

    He wrote: “When I became fully satisfied that I could never obtain Strength and Rest, but by doing as Ruth did, and saying to her Mother-in-Law, or Naomi ‘Entreat me not to leave thee … for whither thou goest I will go’…. In short, upon the 28th day of March, 1848, I was circumcised, entered the Holy Covenant and became a Jew….”

    After a short visit to America, he returned to Israel under the name Michael Boaz Yisroel Ben Abraham, married, had two children and lived the life of a sefardi. He died in 1864 and was buried on har zeisim. His burial spot was only discovered last year.

    While Warder Cresson’s life still had even more fascinating turns –his autobiography detailing his life choices titled ‘Key of David’, his divorce from his first wife and loss of much of his American estate, his likely 1857 meeting with Herman Mellville, author of Moby Dick – it is his halachic legacy that I wish to share.

    The shu’t Binyan Tzion (91) by Rav Ettlinger –better known perhaps as the Aruch L’ner –discusses the case of a Moroccan convert in Israel.

    Here is the shailah that was posed to him (translation from Rabbi Milevsky):

    “Here in Yerushalaim on Tuesday the twenty third day of the month of Adar Sheni of the year (5)608, a non Jew came from Morocco and had a bris for the sake of geirus, and accepted all the mitzvos. On the following Shabbos, he had not fully recovered from the circumcision and thus not entered the Mikvah…a rabbi claimed that due to the fact that he did not yet enter the Mikvah he must not observe Shabbos and must perform a melacha…Consequently he violated Shabbos by writing a few letters. After Shabbos when the Rabbis in town heard of the ruling they disagreed claiming that after his bris he is considered a Jew and must not violate Shabbos.”

    The question is a fascinating one. What is the status of a ger between the stages of bris and tevilah? Many teshuvos have been written about this case throughout the years from all over the world.

    The Binyan Tzion has a remarkable approach that while not yet a yid, once convalescing from his bris and before tevila he is also no longer a gentile, and the prohibition on gentiles in keeping Shabbos no longer applies! This seems to be the understanding of the Chasam Sofer (oh’c 116) and can also be inferred from the Tosphos Yeshanim (Yevamus 48b).

    The Sochachover rebbe takes this even further (Avnei Nezer y’d 352), that not only may someone in this ‘quasi’ state observe Shabbos, but they must! Basing himself on the Zohar, we know that the Jews received the mitzvah of Shabbos in Marah –after mila but before the tevila of Sinai (See also shu’t Eretz Tzvi 1:41). He even goes so far as to say that even if earlier sources would seem to argue on this quasi status it may only be due to the fact that the Zohar was not yet known in their time.

    In fact, the Midrash would imply (Devarim Rabba 1:20) that this prohibition on a gentile to observe Shabbos is only until “one accepts mila” clearly indicating that this ger should not have been instructed to write on Shabbos after his mila (see shu’t Divrei Yosef 3:24).

    What about the rav from Yerushalaim who had this quasi convert write on Shabbos, what was his basis?

    The name of this rav was Rav Asher Lemmel, who indeed rejects many of the proofs brought.

    But a greater mystery has always been who this convert was. Keep in mind that this was at a time when very few became geirim.

    Rabbi Milevsky took the date of the geirus found in Rav Ettlinger’s teshuvah and calculated the equivalent secular date and…lo and behold it was March 28, 1848 the exact same date that Warder Cresson converted! He was the source behind this famous debate!

    As for his being called Moroccan, in Hebrew America has the exact same spelling save for one letter.

    When Artscroll published their new English Midrash Rabba (Ibid. 213 note 241) they seem to have fully accept Rabbi Milevsky’s contention that the man behind the story was Warder Cresson.

    One Quaker from Derby PA began to search, became a ger tzedek and had an impact still being felt today.

    Jews, Judaism & America’s Founding
  • Purim Halacha Primer

    Purim Halacha Primer

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    A Halachic Review of: Taanis Esther; Zecher L’Machatzis HaShekel; Megilla Reading(s); Matanot Levyonim; Shaloch Manos; Seudah

    Click Here For Why We Dress-Up On Purim

    Click Here For Why/When/How/Who We Get Drunk On Purim

    Taanis Esther

         Taanis Esther is a most unique fast.

    As opposed to all other yearly Fasts, it is not overtly mentioned in verse or even in the Talmud/Midrash (the other rabbinical Fasts are mentioned in zechariah 8:19).

    Any number of reasons is brought for our custom of Fasting on this day (see Rambam, hil. Taanis 5:5, inter alia).

    For a complete history of this fast click here.

     According to Kaballa the reason for this Fast is due to the following: as we know the original sin of the Purim story was our joining Seudat Achashveirosh, a party that was predicated on the mistaken belief that the Second Temple would not (soon) be rebuilt.

    Food, then, became a central part of this story. Therefore, in remembrance of this fact, we both obligate ourselves in food with a Seudah on Purim day and abstain from food the day before. By doing so we do not only atone for our error in Persia, but also for our error of eating in the Garden of Eden (Shla; Bnei Yisaschar; Rav Chaim Vital)!

      However, one isn’t to breech the customs of our heritage, however mysterious they may appear to us.

        Yet, because this Fast is but a custom one should certainly not be overly stringent and must speak to a Rav if not feeling well, even slightly.

       If Fasting will ruin a person’s Simcha on Purim, a Rav should be consulted.

    A pregnant or nursing woman should not fast Taanis Esther.

    Someone with severe migraines need not Fast Taanis Esther.

    One who wishes to eat early in the morning before the Fast begins should state as such before going to bed the night before.

    Zecher L’Machatzis HaShekel

    There is a Minhag to give three ‘half’ coins to Tzedaka at some point during these days.

         Most give this either before or after Mincha on Taanis Esther, while others do so on Purim before the Megilla reading.

          A plate will be in the shul with these three coins (taped together).

    PROCEDURE:

        Place money or a check onto this plate having in mind to thereby purchase one of the few, taped, sets of three coins (the money/check may be of greater value than these coins’ worth!).

        Then, the purchaser should lift up ‘his’ coins before donating them back to the same plate from which it was taken.

    IMPORTANT NOTE:

          One must be careful not to call this custom ‘Machatzis HaShekel’, rather “Zecher L’Machatzis HaShekel”, as it is but a remembrance.

    Megilla Reading(s)

          All adult Jews are obligated in reading/hearing the Megilla twice each Purim; once at night – from the emergence of stars until the morning; and once again during the day – from sunrise (netz) until sundown.

        If someone needs to hear one of the Megilla Readings at an earlier or later time than the shul is offering, please call or text me at 732-.

         Because these obligatory readings are ‘time/date-based/passing Mitzvos’, it is forbidden to eat a meal from the moment that each reading’s obligation begins (sundown, and sunup), other than a coffee or the like.

         Indeed (see Rama 692:4 and commentaries), the laws of performing any subjective task before the Megilla Readings is uniquely strict when compared to other passing Mitzvos.

    PROCEDURE:

         NIGHT READING:

    1. One must listen to the three blessings, answer Amen, and be sure not to talk at all until the Megilla is completed.
    2. Sefardim should have in mind (as should he who is making the blessings) that this Shehechiyanu blessing be an umbrella blessing for all the mitzvos of Purim into the next day (i.e., the Mitzvos of Shaloch Manos and Seudah).
    • Ashkanazim do not have these other Mitzvos in mind at the night leining, as they will be making another Shehechiyanu on the morning’s reading, and will have this in mind then.
    • One is obligated to hear the entire Megilla.
    • If one misses hearing a single word of the leining one should quickly make that up by quietly reading inside a printed Chumash until caught-up.
    • If one ‘spaces out’ but hears every word they still fulfill their obligation according to most. (But don’t space out 😉
    • It is best, halachicly, to hear the Megilla in a large crowd because the purpose of reading the Megilla is to publicize the Purim story.
    • The poskim posit that for the needs of the sick, or, a helping spouse, a large reading may be missed (see Biur Halacha 690:18; Shaar Hatzion 687:10 with Aruch Hashulchan and Achronim)
    • The reader needn’t know the meaning of the words, so long as he knows the major beats of the events in the Megillah
    • One need not follow along inside the text and may rather simply listen.
    • However, due to numbers 4-6, it is advisable to follow with a printed version. However, if one will focus more by listening, then this is all they should do. Although the Mishneh Berrura urges everyone have a Chumash/Megilla with which to follow along, it very well may be that in our generation of quick clicks and short attention spans, closing one’s eyes and listening my offer the less distracted experience. Each person is different, of course.
    • A Kosher Megilla is an advantage, as then even if entire sections of the Megilla are missed, they may be madeup – and the listener caught-up – by simply reading from a Halachic Megilla.

        Some contend that a Kosher Megilla serves additional advantages, such as listening while also reading along in a low whisper from his Megilla (audible enough so that at least he can hear). Then it may be deemed as if he both fulfilled the Mitzvah of listening to the Megilla in a large crowd, and also is deemed to have been the one to have read it (according the Chazon Ish; the Brisker Rav strongly disagrees, arguing that by reading it to oneself, he would lose the Pirsumei Nissei and Rav Am. 

    Matanot Levyonim

          On Purim we give charity to whoever asks. Some contend that this is the origin of our masquerading-so those who may need some finical aid may ask without shame.

         We also make sure to actively distribute funds on the day of Purim.

         This latter act is termed Matanot Levyonim and is one the Mitzvos of Purim, along with a Seudah and Mishaloach Manos.

       This Mitzvah is usually accomplished through giving funds to one’s Rav before or on Purim as he likely has a method of distributing on that day.

          I our Shul, it is recommended that people send money to the Rabbi’s Discretionary Account, earmarked in Memo as ‘Matanot Levyonim’, before Purim.

          Such checks should not be postdated for after Purim, if possible.

          The minimum one must give is $1, preferably for each member of his-or-her household.

       Of course, Kol HaMarbeh Meshubach/All who give more are praised!

    Shaloch Manot

    “Either friends like Job’s – or death” (Bava Basra 16b).

    “If one has no friends, it is better he not be alive” (Rashi, ad loc. s.v. ooh chavrei)

            Purim is a celebration of the living, of our nation surviving a physical threat. This is as opposed to Chanukah where our vulnerabilities were chiefly in the spiritual domain. This is the motivation behind Purim’s unique focus on the enjoyment of food, wine, friends, and gifts – as this day is a celebration of our physical existence and human survival (Levush; Rav Hirsch, etc.). 

          Friendship and camaraderie, being so paramount to the human condition, are therefore at the heart of Purim in general and the Mitzvah of Mishaloach Manos in particular.

        As in all matters of importance, and certainly all matters of Halacha, there are rules governing this wonderful Mitzvah.

          What follows are several of the fundamental Halachos relating to the performance of this Mitzvah.

    • Every man, woman and child are required to give Shaloch Manos to at least one individual.
    • Shaloch Manos must include at least two items of ready-to-eat either food or drink.
    • One may send Shaloch Manos items that all have the same Beracha (e.g., a peach and an apple, or, a steak and a beer).
    • Nevertheless, it is best if the two items sent are not of similar stock (e.g., apples and applesauce;) unless they are also of vastly different in taste or texture (e.g., rib steak and pepperoni, see R. Z.P. Frank in Mikroei Kodesh #38), although it is best to avoid even this. (Although I would accept rib steak and pepperoni! 😉
    • This Mitzvah must be done Purim DAY (sunrise to sundown), not Purim night.
    • If one sends it on the night of Purim they have not fulfilled their obligation (Rama).
    • B’dieved (post facto) one can mail or ship Mishaloach Manos before Purim and have it arrive at the appropriate time.
    • Someone in their twelve-months of mourning/kibbud av v’eim for his/her parents, or the thrity-days for other relatives, l’a, is still obligated in this mitzvah and should give Mishaloach Manos to a few close friends.
    •  
    • Regarding this mourner receiving Mishaloach Manos, the reader should consult a rav.

        However, in such cases, one may still give to the avel’s family.

          The one exception to the above is one’s rav, rebbe, or the like. Since this is customary, one may give them Mishaloach Manos even should they be in. a state of aveilus, l’a (Divrei Malkiel).

    • Some hold that Mishaloach Manos must be fulfilled through a shliach/messenger (shu”t Binyan Tzion).

    This is a novel and minority opinion.

       However, should one anyway be giving out multiple Misholach Manos, it is a fine idea to give at least one of these through a messenger so as to satisfy this opinion.

      A child can be used for this purpose.

    We must note that not only do many disagree with this view, some go as far as to say that if given through a Shliach/messenger it doesn’t count toward Shaloch Manos at all! (This is because the fostering of friendship is diminished with a messenger)

    • Some are of the opinion that spouses, as well as children living at home and reliant on their parents for food etc., may fulfill this mitzvah through the giving of their spouse/parent.

    (See Aruch HaShulchan 674:2. Either way, parents still carry the obligation of education their children in this Mitzvah).

    • If the receiver of the Shaloch Manos is not home or available when brought, then so long as he will find it before the end of the day one would still fulfill their mitzvah; provided that the reciever will know from whom it came (Ksav Sofer).

    –       There is an American custom of giving “themed” Mishaloach Manos.

    In some Kehillos, families can spend weeks preparing creative and/or elaborate set-ups and designs. ‘Deracheha Darchei Naom’/Her (the Torah’s) Ways Are Pleasant, and Torah should never become an unnecessary burden.

    Although a simple Mishaloach Manos with sizable portions suffices, and although this new ‘theme’ Minhag can potentially lead to concern – we may suggest a virtuous origin for it: Some poskim rule that Mishaloach Manos must be worthy of the receiver (Biur Halacha 695 s.v. chayav). Based on this view, one would not fulfill his obligation giving a multi-billionaire a piece of fruit and a bottle of water, or, to a sitting president, a bag of potato chips and a V8 (I, however, LOVE V8, especially the spicy one! ;). Because of the bountiful blessings we all enjoy today relative to our not-so-distant past, simple common fruit may seem just, well, too common/pedestrian to elicit the needed special excitement and enhanced adoration by the receiver, and may then, therefore, not accomplish the goal of this Mitzvah (see Aruch HaShulchan ad loc. #15).

    Based on this stricter approach, giving it some uniqueness fosters greater love/friendship, and may even be deemed worthy of display at the seudah (should that be this mitzvah’s purpose, see above).

    While this may help explain this new minhag it is not meant as an endorsement of it, and one fulfills this mitzvah even if very simple.

    Seudah

     (Purim Day)

         The climax of our Purim celebration is a joyous meal commemorated with friends and family.

    •  A Mourner should speak to a Rav as to how, where, and with whom to conduct this meal.
    • One should make sure that they focus their joy toward Hashem and in the service of being thankful for our lives -through His Hashgacha.
    • Torah, song, and Achdus (unity) should be the center of this meal and our celebratory atmosphere.
    • There is an obligation on men to drink slightly more wine than during the year. This may be accomplished with a simple extra sip of wine, and according to many, the Ad D’lo Yada is a ceiling and not a floor.
    • For those who can’t drink for whatever reason then for them there is no Mitzvah to drink wine on Purim. If they wish to fulfill this Mitzvah anyway, they should simply take a nap for a few minutes.

    May we soon celebrate Purim in the era of Moshiach!

    Wishing Everyone a Freilchin and Happy Purim!

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Please call with any question(s) or if in need of a Megilla Leining.

     732-