In a shiur a few weeks ago, I mentioned a fascinating shailah I had received concerning lashon hara.
I opened by reminiscing about a book our rebbeim in Eitz Chaim Toronto had once given us in elementary school, titled ‘Apples of Gold’, which is on the laws and power of shemiras halashon (Rav Dovid Berstein, Torah U’Mesorah publications).
“The book’s name was taken from a pasuk that describes well proper communication as tapuchei zahav, meaning ‘golden apples’ (mishlei, 25:11)”.
Simple enough, right?
Not to one member, who yelled out:
“Rabbi, that is incorrect. Tapuach means orange, or perhaps som other citrus fruit!”
“Excuse me?” I said, genuinely confused.
The man, one of our wonderful gebbeim, replied by adding, “In fact, tapuach may likely refers to an esrog”!
There went my planned shiur, as instead we had a geshmak-and very public – beautiful argument about this issue.
Defending himself, he continued:
“Chazal say we are to add some tapuach to our seder’schorases because it will add tartness/sourness to it, and, because it reminds us of the tapuach trees under which Jewish women gave birth in mitzraim (pesachim 116a).”
Concluding his point, “Citrus fruit are tart, not apples! More, there were no apple trees at the time in Egypt.”
He further supported his arguments -sharing later he had first heard them from his rebbeim –, by marshaling a Tosefos that posits that ‘tapuach’ mentioned in a pasuk was referring to an esrog. I later found that Tosefos (shabbos 88a), and that particular pasuk (shirhashirim 2:2). I would assert that Tosefos only meant such a transation to tapuach in this one pasuk because, elsewhere, chazal list tapuach and esrog as two separate entities (e.g. the fourth mishneh in maaseros)!
After maariv, I privately shared with him that while delighted he spoke up, I think offering his comments under the guise of a ‘correction’ was a little extreme, as he was not simply ‘correcting’’ me. “After all, ‘puk chazi mah d’amah devar-go out and observe minhag yisroel’, we must respect the understandings and actions of our holy nation. Perhaps a better method would be to say, ‘I once heard…’ or ‘Have you ever heard…’ or ‘But this seems difficult to understand…’, or the like”.
More saliently, I shared, “Leaving aside if anthropologists, botanists and other secular chokrim have yet to confirm the existence of contemperanous apple trees in mitzraim, anachronistic arguments are hardly a challenge to the Exodus story when we begin to consider the sextuplets born under those same trees and the melachim who raised them. This is not to mention the ten makkos, the splitting of the sea, and the myriad of wondrous nissim that are either explicit in chumash or mentioned by chazal during our exile in and exodus from mitzraim.
“Of all these extraordinary events in mitzraim, are you really bothered by apple trees?!”
As for the ‘tartness/charoses’ proof, apples too can be acerbic. In fact, Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky rules that on Rosh Hashana one should make sure “not to use a tart apple, rather a sweet one” (Emes LYaakov, siman 188). In other words, the gemara regarding choroses may simply be referring to Granny Smith or other more bitter apples, while on Rosh Hashana we are to use Big Red Delicious (my personal favorite).
Nevertheless, he piqued my interest. I later found that Rav Moshe Shternbuch agrees that we are indeed unsure if our apples are the tapuach of chazal or tanach. He brings some of the same proofs mentioned above (shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 5:183; see also Kaf Hachaim, siman 583:18 and shabbos 88).
Nevertheless, Rav Shternbuch does not suggest forgoing apples on Rosh Hashanah.
So as not to leave the reader with doubts, I will offer four proofs to our use of apples for ‘tapuach’:
-One of the earliest sources for the minhag of apples dipped in honey on the night of Rosh Hashanah is the Tur (d. 1340). In that same siman, after mentioning this minhag, he mentions that some use ‘esrogim’ as one of the simanim. Clearly, he saw these as two separate entities. (siman 583; cf. Knesses Gedolah who says that the Tur’s use of the word ‘esrog’ was a misprint!).
-The 11th century Rabbeinu Simcha ben Shmuel, in his Machzor Vitry (siman 323) states: “In France the custom is to eat on Rosh Hashana tapuchim edomim [red ‘tapuchim’]…all foods that are either new, light and good [sweet]…”. I doubt he was referring to blood oranges. Rather, this very early source seems to support apples and, like Rav Yaakov, specifically red/sweet ones.
-The Pardes Yosef (hachadash, rosh hashana, p. 196) suggests that many of the simanim listed in the gemara were not commonly available in Europe, Russia, Spain, etc.. So, we chose the ubiquitous apple precisely because of its commonality. The uncommon esrog would certainly not assuage their concern for availability.
-Finally, even if our translation of tapuach is inaccurate, it would still be ‘correct’ to use apples, and not just because of the vitality of mimetic practice. My proof? The Alef L’Magen (d. 1828) brings an amazing ruling of the Pri Megadim (d. 1792): What should one do if he does not have a ‘tapuach’ [whatever a tapuach may be!] for the night of Rosh Hashanah?
He writes that in replacement, they should eat with honey,…tapuach adama/potatoes, as has the term “tapuach” in its name!
“Dip the Potatoes In The Honey, Make A Beracha Loud And Clear…” doesn’t seem to have the same ring to it!
Now, potatoes were certainly unknown to chazal, only making their worldwide debut after Columbus’ discovery of the Americas! Clearly then, what matters is not so much which fruit (or tuber!) we dip in honey, rather that is an entity for which we colloquially choose to use the term ‘tapuach’.
This seems to be because more important than whichever food this term is used for, it’s the name which carries the significance, in that it has the same numerical value as pru ‘urevu (see, e.g. Imrei Noam, moadim, 2, likutim, ois 9, et al.).
We should note that the Sdei Chemed and many others do bring a separate minhag of eating an esrog as one of the simanim. Many reasons are offered for this, one being that chazal tell us (berachos 57) that seeing an esrog in a dream is a sign of being special in the eyes of Hashem, thus this is a good sign for Rosh Hashanah.
In addition to surrendering to our mesorah, and what our own parents and rebbeim have done, there is further significance to an apple (or a potato) and honey:
An apple slice will turn brown after time. Historically, they would protect such fruits from oxidation by securing it in honey or sugar; hence the name for jam, ‘preserves’, as in to preserve. That is the lesson of the tapuach in honey on this night:
It is as if we are saying: “Hashem, without You and Your Torah we will, chalila, naturally wilt away”! (see Pardes Yosef p. 194).
This lesson certainly works with an apple, honey…and a tear.
Recently, at shalosh seudos, I challenged my shul members with a riddle:
“What is a difference between the Yaaleh V’yavo we say in Shemoneh Esrei and the one we say in bentching?”
Some predictable responses were given—for example, the fact that Yaaleh V’yavo is recited standing and the other sitting. Then I gave the answer I had in mind, as well as the story behind the question. That Erev Shabbos, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar I, someone approached me after davening to ask why the word “Melech” at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo is often in brackets, and why this occurs only in some siddurim. Odder still, some of the siddurim that place this word in brackets add a comment: “Some say to say this word on Rosh Hashanah.” What is this about? Chazal state, and the Shulchan Aruch rules, that since in the third brachah of bentching we must make mention of Malchus David, we therefore should not mention Malchus Shamayim as we can’t risk drawing any equivalence between the kingship of Hashem and that of a human being. This explains why in bentching we say “Avinu Ro’einu” (our Father, our Shepherd) and not “Avinu Malkeinu,” so that we do not mention Hashem’s kingship once the rulership of David is cited (siman 188:3; see Brachos 58). The Rema adds that this concern in bentching extends to the mention of Malchus Hashem at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo, so that the word “Melech” is omitted in the passage “Ki Kel Melech chanun v’rachum atah.” The Rema adds, however, that he doesn’t see many who observe this practice. A number of reasons are offered for why many people are not careful to omit the word “Melech” from bentching. The Chofetz Chaim supports this omission, but he explains at the same time that since Yaaleh V’yavo is considered its own separate tefillah, somewhat distinct from Birchas Hamazon, the concern about equating Malchus Shamayim with Malchus David is mitigated enough that we do not have to correct people. Others, such as the Kaf Hachaim, actually show support for the common practice of including the word “Melech.” Omitting it would give the appearance of reversing the praise that one has already offered in Shemoneh Esrei, chalilah. As for Rosh Hashanah, the Mateh Ephraim states that even those who follow the Rema and omit this word from bentching should include it on this day, because on Rosh Hashanah we celebrate Hashem’s malchus, and there is no fear that anyone will make a comparison to human sovereignty. Segulah Secret Speaking of siddurim and Rosh Chodesh, I was curious for the longest time about another oddity found in many siddurim. At the end of Hallel, many siddurim recommend that a verse be repeated: “V’Avraham zakein ba bayamim v’Hashem beirach es Avraham bakol, and Avraham was aged, advanced in days, and Hashem blessed him in all ways” (Bereishis 24:1). ArtScroll states, “On Rosh Chodesh many people recite the following verse after Hallel.” Its Hebrew siddur adds some context, stating, “This is a segulah for arichas yamim.” Where does this come from, and why is it specific to Rosh Chodesh? For many years I could not find the answer to this mystery. Recently, someone gave me a wonderful gift—the Mesivta edition of the siddur, which provides some sources for this minhag but makes it clear that they are rooted in Kabbalah.
On a less profound level, many note that pasuk about Avraham Avinu is the only pasuk in Tanach that associates old age with blessing. However, it doesn’t draw a parallel to Rosh Chodesh. It is here that more mysterious elements enter. Mishnas Chasidim (Rosh Chodesh, perek 2) explains that this pasuk is an allusion to a particular malach. The siddur of the Baal HaTanya even says that one should think of this malach as stating the verse. This is because we typically do not say aloud the names of certain malachim, as we see in the special added tefillos found in Avinu Malkeinu and during tekias shofar (see Arizal, Shaar Hamitzvos, Shemos; Sefer Chasidim #205 and 469, and Mor U’ketziah on Tur, siman 299; see also Siddur Rabbeinu Hazakein, pp. 480-481). There are many other siddur bracket mysteries—for example, why we say “Adir Adireinu” only in Kedushah on some Yom Tov days; the significance of the bracketed words in the Friday-night Kiddush; and whether we say “Re’eh nah v’anyeinu” in Shemoneh Esrei or leave out the word “nah.”
“Hashem S’Fasei’s” Whisper One of the uncertainties that first-time chazzanim encounter is whether the opening words of Shemoneh Esrei—“Hashem sefasei tiftach u’fi yagid tehilasecha” (Tehillim 51:17)—are to be recited aloud at the beginning of Chazaras Hashatz, quietly, or not at all. Although Chazal state that one must begin with these words (Brachos 4b and 9b), it is unclear how central that is. Before I moved to Queens, I never heard a chazzan say this verse aloud. But in my current shul there are members and previous rabbanim who studied under Rav Soloveitchik and said he held that the verse must be recited aloud at the start of the repetition. This question has significant ramifications beyond an aveil and a first-time chazzan. The Shulchan Aruch rules that this verse must be said by the chazzan (siman 111:2). However, many poskim assert that he meant it should be said quietly (Magen Avraham, Ba’er Heiteiv, and Shulchan Aruch Harav, inter alia). Others disagree with his premise and argue that the chazzan need not say it at all. The Chofetz Chaim wonders if this issue hinges upon another. If one forgets to say this verse at the beginning of his private Shemoneh Esrei, must he repeat the tefillah? If the verse is part and parcel of the tefillah, it would mean that not only must the chazzan say it, but so must the private mispallel. In the end, he argues that both can be true. The chazzan should say it, even if in a whisper; however, it is not an integral part of Shemoneh Esrei, and one who forgets to say it does not need to repeat Shemoneh Esrei (Biur Halachah, ad loc.).
Several years ago, I was researching the matter of davening for Moshiach. I was astounded to find that Rav Moshe argues that, aside from whatever is part of our mesorah, tefillos for Moshiach must be avoided (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, chelek 5 24:8; see page 84, second column, second paragraph). This matter came up as he was discussing the opening and closing verses of Shemoneh Esrei, “Hashem sefasai tiftach” and “Yehi l’ratzon” (see there for how they are connected to Moshiach). Arguing with the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Moshe says that one who forgets the opening verse must repeat Shemoneh Esrei! The Riddle of U’va L’Tzion If one looks into most siddurim, he will find that three pesukim are highlighted in U’va L’Tzion—“Kadosh,” “Baruch,” and “Yimloch.” Chazal say that this tefillah, which we call Kedushah d’Sidra, sustains the world (Sotah 49), and that is why we say the first two pesukim out loud as a tzibbur, introduced by the chazzan. However, many new chazzanim—and some experiences ones—are unsure whether the final line, “Yimloch,” should be introduced and recited out loud. Walk into any shul and you will notice that the first two are announced, but the third, “Yimloch,” often is not. And yes, it is highlighted in most siddurim. Some chazzanim do have the minhag to introduce “Yimloch,” so that it too is recited together (even though its introduction consists of Aramaic words which we typically only whisper), but most do not. The explanation behind this siddur mystery is wrapped in another enigma. We will explain this, along with a few other siddur mysteries, in our final installment below.
Rav Dovid Kaplan, z”l, my rosh yeshivah in Nachalas Tzvi in Toronto, was a true original. His consummate dedication to Torah and mesorah was unmistakable and became ingrained in every bachur in his yeshivah. This passion came from his esteemed parents, the famed Rav Baruch and Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan (née Eisen), who developed the Bais Yaakov movement in America. In the famous words of Rav Aharon Kotler, “If not for Rav Baruch and Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan, who started a large-scale Bais Yaakov movement on these shores, there would be no true appreciation for a ben Torah, for an aspiring talmid chacham, for a life consecrated to Torah. There would be no willingness to forgo material comfort for the sake of talmud Torah. There would be no kollelim in America” (From A Living Mishnas Rav Aharon). The Brisker Rav himself had urged the Kaplans to move here (The Brisker Rav, Vol. 1, p. 225). Rav Dovid Kaplan was a captivating, often hilarious speaker whose shmuessen were unforgettable. He once told a story of a friend of his who went to visit an acquaintance in a prison in New York. The prison had Daf Yomi shiurim and daily minyanim, and after driving a long way to get there, his friend joined the minyan for Shacharis. Near the end of davening, he watched as one of the prisoners headed to the back table to take off his tefillin. The so he turned to this prisoner and said, “I understand why the Shulchan Aruch warns us not to end davening or leave shul before U’va L’Tzion [132:2] since many people are busy and are rushing to get to work. But where are you going?” My rosh yeshivah shared this memorable story to remind us of the power of regilus—our tendency to err and do aveiros not so much out of taivah as out of habit—and it also brings us back to where we left off last week. Over the past few weeks we have been discussing various mysteries of the siddur, concluding last week with an imponderable that contains many secrets. Many who daven before the amud are unsure if the line “Hashem yimloch” in U’va L’Tzion should be introduced and recited out loud just like the two lines of Kedushah that precede it. Most shuls do not introduce this line or say it aloud, although it is highlighted in most siddurim. For the answer to this issue, we have to dig a little deeper and understand the importance of U’va L’Tzion (also called Kedushah d’Sidra). In the tochachah in Sefer Devarim, Hashem alerts us to the reality of our present galus: “In the mornings you will say, ‘If it were only still evening!’ and in the evenings you will say, ‘If it were only still morning!’—because of what your heart will fear and your eyes see” (28:67). Chazal (Sotah 49) explain this pasuk as informing us that in galus nothing will be static; each day will bring a novel discomfort. The Gemara wonders how it is possible that a continual progression of pain like this won’t consume the world. It answers that the world would indeed be consumed if not for two zechusim—the merit of answering, “Amein yehei Shemei Rabbah” and our daily recital of U’va L’Tzion. Rashi explains that this tefillah contains both the pesukim of Kedushah and the targum, thereby enabling every single person, no matter how busy he is, to learn a little bit of Torah each day. Each morning we say the pesukim of Kedushah three times—in birchas Krias Shema, during Chazaras Hashatz, and in U’va L’Tzion. The Aruch Hashulchan (132:6) explains that this is the reason the chazzan introduces each line of the Kedushah in U’va L’Tzion, distinguishing it from the others.
But if you look into most siddurim, you will find that three pesukim in this tefillah are highlighted: “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh,” “baruch kevod” and “yimloch.” So why do so many people leave this last line of Kedushah out? The Avudraham (R. Dovid Avudraham, d. circa 1350), the most celebrated of our siddur commentators, points out a greater anomaly. The third line of any Kedushah is always “yimloch Hashem,” from Tehillim (146:10). Why, then, in U’va L’Tzion, do we exchange this verse for the similar “yimloch Hashem” that is in the Shiras Hayam in Beshalach (Shemos 15:18)? This switch often goes unnoticed until it is pointed out, and it is not the only one. The Rokeach (Vol. 2, p. 441) and the Kol Bo (siman 8) observe that “yimloch” and even “Hashem yimloch” are completely left out of the Kedushah we say in birchas Krias Shema! As for the switch in U’va L’Tzion, the Avudraham explains as follows: The purpose of this tefillah is to recite pesukim with their proper targum. However, the books of Kesuvim—which contain the pasuk “yimloch Hashem” from Tehillim—do not have a classic mesorah targum. We therefore exchanged it for a verse with a similar theme. Because this change had to be made, many suggest that it be said quietly so as not to compare Toras Moshe to the rest of the pesukim in Nevi’im and Kesuvim (see, for example, Ba’er Heiteiv, siman 132:2). There is another reason some people say this verse quietly. Many poskim (but not all; see Arizal as brought in the Shaarei Teshuvah) rule that the targum of Kedushah in Aramaic must be said quietly. “Yimloch” is the only one that is introduced with Aramaic statements, making it questionable whether the chazzan should say them aloud so as to alert the tzibbur.
Al Hannisim vs V’Al Hanissim? (For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see the post dedictaed to this subject).
As Purim is drawing near, I’d like to conclude this mini-series on the siddur with a mystery about which everyone has wondered—do we say “al hanissim” or “v’al hanissim”? As I mentioned a few weeks ago, not always is adding letters or words in brackets in the siddur a way of fulfilling all views, and this case is no exception. For those who may think it makes little difference, remember that a single letter in Hebrew can make all the difference! In siddurim going all the way back to Rav Amram Gaon (d. 875), through the Tur, and up to the Vilna Gaon (Maaseh Rav48), the vav is absent, and therefore, many argue that the original version should not be changed. Others, such as Rav Zalman Henna (d. 1746; see Shaarei Tefillah, siman 110) and the Aruch Hashulchan (siman 682), urge us to add the vav, which generally signifies a connection to what came previously. To confuse matters even more, some say that the vav is only needed in bentching but not in Shemoneh Esrei. In the latter, Al Hanissim does indeed follow the words before it well, and it also serves to conclude the hodaah (thanks) section. This is not the case in bentching, however, where the brachah of hodaah must still be said following Al Hanissim. Although Rav Henna is a famed grammarian, other medakdim, such as the Yaavetz (Bais Yaakov) and Rav Wolf Haddenheim (Safah Berurah), argue that the vav should always be omitted. Is this a case where the stringency is to say the vav or to omit it? If you do not have a clear minhag, the only answer is to ask your local rav! ●
Including: Tevila for First-Time Use, Bakasha & Public Tehillim on Shabbos,
March, 2023
Compiling a list of popular halachic myths would compromise more than one full column, but a few examples will prove helpful.
Although giraffes have simanei kashrus, kosher signs, we don’t eat them because we don’t know where on the neck to shecht it.
Although certain utensils require tevilah, one may use them the first time without toiveling them.
Both statements are false.
A giraffe’s long neck would make shechitah easier, not harder! How did this ficticious halachic rumor come about? Well, the real reason we don’t eat this mammal is because we generally avoid eating any land or air creature that does not have a tradition of being eaten by Jews. (This is aside from the impracticality of its consumption due to their expense and difficulty of finding and raising them.)
Among many concerns, without a mesorah, we may not be aware of issues that are unique to the animal in question, such as whether it should be classified as a chayah or beheimah, how to treiber (devein) it, how to deal with its forbidden fats, and whether certain signs of diseases render it treif.
A rav who is asked this question may explain succinctly, “We simply wouldn’t know how to shecht it.” Hearing this, one may incorrectly assume that the rav is referring to the animal’s most notable feature—its neck.
As for tevilah, whether it’s a vessel’s first use or its 465th, the halachah is the same -tevilah is required before use. I understand how this myth is perpetuated because I once saw it develop in real time. I was once explaining during a shiur that disposable pans do not require tevilah as long as they will only be used once, and an attendee commented, “Do you mean to say that first-time use never requires tevilah?”
No! But now understood where the confusion comes from. There are a number of factors that warrant tevilah; the utensil must be one that will be used directly with ready-to-eat food, and it must be made out of certain materials, etc. But first and foremost, it must be classified as a kli, a vessel, something of significance. Many poskim therefore posit that a flimsy item that is intended for one-time use is not a kli to begin with and hence would not require tevilah. (Some poskim even allow these disposables to be used two or three times before requiring tevilah.)
This is as opposed to a fancy, expensive dish, which is automatically considered a kli. In any event, it is easy to mistake the “one-time” halachah for the “first-time” myth.
Another common halachic myth that is much more nuanced is connected to the subject of war, which we have been discussing these past few weeks.
If asked why we don’t daven the regular Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbos, many would respond, “Because we are not allowed to make personal requests on Shabbos.”
But this is not the reason Chazal give (cf. Yerushalmi, Shabbos, 15:3 and Brachos, 5:2). Nor is it so simple that bakashos are generally not allowed on Shabbos; after all, we say Sim Shalom, Yekum Purkan, and the Yehi Ratzon for cholim—not to mention bentching and many other tefillos that remain unchanged on Shabbos. Consider as well Birchas Hachodesh, which is only said on Shabbos and is full of personal requests!
The background for these halachos is fascinating, and it relates directly to the way we should respond to an eis tzarah on Shabbos and as a kehillah.
The Gemara states that the reason we shorten the Shemoneh Esrei from 19 brachos during the week to seven on Shabbos is in order not to burden people (Brachos, 21a). Although the intention seems to be that Chazal wanted to shorten davening, it is clear from the rest of our Shabbos liturgy and leining that this is not the case.
Instead, the poskim explain that Chazal were referring to emotional tirchah. Our prayers, when recited with conviction, should awaken painful realities, and on Shabbos we are given a break from some of them (see Tanchuma, beginning of Vayeira, and Sefer Hamanhig, Shabbos, siman 11).
Knowing this is not simply academic Torah l’shmah but also affects halachah. For example, if one accidentally says even the first word of a weekday Shemoneh Esrei blessing on Shabbos (for example, “Atah Chonein” or “Refa’einu”), he must finish that brachah and then return to the Shabbos Shemoneh Esrei (Shulchan Aruch, siman 268; this is true even if he realizes his error before uttering Hashem’s name). The reason for this is precisely due to the fact that one is technically allowed on Shabbos to make a bakashah that he recites consistently.
However, it is true that Chazal also say that we must avoid certain types of bakashos on Shabbos (e.g., Bava Basra, 91a). Clearly, the prayers that were composed just for Shabbos—such as the Yehi Ratzon after candle-lighting and Birchas Hachodesh—and those for Yomim Tovim that happen to fall on Shabbos, such as Rosh Hashanah, are allowed (see Shulchan Aruch Harav, siman 288:8; shu”t B’tzeil Hachamah, 5:41; Bnei Yissas’char, Shevat 2:2; and Magen Avraham, siman 128:70). Last week we mentioned a view that even allows Avinu Malkeinu to be said when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos.
What emerges from all of this is that daily tefillos may be recited on Shabbos, except for the middle blessings of Shemoneh Esrei. All other constant prayers, such as Elokai Netzor, may be recited. Special tefillos, even if they are bakashos, may also be said, especially those such as Yekum Purkan and Mi Shebeirach, which many see as a brachah and not a tefillah (Ohr Zarua, 2:89, and Shulchan Aruch Harav, siman 284:14). All other unique personal tefillos should not be said (Shulchan Aruch, 288:9).
However, if there is a sakanah, even for one choleh, one may daven for that person on Shabbos as long as he does not do so in a public way (ibid. 8, with Acharonim; see also Piskei Teshuvos, p. 489).
Now we arrive at our main question. May a shul hold a public Tehillim recitation for the current crisis? On the one hand, it’s sakanas nefashos, but on the other hand, although unique prayers are allowed in a dangerous and time-sensitive situation, doing so with others in a public way is not.
The Steipler ruled that when Eretz Yisrael is at war, Tehillim should be recited just as on a weekday (Orchos Rabbeinu Vol. I, p. 124). Some have said that during World War II, the special Yehi Ratzons and Acheinu that are recited on Mondays and Thursdays were said publicly on Shabbos after leining (shu”t Tiferes Adam 3:18).
A few weeks ago, a friend sent a group an email with a list of the hostages, asking that each person he sent it to take one hostage’s name and dedicate a perek of Tehillim to that person. He ended, “Chazal share that when one saves a life, it is as if he has saved the world (Sanhedrin 37a).”
This is certainly true, and has practical application when it comes to a physical act of salvation. However, obviously, we would not be allowed to be michallel Shabbos so as to purchase a Tehillim from which to daven!
Rather, when it comes to divrei ruchniyus and tefillah, we must yield to the Torah and halachah and allow Hashem to do the rest.
May Hashem accept our tefillos, save us from michshol, and enable us to defer, always, to halachah. ●
The Hashgacha Pratis Seen When Starting a Chesed Organization
Below: An Image of the founder R’ Yakir Wachstock
Rabbi Moshe Taub
November, 2023
“Serendipity” may be my favorite word in the English language. In addition to its melodious sound, this word comes closest to the meaning of our colloquial use of the term “mazal” (for the accurate understanding of this term, see sefer Chemdah Genuza).
Many of us likely know people who are successful in their fields—including those in klei kodesh—yetwho were initially introduced to their work through obvious hashgachah pratis; cases where the ‘serendipity’ is clear.
A rebbi of mine offered a fascinating example of this phenomenon in regard to Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz.
Recognized as an iluy since his youth, Rav Chaim became a maggid shiur under the guidance of Rav Shimon Shkop when he was only 18 years old. A few years later, he moved to Mir and began his ascendency as perhaps the greatest galus rosh yeshivah, serving in this capacity across three continents— in Europe, then Kobe and Shanghai in Asia, and in New York in North America- all this before settling in his role at the Mir Yeshiva in Yerushalayim, which he would help nurture into what it is today: the largest yeshivah since the time of Rebbe Akiva.
His knowledge of Toras Chazal was so extensive that respected geonim visited him before giving their own shiurim. They would share which Gemara the shiur was to be on and he would immediately jot down a list of marei mekomos from across shas and the Rishonim and Acharonim.
On the boat to America after the war, he was studying the Shev Shmaatsa, a very complex sefer that discusses legal guidelines in Chazal. His war-torn volume was missing the last few pages…so he wrote them by heart! My rebbi– Rav Chaim’s nephew-Rav Refael Shmulevitz of Toronto, has seen this edition, as it is still kept, guarded, and treasured by the family.
So where does serendipity arise in his story? After the passing of Rav Chaim’s brother-in-law, the Mir needed someone to take over the weekly Chumash shmuess. Short of any obvious options, they asked Rav Chaim if he would deliver it until they found a proper replacement.
Until that moment, no one had associated Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz with mussar, drashos, and aggadah (see, e.g., Rav Chaim, CIS publishing, p. 170). So by the time he concluded his first substitute shiur, everyone in attendance sat with awestruck shock. It was decided that Rav Chaim should continue with these shmuessen, and soon his weekly audience would reach close to a thousand people.
Today, Sichos Mussar, a sefer based on these drashos, has been published many times, in many languages, and is studied in yeshivos, seminaries, and at Shabbos tables.
In fact, although until then he was most known for his piercing lomdus, drush and SichosMussar became Rav Chaim’s legacy (for the average Jew). He never sought such prominence; instead, it found him.
Hashem knew that this gadol had important messages to share and made sure that it happened.
Like most kehillos, our shul collected funds for the new yesomim, almanos and others affected by the horrendous Simchas Torah attacks in Eretz Yisrael on October 7. We did our part, and then we continued to daven for the hostages, to increase our Torah learning, and to beseech Hashem for an end to this crisis.
It was during this time when our Shul also witnessed something quite ‘serendipitous’, an episode of profound hashgachah.
On October 10, at two o’clock in the morning, my neighbor Yakir Wachstock – a dedicated Hatzolah volunteer – received a phone call from Brigadier General Daniel Jacobs. Why this general thought to call him is its own story of hashgachah.
Briefly, Yakir’s younger brother Oren attended dental school in Buffalo when I lived there. After graduating, Oren moved to Eretz Yisrael and opened an Amazon business. This general wanted to know if Oren, through his Amazon connections, or his brother, my neighbor Yakir, knew of any warehouse(s) in Queens that was stocking tactical boots. He explained that most of the men being called up to the army (miluim) did not have boots, and those who did had boots that were quite worn; some were in tatters and were being held together by duct tape!
Yakir quickly contacted another member of our shul, Avi Shakarov, who is a wholesale shoe distributor. Avi indeed had boots in his warehouse and was selling them for a nice profit online. He immediately pulled its listing and donated their first shipment to Eretz Yisrael.
He and Yakir packed duffle bags filled with these boots, contacted El Al, and were able to get the bags onto a flight.
Done…or so they thought.
The next day, Yakir received a message that concluded, “Thank you from the Yakir Battalion.” Although he was honored, he thought naming a battalion after him was a little over the top. The battalion members responded, “No! This is hashgachah pratis. Our battalion has always been named Yakir!”
Wild!
Word gets around fast. Soon, other soldiers in need of tactical boots learned about this shipment and contacted Yakir, asking for boots in specific sizes. Typically, these calls came/come from mothers whose sons aren’t able to call, and they are often accompanied by pictures of old sneakers, or worse.
So Yakir found volunteers, and our shul went to work, sending out another shipment. But it didn’t stop there.
This by-chance organization now sends more than 80 duffle bags every week.
Hashgacha stillis seen daily, always taking over at moments of frustration. The other day, for example, a plane that was supposed to carry a shipment of boots simply ran out of space. El Al quickly informed us that some American families of hostages would be delighted to take them for us on their El Al chartered flight!
Odd complexities have also arisen. Most of these boots are made in Italy with American hunters in mind. These customers rarely need a size nine, so sizes in that range are more expensive. Our younger soldiers however indeed need such sizes.
The other night, a man from New Jersey called and said, “I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is a legitimate tzedakah because I want to get my colleagues to give you a donation.”
I explained that every dollar goes to purchase boots. “What do you do, and who are your colleagues?” I asked him.
“I’m a podiatrist.”
I responded, half jokingly, “These are boots! The Podiatry Association of America should be sponsoring several orders!”
Over the past two weeks, our kehillah raised well over half a million dollars, bought out all of a particular size duffle bag from Amazing Savings, and sent more than 6,000 pairs of boots to our soldiers in Israel. Our coat room in the shul is now a warehouse, and minivans and SUVs line up daily so that volunteers can load the bags and take them to the airport.
Last Shabbos, Yakir came to my house after the seudah. He was justifiably nervous. “It’s tens of thousands of dollars each day. How can this work going forward?”
I don’t know…but it has…and it will. Hashem gave us this project, and He will continue to aid us.
Our shul never asked for this, and I am still not exactly sure how it came to us.
Serendipitous? Perhaps. As I mentioned to a volunteer, “Hashem’s hashgachah constantly brings us chesed opportunities; we just have to be open to sensing them and be quick to act.”
The word for boots in Hebrew is “magafayim.” It’s not found in Tanach and first appears in Chazal (see, for example, the Mishnah on Shabbos 6:2). The root is similar to “gafaf,” referring to a certain type of embrace (see, e.g., Rambam, avos hatumos, perek 13). However, its true shoresh seems to be “gaf,” which comes from the word for a type of limbed wing that fully surrounds its host (see, e.g., Mishlei 9:3). an example of this is a bat, whose wings fully surround its body when it is at rest. This explains why Chazal use this root for an embrace that fully surrounds and supports an entity.
This is klal Yisrael. We soar with our wings, or we use them to embrace the needs of others.
The serendipity of these events is still a mystery to me, and how we managed to raise all this money is not only a mystery but a neis. (To donate, go to THIS LINK)
One phone call “by chance,” and a neighbor who didn’t turn over to go back to sleep.
From ‘Hamakom Yinachem eschem…’, to ‘Devarim HaYotzim…’,
From ‘Ein Navi B’Iro’ to ‘Maaseh Avos…,‘
‘Kol Harodef...’, to’Kabdeihu V’Chadsheihu‘,
& More….
April, 2014
Rabbi Moshe Taub
“Don’t believe every quote you read on the internet”
Abraham Lincoln
This will hopefully be a fun, yet illuminating article in honor of Shavous.
“Ein navi b’iro”-It is hard to be a Navi in one’s hometown, is a common expression used to articulate the idea that it is hard to find honor among those who knew a person from back in their youth.
Where is the adage taken from?
One can search all the ‘Bar Ilan’ Torah software’s, as well as all the libraries of the world, yet come to one conclusion –it does not come from chazal, rather it comes from a book within a series of books that, lets just say, is often found in hotel room drawers.
This does not mean that it did not emanate first from within klal yisroel, rather that we do not find it written in toras chazal.
In past Shavous issues we discussed the idea of hufuch bu v’hufuch bu sh’kulu bu, that everything can be found within the Torah. Be it science or mathematics, we sought to demonstrate the inherent truth of this statement.
Ironically, this year, I wish to show saying that while people often assume come from the Torah or chazal in relaity are not found, at least not in the written form. Many gedolim and mechabrei sefarim have published their own lists of unsourced ‘chazals’ (see, for example, ‘OtzarHayedios’chelek 2 by Rav Yechiel Michel Stern, and, ‘MitzuvehV’Oseh’ ch. Talmud Torah by Rav Shmuel Freidman), and we will offer ours.
While many of the sayings we will mention may indeed be alluded to in chazal, they are either not said the way we same them, and sometimes not clearly even hinted at.
Some axioms have their provenance in early rishonim. For example, ‘Bo Shabbos, bo menuchah’ –with Shabbos’s arrival comes tranquility, is a Rashi, but not a chazal.
Others have their source in kabala. For example, “Ein davar omed b’fnei haratzon”-nothing can stand in the way of will, is stated, although in different terms, by the Zohar.
In fact, the latter category may help illume history. Rav Chaim Kinievsky writes (KriasMelec,h p.282, in the footnote) that the Rambam never saw or studied the Zohar. However, some disagree. Rav Reuvein Margolios wrote an article seeking to prove that the Rambam must have studied the Zohar. One of the famous examples is a ruling in Rambam (hilchosdeos 2:7) that has now become a famous Jewish proverb: ‘kol hakoes k’ilu oved avodah zara’- whoever loses their temper it is as if he served idolatry.
This statement can not be found anywhere in chazal, however it is stated by the Zohar several times.
While some indeed use this, among other statements of Rambam, as evidence that he had access to the Zohar, Rav Chaim (ad loc.) explains that such examples more likely came from the sefarim of the geonim or midrashim that Rambam had access to yet that are no longer today extant.
Indeed, this proverb is strongly alluded to by chazal themselves. The gemara (Shabbos 105) states, “Anyone who tears his clothing in anger, or breaks utensils, etc. is as if he served idolatry”.
A similar example of a famous proverb that likely came from an analogous chazal is ‘maaseh avos siman la’banim’-the actions and histories of our forefathers allude to the future history of klal yisroel. Although originated and mentioned by the Ramban several times in his peirush on chumash (see, e.g., 12:6), we have no chazal utilizing this phrase. However, chazal do say that Hashem told Avraham “Stay! –as you are a siman for your children” (BereishisRabba).
But there are still maxims for which we seemingly find no written source at all. One of the most famous examples of these may be, ‘Devarim hayotzim min halev nichnasim el halev’ –things said from the heart enter the hearts of others. Although a very popular expression, it is not found in any writing from chazal or kabala!
The well-known three volume encyclopedic work ‘Michlol Hamaamarim V’Pisgamim’, sources this adage to R’ Moshe Ibn Ezra (d.1066), while others (see the yarchon Nezer Hatorah, kislev 5769 p. 305, as well as Metzuveh V’oseh p.367) source this proverb to a gemara (Berachos 6) where we are taught that any person with yiras shomayim will find his words listened to.
Another, perhaps even more surprising, axiom that has no known source is ‘Yeshuos/Teshuos Hashem b/k’heref ayin’ –the salvations of Hashem can/will come in the blink of an eye. While certainly a statement in fact to any baal emunah, it is not a pasuk as some may asume, and in truth is not found even in chazal.
While some quote Rav Aryeh Levin as asserting that this came from a piyut said on the Yomin Noroim, in the Torah journal OhrYisroel, Rav Gedalia Oberlander offers other potential sources. He first brings from other sefarim and likkutim that sought to find its source, one even suggesting, incorrectly, that it came from a midrash Tanchuma. In the end he shows numerous piyuttim over the centuries that use this idiom.
This should not trouble is, for as a nation suffering through two-thousand years of galus we likely developed this phrase, as well as many others, as a response to amazingly swift salvations, as well as in the hope of future ones.
Moments before I sent this article in to the editor, I found one last amazing potential source for this most famous adage. In a Hebrew academic work on the siddur (‘Teffila L’yisroel Bihitpachusa Ha’historiot’) where the authors lay out every nusach of the siddur ever discovered, they show a nusach of Shemoneh Esreh from a geniza in Eretz Yisroel that reads as follows (ibid. p. 392): “…michalkel chaim b’chesed…m’chayei meisim k’heref ayin yeshuah lanu tatzmiach…”!
Another famous proverb goes, ‘mi sh’yeish lo manah ratzah ma’asaim’-when one acquires a hundred (he will not be satisfied, rather) he will then desire two hundred. No such chazal exists, although it is strongly alluded to in Koheles Rabbah (1:32).
There are so many more examples of proverbs from unknown sources.
‘Kol harodef achar hakavod, kavod baorech momenu’-whoever chases honor will find honor allude him (likely taken from the Shelah, korach).
‘Mitzvah habah l’yadecha al tachmitzenah’-when a mitzvah comes up do not push it off (mentioned by the Rama siman 625 and perhaps first formulated by Rashi to Megilla 6b)
‘Kabal es ha’emes m’mi sh’amro’-accept the truth from whoever says it
‘Kabdeihu V’Chadsheihu’-Honor (all) but remain suspectful. (In America there is a simaler saying, rooted in Reganism: ‘Trust but verify’)
‘B’yoser sh’yehudi shomer es hashabbos, hashabbos shomeres es hayehdui’-As much as the Jew kept Shabbos (throughout the generations), Shabbos has ‘kept’ us Jewish.
‘Osiyos machkimos’ –letters make us wise. This is a very common expression with a few meanings, yet that has no known provenance.
But perhaps the most famous example of this column’s topic is the one that will surprise the most.
‘Hamakom yenachem eschmen b’sochshaar avlei tzion v’yerushalim’. Although commonly said upon taking leave of an avel, its provenance is a mystery. Although the Tur and others give other sentences to say that strike some of the same themes, the hamakom we say must have developed over time.
In fact, even before shiva, by the levaya itself, there is a pasuk often quoted (Yeshayahu 25:8) that although exists, is so often misquoted. The famous niggun based on this pasuk goes, ‘umucha Hashem dima m’al kol panim’-Hashem (in the days of Moshiach) will erase the tears from upon our faces. Although popularized through this song, the actual pasuk reads ‘umucha Hashem Elokim dima m’al kol panim’.
All of this should only serve to galvanize ourselves this Shavous to study as much of the Torah Shb’ksav and Baal Peh for ourselves, thereby knowing what indeed stems from chazal and what does not, and by which will bring the merits to hasten the very day to which the Yeshayahu hanavi was reffering.
Including: – The Real History of Simchas Torah‘s Creation -Why certain Parshios are combined and not others
September, 2023
A young member of my shul approached me during the simchas torah hakafos last year and asked, “Wouldn’t Shavuos be a more apt time to complete our siyum of the Torah?”
An adult member overheard the question, and I could only guess he had been overwhelmed with the simcha of the day when he offered: “It’s because today is simchas torah! How could we not finish now! Imagine simchas torah without a siyum of the Torah!”
As soon as he completed his ‘answer’, he realized he was in no state to offer teirutzim.
Simchas Torah is often misunderstood.
The history behind how we came to commemorate the completion of the Torah on (the second day of) sheminiatzeres is fascinating, beguiling, and furnishes us with a unique opportunity to appreciate certain rudimentary arrangements of our Torah lives.
How old is this minhag of simchastorah? Is not this siyum haTorah interfering with our separate Torah obligation of simchas yom tov (based on the rule: ein ma’arvin simcha b’simcha/we don’t intermingle certain simchos)? Why don’t we complete the Torah on a Shabbos, the day we had leined it until now?
Most saliently, who divided our parshios of the week into the names and partitions with which we are so familiar, and through which this special siyum was created?
As we clutch and dance with the Torah this yom tov, let’s strive for a keener understanding of the occasion we are commemorating.
Parshios vs. Parshios
I once published a lengthy post titled Chapter and Verse, where I explained the halachic and hashkafic history behind a central element of our day-to-day lives as Jews – the Christian-introduced divisions of the ‘chapters/perakim’, as well as their dividing of sefreimelachim, shmuel, divreihayamim and ezra, each, into two separate books; even naming the ‘second part’ of Ezra into a newly-named sefer called ‘nechemia’ (Cf. Sanhedrin 93b where chazal explain why Nechemia was not to have a sefer named for him!).
Our mesorah already gave us divisions of our own, called ‘parshios’. These are not to be confused with what we colloquially call the ‘parshas hashavuah’. Rather, these mesorah ‘parshios’ are breaks/spaces found inside sifrei Torah and come to represent a new subject, event, or simply the pause Moshe was given when being taught by Hashem (see Rashi Vayikra 1:1 with Toras Kohanim; neviim and kesuvim also have such breaks). There are two types of such breaks/spaces in Torah: pesuchos (represented in most standard chumashim with a large letter pei), and setumos (represented in chumashim with a large letter samech).
A stumah is when the new section continues on the same line as the last, but with a space (of nine-letters); a pesucha is where the new parsha begins on a new line, but with a space of the same size.
These parshios are significant, and a sefer Torah without them, or if in the wrong place, would be pasul.
Does This Distinction Really Matter?
Many are already aware of this, and that our parshioshashavuah have nothing to do with the above. In another post, I discussed the weeks known as ‘shovav”im’ (from shemos–mishpatim) and shared that the parshioshashavuah became universally adopted – along with a yearly Simchas Torah—only about 800 years ago (see megillah 29b and sofrim 16:10, with Rambam, hilchostefillah 13:1).
Furthermore, Rav Shlomo Luria (d. 1573) shares that for those in eretz yisroel who were observing a triennial cycle, simchas torah would be celebrated once every three-and-a-half years, and that this syum would veer from city-to-city! (Yam Shel Shlomo, end of bava kama, kuntrus ‘chilukei denim bein bnei e’y u’vein bnei bavel’. See also Otzar Plios HaTorah, emor, p. 931)
Here is a ubiquitous example of how confusion regarding the above may lead to blunders:
A well-known Rashi, and a favorite of children’s parsha sheets, is found in the beginning of ‘parshas’ Yisro, where Rashi quotes a chazal listing Yisro’s many names and their meanings. “Yeser [to add]: as Yisro added a parsha of the Torah” (shemos, 18:1)
This is often erroneously repeated as meaning that Yisro received the zechus to have this parshas hashavua named for him –parshas ‘Yisro’!
This is a misconception. Rather, what chazal meant, is that Yisro’s urging of Moshe to set up court systems ‘shaped’ a new parsha/section/inyan inside the Torah -along with its own breaks before and after it (setuma/pesucha), i.e. the ‘parsha’ of courts!
Rebbeim certainly teach this accurately, yet some misunderstand or misremember their words.
There are more examples, but I trust that the reader now appreciates that this distinction between parsha and parsha is substantial.
Parsha ‘Names’
Some may now assume the other extreme: the parshios hashavuah, while wisely divided so as to complete the Torah once a year, are capricious in nature.
Rav Tzadok Hakohen teaches that just as our parents gave us personal names – which form/describe our essence -so too the names we have given and accepted for the weekly parshios carry their essence (Resisei Layla, ois 44).
In fact, the Chasam Sofer (Drashos, Sukkos, p.52; likuttim Tehillim, p. 157) teaches that one should look at the parshas hashevua to find the answer to personal life-questions. This is especially true of the aliya one may receive (see ‘Melech B’yofiuv’ p. 5). Amazingly, Rav Yair Chayim Bacharach (d. 1702) named his famous sefer ‘Chavos Yair’ based on an aliyah he received (Bamidbar, 32:41)!
Metzorah, mattos, shemeni and more are not named for their first word (‘v’elah shemos’ is indeed how Rav Saadia Gaon referred to shemos), and these accepted names are to be deemed kodosh.
While we do find some names of our current weekly parshios already in chazal (e.g. ‘kedoshim’ – zevachim 28a), most names evolved over centuries, many in the days of the geonim (Rav Chaim Kinievsky, Derech Sicha, p. 3; see Yesodei Yeshurin below).
In fact, we used to divide parshas mishpatim into two parshios on certain years, the latter half with its own name. (In a separate post I discuss how certain parshios were chosen to be split or combined on certain years, and why)
There are some who posit, that our present-day parshios hashevuah were passed down from Moshe or Ezra, and were always seen as the optimal way to read the Torah (see Ohr Zarua, hilchosshabbos, siman 45, Meiri, Kiryas Sefer, maamer 5 perek 1, and Tanchuma Ki Sisa 3; see also sefer ‘Toldos Simchas Torah’).
Some go further, asserting that the triennial completion of the Torah was a temporary aberration (Rav Reuven Melech Schwartz, Yemei Shovavim).
Why Sukkos?
Whatever the history, there is no doubt that great sagacity was applied to our current system. So, we must ask: Why do we choose to finish the Torah at this time of year?
When I was younger, I would surmise that this was because the luchos rishonos of Shavuos were broken, then we did teshuvah, and on Yom Kippur Hashem forgave us making our kabalas hatorah complete with our receiving the luchos sheniyos. The first ‘available’ day after Yom Kippur to venerate this kabalas hatorah – when all are gathered without additional/special mitzvos of the day – is shemeniatzeres.
Later, I grasped a far simpler solution and, chasdei Hashem, I now discovered that Rav Gedalya Felder (d. 1991) makes the same point (Yesodei Yeshurin, chelek 4, p. 355-365).
Chazal share that Ezra obligated us in two specific leinings on two precise Shabbosim of the year -no matter the cycle of Torah reading one may be utilizing. We must read the tochecha found at the end of sefervayikra (in ‘bechukosei’) before Shavuos, and those found at the end of seferdevarim (in ‘ki savo’) before Rosh Hashana (as to why we today lein these tochechostwoShabbosos before these yomim tovim, see tosfos to megila 31b).
For those that observed the triennial cycle, then, during these two Shabbosos, they would have likely paused their cycle and instead read these tochechos, returning the next week to their cycle. Or they may have read their regular reading and simply added these special readings as a maftir.
However, for our current yearly cycle of parshios, it not only works out perfectly with this gezeira of Ezra, but it seems to have been arranged around it! We place bechukosei before Shavous, and ki savo before Rosh Hashana, and everything falls where it falls -including our yearly completion happening right after sukkos.
There are many questions we have yet to answer, such as why do not why to make this siyum on the Shabbos following shemini atzeres, why this isn’t a concern of ein maavirin, who introduced the positions where we stop for aliyos, who decided which parshios are sometimes combined, and how we developed various fascinating minhagim on simchas torah.
These and more will, iy”H be discussed for next year’s Sukkos issue. May it be in yerushalim habenuyah!
As neilah draws near, the kehilla is made up of those both tired and exhilarated, hopeful and hungry. A rav’s words leading into this moment will often be swift, to the point. His goal is to give an extra assist, one more dose of ruach and one more injection of energy so as to get the most out of the now-waning Day.
For those rabbanim with an audience of mixed backgrounds, the task becomes more challenging. Perhaps its a story, a lesson, or a quick-yet-powerful vort.
Rav Yisroel Salanter once said that it is worth hours of the rav’s time preparing a short devar hisorios, even if the only result will be that just one member davens but one single shemoneh esreh better. This is true even if that one member is the rav himself!
Indeed, the person I most seeking to enthuse is myself.
Below are a sampling of just a few most recent pre-neilah thoughts; perhaps they will inspire the reader as much as they dis this writer.
Two Minutes
My first year as a rav, I was invited to speak at a 9/11 memorial. This was just a few years from that horrific day, and they excepted a crowd of about ten-thousand. I had an event prior, and by the time I arrived they needed a golfcart to assist me through a back alley and away from the crowd so I could quickly get to the dais. When I finally arrived to my seat, I noted the many leaders and politicians seated to my right and left, clearly indicating the many speaches to come or already missed. The organizer ran up to me, looked at his chart, and whisprered: “Ok, rabbi. You’re speaking…say, two minutes. Is that ok?”.
I panicked. “In ‘Two minutes’!I haven’t yet had the chance to gather my thoughts. Perhaps someone who arrived earlier can go before me?” I requested.
“You misunderstood,” he explained, “you are on in a half an hour. I only meant that you have two minutes allotted for you speech.”
When I did get up to speak, I shared this exchange with the audience. “What could I possibly say or accomplish in two minutes? How can one encapsulate the pain and suffering that this day wrought on individuals, families and the world in a mere one-hundred-and twenty seconds?!
“However, if 9/11 has imparted to us but one message, it should be just that:, In ‘Two Minutes’ we can witness the world we knew crumble before us, changed forever.‘Two Minutes’ was all it took to observe the worst of humanity, and in those same ‘Two Minutes’ we saw humanity at its best -such as the last ‘Two Minute’ heroics of Flight 93, or in witnessing emergency service men and women choosing to rush toward danger whilst all others ran from it.
“All it takes is ‘Two Minutes’.
Neilah, is our ‘Two Minutes’, our kinyan olam habah b’shah achas, acquisition of the World to Come in one moment. What can be accomplished now, in these sacred, waning moments of rachamim shall not be lost in hunger nor abandoned in weakness. Chizku V’imtzu!
When To Scream
The Strikover rebbe shared the following story with Rav Shach, who would later often recount it to his students (source: Rav Schach on Chumash, p. 264-265).
A karliner chossid approached his rebbe and asked, “I will be in Vienna on business and will be davening with the Chorktover rebbe. Their minhag is to shout when they daven. Since I will be with them, should I daven in that same way?”
(The halachos of ‘makom shenohagu’-to not veer from local custom-is strict, and must be at least outwardly observed, unless, of course, it conflicts with more serious matters)
The Karlnier rebbe responded sharply: “This is no way to daven to the King of all kings! One should only have awe and speak with gentility when approaching Hashem! Such is our minhag, and so you should act even when among chorktoverchasidim.
That Shabbos in Vienna, he arrived to the Chorktovor shulprepared to followhis rebbe’s direction, and althoughtheir davening was beautiful, this chossid still maintained his custom and softer method of davening. But then came the striking teffila of nishmas. Its lofty meaning fused with the loud voices surrounding him pierced his soul. Without thinking he began to cry-out along with them.
He was shocked at himself for disobeying his rebbe, and upon his return begged him forgiveness.
“Why are you apologizing? Don’t chazal share (see, e.g. Devarim Rabba, V’eschanan) that ‘tze’aka-crying out’ is one of the ten forms of teffila!”
The chossid was confused by these mixed messages. “But the rebbe told me when I initially approached him not to daven in such a way…”
The rebbe smiled and explained: “When a yid approaches me in the middle of the week sharing his ‘plan’ to cry to Hashem on Shabbos, I then share that this is not the most appropriate way to daven. However, it is when one is so cut-up in emotion, tefilah, ruach, and dveykus -when the damn of one’s heart naturally breaks on its own accord -when one can’t help but cry –that is when it is worthy!”
The nimshal to neilah is clear.
Leaps and Bounds
On the morning of July 16, 1969, three astronauts sat atop Saturn V at Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, where 7.5 million pounds of thrust would soon propel them ‘upward’. Four days later, at 10:56 p.m. EDT, Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon and says what may be the famous quote ever spoken in human history:
“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
While a well-known quote, it is also inaccurate!
The audio had cut out, and what he actually said became slightly altered:
“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”
He was not talking about all of humanity his statement. Rather, he was declaring to the world that an action of but one person can influence all of society.
(Many sefarim and Torah articles were published after the moon landing, discussing its many halachic, hashkafic, and kabbalastic ramifications. The interested reader should see, specifically, Rav Manecham Kasher’s ‘Adam al HaYareiach’)
Most of us will not become astronauts, not in the physical sense at least. Yetour sefarim so often talk about how those who struggle-and-nevertheless succeed in our present dor are as holy as was Avraham. We can pierce the heavens in one step.
And not just for that individual.
Each step, even one, and even if small, and even if only by one person, is a giant leap for Klal Yisroel.
Chazal share the mashal of the capsizing boat. The captain searches and finally discovers the source of the breach, coming from a passenger drilling a hole in his room. “What are you doing! You will sink us all!” the captain yells.
Perplexed, the guest responds, “What are you talking about? I paid for this room! What’s it your business what I do therein?”
Every step that each individual takes effects all of us. Let’s us make those steps, however small, toward sheleimus.
Space and Time
The Chofetz Chaim once shared how life is akin to a post card.
He explained –and anyone who is have written a post card will relate –that when one begins to write on the back he opens with BIG LETTERS. “Hi! HOW ARE YOU! PARIS IS GREAT…” But as they go on, they realize they have more and more to say.
The letters therefore get smaller and smaller, until by the end one can hardly make-out the words, they are so tiny.
Such is life, explained the Chofetz Chaim. We often spend our youth thinking that we have all the time in the world. We may waste whole days, blocks of weeks, and even entire seasons of our lives – hitting the proverbial ‘snooze button’ over and over again. But then, in time, we will begin to feel the full weight of the sands of time lost, as well as the steady rush of its still-falling grains. We anxiously react by playing catchup, fitting in as much as we can in the short time left.
Perhaps the same concept is fitting for this time of year as well. We all know we have to improve our ways-to Gd, to people, to family. We push it off, getting to it ‘later’. Before we know it, elul rolls around and we realize how much time had been wasted how little time we have left to make up out lost learning, lost relationships. So, we begin to repent, change and plead to Hashem.
Time marches on, getting shorter and shorter still, and we still have so much to improve- after all, how much can we change in a month, or the week of aseres yimei teshuva?
Neila, then, is the last line we have left our post cards.
We have one line left, one hour, lets make the best of it!
Sometimes. Maybe.
One of the most published talmideichachamim today is Rav Zilberstein. A gaon, he is also most original with his sources and ideas. His talmidim have put together his shiurim in any number of sefarim.
A few years ago ago I was in Monsey for Shabbos when I decided after the morning seudah to go to an early mincha in someone’s home. On their table was Artscroll’s ‘Aleinu L’Shabeach’, a translated set of Rav Zilberstein’s ideas, arranged on each parsha. I opened to a random page and read the following short story:
When Rav Zilberstin was a little boy, he and all of his friends would marvel at all the tzadikim in Yerushalim (imagine growing up there, then!).
However, there was one tzadik in particular that he and his friends were particularly obsessed with: The great Rav Aryeh Levin, known as the tzadik of Yerushalim.
One day, he and his friends ran over to Rav Levin and bravely asked him. “Are you from the lamed vav tzadikim” (while the idea of thirty-six tzadikim in each generation is from chazal –the notion they are or must be hidden doesn’t not have a source known to me).
Most would assume that a tzadik like Rav Levin would shudder at just the mere suggestion of these children.
Instead, Rav Levin stopped in his tracks, looked at the children, closed his eyes, and thought for a long moment.
They waited with anticipation, until he looked up and replied to these youngsters:
“Maybe”.
Then he paused, thought some more and said:
“Sometimes”.
I was struck by this story.
‘Maybe. Sometimes’
This mix of modesty and honesty, of motivation and sincerity, is indeed what made him a tzadik, and the ingredients for which we must all strive.
He recognized that maybe, just maybe, he too was meant to be great! More, he knew that this does not mean had never fallen down, or will again.
For us to become tzadikim, to chap the power of neilah, we too need these two elements, of ‘Maybe. Sometimes’.
We CAN do it, and, that mistakes/slips do not negate that.
When I learn with bar mitzvah boys I always stress the importance of teffila. “Never miss the three teffilos a day”.
Always adding: “However, and more importantly, if you do miss a teffila, or even more than one, don’t let the yetzterhara tell you to throw it all away. Get back on track again, pick yourself off the ground.
We slip, we fall – sometimes.
But we get back up, because we are all meant to be great – maybe.
Maybe I can change.
Sometimes I will slip –but that does not change how special we can still become.
Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli, one of the pioneers of Quantum Physics, was famous for his lack of patience for any bad ideas.
Some students once approached Pauli with a paper written by a young physicist that was so awful that they was curious how the abrasive Pauli would respond.
Pauli read it and then looked up and said in his native German: “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!“.
“That is not only not right; it is not even wrong”
That is not even wrong! Amazing!
When we think negatively about ourselves, when we consider we are not meant to be a gadol, even if just sometimes, or we consider ourselves unworthy of improving in awesome ways -we are so off the mark that we are not even wrong!
I will bl”n share some other pre-Neila drashos in a part 2, iy”H.
Its 19th century invention & the great halachic debates that still endure through today
Versions Initially Published in Ami Magazine (in three parts), 2012, 2013, 2018; and later in the Jewish Press, 2024
Rabbi Moshe Taub
Pesach, 2012, 2013, 2014
Introduction:
What type of matzo did you eat by the seder?
Was it handmade?
Machine-made?
Square?
Round?
What do you plan on using the rest of Pesach?
When I was growing up, my family would bake our own hand matzos at the Shatzer matzo bakery in Kensington, NY. Because of this, the sight of machine matzos would seem foreign to my young eyes.
If this was true about little me, now go back 150 years –when machine-matzos were first introduced – and imagine how alien they appeared to the Jews living in that era!
Note further how this introduction of machine-matzos came at a precarious time, both socially and religiously. The aftereffects of the Industrial Revolution were still being felt all over the world and, for the Jews, there was another revolution brewing: the Haskala and, to a greater extent, ‘Reformation’
There was ample reason for many to become suspicious of most innovation. The winds of change made it seem apt for most Jews of that time to secure themselves with, and warm themselves in, the traditions of our past, even those with no clear basis in halacha.
Summing up the ethos of the time succinctly, the Chasam Sofer famously coined the well-known pun, “Chodash assur min haTorah” – innovation [a play on the prohibition of ‘chadash’] is biblically forbidden.
But what were the limits of innovation? Was any societal or technological innovation at the time to be shunned? As Rav Eliezer Halevi Hurwitz rhetorically pondered (Bitul Moda’ah): “Should we, too, ban the new innovation for printing sefarim (i.e. the Gutenberg press)?!”
On the other hand, by then we already witnessed the fact that small steps and even minor innovations were all that were needed to give birth to movements that led away from Torah. Reform, at first, desired certain changes, some of which seemed relatively not too controversial, yet the gedolim smelled danger as well as the certain encroachment on more serious halachah to come.
With this backdrop in mind, let us discover the story behind machine matzos and the resulting controversy.
I. The Birth and the Demand
(Most of the facts stated below without a given source are taken from the sefer Bitul Moda’ah by Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson z’l, known as the Shoel U’Meishiv)
Although the heated controversy was 20 years away, this story really begins in Ribeauvillé, France in 1838 when the first matzo baking machine was invented by a Frenchman named Isaac Singer and approved by his local rabbis as well as rabbanim in Furth, then a major yeshiva center. By 1845 the new invention was in use in Germany (Frankfurt). Seven years later, in 1852, there was a machine matzo factory in Poland, in the city of Poznan (Posen). This is an important place and time, for the famed Rav Shlomo Eiger (son of Rav Akiva Eiger) was the rav in Posen until his death that same year. The Shoel U’Meishiv asserts that Rav Eiger was alive at the time and had authorized its kashrus for baking matzos.
By 1857 many of the major Jewish cities in Europe had adapted to machine-matzos. From London to Breslov to Pressberg (home of the Ksav Sofer) this innovation began to spread like wildfire. The main reason for the contagion is easy today to recognize: cost. The average hand matzo factory demanded twice the workers as a machine matzo facility would. The owners of these hand matzo bakeries explained to the Ksav Sofer that after recouping the money from their initial
investment in this new “machine”, the savings would be enormous, and the price of matzo would go down significantly. This would allow not only for cheaper matzos for the hamon am (average person) but would also help bring dignity to those who, up till now, had to rely upon kimcha d’pischa (moas chitim) in order to feed their families for Pesach; should he allow machine-matzos, they argued, then even the very poor would afford matzos! Beyond the economic. There was –at least in Pressberg (see shu”t Ksav Sofer for further details) – a shortage of frum laborers, which in turn resulted in the hiring of non-Jewish workers. If this was not cause enough for concern, there were reports by the Krakow beis din that on occasion some workers were so tired that they only pantomimed the act of working the dough. But it gets even worse, as the working-hours at these bakeries were so exhausting that the Krakow beis din reported that there had been occasions where workers were caught sneaking bread sandwiches and the like into their mouths as they worked on the matzos!
As those familiar with geography can see from the above, this new innovation was spreading in an eastern direction. On this journey, in the years 1857 and 1858 it moved from Krakow 350 km east and entered Galicia, and the town of Lvov (Lemberg). It arrived with the haskamah from none other than Rav Yaakov Ettlinger – the Aruch L’ner- one of the leading lamdanim and rabbanim of his age.
This is when the main story begins.
II.Lvov & Krakow: The Birth of a Machlokes
The town of Lvov was lead for many years by Rav Ettinger (not to be confused with Rav Ettlinger, the Aruch L’ner). In that town lived a learnt a young man by the name of Yosef Shaul Nathanson. Together with the rav’s son, Mordechai Zev Ettinger, they studied the entirety of the yam shel talmud. They both went on to receive semicha, all the while learning with each other. They even published important sefarim together, including the oft-quoted Magen Gibburim (my colleague Rav Yirmiyah Milevsky pointed out that the Mishnah Berura quotes this sefer over 200 times!).
Rabbi Nathanson was so prodigious that he went on to marry the rav’s daughter, and when the rav passed away, his son, R’ Mordechai Zev, did not get the position; it went instead to Rabbi Nathanson, the rav’s son-in-law. Soon, Rav Nathanson had become one of the poskei hador. A prolific author, he is most known for his shu”t Shoel U’Meishiv. We will refer to him by that name for the remainder of this story.
This background will become important later in our story, but for now, notice that the year this new machine arrived in Lvov was the Shoel U’Meishiv’s first year into his tenure – 1857.
So back to the story…
Eruption
The machine arrived in Lvov in 1857. At first they tried to test the machine, but it was too cold. On the second try it worked. In addition to the many advantages to machine-matzos in the eyes of some – and listed above – some claimed that there was another advantage. There was another rav in Lvov by the name of Rabbi Simon Aryeh Schwabacher. Coming from Germany that same year and already used to machine-matzos he argued to the Shoel U’Meishiv that hand-matzos are dirty, as the workers do not wash their hands; therefore such matzos are ‘muktza machmas mius (forbidden to touch due to disgust)”!
We should point out that at this point in his life this Rabbi Schwabacher may have been reform, and he was likely a maskil, and indeed the Shoel U’Meishiv had to explain why he mentioned the points of this rabbi in his own defense of his psak.
(Rabbi Shwabacher left Lvov just three years after his arrival, in 1860, and assumed a rabbinic position in Odessa, Russia [now Ukraine] after once giving a Chanukah speech there in 1859 where he enthralled the audience. He died in Odessa 28 years later. Even during his tenure there, the progressives and conservatives, the frum and the reform were confused regarding whose side he most stood most for, although it
seems hard to argue that he was a reformer in the classic sense. He also corresponded with the Netziv and other great rabbanim. See ‘The Jews of Odessa: 1794-1881’, Steven Zipperstein, Stanford University Press)
In any event, for reasons known and unknown, the Shoel U’Meishiv approved the new adaption to machine-matzos.
That same year in Krakow their beis din also ruled to allow machine- made matzos.
Now is when things begin to get interesting.
There was a man in Krakow by the name of R. Chaim Dembitzer who was not at all happy about this new development of machine-matzos. While questions would soon surface whether he was really a rav –or a dayan, as he referred to himself – that reality is of no real consequence for he set out to gather letters from the great rabbanim of the time showing that the leaders of the Torah veldt forbade such matzo. Regardless of Dembitzer’s standing or goals, the facts remain that he did receive many responses from some of the great poskim of the time prohibiting machine-matzo.
In fact, R. Dembitzer published a book in Breslov in 1859 titled ‘Moda’ah L’Beis Yisreol’ (‘A Warning to the Jewish People’) where he records all of the responses he received.
Who were some of the gedolim who responded banning machine matzo? None other than the Gerrer rebbe (Chidushei HaRim), the Sanzer rebbe (Divrei Chaim), as well as one of the leading halachic authorities of the time, Rav Shlomo Kluger, the great rav of Brody.
There was also another rav who wrote a letter prohibiting machine matzo. In fact, this letter came from a posek living in the town of Lvov –where the Shoel U’Meishiv’s original allowance came from!
Who was this man? None other than Rav Mordechai Zev Ettinger, the Shoel U’Meishiv’s old chavrusa and brother-in-law!
While we do not know what went on in the Shoel U’Meishiv’s personal life, we could only imagine how uncomfortable his time in Lvov was becoming. There is strong evidence that a few years later (1862) he sought to leave Lvov, and accepted the position of rav in the town of Brisk – it was even made public. For reasons that are still unclear he never did take that position choosing instead to stay on in Lvov.
III. ‘Moda’a L’Beis Yisroel’ The First Pamphlet:
What was the reasoning of these great men who disagreed with the Shoel U’Meishiv and prohibited machine matzo?
The arguments found in that pamphlet, written by Rav Kluger and others, ran the gamut from the intriguing to the very convincing. For instance, one of the fears (incidentally indicating that the old machine-matzos were once circular in shape and not square as they are today) was due to the following protocol: after the machine shaped the matzo into a square-shape, a worker would round it off so that it would be circular, taking the excess dough back and adding it to the other dough so it could be used in the next batch of matzos.
The fear was that in the meantime, the extra dough would have time to turn into chamtez! Indeed, it is for this reason that machine matzos are all square today (so as to avoid cutting off extra dough), for even those who allowed machine-matzos accepted this argument.
However some now argued that the custom among klal yisroel for millennia was to have round matzo, and to change the shape to square was a problem onto itself!
Some went even further and challenged creating such an innovation in making matzos simply because it differed so radically from how we had been making matzos for thousands of years. Some went so far as asserting that this innovation came from German Jews who are known to appreciate innovation more so than their Galiztianer brethren.
That was not to be taken as a compliment to German Jews!
Some important rabbanim even suggested that the introduction of this machine was a surreptitious way to bring innovation among the charedim, for the reformers to get their foot in the door, as it were.
In addition, they pointed to serious questions relating to kavana (intent). The Shulchan Aruch (siman 460) rules that matzos have to be made by an adult, and that matzos for the seder must have specific intent. The Mishnah Berurah, for instance, rules (ad loc. # 3) that even to watch over a non-Jew would not help in this regard. This being the case, how could a machine have kavana?!
There were also concerns regarding the ability to clean the machine from all the dough that would become stuck in crevices, as well as other similar concerns.
Furthermore, as the matzos moved toward the oven there was a fear that the heat escaping would speed-up the chimutz process before the matzos are placed inside the oven.
A separate issue raised was the concern for all of the people who would lose their jobs making hand-matzos. One of the reasons, points out Rav Kluger, that the gemara gives for postponing the reading of the Megilla when Purim falls out on Shabbos is the concern that the poor people will not receive their matanos l’evyonim.
So we see, he argued, that we must be mindful of the poor when making community policy, and the fact that many would lose their parnassa (sustenance) with the advent of machine matzo factories is reason enough to ban them.
IV. The Shoel U’Meishiv Responds: The Second Pamphlet
That same year (1859), in response to ‘Moda’a L’Beis Yisroel’, the Shoel U’Meishiv put out his own pamphlet, titled ‘Bitul Moda’ah’ (‘Nullifying the Warning’).
In it he responded to all the arguments against machine-matzos – pointing out that most of the gedolim who were recorded in the previous pamphlet never even saw these machines, rather they relied on testimony, and often this testimony concerned antiquated machines that didn’t represent the hiddurim made to them since their inception. As the Aruch L’ner, in reference to this debate, put it, “seeing is better than hearing”.
The Shoel U’Meishiv, together with the Krakow beis din, also demonstrated that R. Dembitzer might not have been who he claimed he was.
In fact, the Shoel U’Meishiv unflatteringly refers to him as ‘sheker haCheyN’ (false is grace), a play on the verse in mishlei and R. Dembitzer’s name, Chaim Nossan.
He also compiled letters from across Europe seeking support for his position. They included: the Ksav Sofer (see his teshuvos, Orach Chaim, hosofos 12), the Aruch L’ner, and the rav of Danzig, Rav Yisroel Lipshutz – the baal Tiferes Yisroel. The latter not only supported machine-matzos but wrote that it was he who requested such a machine be brought to Danzig, and that when he saw it he proclaimed the beracha ‘m’chadesh chadashim- bless be He who creates new things’!
As to the issue of the workers who would lose jobs, the Shoel U’Meishiv argued that there were other ways to help those individuals, and that this innovation would help far more people.
As for the issue of intent, he argued in strong words that the machine does not work on its own (comparing it to rolling pins, which, of course, don’t work on their own either) and since a Jewish adult is operating it there is no issue.
(Today these machines are far more advanced, see section below – Manischewitz, for instance, owns dozens of patents –and in addition they are not mechanical in nature but rather electrical, leading to issues beyond the scope of this brief monograph)
Regarding the issue of innovation, the Shoel U’Meishiv rhetorically asked whether it would also then be forbidden to ride a train.
The Aruch L’Ner also wrote in defense of innovation, as well as a vindication of German Jewry who are “upright” while also accepting “the innovations of men of science…for the purpose of observing mitzvos”.
Regarding the issue of requiring circular matzos, the Shoel U’Meishiv and others dismiss this out of hand. In fact some even suggest (based on beitza 22b, menachos 57a) that since many of the laws of matzo are learned from the lechem hapanim, which were square, square matzos are preferred!
IV. ‘The Shape’ Of Matzos –A Brief Aside
1) The Ibn Ezra (vayikra 2:4) and other rishonim debate the shape of the matzah used for some Korbanei Mincha; some say they were circular, while others say, square. I would posit that this would be a stronger comparison to our matzah than the Lechem HaPanim –as these minchas were non-chometzmatzos . Yet, as we see, even their shape remains an unsettled debate. (See Shaarei Aaron ad loc.)
2)U’Maivy Geulah L’Olam: On Parsha Bo 5786 (2026), we were vacationing in Miami. I brought the always fantastic Otzar Plios HaTorah which, sadly, I otherwise haven’t the time to peruse. To my sheer delight, on page 294, he offers a short treatment on why matzos have been round for centuries. We will bring down, in order, what he shares:
A) The term ‘Ugos‘ used my the initial matzah command (“…ugos matzos…”, shemos 12:39) is derived from the fact that these loaves were ‘Ugulos-Round’ (shu”t Yehuda Ya’aleh 1:157). This etymology is based on a Rashi to taanis (23a), menachos (94b), and moed kattan (4b). This same idea is found in the Ran (end of 3rd perek of taanis regarding Choni Ha’magel; HaRav Bartunera (taanis 3:8) and Tosfos Yom Tov (ad loc.). See also Rashi, chullin 41a in the mishneh.
A-1) After proving from this term its shape, Rav Asad explaining why this was to be its shape: Since matzah is to representlechem oni (the poor mans’ bread – devarim 16:3), roundness is symbolic of poverty, as alluded to by chazal (shabbos 151b) who describe poverty as a circle, or ball, that returns and retruns to this world/family (based on devarim 15:1).
B) Another purpose behind the round shape, offers Rav Asad, is based on a midresh (Eicha Rabbah, pesichta #18) and a halacha (Shulchan Aruch, oh”ch 428:3), the first night of Pesach will fall on the same day of the week of that year’s Tisha B’Av. This is the source for the minhag brought in the Rema (ad loc.) to eat an egg by the Seder’s meal. Why an egg? When Avraham died, and Yaakov made – and then fed Eisav – ‘adashim‘, Rashi shares (bereishis 25:30) how eggs and certain legumes are symbolic of mourning – as they are round, without a ‘mouth’ (perhaps alluding to our muted response to tragedy), and, because they are circular. This shape alludes to death’s circular/repeated/always returning nature (ad bias goel) [this is similar to how chazal explained ‘aniyos-poverty’ above]. More, according to many, Avraham’s death and Yaakov’s meal in response was on erev Pesach. Since this is Avraham’s yartzeit, it becomes an additional intent when eating an egg by the seder (Pri Megadim 476, msh”z 3). For these reasons do we also round the seder’s matzah: to remind us of both our mournful state in galus, and, to commemorate a nation still in mourning since the death of its founder, Avraham.
C) The Mahari Asad further suggests a reason for our round matzos [already proved from his understanding of ‘Ugos’] by reminding us how the mitzrim would bake their bread either square-shaped or triangle-shaped, to allude to the duality in their godly beliefs R”l (I am unsure of his source for this -although it does give new insight into Hamantashen!). To counter this,bnei yisroel made their bread in Egypt circular -one entity, without a beginning or end, best representing the yichud (oneness) of Hashem!
C) The HaDarash V’Ha’Iyun, by Rav Aahron Levin, hy”d!, proves from the same Ibn Ezra we brought above that our matzos are to be round.
D)In another of his sefarim (shu”t Avnei Cheifetz 34:4), Rav Levin offers an additional reason for round matzos: ‘Roundness’ is beloved by Hashem, which is why He fashioned the sun, earth, moon, inter alia in that shape. To celebrate this, we are to make our matzos round.
The Ksav Sofer also dismissed the square matzo concern by stating, “In the merit of the four-cornered matzos, may Hashem redeem us from the four corners of the earth”!
The Shoel U’Meishiv also expressed disappointment in the perceived motive behind his brother-in-law’s attack against his psak. However, from what I have seen, his brother-in-law’s letter was first written in 1856, several months before Lvov welcomed their new machine.
While the Shoel U’Meishiv wanted to avoid this issue turning into a Chasidim vs. Misnagdim debate, in many ways that is precisely what happened, largely due to the letters from the Sanzer and Gerrer rebbes. To this day almost no chasideshe branch uses machine-made matzo. However, whereas during the early days of this machlokes many did write of their concern that machine-matzo may contain real chometz, this is no longer a concern today even among chasidim (Nitei Gavriel in the name of the Klausenberger rebbe. See also shu”t Mishne Halachos 1:114).
Sadly the Jewish journalists of the 19th century got wind of this debate and began to pick sides as well as go beyond their breadth of ken by placing themselves between the heads of giants. Most notably was the Jewish newspaper ‘Hamagid’ –a largely haskalah leaning paper – who published derogatory articles about those who wanted to prohibit machine-matzos.
Due to their clear bias it is hard to know if some of the facts they cite are true. For instance, on March 9, 1859 Hamagid reported that the Shoel U’Meishiv was taken to court in Lvov where he had to prove that his pamphlet was not filled with lies, as was told to the censor by the advocates of the first pamphlet against machine-matzos. The Shoel U’Meishiv was able to convince the judge that nothing wrong or untrue was to be found in his book, reported Hamagid. A fantastic account…if proven true. Perhaps I am being too cynical.
There was also another individual who took to writing into various journals and newspapers in support of machine-matzos whilst attacking –in very strong words- Rav Shlomo Kluger. This fellow, R. Chaim Kara, would later write to the Gerrer rebbe explaining that at the time he had no idea who Rav Shlomo Kluger was (!) and had he known he would have spoken with more respect.
As we can see from all the above, the new innovation of machine- matzos led to a heated machlokes that shook the Torah world of its time.
So what do we take from all of this? On the one hand neither the Mishnah Berura nor the Aruch HaShulchan ever even mentioned machine matzo, on the other hand great poskim like Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ate only machine-made matzo.
Well, the truth is we only told the first half of this story. Machine matzo continued to spread throughout the second half of the 19th century and into the 20th.
This innovation travelled south to Eretz Yisroel, and west to America, changing in design and concern with each passing decade.
That is a story unto itself, and just as fascinating.
Alas, it will have to wait till next year (see next section), when iy’H I will write a sequel to this article, and when Ami will hopefully be headquartered in Yerushalim Habenuyah, where we can all witness as Rav Shlmo Kluger and the holy rebbes of Europe sit together with the Shoel U’Meishiv and the Ksav Sofer as they argue their respective cases in front of Moshe rabbeinu, Rebbe Akiva, and Rav Yehudah HaNasi.
V. Where ‘Time Magazine’ Got it Wrong
Before we describe what happened next, let me share a recent discovery that highlights the sad reality of the initial machlokos and what was left in its wake.
In April of 2009 Time Magazine published a brief history of the ‘machine matzo debate’. They write:
“In 1959, a well-known Ukrainian rabbi named Solomon Kluger published an angry manifesto against machine-made matzo, while his brother-in-law, Rabbi Joseph Saul Nathenson, published a defense.”
In just this one sentence we find three major inaccuracies. (a) Their date is off by a hundred years (b) although quoted in it, Rav Kluger was not the one who published this sefer (c) they mistook Rav Kluger and Rav Nathenson as brother-in-laws!
How could they err so?
Perhaps this was due to the fact that there was a brother-in-law element to the story. In his younger days Rav Nathenson would study with his brother-in-law Rav Mordechai Zev Ettingah (not Rav Kluger!). The
two soon became a world-renown Torah-force to be reckoned with. They even published very popular sefarim together, including the important work ‘Magen Gibburim’, one of the most oft quoted sefarim in the Mishnah Berrura.
It was therefore a shock to many to discover that in ‘Moda’ah L’Beis Yisroel’ one of the rabbis who had written strongly against machine matzos and the ruling of Rav Nathenson was none other than Rav Ettingah!
Time Magazine was right that a brother-in-law was involved, they just got the wrong name.
But that is not even the central discovery I want to share; that was just its introduction.
A few moths ago I was looking something up in one of Rav Nathenson’s works (‘Divrei Shaul’, Bereishis/Shmos, vol. 2) when I noticed that near the end of the sefer a relative of his offers a brief biography of its author. He mentions that the family once wrote to Rav Nathenson asking if the rumors were true – that he and his brother-in- law, Rav Ettingah, had written a monumental work of responsa based on the questions they received while sitting together in the beis medresh.
This would indeed be an epic work, as I am unaware offhand of any sefer of shailos v’teshuvos written by a set of chavrusos!
Moreover, the book was to be called, ‘shu”t Sheves Achim’ (‘Responsa: Unity of Brothers’), a most appropriate title for such a unified holy venture.
Rav Nathenson responded to this query with a melancholy and revealing play-on-words, by stating that the ‘sheves achim’, the peace among brothers, no longer exists.
Machlokos does not just harm our relationships with each other, but has the power to even conceal Torah!1
1 One last point regarding the 19th century debate. Rav Shlomo Ahron Wertheimer of Yerushalaim (d. 1935) discovered that the 13th century rishon Meiri (in his ‘Magen Avos’) seemed to have described a process of matzo baking in his time that seems to portray a very crude type of matzo machine. He therefore posits that had gedolim against machine matzos been aware of this precedent they would have yielded to the Shoel U’Meishiv.
We should note however that many of the Meiri’s works were only discovered recently, and indeed Rav Wertheimer was a celebrated researcher of kisvei yad (manuscripts). While I have not yet been able to discover if this particular source in the Meiri was also a modern discovery, it should mentioned that if it was many would not feel obligated to it as Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Chazon Ish were very weary of modern finds –even from rishonim –influencing halacha. See this author’s forthcoming sefer on Chanukah (Chanukah: Mysteries and Histories -Mosaica Press) where this issue will be discussed at length, iy”H.
Rabbi Tzvi Yechezkel Michelson (hy’d; d. 1944), in a discussion about this machlokos, decides to end his treatment “…on a humorous note”.
He reports that Rav Shlomo Kluger and Rav Nathenson had many other communal needs to work on together. They had no choice but to move- on from the harsh arguments and words regarding machine matzos. It would seem they developed a positive attitude toward this once vitriolic debate. Once, Rav Kluger and Rav Nathenson came together to Vienna to meet with the Kaiser regarding a matter of communal import. Rav Kluger sent a request to an officer asking if they could meet that day, instead of waiting till the morning. The official explained that whatever they came for would have to wait till their scheduled meeting the next day with the Kaiser, as he is very busy and “not a machine”.
Rav Kluger smiled, turned to Rav Nathenson and said, “You see! Even in Vienne they stay away from machines!” (Shu”t ‘Tirosh VeYitzhar’, 1:188, end)
A similar story of humor being shared between disputants is told about Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Satmar rebbe. They famously debated on several sensitive matters of halacha. One of the more prominent issues that they disagreed upon was the purpose of a mechitza in a shul. The outcome of Rav Moshe’s understanding was that a valid mechitza need not be as high as what many may assume. The Satmar rebbe strongly disagreed.
It once happened that Rav Moshe and the Satmar rebbe were at a shiva house together. Sitting in front of the avel the Satmar rebbe leaned-in toward Rav Moshe and started to speak to him in learning. Rav Moshe was surprised and, glancing at the avel, hinted to the rebbe that perhaps now was not the time to learn Torah. The rebbe pointed to an ottoman next to the avel’s feet and replied, “No, we can talk in Torah in front of the avel because according to you that stool is a mechitza!”
VI. The Waters Cool…Briefly
From the 1870’s until the turn of the century things slowly started to die down in Europe. While there were still people – and their respective rabbanim –on both sides of the fence, it became clear that machine matzos were (a) here to stay and that (b) those supporting it were not out to harm Torah or mesorah.
By the 1890’s, and in many ways still true today, the question of the permissibility of machine matzos became divided along chassidim/misnagdim lines (something that Rav Nathenson was very disturbed by).
For instance, in the city of Dvinsk Rav Meir Simcha, author of the Meshech Chochma and Ohr Sameach3, who was the rav of the non- chassidim of the city, allowed machine matzos and wrote a letter to his community stating such, while the Rogatchever Gaon, Rav Rosen, who was the rav of the chasideshe shul in Dvinsk, did not approve of them.4 (Footnotes start here, with #4, as I incorporated the prior ones into the main text. Upon uploading this file, I was unable to renumber them. I apologize for any confusion)
It should then be of no surprise that Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstien of the famed (non-chasidesh) Slabodka yeshiva also allowed machine matzos, even when the machine is run on electricity (shu”t Levush Mordechai).5
However there were exceptions to these dividing lines, on both sides.
For instance while the Chafetz Chaim does not mention this raging debate in his halachik works like the Mishnah Berrura (for reasons unknown), he does state in a letter his strong suspicions relating to machine matzos 6.
So too do we find some in the chasideshe veldt who seemed to have broken ranks. The maggid of Yerushalaim R’Shalom Schwadron’s grandfather, the great chasideshe posek Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron –known as the Maharsham –wrote a number of teshuvos on the topic of machine matzos. While it is difficult to know precisely where he stood on the issue, it is safe to say that he leaned toward permissibility. He even stated that the suggestion that something should be presumed guilty simply because it is an innovation to how we had performed it in the past is a very weak argument.8
Another great chassideshe posek was none-to-thrilled with this disruption in chassidehshe practice. The holy rebbe of Sochatchav, Rav Avraham Borenstein, known as the Avnei Nezer, responded in a short but sharp letter regarding this psak of the Marharsham (who he does not mention by name), comparing those who would allow machine matzos in the face of the great rebbes who had already banned it as “a fly facing lions”.9
The Avnei Nezer further argues that nothing is added by having new people enter this debate. “Who is greater than Rav Nathenson who already allowed it?” asks the Avnei Nezer, “[Y]et the holy rebbes have already rejected his view…”
This is a fascinating argument. The Avnei Nezer seems to be saying that once the first generation of a holy debate closes we must assume that all the points on both sides have been exhausted. Our job then is simply to follow how our parents and teachers guided us.
Although the Marharsham’s ruling caused quite a stir, it may have been for naught. Even till today, what the Marharsham’s position regarding machine matzos really was remains hotly debated. In some letters (like the one written to St. Louise) seems to allow it, in others he even seems to prefer it, and still others where he says that he ‘never allowed it’.
So much confusion surrounds the Marharsham’s opinion that twenty years ago a great grandson of his wrote a long treatise on the matter for a Torah journal of Karlin.10
VII.The Machine Makes ‘Aliya’
The short but sharp letter of the Avnei Nezer quoted above was written in 1909. That letter, along with several others from Europe, made its way to eretz yisroel.
Already in 1873 the first matzo-baking machine was brought to Israel, however, likely due to the fact that it never became popular, it did not cause a stir.
But by 1908 and 1909 things the winds changed. Six years earlier the Cohen/Halperin machine matzo plant was founded and their matzos became prevalent among many of the non-chassidic charedim at the time (then called perushim). This was not by chance, as this factory was given hashgacha by none other than Rav Shmuel Salant! Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld also gave his hashkama –in theory –to machine matzos.11
The chassideshe charedim however truly believed these matzos to be a major violation of law.
In fact, the very same Marharsham who caused a stir in Europe because he allowed machine matzos was now being quoted as one of the main sources of the chassidim disallowing them!
Anyone who might be confused as to the give-and-take to this debate need look only to the pashkivillim (posters) that painted the walls of Yerushalaim in 1908-1909 where every opinion regarding machine matzos, every argument, is quoted, debunked, and quoted anew. As the Jewish Observer once put it, it was an all-out ‘pashkavillim war’.12
The machine matzo debate has now arrived in our holiest city.
In one of the pashkivillim citizens of Yerushalaim are invited to see the matzo baking of Rav Shmuel Salant himself!
While it comes as no surprise that some wanted machine matzos banned, it may however surprise readers to learn that the pendulum swung both ways. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach reported how he remembered 13 that the situation with handmade matzos was so bad 14 that many rabbanim wanted to ban hand-made matzos!15
This may sound odd to our ears (and mouths) but keep in mind that this debate –going all the way back to Rav Nathenson – was not just about if machine matzos were kosher for Pesach, but if they were superior to hand matzos.
Rav Shlomo Zalman himself would only eat machine matzos on Pesach. However by the seder, he would also try to find mehadrin hand matzos to fulfill all opinions.16
As Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank explained 17 a machine has no concept of daas (knowledge) so the ‘wrong’ type of intent is impossible to place on it. All that matters is that we are able to establish that a machine is the extension of the person who turned it on. In the view of these poskim once we eliminate such concerns then a machine is not just permissible to be used for the baking of matzos, but recommended. This is because by having a machine designed for this purpose one thereby eliminates human error. In addition, the custom, based on the Chasam Sofer 18 , is to go from dough to oven in just a few minutes, something which a machine makes far more plausible. 19
We should point out that although we have written in the past of the dangers of innovation in halacha, these poskim would point out an obvious distinction: it is only innovation that could have easily have been done in the past yet, for whatever unknown reason, was ignored or bypassed that we mustn’t now ignore the mysterious concerns of old and act differently for ourselves.
In other words, it is irrelevant that until 1838 Jews only ate handmade matzos, for they had no other choice! Who is to say what the rishonim would have also rejected machine matzos had these machines been invented earlier? That is the crux of mattirim’s argument as it pertains to innovation.
While this debate in Israel has cooled, we can still find allusions to it. For instance Dayan Fisher (d. 2003) writes20 that while both types of matzo are acceptable, should be stringent and eat only machine matzos!
On the other hand, when the Chazon Ish saw that his brother-in-law, the Steipler Geon, had machine matzos for his children to eat on Pesach he promptly informed him that it was chametz!21
So, we began in Lvov and ended in Yerushalaim. In both Europe and Israel what began as a heated debate ended in mutual respect.22
But this machine still has one more stop to make: America.
VII.‘Only In America’
NPR’s ‘Planet Money” recently had a report on matzo in general, focusing on Manischewitz. 24
“’My guide through the factory is one of the world’s leading authorities on making matzo. He’s not a rabbi, or even a Jew. I was raised Southern Baptist and my wife is Roman Catholic and I’m running operations for the country’s largest Jewish food company,’ says Randall Copeland. Only in America.”
According to the April 10, 2012 edition of the New York Times, each year about 130 million dollars is spent on matzo. Manischewitz alone – according to a recent story in the New Yorker –produces over 76,000,000 individual pieces of matzo annually!
While most of these sales take place on or before Pesach, there is also a not-insignificant percentage that is bought throughout the year. In fact, former president Bill Clinton has a famous friend who often makes him matzo-brei when he comes over to visit!
The story of how machine matzo in America came to be, and came to be accepted by many, is a notable one.
One of the main supporters of machine matzos in Israel was Rav Nafatlai Amsterdam. Born in Salant in 1832, he would later become one of the most famous disciples of Rav Yisroel Salanter. Often supporting himself with a bakery owned and operated by his wife, he settled in Israel in 1906, three year before the eruption of the ‘matzo storm’ examined in the last chapter.
Some thirty years after the birth of Rav Naftali another baby boy was born in Salant. Born to R’ Yechiel Michael Manischewitz, they named their new son Dov Ber. He too would go on to study with Rav Yisroel Salanter (in the town of Memel), and, as we could guess from his last name, he too would support himself with a bakery of some type.
Indeed, this family was not just close with Rav Yisroel Salanter, but truly desired to follow in his ways. Soon after Manischewitz Matzo was founded in Cincinnati in 1888 a friend of Rav Ber opened up a competing matzo business. Writing to his father in Europe in search of a letter from a respected rav disallowing this competition, the son received a reply letter of harsher tone, beseeching him to follow the ways of the recently deceased Rav Salanter and seek only peace.
Matzo had been baked in America since its infancy; there is even documentation of Jewish soldiers during the civil war –on both sides – receiving rations of matzo during Pesach.
However, machine matzos were still largely unheard of in America. In the above referenced New Yorker piece Rav Ber is likened to Steve Jobs (the creator of Apple Computers) whose genius was not based on problem –making the matzo even more removed from the hand of its creator(s).25
The reader should note that at this time in American history there were very few chasideshe rebbes in the country, and the absence of these, the strongest opponents of machine matzo, allowed Manischewitz’s successes to grow exponentially. To illustrate, Rav Eliyahu Yosef Rabinowitz, often cited as the first rebbe in America, emigrated in 1899 and passed away in Buffalo, New York just eleven years later (where he is buried and visited by many each year. He is the subject of this author’s 2023 Summer Series in Ami Magazine. Others may posit that Rav Avraham Ash was in fact chassidesh and therefore should be considered as the first rebbe in America).
Although the opposition to machine matzos in America was minimal, and even Rav Yaakov Yosef26 (also a student of Rav Yisroel Salanter,invention per se, rather in taking that which already exists and perfecting and streamlining it.
R’ Ber Manischewitz not only accepted machine matzos as kosher for Pesach, he perfected its process, and even advertised them as ‘square’, something which some rabbanim in Europe had taken issue with (as discussed last year in Part 1).
It should also be pointed out that, in time, the matzos that Manischewitz was producing were not exactly like the machine matzos of Europe. Manischewitz owned tens of patents making not just their matzos ahead of their time, but even their factory. Much of their innovations were adopted by other companies of the time and are still in use –although modernized –today, such as ‘electric eyes’ that count how many units are being produced during production.
Whereas initially a ‘machine’ matzo was but rolled mechanically, now they were rolled, shaped, pulled, and marked all by a machine. The oven too was far more modern than what was being used in Europe, and was gas fueled.
While some would argue that these made the process less problematic from a halachic perspective, others saw this as only adding to the problem –making the matzo even more removed from the hand of its creator(s).25
The reader should note that at this time in American history there were very few chasideshe rebbes in the country, and the absence of these, the strongest opponents of machine matzo, allowed Manischewitz’s successes to grow exponentially. To illustrate, Rav Eliyahu Yosef Rabinowitz, often cited as the first rebbe in America, emigrated in 1899 and passed away in Buffalo, New York just eleven years later (where he is buried and visited by many each year. He is the subject of this author’s 2023 Summer Series in Ami Magazine. Others may posit that Rav Avraham Ash was in fact chassidesh and therefore should be considered as the first rebbe in America).
Although the opposition to machine matzos in America was minimal, and even Rav Yaakov Yosef 26 (also a student of Rav Yisroel Salanter, interestingly) supported their use on Pesach,27 there remained some doubt in the hearts of some.
Enter Rav Zechryah Yosef Rosenfeld. Rav Rosenfeld was already a distinguished rav in Europe when he fled to America in 1893. By 1894 he was elected rav of one of the shuls in St. Louise.
Although few recognize his name, Rav Rosenfeld was one of the most important rabbanim to the history of America. To understand his sacrifice in taking a stand regarding machine matzos at the turn of the century, one needs to be aware of the bristly decade leading up to it.
In the late 1890’s Rav Rosenfeld designed and constructed the very first city eruv in America. This was no small feat, as even before his St. Louise eruv was built it drew heavy criticism from another gaon who also served as rav in that same city, Rav Shalom Elchanan Jaffe. Rav Jaffe published a sefer, ‘Shoel K’Inyan’, a treatise seeking to show that the (proposed) eruv would be unacceptable.
Looking at the dates it is apparent that the very same year Rav Rosenfeld arrived in St. Louise he announced his plans to build an eruv! Like many rabbanim, he felt it was his duty to protect Shabbos by building a city eruv.28 In 1896 he published a defense of his planned eruv, in a sefer titled, ‘Tikvas Zecharyah’. Utilizing telegraph wires and the Mississippi River, the first city eruv in America was built.
Although he was viscously attacked for his eruv –and both sides sought haskamos from around the world (an article for a different time) – Rav Rosenfeld somehow found the strength to write another sefer, on yet another controversial topic.
In 1905 29 he published ‘Tikvas Yosef’ where he demonstrates why machine matzos, and specifically those, like Manischewitz, being produced in America, are kosher for Pesach. Like with his sefer defending his eruv, he sought letters from distinguished rabbanim. Once again, the Marharsham is quoted as allowing machine matzos, with certain conditions,30 and once again his true position remains unclear.
Many supported Rav Rosenfeld arguments, however there were exceptions. The author of the Darkei Teshuvah, for instance, wrote that he simply could not offer a haskama after the holy Divrei Chaim banned machine matzos.31
Manischewitz for their part opened their doors to any and all rabbanim to see and inspect the process for themsleves. In the late 1930’s they even published a book listing over one hundred rabbanim who supported their venture. They even assert that Rav Meir Shapiro ate Manischewitz matzo the entire year, knowing that there would never be any kashrus concern with their product (i.e. hafrashas challa)!
In the March 1938 edition of the prestigious Torah journal ‘HaPardes’ a 25-page supplement was published celebrating the yovel (jubilee) of Manischewitz machine matzo (ending right before the yiddish advertisement for Dr. Pepper!). There one finds letters from the most eminent litvehse poskim of the time.
One will also discover something else, something fascinating. The Manischewitz family had opened a yeshivah in Yerushalaim, becoming quite close with many of the poskim of the city. It is unclear when this small yeshiva was dissolved, but from the information provided in HaPardes it was clearly a serious place. Indeed, already as young boys, Rav Ber Manischewitz sent his two sons to Yerushalaim to learn at the famous Yeshivas Etz Chaim, something that few families in Ohio of the time did! Rav Ber was serious about Torah and, in addition, these connections to great leaders of Israel allowed him ‘in the door’ so that he could better articulate how his machine matzo process worked. So that the reader does not misunderstand this last point, it is not to suggest that friendship changes a psak, challila, rather that a posek needs to know that the man seeking to innovate is not after a more perverse prize or heading toward a more rash progression.
Knowing Rav Ber as a man of Torah, a family with deep roots in the classical Torah world, evidenced character and helped soothe any question of a ‘greater agenda’, which if the reader recalls from Part 1 was no small part of the concern of those who wanted machine matzos banned when they were first introduced.
[See Sidebar for a picture that Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and others had sent to HaPardes in celebration of Manischewitz’s jubilee].
IX. Epilogue?
Many people see machine matzos as a b’dieved, something only allowed on Pesach ex post facto, at best. The information we have provided shows that, at least among the non-chasidim, it is far more complicated than that, with some gedolim even preferring machine over hand matzos.
In addition, no one would argue that machine matzo factories are anything but vigilant in controlling their environment. So intense is the kosher for Pesach supervision at Manischewitz, Streits, Yehudah, etc. that it caused NPR to state, “The matzo business may be the most heavily regulated business in the world.”32
Aside for gaining an understanding of the effort and Torah that goes into so much of what we enjoy, we can learn another valuable lesson from what we have learned: not every machlokos in Torah and halacha must end in bitterness. When there are legitimate poskim on either side of an issue, and after all the points have been made and all the ink spilled, each family can follow the views of their particular leaders while at the same time recognizing that eilu v’eilu (the principle that two incompatible views in halacha can each retain an inherent truth) did not perish with the closing of the Gemara.
However, our story has one last chapter…
X. “Are These Also ‘Machine Matzos’?” A New Company Breaths New Life Into An Old Debate
When it comes to Pesach, the ‘new’ is always, and should always be, suspect.
We all saw, for example, how something as innocuous as
quinoa has divided poskim and even families over the past decade. When my in-laws come for Pesach we actually make two cholents –one for my family with quinoa and one for them, without.
This is more so true when it comes to innovations in matzah production.
Over the past two years (this was written in 2018) ‘Birchas HaPesach’ in eretz yisroel has been producing a new kind of matzah. This new matzah is described by some as handmade matzah, and by others as no better, or different, than machine matzas. Still others, unconcerned how they are described, are ambivalent toward them simply because they are ‘new’.
What is this new machine?
First , imagine a pasta machine.
One places their prepared pasta dough into the tiny space
between two pins/rollers and he begins to crank with his hand, causing the pins/rollers to pull, press, stretch and roll out your dough in seconds. He does this a few times and his dough will become thinner and thinner, ready to be cut and shaped into fresh lasagna noodles.
Now imagine this same type of metal pins/roller-crank used for making and shaping matzas.
The dough starts off the same as any handmade matzah, however, once made and cut into balls, instead of handing each ball to someone to roll
out and shape with a rolling pin, it is handed to a man who places it into a ‘pasta-maker-like’ contraption. It is simultaneously cranked as it is placed between the metal pins which then quickly pulls it through, coming out longer and thinner.
Immediately, someone then takes this-now flatter- dough and passes it on to the next, similar crank device, which thins it out even more. All in all, it passes through five such hand-cranked devices and goes from there immediately to the oven.
Amazingly, from dough to matzah takes about two minutes! From the above description these matzas would seem not only kosher, but mehudar.
The Rema rules that matzah dough should not rest before its baking. Although the Mishneh Berrura points out that it would still be kosher if it rested a little bit, we should try to have it not rest at all, he writes.
In addition, the custom, based on the Chasam Sofer 33 , is to go from dough to oven in just a few minutes, something which until now was only feasible with a machine. 34 With these new matzos, it can now be done with this new ‘hand’ method where almost all waiting periods in matzah production are eliminated.
However, one crucial question remains: while perhaps mehudar in some ways, are these new matzas considered to be machine made thereby prohibiting chassidim and many others from eating them on Pesach, or should they be seen as handmade?
Although these matzas are kosher l’pesach under the hashagacha of Rav Mordechai Gross shlita, Rav Moshe Brandsdorfer wrote a letter expressing his support for these ‘new’ matzas even for chassidim.
The other day – together with Rav Chaim Schwartz, rav hamachshir of the Vaad Harrabanim of Queens -I spoke with Rav Moshe Brandsdorfer over the telephone. He explained his position as well as answered some of the detractors’?
Rav Moshe Brandsdorfer comes from chashuv chassidishe yichus. His father was Hagaon Harav Meir Brandsdorfer (d. 2009), one of the gedolei haposekim in Yerushalaim of the last generation. Rav Moshe himself is a highly respected posek and av beis din.
This yichus is important because, as pointed out before, chassideshe poskim are generally weary of machine innovation in matzah. Therefore, Rav Moshe’s approval is very substantial and significant.
The salient question I posed to him was the following: at what point is a matzah handmade and at what point does it cross the line into something else and become ‘machine’ made? As the Shoel U’Meishiv put it –does even using a simple rolling pin make matzas machine made?
Rav Moshe explained that he believes that any concern the great poskim of the past had with machines used for making matzah simply does not exist by these new matzas.
Before quoting from our conversation, in his teshuva (responsum) written in support of these matzas he explains why these are hand matzas and not machine. Even though in the early days of the debate of machine matzas they were also not using electricity and yet were banned by chassideshe poskim –so that one can claim that the fact that these new matzas use no electricity does not prove that they are not machines- there is still a vital distinction bwteen those initial machine matzas and these new ones. Those early ‘machines’ were using rollers that rolled the rollers. Meaning, a ‘machine’ by definition is not the use
of one man and one tool-like a kneading pin-rather the use of a system, a processing of many actions.
In other words, these crank rollers are indeed no different –halachickly- from regular rolling pins.
After reading this teshuva, and after listening to him express these same thoughts in our phone conversation, I asked him another crucial question. It is one thing to say that these too are handmade and not machine made, but is there a maaleh with these new matzas even above and beyond regular handmade matzah?
He replied by making a fascinating point: With regular rolling pins, they and one’s hands get warm/hot from
the constant non-stop action of rolling matzah after matzah after matzah. This heat can lead to issues of possible chimutz. So that this new method is not only matzas yad (handmade) but is better than typical rolling-pin- made hand matzah!
He then shared a personal matter.
“My family has the minhag of not only avoiding-of course-all machine matzah, but we do not even use matzah where regular rolling pins are used in shaping the matzah. So of course, if someone has this family chumrah then indeed they should avoid
these new matzas –as well, for that matter, even many traditional hand matzas.
“However, this is not so common, and so long as someone does not have such a minhag, even among chassidem, this matzah is kosher and considered hand matzah, no different than hand matzah made with regular rolling pins”
He added the following caveat:
“Of course, when it comes to Pesach every family has personal and familial chumros…” but when it halachikly these matzas are indeed handmade.
His point was clear. If one eats hand matzah rolled with regular rolling pins then this matzah is not only the same thing, but perhaps even better (due to avoiding any idle resting and warmed rolling pins and hands).
As to the arguments that even if these are not ‘machine matzas’ per se, they are still utilizing a new and unique method, he explained both on the phone and in his letter. “The concerns of Rav Shlomo Kluger and the other great poskim do not exist here. The simple fact is that these matzas are made with a koach rishon (a person is churning the crank)
no different than rolling pins, this is as opposed to a machine where the major concern was koach kocho (a secondary force; a person only presses a button-or the like- which then causes a whole chad gadya to take place beyond his input).”
With this he also explained why the kavana issue which was at the heart of many of the concerns of the past simply do not not exist here.
This is a significant distinction, as the rav pointed out, for even teffilin made and advertised as avodas hayad (handmade) often use various koach rishon mechanisms and tools.
In addition, he pointed out that such ‘new’ rollers are not that new at all.
Furthermore, concerns of excess dough that was cut away from the molding and shaping of the matzah is unique as well to (certain older, crude) matzah machines, whereas in this case the matzas are simply formed from the pressure –no different than a rolling pin-leaving no excess matzah behind.
The rav explained that he does not typically provide hashgachos, and even here it is under the hashgacha of Rav Gross, rather he wanted to show his support to a matzah that he felt was very lichatchila.
Are there any detractors to this view?
Initially I could not find any posek on the record who disagreed with this psak. However, a couple of weeks before Pesach this year, a series of letters were distributed purported to assur these matzas for those who do not eat machine matzah. In particular, there was a letter signed by none other than Rav Shmuel Vosner zt’l.
However, upon closer examination of this letter, it turns out that if read carefully (which we should always do when reading letters of gedolim) it says no such thing.
For instance, looking at the date of the letter one notices that it is from ten years ago! (16 years ago from 2025).
Rav Mordechai Gross –a close disciple of Rav Wosner- explained that this was written regarding a new type of machine that was devolved a decade ago and which has no bearing to these new matzas. I contacted Rav Moshe Refoel Laufer, one of Rav Brandsdorfer’s gabbeim who not only agreed, but told me that Rav Moshe Brandsdorfer also believes that this ten-year old idea would have been considered machine matzah.
As for the few letters that were signed this year by some chassidesheh rabbanim, some make mention of the psak of Rav Vosner, and others mention the ruling of Rav Shlomo Kluger, which calls into question if they were given an accurate description of these particular matzas, which indeed are very different than machines and seem not different than stam rolling pins.
In the end, chassidesheh readers, as well as others who only eat handmade matzah will have to ask their personal morah horah if they are to consider these new matzas machine made or hand made, as we have entered uncharted waters in this one-hundred and fifty year-old debate.
“Ki Lo V’Chipazon Teitzu…- You Shall Not Go Out In Haste…” (Yeshayahu 52:12).
The navi teaches us that whereas we left mitzraim in a hurry and therefore our dough did not have time to rise, when moshiach comes we will leave with calmness.35
Perhaps the navi is issuing a challenge to us, that when great poskim share their holy views, we should not automatically attack and question it, rather, and with a sense of calm and with a feeling of being unrushed, we shall discuss it dispassionately.
Perhaps, if we can allow for an eilu v’eilu and a peaceful machlokos l’shem shomyaim, this alone can be a zechus for bias goel.
May this Pesach bring about a new geulah and a new calm. May we soon join to share in matzas together with the korban pesach in Yerushalaim.
———————————————————
NOTES:
Due to a glitch, notes start at number 4:
4 Both of their respective views are expressed in letters: Rav Meir Simcha to his surrounding areas, and the Rogatcahver in a 1909 letter to Yerushalaim. It is interesting that the latter seemed to have kept his opinion to himself in his own city, likely to avoid machlokos, or, perhaps R’ Meir Simcha was viewed more as the rav ha’ir. See also shu”t Tzphanos Paneach 2:39.
5 For a full list of those who discuss electricity as it pertains to machine matzos, see shu”t Vayevarech Dovid 1:91.
6 I would venture to suggest that he did not mention the issue because this debate was still ongoing, and, because there were respected and trustworthy views on both sides, the Chofetz Chaim may have wisely surmised that adding one more name to either the ‘approve’ column or the ‘disapprove’ one would accomplish but one thing: cut the number of those who would study his monumental work in half, as theones whom he offended would avoid his work. Even more surprising than the Mishnah Berrura’s omission of this debate is the Aruch Hashulchan’s. He as well fails to mention machine matzos. The difference between the M.B. and the Aruch Hashulchan, it seems to me, is that M.B. comes to explain the Shulchan Aruch, as a collected commentary, and it is not always its goal to share customs unless directly reflecting on a point being discussed. The Aruch Hashulchan however is meant not as a commentary to the Shulchan Aruch per se but rather a research tool to be used instead of or in concert to the Shulchan Aruch (for those who desire more background material, etc.). Accordingly, the Aruch Hashulchan oftenbrings the minhagim from across Europe. Nevertheless, regarding machine matzos, he may have had the same fears which I suggested above that the Chofetz Chaim may have had.
7 See ‘Chafetz Chaim –Chayav U’Poelo’ vol. 3
8 Shu”t Marhasham 5:82, as quoted by Hildesheir and Lieberman.
9 2:537 (may not be found in some volumes). See also siman 372 where the Avnei Nezer expresses his displeasure even regarding the mass production of matzo, of even handmade. He felt that this too wasnot just a new development, but should concern us because when one makes matzo for themselves they are far more particular than one making it for unknown and unseen people.
10 ‘Kovetz Beis Ahron V’Yisroel’, vol. 3:51
11 To a plant in Haifa. This was later rescinded due to concerns unrelated to this discussion
12 Jewish Observer, April 2004. Much work on this topic proceeded my own and whose research benefited me greatly. Shu”t VaYevarech Dovid 1:88; R. D. Schwartz, Sinai, issue 64; J. Sarna’s written remarks on this subject based on a lecture given at Touro College and found at Brandies.edu, Jewish Observer ibid., Hildesheimer and Leiberman’s ‘The Controversy Surrounding Machine Made Matzot’, inter alai.
13 Although born the year following this debate -1910 –this was still a controversial issue for at least a decade after. It is more likely that he was referring to a later time
14 See part 1 for what these problems might have been
15 Halichos Shlomo, Pesach, 157-158 #46
16 While everyone agrees that he ate machine matzo for the remaining days of Pesach, what he did by the seder is a matter of dispute. Based on the two sources I found that discuss his custom (Halacha Shel Pesach (Freidman) p. 481 and Halichos Shlomo ad loc. what is written above seems to be the most accurate
21 Maaseh Ish vol. 5; see also Shaarei Ish p. 44 that the Chazon Ish said that as a matter of law one mustn’t eat machine matzos; Cf. Chazon Ish O’C 6
22 See Nittei Gavriel who quotes from the Klausenberger rebbe z’l that even those against machine matzos would no longer call such matzo ‘chometz’
23 See ‘Sarna’ mentioned in a footnote above. Much of the material found in this section would not be possible without his investigations into this subject
24 April 10, 2012
25 The Satmar rebbe –in Divrei Yoel 1:35 –makes just that argument, suggesting that the early mattirim of machine matzos are poor evidence to the allowance of the more modern ones.
26 Incidentally, this writer published the following last year (2024): “If asked to name a yeshiva in America that was founded by a ‘Rav Kotler’, the inevitable response would be: Beth Medrash Govoha, known colloquially as ‘Lakewood’.While a correct answer, it is not the only one, as we will briefly explain: The famous Malbim was initially hired to fill the position as the first ‘Chief Rabbi of New York’. However, he sadly passed away before his departure to America.It would be several years later when the city would choose the incomparable RJJ, Rav Yaakov Yosef to lead them, and soon, Rav Shlomo Nosson Kotler moved from Lita to New York to serve as his sgan.Rav S.N. Kotler was not simply an assistant, rather was an accomplished gaon in his own right. Telz’s Rav Eliezar Gordon described this Rav Kotler as ‘The Ketzos of the generation”! Incidentally, Rav Kotler may aid in resolving a question I’ve had for years: what was RJJ’s last name? Writing in a haskama to a sefer published in Buffalo, NY in the 1880’s (!) Rav Kotler shares (translation): “Behold, I come as the messenger for the great gaon, Rav Yaakov ‘Yozuhf’, the rav hakollel…”Here, Rav Kotler’s spelled ‘Yosef’ as:זיעאף : yud, aleph, zayin, ayin, pehThis may demonstrate that ‘Yosef/Yozuhf was his last name!”
27 See ‘Tikvas Yosef’ at length; See also ‘Hapardes’ March 1938 in the supplement (mentioned in more detail below) for a complete list of the many chashuvim who gave their haskama to the Manischewitz Co.
28 Refer to shu”t Ro’sh, klal 21
29 Although the book states that it was published in 1903, this was impossible
30 His letter to Rav Rosenfeld can be found in shu”t Marharsham 2:15
31 Found in the back to the Darkei Teshuvah’s sefer on Chumash, ‘Tiferes Banim’. His words echo the argument made by the Avnei Nezer
It Has Become More Common For ‘Normal’ Children From ‘Average’ Homes To Be Rejected From Their Local Torah Centers and Bais Yaakovs. Have We Honestly Assessed the Risk/Reward of the Current System — For the Children and For the Klal? Does Mesorah Offer Guidance? Of Course It Does.
By Rabbi Moshe Taub | Ami Magazine, September 2023 (abridged)
I. Another September
“When something needs to be said, silence becomes a lie.”
For most families, September carries the pristine scent of new backpacks. But there is a parallel ‘September Universe’ we dare not ignore. In this dystopian reality, new supplies remain un-ordered, and the latest school styles are substituted with fresh tears.
This is due to our many children — children! Hashem yerachem! — rejected from elementary school after elementary school, from their local Bais Yaakovs. Some find placement before the school year begins, but only after severe and irrevocable disenchantment with the klal, her Torah, and its leadership, R”l.
II. The Birth of Bais Yaakov
In the Fall of 1917, with just twenty-five students and a two-room apartment, Sara Schenirer opened the first Bais Yaakov. Fifteen short years later, over forty-thousand girls were enrolled in umbrella Bais Yaakovs in Poland alone.
The painful irony: The Bais Yaakov movement was founded to pull those bnos Yisroel who lacked a full chinuch at home off the ‘streets.’ Alas, those very girls — most desirous of direction — are now often locked out, forced on the streets, as it were. If being rudderless in the 1920’s was dangerous, allowing this in the 21st century is quasi-infanticide.[1]
Even if one posits that 99% of modern-day rejections are warranted, bitul b’rov does not apply in matters of pikuach nefesh. We will still have to give an accounting for every one of that 1% of neshamos thrown to today’s wolves.
III. The Common Excuses — And What We Are Not Discussing
Before the small-minded stunt this discussion, the following must be stated clearly:
Yes, each yeshiva must weed out certain students.
Yes, competition and tuition are real factors.
Yes, some students are genuinely a better fit elsewhere.
No, we are not discussing children who refuse to follow a school’s rules.
No, we are not discussing adults seeking seminary or beis medrash admission.
Yes, Lakewood and Brooklyn face unique challenges often unrelated to what follows.
We are discussing the average, normally-challenged children of acheinu beis Yisroel — and whether our mesorah ever sanctioned what is being done to them.
IV. A Sea Change
Over the past twenty years there has been a paradigm shift in American chinuch. The era of the American rabbi convincing a newly frum or growing family to send a boy to yeshiva — or a girl to Beis Yaakov — is buried. As are the many future gedolim already lost.
The Netziv, at a seudas hodah for his newest sefer, reminisced about his misspent youth — how a chance overhearing of his parents’ conversation changed his life. His father had comforted his mother: ‘It’s ok. Not everyone is destined to be a talmud chacham. He can still become a simple shoemaker.’
The Netziv concluded with a profound thought experiment:
“Imagine if I hadn’t overheard my parents that fateful night.
“I would have become Naftilka the shoemaker — frum, a good husband, a giver of tzedaka.
“But at my yom din, Hashem would have asked: Netziv! Where are your sheilos v’teshuvos, your commentary to the Sheiltot, your peirushim on the Torah?
“I would have responded: Who is this ‘Netziv’? I was shomer Torah u’mitzvos…”
Will we not be tasked with presenting the Heavenly tribunal the erased gedolim — and sefarim — stolen from our kehillos? [2]
A Personal Story: One of the present-day gedolei lamdanei Eretz Yisroel attended a co-ed elementary school whose majority student body was not shomer Shabbos. He wished to attend Ner Yisroel Toronto for 9th grade, spending the summer learning with my older brothers. The yeshiva had conditions, but his past was not among them. He went on to become an incomparable masmid, marry into Torah royalty, and now has talmidim from all over the world. Can such a story happen today?
V. The Response
Some will challenge: ‘Won’t we also be judged for not protecting our children from bad influences? Are you suggesting every wild child will become a Netziv?’
Those severely troubled or uniquely harmful children are not the focus of this monograph. They shall not be used to scapegoat what we are discussing: the sin of simply being ‘average,’ or not yet connecting to one’s studies — children who need mechanchim more than other children.
The other day, walking into a local girls’ high school to give a talk, I noticed an anxious group of parents waiting with their young daughters for interviews. Two of the mothers were reciting Tehillim. Zu Torah v’zu schorah?
VI. R.I.P. Communal Schools?
Among the many causes of this new reality is the death of the communal day school. Places like Lakewood and the Five Towns experienced rapid, blessed growth, demanding new schools. This bred subtler distinctions, which bred competition, which bred newer schools, and so on. With each iteration: Who is now the oirev for the city’s children? What are the rules of acceptance? Should any kehilla exist without at least one communal mesorah school?
Large towns now resemble the island of ten Jewish men who never missed a minyan — until the eleventh arrived. After that, they never again had a secure minyan: each person depended on the other. That sense of personal achrayos was lost.
VII. A Bnei Brak Miracle
A now-famous video captures Rav Steinman becoming incredulous at mechanchim seeking his haskama to reject elementary school children. After dismissing their initial arguments, they presented their ‘trump card’: the mother is ‘open-minded,’ re-married.
Rav Steinman replied: ‘So she should not have gotten re-married? Not desire her kids go to the best cheder?’
They then shared that chashuveh, frummer parents had expressed concern about the family not being their ‘type.’
Rav Steinman began to bang on the table: ‘There is always that person… It’s coming from their gayvah.’
The mechanchim interjected: ‘But these are bnei Torah, talmidei chachamim…’
Rav Steinman’s voice grew louder: ‘Yes. Especially from such people! It’s all gayvah… Gayvah! Gayvah! Gayvah!’
He then reminisced about his childhood cheder in Brisk, where children of Communist and Bund Party members sat alongside the rest — and some of the simplest children became leading roshei yeshiva. ‘Did Rav Dovid Soloveitchik turn out ok?’
I spent two years learning under Rav Dovid Soloveitchik. I have little doubt he would be aghast at what some balla batim are doing to our little children.
Summation of Our Mesorah:
If a school believes its chinuch carries the torch of mesorah, then any parent/child who wants that mesorah — and will follow the rules — should be accepted, if on a trial basis.
Specific to mid-size cities: if a parent sincerely desires a Torah U’Mesorah day school experience — and will follow the rules — acceptance should be immediate, if on a trial basis.
This is how it has always been. I am unaware of the daas Torah who demanded a move away from this winning strategy.
Sources:
“Just as I [Moshe] learned Torah for free, so too you must teach for free.” (Nedarim 37a)
“Do not read it as engraved (charus) but as freedom for all (chierus).” (Avos 6:2)
Chazal explain why not every gadol’s son becomes a gadol: to remind the klal that Torah is not a yerusha — it can come from anyone. (Nedarim 81a)
“Be careful lest you undervalue teaching Torah to the sons of paupers, as from them will Torah spring.” (Nedarim 81a; Rashi: “because these children are humble”)
The Chasam Sofer addresses the concern of ‘negative influences’ from including less privileged students, responding: we are not discussing any ordinary subject — we are speaking about the Heavenly Torah. Its zechus protects. (Chiddushei Chasam Sofer, Nedarim ad loc.)
“Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of an am ha’aretz — even if Hashem were to issue a harsh decree, He may nullify it for his sake.” (Bava Metziah 85a)
VIII. The Reality of ‘Rejection Letters’
“Helplessly seeing my young child go through this is more excruciating than my disease.”
— A mother, sick with crippling yenna machela, to my wife the week of this writing. This mother passed before being given comfort in her cause. Her daughter — the most tzniuah Beis Yaakov girl, with perfect grades and middos — was rejected because her mother and father were ill.
Whatever one feels about the suggestions in this monograph, about one thing we can all be certain:
Newly-minted bnos mitzvah — twelve-year-old girls! — should never receive a letter of ‘rejection’ from their community. Explaining that such a letter is not from a ‘communal’ school will do nothing to soften a child’s visceral reaction. The dye would have been cast. It would be too late.
And if such letters must be sent — our local rabbanim must work with schools to find placement before they go out. Every January, every yeshiva should work with local mechanchim, askanim, and rabbanim to do just that. Many Bais Yaakovs already do this for seminary placements — by mid-year in 12th grade, staff work tirelessly to secure every girl a spot. They do all this work to avoid shame. A noble goal. Now apply it here.[3]
IX. Not Just the Child
Such rejection gets worse. The parents also feel ostracized by their community, their leaders, even their friends. Profound guilt sets in.
“My parents haven’t talked to me since we became frum. All that sacrifice, for what?! To be told I’m not a real bas Sarah Imeinu? So my daughter winds up on the very streets I ran away from?”
Some parents changed shuls because of this. Some moved cities. This in turn leaves the children — already humiliated — feeling responsible for their parents’ shame. What child should carry such a burden?
As my wife wisely observed: We have groups for every issue affecting our youth, baruch Hashem. But for the child who is neither brilliant nor severely troubled — there is no one advocating for them, no club in which they belong. Who can then blame them if they begin to align themselves with someone, anyone? Only a cynic would call this proof of their necessary rejection, as opposed to the more likely reality that it is its result.
Chazal teach that the only way to verify a questionable letter in a Sefer Torah is through an ‘average child’ (Mishnah Berurah, siman 143:25). Perhaps Chazal are alluding to a deeper secret: it is often the average child who goes on to carry the weight of Torah’s future.[4]
X. Advocacy
“It was behind closed doors. It was quiet — under the table.”
— Mrs. Jenine Shwekey and Mrs. Chaya Bender, founders of The Special Children’s Center, describing a not-too-distant past when the needs of certain children were secreted from public view.
The day will come, iy”H, when our grandchildren will be shocked that this issue was ever hidden away. Before discussing the ‘heter’ to opt out of being called a communal Bais Yaakov, every mechanech must first read the following diary entry, shared here with the girl’s permission:
…By the time 8th grade rolled around, I had to start applying to high school. January 11 was the night I got my acceptance letters. I expected it to be the best day of my life.
6:01 PM. First email: ‘Wait listed.’
Second email: ‘Wait listed.’
Third email: ‘Wait listed.’
School X — the most important one: I wasn’t accepted.
I ran to my room and didn’t eat my dinner.
The next day was worse. I walked into school with shame. All the other students in my class who applied to X got in.
‘Why doesn’t anyone want me? Am I that unlikeable? No one even wants to give me a chance?’
When I seek to help a family in this parsha, I first investigate: I speak with teachers, review report cards. I have worked with many such girls — B students, even A students. All were baalos middos. So why the ‘No’?
A rav shared this exchange with a principal regarding a ‘C’ student:
“We don’t think she is academically up to par, even though she is a wonderfully sincere and frum young lady.”
“Don’t you urge your 12th grade girls not to attend college?” asked the rav.
“Yes, but what does that have to do with our discussion?”
“And don’t you encourage them to marry a yungerman, become a ballabusta, not to worry about large homes and parnassa — to have bitachon in a life of Torah?”
“Yes. Of course.”
“Beautiful! But you will now reject a thirteen-year-old because of… academics?!”
Another story I personally witnessed: A mother — a Beis Yaakov alumnus — living in a frum shelter for abused women contacted me. Her twelve-year-old daughter’s grades were stupendous and her middos exemplary. She was popular, a star student. Her local Beis Yaakov still refused her.
I offered to pay for her therapy and tuition. I begged the president — a real estate developer — who was concerned that, perhaps in the future, like a ben sorrer, she might display emotional needs the school was not equipped to handle.
I responded: ‘Can there be a better role model for your students than this girl? And you claim concern for her mental health — then seal her fate to yet another rejection?’
I was the only one who called her elementary school teachers and her frum therapist. Those who viewed me as an interloper had not done so.
XI. ‘Communal’ Opt Out
In my judgment, no person or group may unilaterally declare a school no longer ‘communal’ without first presenting both sides to daas Torah.
When Rav Chaim Volozhiner created his innovation of a yeshiva untethered from the local community: (A) It was not a school for girls — our mesorah never encouraged local girls to travel away from home for school. (B) Nor was it meant for elementary schools. (C) Most crucially, Rav Chaim waited for the Gra’s haskama; when the Gra initially refused, Rav Chaim delayed the yeshiva’s founding.
Chazal also teach (Nedarim 81a) that the reason not every gadol’s son becomes a gadol is so that connected families do not ‘lord over their kehilla’ — Mar Zutra explains they would ‘call ordinary people donkeys.’ Rashi notes it is natural for those with strong family backgrounds to look down on commoners. We cite this not as a polemic but as a reminder that this tendency is old — and Chazal addressed it.
I will close this section with a comment a rebbe shared with me: his 8th grade daughter stopped him from quitting his parsha shiur — Please wait until I take my entrance exam before quitting. Whether her fear was warranted is irrelevant. That this is the message we have sent her. That is the chinuch.
XII. Reasons vs. Solutions
Yagati b’anchasi, aschcha b’chol Layla mitasi, b’dimusi arsi amseh //I am spent from sighing; nightly, I soak my bed with tears.
— Daily Tachanun
The most common reasons given for rejecting an otherwise worthy 12-to-13-year-old girl:
Space
Not a frum enough home environment
Lacking resources to deal with an emotional issue at home
Competitive concerns with other schools
Grades
Middos/Tznius/Hashkafa
Space:
I cannot fathom how this is used as an excuse. Should a school not find an algebra teacher in time, not one staff member would say, ‘I guess we’ll start without algebra.’ Issues of Torah chinuch are far more critical than algebra — and we don’t accept ‘no solution’ for secular subjects.
Chazal teach (Sanhedrin 20) that when six people each push the tallis toward the other, all six can be covered at once. Rav Lopian explains: it’s only when each grabs for himself that it fails. Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly taught in Darash Moshe: do what is right regarding yeshivos, and the money and space will work out.
Indeed — is this not what we teach our girls? ‘Marry someone who is learning; have children b’bitachon, without excessive worry about space and money.’ I fail to reconcile that teaching with our actions here.
Many large shuls sit empty all week, close to schools. We are talking about twenty to thirty rejected girls per school, divided over grades. If ‘space’ is truly the concern, where are the parlor meetings screaming, ‘Next year we may have a space issue — your child may be affected! Join us tonight’? Chazal (Bava Basra 21a) remind us that klal Yisroel invented the classroom, and the communal obligation for every city to educate its children. We need not be taught this by secular journals.
Home Environment:
If a girl has proven her ability to follow the rules through a difficult home life, is she not the one who can benefit most from a Bais Yaakov? Is she not also a positive influence on girls from good homes who feel challenged? Worse — when we tell young girls this concern, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and teach them to resent their parents in the process.
My mother-in-law, Mrs. Linda Levin, attended a very modern Orthodox high school. Her single mother did not cover her hair; there was a TV in every room. On her graduation day she called Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan — founder of the American Beis Yaakov movement — nervously explaining her background. She was immediately accepted based on her earnest desire to learn. She went on to become a mechaneches to thousands.
Rav Nota Greenblatt, when asked about this issue, was stunned by the one-directional concern: ‘They are afraid the bad girls will influence the good ones? When — how — where — will the good girls have a chance to influence the bad ones? If you keep the mevakshos away from them, it can never happen!’
An amazing piece of history: Rav Aaron Levine shared his bechina for Telshe Cleveland in the late 1950’s. The rosh yeshiva asked, ‘Was Noach a tzadik or a rasha?’ Not having much Jewish education, he replied, ‘I don’t know.’ The rosh yeshiva smiled: ‘That is exactly right — Rashi brings both opinions.’ The point: when we do what is right al pi daas Torah for the particular tekufa, the institution remains unharmed. The very survival and flourishing of Torah is a ness. Why do people seek to secure it al pi teva by bypassing daas Torah?
Grades and Tznius:
To be clear: only girls who agree — m’kaan u’l’habah — to abide by a school’s rules should be accepted, sometimes on a trial basis. Full stop. But to judge and dismiss a girl’s future based on her twelve-year-old mistakes? She is a child. That such strict judgment occurs around Elul is beyond ironic. We are mechanchim — so teach her. She is hungry for it. Inspire her.
Competition:
Each city should have a vaad hachinuch comprised of local rabbanim and/or roshei yeshiva. Come January, the private list of unplaced students is given to this group, who then place them. If every yeshiva accepts this framework, no reputation is harmed. We learn of the guards at the beis medrash door, or of Hillel on the snow-covered roof — and are shocked such a system ever existed. Is it so different today?
Rav Elya Svei explained that this was Rabbi Akiva’s students’ error — not that they disrespected each other, but that they forgot to respect each other for who they had the potential to become. Let us teach them, not judge them. Inspire them, not dismiss them.
XIII. Conclusion
If our local elementary schools and Bais Yaakovs are not the oreivin for these girls — who is? That is not rhetorical.
Can anyone claim hefker on local children, positing the one local Bais Yaakov is no longer ‘communal’? That is also not rhetorical.
No institution should resolve this burden alone. Our mechanchim are the holiest of holy — my children are evidence of that.
I will conclude with what I share each Tisha B’av before our shul recites the kinnah for churban Europe:
“In addition to the six million — and beyond the holy Torah that was lost — who knows the cures for cancer that went up in smoke in the crematoria. The death of Jewish potential buried on those dark grounds.”
It forces me to focus not only on my many mistakes, but on the never-to-be-seen-again fruits I have allowed to be sullied along the way.
It is what I think about every time a mother I’ve never met calls during a busy day. ‘This child may be the next gadol. Or may produce one. I must act as a member of Hatzalah.’
And so should you.
May HKBH save us all from michshol.
Notes
[1] See the Chofetz Chaim’s description of the Bais Yaakov movement’s founding and purpose in Likkutei Halachos, Sota, p. 21 (Zacks ed.), note 3.
[2] The sefarim teach (see Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Derech Sicha) that our yom din tribunal will include gedolim from our time and location who understood our challenges. Lulei demistafina, I wonder if Hashem will also summon the ‘would-be’ gedolim we have snuffed out.
[3] Years ago, at an Agudah Convention round-table, Rav Yaakov Weinberg of Ner Yisroel expressed frustration at camps for having ‘Color War’ (pitting children against each other). That was a daas yachid. Imagine what he would say to rejection letters sent to a newly-minted bas mitzvah.
[4] A related chinuch yesod from Rav Moshe Feinstein (new Artscroll Reb Moshe, pp. 121-122): Our mesorah begins gemara with Bava Metzia — not Brachos — precisely so that children are not forced to choose between their rebbe’s teaching and their parents’ practice. Short of a serious halacha or hashkafa issue, a child must never have divided loyalty between his rebbe and his parents.
Bonafides: While an unworthy messenger, my chinuch experience extends beyond the rabbinate, having had the zechus to teach in schools of every stripe — from co-ed schools to top-tier yeshivos; classic out-of-town Jewish Community Day Schools to Chabad chederim; Yeshivas Novominsk and Yeshivas R’ Chaim Berlin; Shevach Bais Yaakov and Central Yeshiva University High School for Girls. Executive Chinuch Roles: Menahel at Telshe Yeshiva and YTT in Queens.
“But Rabbi, that’s not what it says in this book!”
One of the toughest challenges of modern-day rabbanus is convincing a member of one’s kehillah that what he read in an English halachahsefer doesn’t apply in his case, or that he misread it, or that it is not a universally held opinion.
If a human author can engender such resistance, imagine how greatly that resistance is magnified if a person’s research is computer-generated!
A few years ago, Dr. Eli Shapiro, a well-known social worker and psychologist and the founder of the Digital Citizenship Project, told me that he had met with gedolim and expressed concern about AI and its abuse in the realm of limud haTorah.
I scoffed at this, not believing it could ever occur. I was very wrong.
AI technology has developed rapidly over the past few years and is now often used very successfully—for research, composing letters and pro-forma documents, and for many other purposes.
But some, to their peril, are mistakenly relying on it for psak halachah.
Using AI to find a Chazal is one thing. But using it to delve into the actual chochmah of Torah, the nuances of halachah, or the art of being medameh milsa l’milsa (making comparisons) would be impossible for any algorithm, even one utilizing quantum computing.
As with emotions, Hashem granted living beings capacities that are inaccessible to synthetic beings.
A glorified search engine, AI is saddled with the following eight frightening flaws:
1. It lacks a true understanding or consciousness due it not having true comprehension. This generates responses based solely on data patterns.
2. It speaks with false confidence.
3. Its context gaps are well-documented.
4. Without lived experience, its empathy and judgment can only be imitated.
5. Its training data bias is well-documented.
6. Its handicap in deep originality is well-studied.
7. It can’t gain insight or reflection over time.
8. It lacks the ability to foresee consequences.
For the reader who disagrees with all or part of this list, there is a tautological twist:
This list of flaws comes from AI itself!
This List Came From ChatGPT!
I asked it, “What are your flaws?”
After sharing them, it concluded, “Want to hear my strengths, too—or do you prefer me to stay humble?”
Nevertheless, to the uninformed, the AI’s marei mekomos and confident explanation of concepts may offer a false sense of security. It’s like trusting a certain news service—until they write about your industry or a field you’re familiar with. Trust talmideichachamim when they tell you to stay away!
I decided to try an experiment. I asked several knowledgeable people a complex sh’eilah, and then I asked AI. Most of the people answered this tricky sh’eilah correctly—but AI did not.
I can see how some people would be impressed by its glib use of halachic terms and sources, but it made crucial halachicerrors. See if you can catch them.
What follows is our “conversation”:
MT:
What is the halachah in the following case?
Dovid’s wife’s pen is on the counter, so he places where his wife keeps it—in a drawer with non-muktzah items. That Shabbos, their guest, Yankel, needs a toothpick for food lodged in his braces. Although they do not have toothpicks, Dovid remembers that in that same miscellaneous drawer that is a unique butter knife that would dislodge this food. (The guest could technically use a napkin instead, although it would be more arduous.) May Dovid retrieve this knife from the drawer?
AI:
This case involves the laws of muktzah and bosis. Let’s analyze it step by step:
Is the drawer a bosis (bosis l’davar ha’assur) …
The pen is muktzah (machmas chesron kis) ….
…Here, the pen was placed in the drawer before Shabbos and was intended to remain there throughout Shabbos. This generally makes the drawer a bosis for the pen.
Since there is also a butter knife (which is not muktzah) in the drawer, the status of the drawer as a bosis may be negated if the non-muktzah item was also intentionally placed there before Shabbos…Additionally, the presence of a non-muktzah item does not automatically negate the bosis…
…If the drawer were needed for its own use (l’tzorech gufo), that would not permit moving it…
However, since Yankel can use a napkin instead (even though it is less effective), it is not considered tzorech mekomo in a way that overrides the bosis status.
Conclusion: Since the drawer is a bosis for the muktzah pen, and since the need for the butter knife is not at a sha’as hadchak or kavod habriyos level, one should not open the drawer on Shabbos. Instead, Yankel should use the napkin as an alternative solution.
MT:
You made many crucial errors.
1. A pen—unless it has been stated that it is not used during weekdays because of its preciousness—is a kli shemelachto l’issur and not a chesron kis (valuable item).
2. Even it were a chesron kis, that type of muktzah can’t be moved l’gufo or mekomo. Only a kli shemelachto l’issur can be moved in that case.
3. The Mishnah Brurah and all poskim agree that when a muktzah item may be moved due to mekomo, because its place is needed (e.g., a kli shemelachto l’issur), one may do so even if there is an alternative (308:12).
4. It would seem that this drawer is a bosis for a kli shemelachto l’issur, but I can still open it to get the butter knife because I need the makom.
AI: You’re absolutely right on these points. Let’s go through it again…
Even if the drawer is considered a bosis, it is a bosis for a kli shemelachto l’issur, not for something totally muktzah.
The halachah (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 308:3, Mishnah Brurah 308:12) states that a kli shemelachto l’issur may be moved l’tzorech gufo (for a permitted use) or l’tzorech mekomo (if one needs the space it occupies)…
Therefore, it is permitted to open the drawer to retrieve the butter knife.
MT:
Shouldn’t you automatically end all halachic queries with something like this: “Halachah is a serious matter of law, a search for divrei Elokim Chaim. Its many nuances can be missed even by the way a sh’eilah is presented. Moreover, only a rabbi would ask the right follow-up question or point out crucial details that the questioner mistakenly thought to be irrelevant. We therefore urge you to take this response to a competent halachic authority.”
AI:
That’s a solid point, and it’s generally a good practice to emphasize that halachic discussions can have nuances that require a posek’s guidance. I’ll make sure to include a disclaimer like that when discussing practical psak halachah. For example: “Halachah is complex, and many details can affect the final ruling. Consult a competent halachic authority to ensure all relevant factors are considered.”
Would you like me to always include this, or only in cases where the issue is particularly intricate or practical in nature?
MT: Always.
My goal for this prompt was to protect others from michshol, but it failed. A minute later, I tested it with my second—and hopefully last—AI sh’eilah. The promised prompt was absent.
The Bartenura explains that when Chazal say, “Asehlecha rav, make for yourself a rabbi” (Avos, 1:6), it is urging us to choose one chacham,one rav, and resolve to make him your consistent teacher and guide. Chazal certainly did not mean that we should literally “make” a rav out of binary code that can be modified, adjusted, and manipulated—in complete contradistinction to our unbroken mesorah of TorahmiSinai.
We’re entering a dangerous era, and if AI is used at all, it should only be for inyanei chol. To do otherwise is to feed the beast and create an even more destructive monster.
Rav Chaim Ozer used to say, “Not every thought should be written, and not everything written should be published, and not everything published should be read…”
AI reads everything—without discernment, and without understanding of or regard for our halachic and hashkafic concerns. And its indiscriminate collection of data can poison us and our children.
