Rav Mechel Dalezman, a talmid of Rav Moshe Feinstein, once told the following story. It was a humid summer day and Rav Moshe was in the midst of a complex shiur when the sky suddenly blackened, and a downpour ensued. The room was shaken by thunder and illuminated by bright flashes of lightning. Rav Mechel and his chaveirim began to whisper to each other, wondering if they should pause and say the brachos.But their rebbi continued to learn, and they decided to follow his example.
Soon afterward, the sky cleared and the shiur concluded. As Rav Moshe was leaving, they asked him why he had not recited the brachos on thunder and lightning. Was it because of bittul Torah?
Rav Moshe was puzzled and asked, “What thunder and lightning?”
My response to this story made him chuckle. “What’s amazing,” I said, “is not just that Rav Moshe didn’t even notice the storm because of his intense concentration. We’ve all had moments of deep focus… What astounds me even more is that a rebbi can be so focused on his Torah that he doesn’t even notice that all of his students were having a separate discussion. Now, that is superhuman!”
This past Thursday night, I was speaking between Minchah and Maariv at a shivah house. I usually try to connect the mishnayos we are learning with hilchosaveilus and the life of the niftar, hoping to engage people in the discussion. But there was an abrupt change in the room, and suddenly, no one was listening to me. They were murmuring and sharing their phones, and some even left the room to make phone calls.
I pretended not to notice, until someone announced, “Rabbosai, Israel just attacked Iran. I think we should close our mishnayos and say Tehillim.”
All eyes turned to me. It was a fragile moment.
“There is a famous MidrashTehillim (Shocher Tov)in which David Hamelech prays to Hashem that when the Jews recite Tehillim,it should be considered as if they are studying the complex mishnayos of Nega’im and Ohalos,” I told them. “Although reciting Tehillim is beyond powerful, mishnayos are the yardstick by which such power is measured [see Nefesh Hachaim 4:1]. Perhaps, then, since we are in the middle of learning mishnayos, we should finish.”
I quickly finished the mishnah we were learning and concluded, “I once read that Rabbi Soloveitchik used to say that one of the famed Litvishmasmidim in his town would complain that the Selichos of Elul caused bittul Torah, and that even the drawn-out tefillos of Yom Kippur took time from his Torah study. After all, he would say, talmud Torah is considered kenegedkulam, the greatest mitzvah, and it also gave him a much deeper connection to Hashem.
“Rabbi Soloveitchik would then smile and say, ‘I never had the courage to remind this man that when I was a little boy, I once looked under his tallis during selichos and saw that his hands were trembling and he was crying.’
“If our one constant sh’eilah during this war is when to say Tehillim and when to learn Torah, we can be confident of yeshuos!”
How to Respond?
That night, I had a weekly Gemara shiur in Taanis. Although we were still rattled by the news, we all assembled.
“Okay, we left off on 21b, 14 lines from the bottom…”
This is a discussion of fasting and teshuvah at a time of famine, disease, war, or other calamity. As we began to learn, we were astounded. The Gemara stated that we don’t often decree a fast for tzaros in other cities, only in Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael is different because “when the giverta (the woman of the house) is struck, her maidservant is struck along with her!”
The meaning is that the suffering of Eretz Yisrael affects Jews everywhere, and the halachah is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (576:2).
One participant approached me after the shiur and broke down in tears. “My nephew is in the IDF, and most of my relatives live in Israel,” he told me. “I wasn’t sure how I would even sleep tonight. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu was meitzitz min hacharakim [cf. ShirHashirim 1], ‘winking’ at the lomdei Torah through the veil of galus [see Drashos Chasam Sofer, Sukkos, p.52, and Melech B’yofiuv, p. 5].”
Every rav’s phone was kept busy that night by calls from shul members stuck in Israel, children learning there, and concerned parents.
The next morning, I sent out an email: “During an eis milchamah, we must come together as a shul in ruach, tefillah, chesed, and Torah. Shiurim should be added to all of our schedules, and we should volunteer for chesed organizations. As for tefillah,our siddurim must be moistened with tears.
“However, that is the easy part.
“The more substantial challenge, the one mountain that Hashem most desires to see us climb (see Rav Chaim Vital), is chesed at home, Torah at our tables, kindness to those dearest to us, and benevolence toward those who live or work closest tous. To leave one’s wife with the dishes and kids in order to visit the sick is, at times, an error. To enjoy kiddush with friends, although it can be a beautiful part of Shabbos, must never be at the expense of the energy we need to delight with our children and spouses at our own Shabbos tables.
“L’fum tzaara agra—and the mere fact that chesed and Torah inside the home are so often a greater challenge is proof positive of their extra spiritual value.”
I concluded with some maamareiChazal relating to Iran and warin general, along with some pertinent halachos. If I had known that I would receive the following three sh’eilos, I would have included them as well.
News on Shabbos
On ErevShabbos I received a call from someone watching the Israeli news. “This broadcaster is certainly not shomerShabbos, and it’s already Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael. Is it an issue to watch?”
This question may fall under a concern about benefiting from chillulShabbos (see siman 318, with Pri Megadim,mshb”z siif 7; relating to broadcasts, see shu”t Har Tzvi 1:183 at length; see also Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah, 31:72, and shu”t Minchas Yitzchak, 1:107;3).
However, if the reporter is giving information that is critical for those in Israel, it would be a case of pikuach nefesh for the broadcaster. In America, however, unless there is a to’eles harabbim, a rav should be consulted.
Another caller that Friday asked, “Can I call my daughter in Israel just to leave a positive message that she will hear after Shabbos? Am I violating Shabbos in their time zone?”
For this sh’eilah, I would like you to imagine a boy in Lakewood who has a string so long that it crosses the Atlantic, passes through the Mediterranean, and ends in the hands of a Yerushalmi boy in Meah Shearim. The boy ties his end of the string to his dining-room light switch.
At 3 p.m. each Friday afternoon in Lakewood, the American boy pulls the string so that the Israeli family can sleep.
Would this be allowed?
Many poskim would allow it (see Shemiras Shabbos ibid. #26 and Rav Ribiat in his footnote, pp. 573-576, in Volume 1 of his 39 Melachos). However, one certainly can’t call a non-frum Jew in Israel when it is Shabbos there (assuming there’s no pikuach nefesh involved).
Sending a fax, making a call or booking a ticket from Brooklyn, for example, to an overseas airline, with no concern that there would be a Jew on the other end, would be fine according to this view (see also shu”t Oneg Yom Tov for how this applies to other Shabbos concerns, such as shivis beheimah). Again, a rav should be consulted.
The third sh’eilah was whether it is permissible to leave a radio news channel on over Shabbos to find out what is happening in the war (see M’orei Eish HaShaleim, p. 576ff).
Before going into the halachah, one must ask himself what his goal is, for if he hears bad news, chalilah, there’s nothing that can be done, and his Shabboswould be ruined. Sharing bad news itself is to be avoided on Shabbos (see Mishnah Brurah, 307:3). The Shaarei Teshuvah (288:1) even forbids one to tell another person that he had a negative dream on Shabbos if that person figured prominently in it!
Perhaps one might argue that his goal in keeping the radio on is yishuv hadaas, to calm the nerves, and that’s assuming that the news is positive. Although it is true that the Rema allows crying on Shabbos if it settles one’s nerves (288:1), we also avoid information that could have the opposite effect.
However, during a time of war, certain dispensations are given. For instance, the Shulchan Aruch rules (576:10) that although we don’t cry out in tefillah on Shabbos, we may do so for specific concerns. When the Nazis took power, some kehillos even recited the special Yehi Ratzons said on Mondays and Thursdays (shu”t Tiferes Adam 3:18). As for wars in modern-day Israel, the Steipler allowed the recitation of Tehillim on Shabbos during such times (Orchos Rabbeinu, p. 124; see also Piskei Teshuvos, siman 288).
If one gets around this first concern, he is then faced with another. Chazal mention, and the Rema rules (252:5), regarding noisy or noticeable melachah that is begun before Shabbos starts and that will continue into Shabbos. This halacha is known as ‘avvsha milsa’ and must often be avoided.
The reason why we allow lighting candles before Shabbos, turning on the lights, air conditioners, etc. is because the concern for avvsha milsa is not applicable to melachos that are typically done in advance (see Igros Moshe, oh”ch 4:84;3).
Now, no non-Jew turns on his television in advance so that it will be on when he comes home! Such devices would then indeed fall under this category and would be forbidden; some poskim even wonder if there is some halachic method to shut them off on Shabbos (see Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s letter in M’orei Eish HaShaleim, vol. 1, top of p. 595, siman 5, and shu”t Minchas Shlomo, mehadurah kamma, 1:9).
Avvsha milsa applies even if the melacha is only noticeable to those in the home.
Generally speaking, therefore, keeping the news on over Shabbos would fall under this issur (see shu”t Har Tzvi above discussing radios on Shabbos).
Nevertheless, in certain situations, such as one whose chronic depression is alleviated by music, some poskim consider the possibility of certain allowances (see Rav Shlomo Zalman ad loc., shu”t Chelkas Yaakov, Orach Chaim 63 and 64).
But even in the rare case where on is granted an allowance, certain protections will be asked of him so as to secure kevod Shabbos, such as putting the device behind a locked door or in a closet and keeping the volume low (cf. M’orei Eish HaShaleim, vol. 1, p. 669, top of second column).
Nothing written here should be used as a final psak.
May our discussion of these sh’eilos be a zechus to bring a mighty yeshuah to klal Yisrael!
See HERE for more on ‘Wartime Segulos and Zechusim‘
It is a testament to the restless nature of klal Yisroel, to our inherent ideal of kol yisroel areivim zeh l’zeh, to our essence being rachmanim bnei rachmanim, that we never idle when our brethren are suffering. However, when the emails, texts and calls seem interminable – and when time, money and effort are finite resources – tough decisions have to be made. This, of course, can lead to disagreement at best and infighting at worst. The satan always has a plan at his ready; especially when klal yisroel is at the cusp of magnanimity, ready to perform great deeds.
Rav Yisroel Salanter once noted how people have within them the cognitive dissonance to run down the elderly in their alacrity to perform a mitzvah”. Both rabbanim and balla battim must never allow their earnest desire to offer gashmiyus aid and/or ruchniyus support for and toward eretzyisroel to become transformed into the vehicle for disharmony and discord closer to home.
The complexities of how to react to the current crisis in eretz yisroel commenced as soon as the news trickled into shul on that fateful sheminiatzeres.
What do we do on such a simchas torah? Dance and sing?
Shorten the length of the hakafos?
Sing slower songs of hergesh?
There were also more painful questions. Members of my shul have children and family in the IDF or living in the south. Would amira l’akum on the second day of yom tov -asking a goy to call and check-in with their family on their day of chol – be allowed?
As I was pondering these questions after mincha of the first day -as well as the potential reaction and misunderstandings any decision I make may have –the gabbei of a nearby sefardi shul ran in. Their rav was away. “Rabbi Taub, should we dance and celebrate like any other simchas torah tonight?” I answered him with faux confidence, recalling the words of the Mir mashgiach, Rav Yechetzkel Levenstein, which he famously shared with his yeshiva, “It was the zechus of your singing on Simchas Torah that lead to their 2nd of marcheshvan escape from Russia, through Vilna, to Kobe, Japan and then Shanghei”.
After yom tov I discovered the decisions of other rabbanim.
Some poskim arranged for a quick -five minute -seven-hakafa set, and then demanded everyone say tehillim;
Others sang for each hakafa one song of gladness, and then one slow niggun of teffila, such as simcha l’artzecha.
Others demanded that it being yom tov our mitzvah is to continue the standard minhagim of the day, and only following this to then recite tehillim, etc.
It is irrelevant to share here what I chose to do in the end -as I have changed my mind since then, back-and-forth, and many times. Of course, I would have rather asked daas torah rather than have to decide on my own.
While I have not gotten negative feedback, other rabbanim were not so lucky. One rav shared with me that while no one challenged his decision, a few of the balla battim were in a heated exchange about how the shul should respond and are still at odds with eachother weeks later.
It is only natural to desire some type of control -of anything –in a time of chaos; to confuse our anger, fear and insecurity of these past three-weeks with our small dissatisfactions, minor disagreements, and petty disputes. Let us seek to avoid that at all costs.
II. A New Fast Day?
A few people shared the same request: “Why don’t we make a special taanis?” After all, a large section of gemara and halacha is dedicated to unique taanisim imposed during an eis tzara l’yaakov.
There is much to say on this matter, but I will try to be frugal with sources. The Shulchan Aruch codifies certain comforts to be avoided and discomforts to take on when there is trouble in klal yisroel (siman 240, and siman 574). However, during World War 1 and during certain war in Israel, that could take some time, the poskim urge these be reserved for anshei segulah (special and lofty people –shu”t Keren L’Dovid, siman 62, shu”t Beis Yisroel, siman 152) “One who is able to take on a fast and withstand it is called kodosh/holy, but one who sits in a fast who is not strong, or not healthy, is called a choteh/sinner” (Shulchan Aruch, siman 571:1).
Even when it comes to taanisim, the poskim are very hesitant in our day to establish a new one (see new edition, Piskei Teshuvos, siman 571 for many sources). According to some, even if one is privately repenting for the most severe sins, one mustn’t fast (Igros Moshe in several places; Iggeres Teshuva from the Baal HaTanya, ch. 3, etc.). This is due to our relative weakness, and for other reasons (see Aruch Hashulchan to siman 576:9, and Chazon Ish as brought in Toras HaMoadim, siman 575:5, and shu”t Igros Moshe, y’d vol. 4, siman 57, os, 11, inter alia. See also Biur Halacha to siman 571 at length).
Certainly, the poskim teach, the special berachos and added teffilos mentioned by chazal (see Taanis 15a) are to be avoided in our day when we are without classic musmachim. The Mishneh Berrura adds that it is better to starve oneself from speech than food (sif 2).
But even if there is reason to create a new taanis, rabbanim havea higher burden beyond the visible halachos. They must consider the diabetic who is guilted in to fasting, the anorexic who will relapse, and the older gentleman whose heart is weak. To be frank, too many people who shouldn’t already fast on the ‘zecharia’ taanisim (8:19, where all fasts -save for the d’oraissa fast of Yom Kippur and the minhag of taanis esther –are listed). I am certainly not about to impose new ones. An example of this was during the height of Covid, when some were demanding some type of taanis as well. While well-meaning, the reason why so many poskim were against it is simple, at least in hindsight: at a time when our immune systems need their strength, when many elderly people are alone and therefore emotionally ill, would this be wise?”
As the Chofetz Chaim alluded to above, preventing what goes in our mouths is not as vital as what may come out.
Speaking to poskim, there is one more concern to keep in mind: In 1918, journalist Arthur Ransome fashioned a portmanteau of hungry/angry –‘Hangry’. The irritability often caused from one’s lack of food is well established. Shalom bayis, talmud Torah, teffila, etc. THESE are what we need, not that which may come to stifle them.
IN the words of the Netziv (realting to a different subject): “We musnt run from a fox into the mouth of a lion”. Our goal should be two steps forward, and never taking on a mitzvah that may, regrettably, tale us three steps back.
Below, iy”H, we will investigate more popular ideas and segulos that have been spreading, their sources, and both sides of such a decision, from behind the rabbi’s desk.
Part 2
III. Tehillim & Avinu Malkeinu
“Rabbi, I’ve been missing my ride to the city each morning because of the extra tehillim we are adding for the matzav in eretz yisroel. Should I continue to stay behind and say them with the tzibbur? Maybe the shul can just switch the order: have the daily dvarhalacha be said before the tehillim so that I, at least, won’t miss the kaddishdereabanan…”
This was a real request/question I received this week and demonstrates the point we made last week: No idea or middas chassidus exits in a vacuum. Rarely is an entire shul privy to the reasons behind their rav’s –sometimes peculiar looking – final decision. As a point of reference, the Vilna Gaon did not sanction the addition of L’Dovid Hashem Ori to be said by the tzibbur at the end of davening throughout elul due to the issue of tircha for those who need to get to work (Maaseh Rav, 53; 5770 ed.). It is always easy to disagree, yet to do so without the hassle of any burdens or considerations to weigh.
From time-immemorial, the minhag Yisrael has been to turn to tehillim during an eis tzara.Chazal warn that to use pesukim as a form of magic or healing can diminish one’s share in olam haba (Shavuos 15b). The Rambam codifies this, “Should someone recite a pasuk as an incantation for a wound, or so that a child should stop crying, or he places tefillin next to a child so that he will sleep, not only is he in violation of the [prohibition against] forbidden incantations, but he is a denier of the Torah, for he makes the Torah into a healer of bodies when it is there to mend souls… However, a healthy person may recite pesukim or Tehillim to protect against future sufferings and prevent them from arising” (HilchosOvdeiKochavim 11:12).
Meaning, one may indeed recite pesukim to prevent danger or tragedy, but not to change it. Nevertheless, our common practice is to say tehillim even for a yeshuah for that which already exists.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch explains that it must be that when we recite tehillim for an eis tzarah, we are asking Hashem to aid us in the zechus of our Torah study, not simply because of the power of the pesukim (Shu”t Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:121). For this reason, he explains, one should omit the line in the yehi ratzon that follows many tehillims where it states (translation): “In the merit of tehillim, of the verses, words and letters”. Rather, one should replace that with: “In the merit of our davening to You through Tehillim, its pesukim, words and letters”. This way, we clarify that our intent is not to use the pesukim as a “magic potion.”
Similarly, the TzitzEliezer (17:30) writes that one may learn Torah or for the benefit of the recitors own neshama, even if he also wishes to heal a physical condition, malady, or world problem.
This may explain the MidrashTehillim which famously teaches how Dovid hamelech davened that our recital of tehillim should be equal in Hashem’s eyes as is our learning nega’im v’ohalos—the most difficult portions of torah sh’baal peh.
In addition, some poskim remind us that we lack the ability to form proper teffilos of our own to Hashem. For this same reason do chazal share in detail how the nineteenth beracha of shemoneh esreh came to be composed – even though it was long after the period of nevuah and/or the anshei knesses hegedolah (berachos 28b). Because of this yerida/weakness in and of the generation, we turn to tehilim, for Dovid hamelech had in mind all of the needs of all future generations as he composed and curated this sefer. Due to this reasoning, many achronim, such as Rav Yonasan Eibeishitz, urge us to -at the very least -understand and contemplate the meaning of the words we are saying, and only then letting the teffilos Dovid take care of the rest (see ‘Tehillim, Mesivta edition, hakdama’ for a variety of sources on these points).
The last line in the Tzitz Eliezer is most critical. “Hanach lahen l’Yisrael, im ein nev’iim heim, bnei nevi’im heim—leave bnei Yisrael as they are, for if they are not prophets, then they are at least the children of prophets.”(See yarchon ‘Ohr Yisroel’ #15, Rav Greenwald, for how long the Jewish people have been reciting tehillim for those in need and as a zechus).
IV. Avinu Malkeinu
While many shuls in eretz yisroel immediately began adding avinu malkeinu daily after their daily shachris and mincha, this seems rarer in chutz l’aretz.
This tefilla began as a supplication created by none-other than Rebbe Akiva.
Many in my shul urged me to begin adding it. Our minhag is not to say tachanun in tishrei, and for this and other reasons I was hesitant. I explained, “Even on a Shabbos yom kippur -when we are davening for our lives in this world and the next -we omit this teffila, save for neilah”
One member shared a teshuvah from one prominent posek who posited it should be said, and even in shuls where tachanun is now omitted, “For now is like Yom Kippur by neilah”.
A talmud muvhak of the above posek refrained from adding it. He explained two reasons. “For one, when do we stop? Once we start, it will then lead to a fight and claims of insensitivity whenever we choose to return to omitting it. Secondly, I fear that many are not as sophisticated so as to understand the significance of this teffila; requesting, in the future, that we add it by other important-yet-not-as-critical junctures”.
Speaking of avinu malkeinu, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes something fascinating (Igros Moshe, o’c, 3:18). He states that this that we reserve this teffila for special times -and omit it at other times -is a ‘hekerab’alma/a demonstration to show that certain teffilos are unique. In fact, he goes on to share that some kehillos would say it on a Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbos (see Aruch Hashulchan 619:8 and Rivash 512). He then shares that others argue that avinu malkeinu does indeed have special halachos, although not because of its meaning or its words, but rather due to its placement following the chazaras hashatz.
Years ago, in my first year of rabbanus, I kept a little notebook on me at all times. One of the matters I would keep track of was the sources of and halachos regarding avinu malkeinu; if it had the status of tachanun, etc. I do not know what compelled me to do this (and the above sources are less than a fraction of what I recorded therein), but it has certainly come in handy of late.
PART 3
V. Shabbos Requests and Halachic Myths
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.
– We don’t daven the regular Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbos because we are not allowed to make personal requests on Shabbos.”
All these statements are false, or severly misleading.
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.
The final common halachic myth -relating to bakashos on Shabbos -is much more nuanced is connected to the subject of war, which we have been discussing these past few weeks.
While most would explain the absence of the regular Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbos as being due to not making personal requests on Shabbos, 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.
VI. Extra Candles
On this issue I feel strongly, yet also understand that I am likely in the minority.
Many people do not know the main reason why we light candles for Shabbos. Some may even assume it is simply spiritual in nature, similar to Chanukah lights. Lighting an extra candle could therefore lead to questions of neder for future weeks.
Women invented kenassos in case they were to be negligent by this mitzvah. Meaning, this is not the mitzvah or the best time to risk taking on, or indeed taking on, new obligations.
More, if this ‘war’, or ‘hostage’, or ‘victim’ candle is indeed not seen as a part of the Shabbos neros then why not light it/them on Tuesday night? I just never understood it. Hanachmitzvos. It reminds me of the birthday gift I gave my wife whose card said “This is also for our anniversary”.
Lighting a candle for a niftar -especially one killed for being a Jew -is certainly an understandable and moving gesture, but to do so on a Friday night that already has its own, unrelated, obligation seems -humbly -as diminishing an existing mitzvah when so many other times are available. Indeed, the halacha of lighting extra candles for those that passed away was known to the Shulchan Aruch, and is mentioned only by Yom Kippur, thus making his silence by Shabbos loud. While this could have been to save people fuel costs, this doesn’t seem to me to be his reasoning. Rather, on Yom Kippur we do not eat and will have less of an opportunity to use the illumination from this candles in more standardized ways, etc. On Shabbos, keshushas and oneh Shabbos is the key.
More, why create a memory on Shabbos for a negative event? Shabbos hi m’lizok, and unless it can be demonstrated that this is a teffila or zechus then perhaps Shabbos is not the time.
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.
On July 26, 2013, The Wall Street Journal published a story about the ethical dilemmas facing Google and other companies working on “driverless cars.” It is only a matter of time before these cars, which are already being tested, are on the road. The cars have computers with built-in algorithms that are designed to respond to any scenario—a speeding car, oncoming traffic, yellow lights, bikers.
But how should they be programmed to respond when faced with a choice that has no clear moral outcome? What if a driverless car needs to choose between swerving so as to avoid a crowd and plowing into a smaller group of people?
Several years ago I came across a book by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel, who has invested a great deal of time and effort exploring the subject of justice as it pertains to these intriguing, often disturbing, ethical dilemmas. His bestselling book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? is a fascinating study of our moral compass and how we might handle the many situations he paints on the canvas of “What if?” His thinking has inspired many, which is evident from the fact that a video of one of his lectures pulled in over five million viewers.
As I read parts of his book, I thought not so much about how I would deal with these situations but about what halachah would say.
One of his dilemmas mirrors the problem Google is now facing. Let us briefly review it, consider his students’ response, and discover an inherent contradiction that it presents. We will then review the halachic key to both the dilemma and the contradiction.
A writer for TheAtlantic Monthly discusses a lecture given by Sandel, who presented this scenario: “Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. You notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can’t because your brakes don’t work. You know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. You feel helpless until you notice that off to the side, there’s a side track. And there’s one worker on the side track.
“The question: Do you send the trolley onto the side track, thus killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do you let events unfold as they will and allow the deaths of all five?”
Then Sandel asked about a popular variation of the problem. “The same trolley is careening toward unsuspecting innocents, but this time you’re an onlooker on a footbridge, and you notice that standing next to you, leaning over the bridge, is a very heavy man.
“You could give him a shove. He would fall over onto the track, right in the way of the trolley car. He would die, but he would spare the five. How many would push the [heavy] man over the bridge?”
A few hands went up.
“And that’s exactly why,” Sandel concluded, “some scientists argue that this well-known ‘trolley dilemma’ shouldn’t be used for psychology experiments as much as it is.”
How could it be, many scientists wonder, that while most people would cause the trolley to veer, only 11 percent would push the man to save the many? Don’t they both involve the very same moral dilemma?
ShmuelII (20) tells us that Serach bas Asher, who was 684 years old, made a deal with Dovid Hamelech’s general that instead of killing many of the inhabitants of her town, they would kill the one man who was guilty of rebelling against the king—Sheva ben Bichri—and deliver his head. From here it is derived that one may hand over one (guilty) person to the authorities to be killed in order to save many (innocents). The Gemara2 debates whether this principle would apply in a case where handing over an innocent person would save the lives of many.3
The Rambam rules famously4 that one may hand over only a guilty person in order to save the many. Many disagree with Rambam, and indeed, Rama5 mentions both views.
The TzitzEliezer cites a discussion found in the writings of the Chazon Ish,6 who wonders about a case strikingly similar to the trolley scenario. If an arrow is heading toward a group of people and will certainly kill them, and one has the opportunity to divert it so that it will kill only one person, what should he do?
Much of the halachic discussion hinges upon how action is defined. As we know from hilchos Shabbos, not all actions are equal. There are gramas, koach sheni, psik reisha, and others—various forms of indirect or noncommittal action, not all of which are actually deemed actions by Torah law.
The Chazon Ish suggests that one who diverts the arrow can consider this not as the killing of one but as the saving of many. In other words, it is not comparable to handing a person over to be killed because the diversion of the trolley/arrow can be viewed as a unique manipulation of the laws of physics in order to save people. The ultimate result of this act of salvation may not be our concern.
Yet the Chazon Ish was hesitant; after all, the case of the trolley/arrow may be worse in that we are causing death by our action, as opposed to simply handing someone over to death. There is no precedent to allow actually killing someone!7
The TzitzEliezer is more certain. He proves that inaction, the principle of “Shev v’al taaseh (sit and do nothing),” is better, implying that in such a case, an “error” of omission is always safer than one of commission.
Returning to Dr. Sandel’s trolley paradox presented in The Atlantic Monthly, perhaps inherent in our moral compass is the sense that flicking a switch—similar to handing someone over—is much less of a concern than actually murdering someone with our own hands in order to save others. One is an act of murder, while the other is closer to an indirect result.
It would seem that the Chazon Ish would agree that pushing the man over the bridge to stop the trolley would be forbidden, and that it is certainly different from the original scenario, in which the choice would be to divert the path of the trolley.8
Based on halachic compartmentalization, then, it appears that there is really no inconsistency in this moral dilemma and that the students at Harvard were on to something when they differentiated between hitting a switch and pushing a man.
(According to some,9 non-Jews must look to halachah as their guide in determining how to observe the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach. Perhaps, then, Hashem implanted in their psyches a moral sense that enables them to inherently feel what may take us years of study.)
Sadly, in Dr. Sandel’s brilliant book on ethical dilemmas, I saw not one mention of the Talmud. It is my hope that Dr. Sandel, who is a Jew, will someday discover the beauty and realism that is halachah—and the heritage that no doubt imbued him with the exquisite sensitivity with which he has been marveling at the world.
As for driverless cars, perhaps, like many modern ovens, they will one day come with a “halachah mode”!
NOTES
Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:70.
Yerushalmi, Temurah, ch. 8; see also Tosefta there, 7:23.
The Gemara only discusses handing over the one to save the many but not killing him with one’s own hands. Perhaps, as the Chazon Ish posits, this is due to Sheva’s rebellion against the king, which was a unique case and for which crime the townspeople could even have killed him themselves.
Yesodei HaTorah 5:5.
Yoreh Deah, siman 157.
Choshen Mishpat, Sanhedrin 25.
Unless that someone is the very person trying to save the many himself. See Taanis 18b with Rashi regarding the story of Paypus and Lolnus.
See also Shu”t Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:358. See Ramban
Ramban to ParshasVayeishlach and Shu”tRama 10. When Yaakov’s sons go out to return Dina they kill every male in the city (ibid. verse 20). Ramban wonders how such righteous men like Shimon and Levi could kill what would appear as innocents. He first quotes Rambam (hilchosmelachaim 4:9) who states that non-Jews who transgress or fail to fulfill any of their seven mitzvos deserve the death penalty (sayeph). Ramban disagrees, challenging Rambam that if he is correct wouldn’t Yaakov –not only not later reprimand Shimon and Levi (ibid. 30) –but would have, indeed, been the first one there to kill members of the city?! Ramban then posits a different reading of the Rambam’s source for his view (Sanhadrin 57a) and says: “…They (non-Jews) are commanded in the laws of geneiva, v’ona’ah, v’oshek, v’shcar sechir, v’dinei hashomirim, v’oness, umephateh, v’avos nezikin, v’chovel b’chaveiro, v’dinei malveh v’loveh, v’dinei mekech u’memchar, and similar matters, ‘k’inyan’ the laws of the Jewish people.”
Now, many of the laws that Ramban brought as examples would seem to be unique to Jews, and are certainly not mentioned as any of the Seven Mitzvos. Therefore many understand that Ramban is asserting that the mitzvah demanded upon non-Jews of, say, not stealing, is not a generic term up to them to categorize, rather it must confer with our laws. Meaning, just as Jews have clear definitions of these categories based on the Chazal and the Shulchan Aruch non-Jews too must search these very sources for their definitions, categories, and fines. I would suggest, lulei d’sitapineh, that Ramban may not be saying that at all; rather he is simply stating that their mitzvah of not stealing should not be seen by them as Pollyannaish or pro-forma, instead they must, like us, take these seriously and apply them to the real world, real cases and possibilities. They too need laws of shomrim, workers’ rights, loans and securities, etc. So that he is not suggesting that they must use are categories, per se, and certainly not our very rules, rather they simply need to model themselves after a system of jurisprudence based in the real world.
On June 12th of 2014, three Israeli teenagers – Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaer, and Naftali Fraenkel, Hy”d – were kidnapped in the West Bank. To find them, the Israeli army launched a sweeping search mission, named Operation Brother’s Keeper. Unfortunately, the search ended tragically when, on June 30th, their bodies were discovered in a shallow grave near the town of Halhul.
Before they were found, a rumor had been circulating that Rav Binyamin Elyashiv (son of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv) had performed a goral haGra regarding the whereabouts and status of these missing teens. In order to confirm this rumor, I contacted him directly the week of parshas korach 5774.
After confirming that he indeed did perform this goral, he then shared that he based himself on the mesorah from Rav Aryeh Levin, his grandfather.
He was referring to a celebrated incident Israel’s War of Independence.
It was a confounding time, and the young Elyashiv family had to move out of Meah Shearim and into the home of Rav Aryeh Levin, their grandfather (Rav Yosef Shalom’s father-in-law).
Tragically, Rav Binyamin’s youngest sister Leah – just a year-and-a-half old – was killed by a Jordanian missile shell.
Soon, news spread that thirty-five soldiers, who were sent to help secure Gush Etzion, were ambushed and killed, hy’d. The army was able to recover all the bodies, however, twelve of them could not be identified in a way to distinguish who was who, Hashem yeracheim.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank was approached as to what to do; how they should go about kevura for twelve these soldiers. Rav Frank suggested that a goralhagra be implemented. However, he refused to perform this himself and rather urged that that it be done by Rav Aryeh Levin.
And so it was.
After lighting candles and saying certain kpitelach of tehillim, Rav Aryeh stood in front of each of the twelve unidentified caskets. By the first casket, they arrived at a pasuk was from Yehoshua (21:4), which refers specifically to the tribe of Binyamin… by a goral! This grave was considered to be of Benjamin Bogulavsky.
{In truth, this was not the very first pasuk of teir goral, as they first performed a goral just to see if they were correct in what they were doing –they were!}
They stood by the next casket and came to a verse from Shmuel (I, 9:21) where the term ‘ben yemini’ is found. This was used to identify Oded ben-Yemini!
This continued for the rest of the identifications (The details of this event is recorded in many sefarim. For an accessible recounting, the reader is directed to the popular A Tzadik In Our Time, pgs. 162-170, as well as its Hebrew edition, p. 111-117).
So, Rav Binyamin Elyashiv had a clear mesorah as to how to perform such a goral.
I then asked him the question that was then on everyone’s mind: What pasuk his goral arrive at?
In response, he became energetic, and quoted the pasuk (shoftim 15:14):
“He [Shimshon] came to Lechi and the Philistines shouted at him, A spirit of Hashem came over him and the ropes that were on his arms became like flax that had been singed in fire; his bonds melted from upon his hands” (translation follows Artscroll).
Not only is the pasuk a reference to being taken captive, but also has the Philistines shouting with excitement over their prisoner. When I commented that such diseased excitement is something that was pathetically then happening in real time, Rav Elyashiv also expressed amazement.
The town lechi where Shimshon was taken was only named so due to the miracle with the jawbone (lechi) that was about to take place, making the true name for this town a mystery. I therefore wondered aloud to Rav Elyashiv if the town of ‘lechi’ mentioned in the pasuk is a reference to Chevron, as some of the reports regarding Rav Elyashiv’s Goral HaGra assert.
Rav Elyashiv responded by quoting some peirushim who indeed say so.
However, he then gave me a stern warning. Not only was he not comfortable asserting any meaning to this ambiguous verse – as this verse could also indicate negative news -but such assertions can be damaging.
As we now know, his fears proved correct.
I often repeat this story as a warning to those who assert the koach to declare predestined victories theorugh remez.
This came to mind again last Wednesday, the 22nd of sivan, when many were speaking of similar messages.
Here is an example of one message:
“Historic call to the Jewish people: …Tomorrow, Thursday, June 19th, is 23rd of sivan-the day King Achashveirosh accepted Esher’s request allowing Jews to defend themselves against our enemies. This marked the beginning if the turnaround of Purim. And on this same day, in our generation, we once again see Hashem turning in favor of Israel….”
It’s all very tempting, as the story of Purim indeed took place in present-day Iran.
And, who knows? Even though we now know that noting visily took place last week, perhaps something occurred on that day that will lead to an ultimate salvation.
However, as Rav Elyashiv shared with me a decade ago, we must always weary of ‘predictions’, or that we are on the level to decipher such codes.
Many chashuvim were careful not to do so, and only to said that this is a day to give thanks to Hashem and daven that something similar happen.
When I was newly married, my in-laws lived in Toronto. Their neighbor
was Rav Reuvein Chinn, whose father was the renown rav in McKeesport, PA. Each sukkos, showing kavod to Rav Chinn senior, Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky would stop by the Chinn’s, and my wife and I would go to their sukkah to greet the rosh yeshiva.
It was there that I asked Rav Shmuel if the following story was true.
When his father, Rav Yaakov, was a rav in Toronto there was man who
kept his store open on Shabbos. One Shabbos morning, Rav
Yaakov was surprised to first see that this man’s store closed and to then be greeted by him in shul.
The man explained that he had to close his store this week, as a
certain mekubal in Yerushalaim said moshiach was arriving this coming
Tuesday!
Rav Yaakov is purported to have responded, “Of course, we hope for
moshiach every day, achakeh lo b’chol yom sheyavo. And, maybe he
will come this Tuesday, maybe even before and maybe, sadly, after. But I can assure you that even if moshiach arrives on Tuesday, it will have nothing to do with this ‘mekubal’”
The man took his rav’s words to heart, and upon taking in this information, he got up, took off his tallis, and left shul to open his store.
They asked Rav Yaakov, “Why would you dash his hope? He was
finally observing Shabbos?!”
Rav Yaakov explained that even though this man has thus far failed in his nisayon for paranassa and working on Shabbos, so long as he believes in the core tenants of yiddeshkeit there is always hope for his complete return.
However, if the reason he now chooses to close his store is only because he is certain moshiach will arrive on Tuesday, then what happens if challilamoshiach doesn’t show?
We then risk that he will lose all faith, even in basic tenants, thus shattering any hope of his future return!
Rav Shmuel confirmed this story and shared that he was the one who asked!
As to Haman and present-day Iran:
Many wonder why Mordechai waited seventy days request a second letter declaring that Jews may defend themselves. Haman was hanged on the sixteenth of nissan, and klal yisroel was still in turmoil over the upcoming gezeira, so why wait?Rav Yonasan Eibishitz adds that there was no guarantee that Mordechai and Esther would have such palace opportunities again, or even be alive, so delaying this request until the 23rd of sivan seems inexplicable(Yaaros Devash, 1:17)?
Many answers are offered (see Maharal, Ohr Chadash 8:9; Ralbag, 8:3; Shevet Mussar; Ahavas Dovid (Chida) drush 5, et al.)
Since we mentioned the goral of his name, we will conclude with the Gra’s approach: By waiting, the very same people who delivered the first decree were available to deliver the second one. This would destroy any doubt as to the veracity of this second letter – from both Jew of Gentile.
In this regard, may we have a similar end to this conflict-crystal clear to all parties that innocent blood being shed will be tolerated no more.
Its History, Efficacy, & Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaer, and Naftali Fraenkel, Hy”d
See also post: ‘Dates, Segulos, & War’
June, 2014
Rav Binyamin Elyashiv recently performed a Goral HaGra to help shed light on the status of the three missing yeshiva bochurim. We will therefore discuss the issue of Goral HaGra in general as well as examine the Goral performed by Rav Elyashiv.
Ami has confirmed with Rav Elyashiv that our reporting on his implementation of the Goral HaGra is accurate.
Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote in a Supreme Court decision that while Ben Bag Bag taught the Jews long ago that everything is found in the Torah, such is not the case with a human document like the United States Constitution.[1]
“Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.”
In the past we discussed in this column selections from mathematicians and scientists brilliantly demonstrating this maxim of Ben Bag Bag. However, beyond matters of great depth are matters that effect klal yisroel writ large.
For instance, it is well known that when yidden learn something in unison it has the power to relate greatly to our daily lives. In fact the Chasam Sofer (Drashos, Sukkos, p.52) teaches that when one is in doubt about something he should look at the parshas hashevua to find the answer. This is especially true of the aliya one may receive in that parsha (see ‘Melech B’yofiuv’ p. 5).[2]
Famously, the gemara in a number of places (Chullin 95b, Yoma 22a, Sanhedrin 17a, et al) mentions the practice of asking a child what pasuk they are learning so that from it one can glean the answer to the doubt they were having.
This is not just agadata; the Shulchan Aruch (Rama, Yoreh Deah 179:4) discusses the halachik allowance of acting on such information (see Biur HaGra there. Cf. Rambam).
While this latter form of relying on serendipitous texts is based on the prophesy of children,[3] there is another, more famous method.
“The Goral HaGra”.
This ‘goral’ is achieved through opening a Chumash or Tanach in certain ways that will bring the petitioner to a verse that provides a clue or an answer to one’s question. While most written sources mention the use of a chumash, the many storied brought below, including that of Rav Binyamin Elyashiv, demonstrate use of a Tanach. There is even one tradition of simply using a sefer Tehillim.
Aside for this disputed tradition, is the question of how the lines of the text in the sefer being used for the goral need to be formulated (one column or two). All this only adds to the mystery, and the need for a clear mesorah in this matter.
We find in the gemara (Chullin 95) an allusion to such a goral. The amara Shmuel would open a sefer Torah before a trip and the pasuk he arrived at would foretell if this was indeed a worthwhile trip on which to embark. As we will see in the stories below, the Goral HaGra as well was most often utilized in times of war and seeking to discover where one should escape to, what trip to make (see Birkei Yosef ibid. #6).
This past week it was reported that someone approached Rav Chaim Kinievsky about possibly doing a Goral HaGra so as to discover the state of the three missing yeshivah students.
Rav Chaim is purported to have declined, explaining that in order to perform a Goral HaGra one need ruach hakodesh.[4] Instead, he suggested they go to Rav Steinman.
When Rav Steinman was later approached, he found it humorous that people thought that he had ruach hakodesh. Instead, he told them to daven.
If true, Rav Chaim likely said this based on the words of his father, the Steipler. In Orchos Rabeinu (1:p.218) the Steipler is quoted as being very opposed to utilizing the Goral HaGra (see below for reasons). Rav Chaim Kinievsky himself is quoted[5] as saying that he never heard of his father or the Chazon Ish ever taking advantage of this tool.
The sefer ‘Tamim Tehiyeh’ (9:p.39) explains similarly that although there is a prohibition from the Torah against divination –see ShulchanAruch ad loc.– a goral performed through using a tanach is allowed because that is aided through ruach hakodesh (and even then, it would be forbidden to find out about the future –rather only to find out, say, if someone is still alive presently etc. would be allowed).
Contra the above, the Brisker Rav once sought to do a Goral HaGra and came to the very pasuk (Devarim 18:13) of “Tamim Tiyehe…’ which exhorts us to be simple in our faith in Hashem and not to seek out tricks or the future. The Brisker Rav saw this as a sign not to continue (‘HaGaon’ p. 1126).
Everyone agrees, however, that it is not something to be done often, or with an improper mindset (see Chida in shu’t Chaim Shaul 38:41). In fact, many would go to the mikveh first, and certainly prepare through teffila.
In addition there is the concern brought by the Sefer Chasidim that utilizing such forces too often can cause them to harm a person R’l (see Shalal Rav, Devarim, p. 335).
Furthermore is the very serious issue of having to listen to the goral. Say one does a type of sefergoral to find out if the girl he is dating is the right shidduch for him. After being faced with a verse that seems to indicate she is not the one he suddenly realizes that he indeed wants to grow through with the shidduch. Is he allowed to ignore the goral that indicated otherwise? The Teshuvos Rabbanei Kadmei (#60) says that ignoring the answer one receives through a goral is like ignoring the aseres hadibros.[6]
All of this should give one pause before seeking out such methods to answer life’s many problems.
Not withstanding the above, other reports came out this week that Rav Binyamin Elyashiv did perform a Goral HaGra. He explained –quoting his father – that if one had ruach hakodesh they would not need to perform a goral in the first place.
The other concerns we mentioned also would not apply because this is an extraordinary circumstance, and not done daily, and performed only for the purpose so as to discover if they are alive, not the future.
This morning (erev Shabbos parshas Korach) I contacted Rav Elyashiv and confirmed that he indeed did perform a Goral HaGra. I further asked him he followed a mesorah from Rav Aryeh Levin, his grandfather. He said that this is the mesorah he based himself on (see below for Rav Aryeh Levin’s Goral HaGra story).
When I asked what pasuk his goral came to he became energetic.
He quoted the pasuk (Shoftim 15:14):
“He [Shimshon] came to Lechi and the Philistines shouted at him, A spirit of Hashem came over him and the ropes that were on his arms became like flax that had been singed in fire; his bonds melted from upon his hands” (translation follows Artscroll).
Not only is the pasuk a reference to being taken captive, but the Philistines shouting with excitement over their prisoner. Rav Elyashiv himself expressed amazement.
The town lechi where Shimshon was taken was only named so due to the miracle with the jawbone (lechi) that was about to take place, making the true name for this town a mystery. I therefore wondered aloud to Rav Elyashiv if the town of ‘lechi’ mentioned in the pasuk is a reference to Chevron, as some of the reports regarding Rav Elyashiv’s Goral HaGra assert.
Rav Elyashiv responded by quoting some peirushim who indeed say so![7]
Amazingly, and as we shall see below, this is not the first time modern Israel heard of a goral that landed in sefer Shoftim.
We should here mention that the Goral Ha’Gra’ is not an invention of the Gra per se. Rather, although such traditions have existed long before the Vilna Gaon, much of our current mesorah regarding how to do it comes from the Netziv, the Chofetz Chaim and others who trace their mesorah to Rav Chaim Volozion, the prime disciple of the Gra.
Indeed, we find already in the 15th century discussion of a goral very similar to the mesorah we have today for the Goral HaGara.[8]
While this is not the place to discuss exactly how it is done, suffice it to say that the popular understanding is incorrect.
There are any number of famous stories involving the Goral HaGra and there is great toeles in repeating them (see introduction to Rav Chaim Vital’s ‘Goral Kodesh’).[9]
When Rav Aaron Kotler was escaping Europe he had a certificate for entrance to eretz yisroel, as well as one to enter America. While his heart ached for eretz hakodesh, he also understood the work needed to be done in America. On the other hand were the many challenges of America. Not knowing what to do, he performed a Goral HaGra, which came to the pasuk (Shmos 4:27) “And Hashem said to Aaron, Go greet Moshe in the wilderness”.
Of course, Rav Aaron understood that the ‘Moshe’ alluded to here was Rav Moshe Feinstein who was already building Torah on these shores, and the midbar was America. 70 years later, with Lakewood near 7000 current students –v’kein yirbui!– we can say that this directive from 3000 years ago came true once more in our lifetimes.
Rav Yeruchum Levuvitz revealed (Daas Chochma U’Mussar vol.3 p. 273, as well as other sources) a Goral HaGra that he had performed. The legendary mashgiach ruchni of Yeshivas Mir he had the option to move to Kelm. Unsure as to the right decision to make he turned to the goral. He arrived at the verse (Shmos 25:15) “In the rings of the aaron shall the staves be…” which Rav Yeruchum understood to mean that he must stay in his place. He wrote later to Rav Shimon Shkop (ibid.) “…It is a certain matter that this was revealed not due to my merits but to the merits of the rabim (public)”
A better-known story is the following:
On Tisha B’Av of 1914 World War 1 broke out. Germany was gaining ground and nobody knew where to run or hide. Many ran deep inside of Russia. Rav Tzvi Hirsh Levinson asked his father-in-law, the Chofetz Chaim, if the yeshiva too should flee. To stay put ran the risk of being taken over by the Germans, yet to flee ran its own sever hazards. When he approached him, the Chofetz Chaim responded that he did not know the right thing to do. He nevertheless continued to press him, yet the Chofetz Chaim was firm in that he was unsure.
With armies fast approaching, Rav Tzvi Hirsh performed a Goral HaGra. It came to the pasuk (Bereishis 32:11) of ‘ketonti mekol hachasadim’ which ends ‘…and now I have become two camps’.
Rav Tzvi Hirsh ran to the Chafetz Chaim with the pasuk in hand. As he stepped into his office the Chofetz Chaim told him that he decided to do a Goral HaGra to ascertain the proper path. Opening up a chumash to show his son-in-law the verse it came to, the Chofetz Chaim showed him the very same verse!
Rav Tzvi Hirsh exclaimed that this was a clear sign from the heavens. Yet, he was still unsure how to decipher it. “Let us do another goral so that Hashem can further explain what He meant” he suggested to the Chofetz Chaim.
The Chofetz Chaim responded, “I do not want to bother Hahsem more than is absolutely necessary”.
They ended up splitting the yeshiva into two camps. The Chofetz Chaim and Rav Tzvi Hirsh assumed the risk of fleeing (to Minsk), while Rav Moshe Landinsky and the mashgiach ruchni assumed the risk of staying put.[10]
While there is not enough space to share with you all of the amazing stories involving the Goral HaGra, I do however want to end with what perhaps is the most famous.
We pointed out above that Rav Binyamin Elyashiv received his tradition how and when to execute the goral from his grandfather, Rav Aryeh Levin.
In Israel’s War of Independence thirty-five soldiers were sent to help secure Gush Etzion. They were ambushed by arabs and killed, hy’d. The army was able to recover all the bodies, however they could not identify twelve of them.
When Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank was approached as to what to do, he suggested a Goral HaGra. It was decided –based on the many reason stated throughout this article – that the great tzadik Rav Aryeh Levin would be the one to perform it.
After lighting candles and saying Tehillim, Rav Aryeh stood in front of each of the twelve unidentified caskets. The first pasuk[11] was from Yehoshua (21:4), which refers specifically to the tribe of Binyamin by a goral! This grave was considered to be of Benjamin Bogulavsky. Next came a verse from Shmuel (I 9:21) where the term ‘ben yemini’ is found. This was used to identify Oded ben-Yemini!
This continued for the rest of the identification! (See the full details in A Tzadik In Our Time, 162-170; Hebrew edition p. 111-117).
In fact one can still find a picture of the minutes from that holy meeting with Rav Aryeh Levin’s signature.
This week, the community of Buffalo made an asifas tefilla for the three missing yeshivah students.
Before the recital of Tehillim I asked each of the rabbanim to speak for a few minutes. After the many beautiful speeches, it was my turn. Knowing I could not add to the inspiring speeches before mine – and basing myself on the Chasam Sofer we quoted above which teaches us that when the klal studies something in unison one can then find answers to serious doubts by looking at the words from that study – I opened up to that day’s daf yomi (Taanis 4a).
There the gemara teaches tat Hashem does not desire the death of the young, especialy when it could be prevented.
The gemara quotes a pasuk (Yirmiyahu 19:5) to make its point:
“….that which I [Hashem] have not commanded, nor spoken, nor has it even entered My mind”
The gemara then explains:
“ ‘that which I have not commanded’ refers to the son of Miesha (who died brutally);
“‘nor spoken’ refers to Yiftach (whose daughter was unnecessarily turned into a korban –either literally or monetarily, see commentaries to pesukim by this event);
“‘nor has it even entered My mind’ refers to Yitzchak the son of Avraham”
There in that day’s daf was a reference to three children whose harm Gd did not desire – the very essence of what klal yisroel has been storming the heavens for these last several days in regards to the three students.
This was not coincidence.
Let us hope that with or without the Goral HaGra the present horrible events will have a happy ending.
‘that which I have not commanded’ – Eyal ben Iris Teshura
‘nor spoken’ – Gilad Michoel ben Bat Galim
‘nor has it even entered My mind’ –Yaakov Naftali ben Rochel Devorah
[1] Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co, quoted Pirkei Avos 5:26 {although he quotes it as Mishnah 22.
[2] Indeed Rav Yair Chayim Bacharach (d. 1702) named his famous sefer ‘Chavos Yair’ based on an aliyah he received (Bamidbar, 32:41) on the very Shabbos he wondered what to name his work! When I mentioned this story the other night between mincha-maariv a visiting Talmud chacham shared with me that when he was a bachur he was unsure about a girl he was dating. He received an aliyah that Shabbos and a transliteration of the girl’s nickname was used in a pasuk warning to stay away. He explained that he saw this is a sign that it was not a shidduch.
[3] See Bava Basra 12b with Ran to Chullin ibid. Kesef Mishna to hil. Avodah Zara 11:5
[6] See further sources in the Margolios edition of Sefer Chasidim p. 430 footnote 3). For another concern, see Michtav M’Eliyahu vol. 2 p. 129)
[7] I am hoping readers can inform me who comments thus. See also MidrashHagodel to Bereishis 24:64 regarding where Yitzchak lived when he met Rivkah for the first time at Be’er Roey Lachi. Cf. Ramban and Rashi there. My thanks to R’ Eichorn who joined me on this call.
[8] See ‘Divrei Hayaim’ found in the collection ‘SifreiFesV’Chochmeha’, where the goral performed by Rav Shaul Seriro of 16th century Fes, Morocco is discussed
[9] In this sefer Rav Chaim Vital recorded many methods of goralos. He explains in the introduction that although one is not to perform these capriciously, people could use chizuk
When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. – Golda Meir
The questions of the ethics of war may seem oxymoronic. Isn’t the purpose of war to kill people and destroy things?
However, halachah is replete with guidelines for ethical conduct in war, to the point of warning us not to cut down fruit trees in the heat of battle. Indeed, after the Iraq invasion of 2003, the American administration was reproached for not defending landmarks and artifacts more carefully. It would seem that as Jews, we should relate to such a charge.
Recently The Jerusalem Post covered issues of halachah and war, in particular the treatment of captured killers and terrorists. While there are many issues that fall under this rubric, we will focus here on the issue of whether a subdued terrorist may be killed. What follows is a discussion of Talmudic law and not of practice.
From the article:
“Several senior rabbis have raised a heated debate in the last few days over the approach in Jewish law toward a terrorist who has committed a terror attack but is subsequently wounded and incapacitated. …
“Rabbi David Stav said that the nation was facing trying and difficult times but insisted that a terrorist who has committed an attack but has been wounded and therefore no longer represents a threat should not be further harmed.
“‘In these days in which the blood is boiling…it is important to preserve our moral superiority: [We must] not harm those who are not involved in murderous acts, and we must not harm those who have already been neutralized and do not represent a threat,’ the rabbi ruled.
“Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, municipal chief rabbi of Safed, reacted to Stav’s comments and said a terrorist who had committed murder should himself be killed.
“’It is forbidden to leave a murderer alive,’ Eliyahu told the Galei Yisrael radio station on Wednesday. He accused Tzohar rabbis of ‘forgetting Jewish law’ and said ‘they are only interested in looking good to non-Jews.’”
This is a most serious issue, one best left to our greatest poskim and those who live in Eretz Yisrael. Following is a review of some of the factors involved in making such a decision.
First, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, recognized that not all cases are equal when it comes to imposing the death penalty for a criminal act. In a famous teshuvah to the governor of New York,1 he outlined how halachah views the death penalty. Rav Moshe sought to dissuade the governor from using the death penalty, explaining that one of the reasons the Torah prescribes it is to impress upon us the egregiousness of certain acts and that the halachic bar is set too high to allow regular use of such punishment.
Nevertheless, he ends with the following message: “The above is true regarding crimes of passion…but if people are killing because of cruelty and because the lives of others are meaningless to them…or if there appear to be many murderers,” a country must do what is in its best interest.
It would seem that a country that is under constant attack and is therefore in a perpetual state of war has every right at least to consider whether such terrorists deserve to be put to death by the state.
The Ramban and Rambam famously debate the general question of war as it pertains to ostensibly innocent civilians. The debate, which is based on Shimon and Levi’s battle over their sister Dina’s abduction, is germane to the question of captured terrorists.
The Ramban believed that Shimon and Levi’s decision to kill all the males of Shechem was an error, one for which Yaakov reprimanded them. After all, why should the city’s ordinary citizens have been held accountable for the action of their leaders? How could they have stopped it?
Rambam, however, believes that the citizens were not powerless; in fact, they had failed to fulfill the universal obligation to establish justice systems. Because setting up courts is one of the seven Noachide laws, those who fail to do so are equally liable to death.
In Gur Aryeh, the Maharal seeks to combine these two views. He suggests that although, on one hand, the civilians of Shechem cannot be held responsible, the rules in a time of war are different. A nation must respond to threat with force so as to end present and future danger, and this means that civilians may be affected. While this position is not an argument for the capricious killing of civilians, the Maharal does seem to support strategic strikes even if noncombatants will be harmed.
A quick look at modern warfare would support a silent secular agreement with the Maharal’s view. From the United States’ recent bombing of a hospital (purported to be an accident) to the more than 100,000 victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought World War II to an end, it seems that world powers are resigned to such carnage when it is absolutely necessary.
In the case of a captured terrorist, therefore, it seems there may be support for a country under attack to carry out unceremonious executions of captured killers, since this is a means of deterring the enemy.
Rodef
Even when in a situation involving two Jews, the Torah makes it very clear that one is allowed to kill a pursuer (rodef) in self-defense. We should also point out parenthetically that the Bach and the Shach discuss the issur of retzichah and whether it is suspended during a time of war for the zayin amim.2
Although a terrorist is clearly a rodef, a halachicpursuer whom we are permitted to kill, we can only do so if there is no other way of stopping him. As Chazal point out, if one can stop a pursuer by shooting him in a limb, for example, that is all that would be allowed. Someone in captivity is already immobilized, so what allowance would there be to kill him based on the principle of rodef?
One may argue that a subdued terrorist should be seen as a passive pursuer. This means there are times when the mere presence of an innocent person is dangerous3—for example, a case where a baby’s crying will alert the enemy to one’s presence, or when the enemy orders a community to hand over an innocent person on the threat that they will all be killed otherwise. In such a case, halachah will sometimes view the innocent person as a rodef.4
Based on this idea of a “passive rodef,”perhaps one can argue that the fact that we choose to keep enemy prisoners alive and in relatively good health during a time of war only emboldens the enemy to continue killing us. Astonishingly, the average weight gain among al-Qaeda detainees in American hands is about twenty pounds!5
However, all of this is academic as many poskim contend that the halachah of dina d’malchusa (adhering to modern secular law) outweighs the halachos of redifah. This means that even if a cogent halachic argument can be made for putting to death a captured killer, there would be little an IDF soldier could do about it legally.
Sofek Rodef: A Possible Future Rodef
The issue of prisoner exchanges is a related—and volatile—issue that we have discussed in the past (see issue 43, “Gilad Shalit: Sundry Matters”). According to those poskim who favor such exchanges, killing the terrorist may mean eliminating a real negotiating tool. This is not to support such an argument, of course, but simply to raise awareness of it.
Indeed, strong disapproval of such exchanges based on the argument that they may result in Jewish deaths may actually be an argument in favor of execution, because it prevents dangerous terrorists from being returned to the street. Yet at most, such an argument would only make the captured terrorist a safek rodef (possible rodef).
Aside from the fact that the principle of dina d’malchusa dina eclipses such arguments, Rav Chaim Ozer and many others6 argue that a possible rodef is not the same as a rodef.
GenevaConventions
Even if we could resolve all of the dilemmas raised thus far, perhaps the most critical issue is how the state of Israel and halachah should view the rules of war established at the Geneva Convention, as well as various United Nations agreements.
Rav Chaim Jachter, after a lengthy treatment of the issue of killing innocents in wartime, cites the following passage from The Case for Israel by famed professor Allen Dershowitz, in support of the argument that not all international laws, or countries following them, are created equal:
“Although collective punishment is prohibited by international law, it is widely practiced throughout the world, including the most democratic and liberty-minded countries. Indeed, no system of international deterrence can be effective without some reliance on collective punishment. Every time one nation retaliates against another, it collectively punishes citizens of that country. The American and British bombings of German cities punished the residents of those cities. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of innocent Japanese for the crimes of their leaders. The bombing of military targets inevitably kills civilians.”
In other words while there are certainly agreements like the Geneva Conventions, there seems to be surreptitiously accepted understandings, practices and immunities in a time of war. This is without even addressing the latest United States targeted drone killings, which some argue are questionable according to a strict reading of codified international law.
Chillul Hashem
Above all, we must be mindful of chillul Hashem.
Let us conclude with the words of Rav Yehudah Henkin, grandson of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, one of the great poskim of the last generation, and the father of Eitam Henkin, who was murdered along with his wife, Naama, during Sukkos in what is now viewed as the beginning of the current wave of attacks.
In his halachicwork Bnai Banim7 he focuses on questions similar to the ones we have raised here. He writes that even in war, regardless of what halachah permits, we also must be concerned about chillul Hashem.
He points to Sefer Yehoshua (ch. 9), in which the Givonim fool Bnei Yisrael into entering into an alliance with them and allowing them to remain alive. The Gemara8wonders why this treaty was not voided as soon as the ruse was discovered. The Gemaraanswers, “In order to sanctify Hashem’s Name”; Rashiexplains that Yehoshua was concerned about the Jewish army’s reputation among the nations if it did not honor its treaties.
It is of interest, I believe, that while the Gemara uses a positive expression (“due to a kiddush Hashem”), the Rambam, in codifying as law the story of the Givonim,9 uses the negative (“due to a chillul Hashem”). The indication is that even during a war, when defending ourselves is a top priority, we must find ways to prevent a chillul Hashem—as well as going out of our way (if it won’t put lives at risk) to create an active kiddushHashem.
May we achieve both of these ideals, maintaining our achdus as we debate these serious matters. And may these attacks end quickly, leaving all such questions academic in nature as we herald Moshiach Tzidkeinu.
NOTES
IgrosMosheChoshen Mishpat 2:68.
See Shulchan AruchYoreh Deah, siman 158:1. Regarding the application of this concept today, see, for example, Rambam Hilchos Melachim 5:4, and Tashbeitz 93.
See RamaYoreh Deah 157:1 et al.
See note 20 in Rabbi Bleich’s “Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb” for further details on this type of rodef.
USAToday, 10/3/06. See also the thorough study conducted by Seton Hall’s Center for Research and Development, which reports that 50.67% of the detainees housed there are overweight!
See the strong words of Rav Moshe in Choshen Mishpat 2:69:4.
