B'reishit: Pru uRvu & Yishuv ha'Olam

This idea is extrapolated from Hirsch Humash Breishis 1:28, New edition pm 46, S.V. "Umil'u"
*****

It seems bepashtus that the mitzva of pru urvu is about populating the world by reproducing more humans than what were there before. This does not mean merely replacing, but adding on through increasing the numbers.
While women are technically exempt from this mitzva, their participation is essential nonetheless. Lasheves yetzarah also implies a quasi obligation upon women to participate in this goal.
Now let's step back and ask: what about those [men and women] who unfortunately are not birthing children due to various circumstances and limitations? What should the childless Jew do?
Approaching this from a communal focus - instead of from an individual focus - the resolution seems also "pashtus". Men and women who are not blessed with offspring can assist others in this noble endeavor.

Digression:
The last mitzva in the Torah -  kesivas Sefer Torah - is assigned to the individual. Yet, it is rarely accomplished by the individual anymore. It usually takes a a sofer, and often it "takes a village."
So too, with bringing up the next generation. The physical parents are analogous to the sofer, and so there is room for more participation. Several tasks that can be parceled out to the community at large include:
• Assisting the new parents by providing meals or "baby-sitting" relief.
• Medical and Nursing Assistance.
• Training or Coaching "new parents."
• Training children in Talmud Torah or in parnassah.
• Participating in synagogue youth work, such as minyanim, etc.
• Giving rides when necessary for parents or children - such as to the doctor or shopping.
• Playing surrogate "grandparents" when the children have none handy.
Anyway, the list goes on. The point of this exercise is to afford an opportunity for the community to adopt this mitzva so that all may be a part of yishuv olam. So those that cannot do for themselves can still enable others in this essential Mitzva.

Illustration:
A childless woman, "Tzipporah," has dedicated her life to teaching children in a Jewish Day School. In addition, as an aunt, she helps her nieces and nephews by playing the role of "surrogate grandmother". Thus both her personal and professional life participate in participating in or enabling the mitzva of Yishuv Olam.

KT,
RRW

Completing the Circle: Connecting V'Zot HaBracha to Bereishit

originally posted Sept. 25, 2013

In the spirit of the time, we invite you to look at the following Insight on the Nishma website at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-1.html

Eqev, Mishnah, Sukkah - Perfect Misunderstanding

The Land Of Israel is Unique:

Dvarim 11:12

A land that the L-rd Your G-d always Seeks

Always Hashem's Eyes are upon her.

Rashi s.v. Tamid to See what she needs and to INNOVATE edicts sometimes for the good and sometimes for the evil.

##############

The mishnah was developed and redacted in the Land of Israel [EY]

Thus, it is logical and reasonable that the above supposition is a given premise - at least running in the background of the minds of the Tannaim.

##############

Mishna Sukkah 2:9

When it rains - they made a parable: like a servant who fills the goblet for his master and the master dumps it in his face.

Based upon Rashi, this is a case of a negative Gezeira that HKBH might C"V might create when Israel misbehaves in EY

##############

Perfect Misunderstanding

That is to assume when it rains in the Golah - such as in North America, that Hashem is altering the weather pattern of the masses to smite the few Jews - say in North America. This may be beyond mis-understanding and approaching hubris that the weather IN THE GOLAH - Sukkos or not - is only Jewis-centric.

This is because the context of this Mishnah has been ignored! And reasonable premises about a Jewish Society are illogically applied in a Gentile Society!

----------------------

May we all Merit to sit in the Sukkah in our Holy Land EY bimheira beyameinu

KT

RRW

Sukkot & Kohellet

See

http://nishmablog.blogspot.ca/2007/09/sukkot-kohellet.html

Zman Simchateinu

The Nishma website at www.nishma.org presents various "Hot Topics" regarding important Torah concepts. One of these is simcha which has specfic importance to the holiday of Succot as this is to be the happiest time of the year. We invite you to look at the Nishma Hot Topic on simcha at http://www.nishma.org/hottopics.html#simcha, read the material sited and comment here as you wish.

Parsha: Ha'azinu, "He Measured the Seas in the Hollow of His Hand"

We chose this article from  Nishma's Online Library  relating to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah and to start some discussion.

We encounter the artistic and poetic within Torah through the reading of Ha'azinu. It is with specifically this in mind that we direct you to the following article. 

Shalom,
RBH

In the Name of Religion

With Rosh Hashanah approaching, we wanted to direct you to various articles on the Nishma website that are connected to the day, including material on Akeidat Yitzchak. 

We have also reproduced below one these Insights connected to Rosh Hashanah and the Akeida -- INSIGHT 5762-#01: In The Name Of Religion --  which was, also, originally written in response to 9/11:

Insight 5758-19: Simcha and Rosh Hashana
Insight 5761-2: THE RENEWAL OF AUTUMN
Insight 5770-01: TESHUVA M'AHAVA
Update 5755-1: G-d
Journal 9: TSHUVAH
Update 5755-2: The Faith of the Akeida
Insight 5762-1: In the Name of Religion

INSIGHT

5762 - #01

In The Name Of Religion

Belief in a deity is one of the most frightening thoughts within human existence. Projection of an all-powerful divine being and an afterlife allows the human being to ignore the parameters of rationality and define life within totally different perceptions. Black can be white and white can be black. Right is potentially wrong and wrong is potentially right.

The monumental tragedy that befell the world last week is an example of the potential evil that can be the product of a belief. The intensely sad realization that these terrorists were, probably, shouting in praise of their deity as they flew the hijacked planes, filled with innocents, into their targets, causes one to shiver. Their religion turned black into white, declaring this heinous crime a divinely-ordained act; rather than fearing death, they embraced it as they expected a result of divine bliss. There are those that argue that atheism is the root of the greatest evil. History in general, and Jewish history in particular, I believe, cries otherwise. The greatest evil is done in the name of religion.

Of course, there are those who will contend, pointing to Nazism as the strongest proof, that atheism is still the root of greater evil. Still, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik¹ insists that the Holocaust could not have taken place if not for the Catholic Church's preaching against the Jew over the centuries. It is religion that can define a person sub-human and deserving death even as our eyes only see a human being like all other human beings. It is religion that can turn evil into good. Atheism can cause one to act destructively but only within the borders of concrete self-interest. Religion can cause one to act beyond these parameters.² Ramban writes, at the end of The Disputation, that King James of Aragon declared, in reference to Ramban, that never before has he seen one who is without justice argue so well. Logic and arguments do not sway the one who acts in the name of religion. He is locked into his conclusion; his belief in his deity - and what he believes his deity to command - inherently defeats any argument. There is no point of conversation; there is no point of connection. The result is frightening.

But Judaism and Torah are different - that is what we would say. That is what we would like to believe. But is it so? And if so, how? When Khomeini came to power, a friend of mine told me that he felt that it was a great shame that Khomeini was not Jewish. What a wonderful Jew he would make, was my friend's declaration. I shuddered at the thought, but on the surface was he not correct? Do we not praise overall commitment to faith? Is there not a value in remaining adamant in our convictions even as the nations of the world challenge them?³ Do we not place the Will of God above the parameters of human morality? Even as I am revolted by the actions of these religious terrorists - and I stand in total opposition not only to their faith but their very idea of faith - I recognize that the language of Torah could be similarly hijacked to present a false defence of evil. How do I show that this would-be hijacking is not within the truth of Torah?

Akedat Yitzchak, the binding of Isaac,⁴ is read on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. It is a most powerful statement of faith but, more importantly, it is a statement of the priority of the Will of God over our moral senses. Yet this idea opens the trap for the pitfalls of religion. Parameters are lost; belief opens the realm of possibilities. Akedat Yitzchak is frightening. Without this idea, however, God is no longer God. God is no longer above all for God becomes subject to parameters. Unbridled belief is frightening but with any parameters God becomes bound. As such, religion, to truly reflect God, must be boundless and accept the possibility of that which is beyond us. To accept God means to accept the possibility that what He declares white is, in fact, white even as we see black. This is not only part of Torah, it must be part of Torah. And it is frightening.

It is Akedat Yitzchak itself that provides the answer - and the answer is confusion. Avraham says to Yitzchak that God will show the lamb for the sacrifice. Avraham says to the servants: we will return. Notwithstanding Rashi's comments, the simple reading is confusion. This is reinforced in Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishit 101 which describes Avraham questioning God at the conclusion of the episode. If God already declared that Yitzchak was to be the father of Avraham's generations, how could God call for his sacrifice? The question is not a challenge of God. The question is the greatest statement of the Omnipotence of God. When we question, we recognize the chasm that exists between us and God. And God's answer to Avraham was that Avraham was mistaken - God never ordered a sacrifice. If a chasm exists between Man and God, how can Man ever be sure that he has heard God correctly? We are called upon to listen to God but as human beings - and that must demand confusion. Are we ever sure? As human beings the answer must be no even as we strive to act in accordance with the Divine command. Thereby, we recognize the Awesomeness of God.

The problem of belief lies in the need for the human being to be sure. He thinks that his belief is sure when he ignores all other voices - within himself and within humanity - and gives himself up to his "beliefs." He thinks he then hears the true voice of the deity. But he in fact only hears his own voice - exactly because he is sure. Reliance upon our Divinely-given human perceptions is how we approach the world - they are necessary. They cannot be forsaken. But in recognition of the Divine, they also cannot be relied upon totally. When there is collision - there is confusion. It is at this point of confusion that we truly find God. Dogma and fanaticism believe that they find the deity in certainty - a certainty that declares normal human perceptions incorrect. Torah declares that we find God in our own recognition that we do not understand. We wonder, we question, we challenge, we strive for synthesis of our internal perceptions and the external directive; we wish to make sure that we truly hear God's voice - and we doubt. Not because we doubt God but because we doubt ourselves and our ability to hear God. We are overwhelmed by His Presence.
Khomeini could never have been a good Jew because he could not question himself. He could not be unsure; he could not be confused. Certainty results in the creation of a deity in the image of a man. This is the realm of evil - the source of the greatest evil for there is no parameters on such human beings. The perception of Torah is that God has no parameters - but the human being does. We are not God. The more we understand the awesomeness of the gulf between us and God, the more we must recognize our lack of comprehension even as our lives, through the study of Torah, are devoted to that comprehension; even as our lives, through the commands of Torah, demand action.

Ultimately this is the lesson of Akedat Yitzchak. We stand in confusion in the presence of God. On Rosh Hashanah, as we declare God, King, we are called upon to recognize the chasm that exists between us and Him. It is in this unsurety that the Jew remains unique and Torah can never be hijacked by evil - the evil of Man thinking he is sure, of Man pretending to be God.
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

Notes

¹ As presented in Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav, Insight 18.10.
² Another response to the challenge that atheism is a greater root of evil can be found in Rabbi Soloveitchik's further argument that the various modern "isms" - communism, fascism - are, in fact, forms of idolatry. See Rabbi Abraham Besdin, Reflections of the Rav, "Profundity of Jewish Folk Wisdom" and "Teaching with Clarity and Empathy." Belief reads into reality constructs that are not otherwise there; the "Isms" do this as well as conventional religion. In the movie Schindler's List, the chilling execution of the Nazi commandant drives home this point.
³ See Rashi, Bamidbar 19:2. Furthermore, the various attacks, throughout history, upon circumcision always demanded such Jewish conviction. See, for example, Tanchuma, Tazria 5.
⁴ Bereishit 22:1-19.

Haftarah -Scheduling of Shuvah and Dirshu

« In addition to the three haftarot of doom and the seven haftarot of consolation familiar to us, the Tosafot speak also of "two haftarot of repentance" belonging to this set of haftarot, namely Dirshu Hashem be-Himatzo that is read on Tzom Gedalya and Shuva Yisrael that is read this Shabbat.  This means that this entire set of haftarot constitutes a response to Tisha be-Av. 
The destruction of the Temple necessitates a two-fold response: 1) mourning over the loss of the Temple and the members of Israel who fell in battle; and 2) a process of repentance "in order to stir up the hearts and open the paths of repentance.  This should serve as a reminder of our own evil deeds and those of our forefathers that were as our present deeds to the point that they caused them and us these troubles, so that by remembering these things we should repent and do good."[1]
The first and immediate response to the destruction is consolation; it is urgently needed in order to revive Israel's dejected spirit and strengthen their broken hearts.  Following the great effort that was invested in this cause over the course of the summer, the time has come for the repentance that is required in the wake of the destruction as a repair of Israel's evil deeds that led to it.  We see then that reading the haftara of Shuva stems from a double obligation of repentance: a) the special obligation of repentance generated by the Ten Days of Penitence[2]; and b) an obligation of repentance in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, which is rooted in the laws of fasting, as is emphasized by the Rambam in the aforementioned passage.  Formulated in a slightly different manner, it might be argued that now that we have finished reading the haftarot of consolation, the time has come to act toward their realization and bring about the redemption.  This requires repentance and therefore we must deal with the issue of repentance in the haftarot that follow the haftarot of consolation.»

Torah on the Web - Virtual Beit Midrash
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/haftara/54shuva.htm


Kol Tuv,
RRW

Lo Bashamayim Hee

Originally published 5/27/08, 12:37 AM.

 Some give and take on Avodah with regard to Parshat Nitzavim

First Cantor Richard Wolberg:

«The Sages relate that the angels complained to Hashem when He chose to share His precious Torah with His people. They argued, "Your glory (Your Torah) should remain among the Heavenly beings. They are holy and Your Torah is holy, they are pure and Your Torah is pure and they are everlasting and Your Torah is also." One of the answers to that is three words from the Torah: "Lo bashamayim hee".

However, Midrash Shochar Tov 8 says that Hashem responded that the Torah could not remain amongst them because they are perfect spiritual beings with no mortality, impurity or illness. Hashem's true glory would ultimately come from man plagued by impurity and mortality.

Cantor R Wohlberg»

Then RRW:

«Hazal wanted us to know that once the Torah left the heavens it would no longer remain the pristine Perfect Handiwork of HKBH, but would henceforth be managed and interpreted by error-prone humans. Nevertheless - despite the loss of innocence for the Torah - this step was necessary. The time had come for the innocent Torah to mix it up with the mortals and to help us even if if would not remain in its original state.

------------------------------------------

Hence though Torah started miSinai, it is not necessarily purely miSinai any longer. It is now an admixture.

~*~*~*~

Now for Michael Markovi:

A much-expanded version of a previous post of mine to this thread, regarding my...err...radical view of TSBP:

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner makes a large point of this, saying that the truth of Torah She'be'al'pe is not what Hashem says but what we say (Rabbi Eliezer and the oven), in line with Drashot haRan #5 on theoven and Sefer haChinuch on the mitzvah of following the judges, that
we follow our rabbis even when they're wrong.

See also Rabbi Gil Student's "Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments"
(http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html)
citation of Yad Yehuda 30:3, quoting Rambam Hilkhot Shekhita 10:12-13, that we cannot question Chazal's decisions regarding which animals are treifa, because all we have is Chazal's decisions, and they are sealed.

According to Rambam, drashot can be overturned by a later Sanhedrin.

In fact, Rabbi Glasner, quoting the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, "aseh sayag laTorah", says that the Oral Law was oral davka to make it flexible and subject to change. This explains the Gemara's apocalyptic permission to write the Oral Law, viz "eit la'asot lashem"; by writing the Oral Law, to save it, a vital piece of it was destroyed, part of its raison d'etre in fact! Because once a piece of the Oral Law was written, it became authoritative, and no longer subject to change and
evolution as was previously the case.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (who received semicha from Rabbi Glasner's son, Rabbi Akiva Glasner) expands extensively on this point, that the writing of the Mishna, Gemara, and the Codes successively ossified the halacha in a way that the Oral Law was never meant to be, making us Karaites of the Oral Law.

See Rabbi Glasner's hakdamah to his Dor Revi'i, perush on Chullin. It is partially translated by Rabbi Yaakov Elman at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html.
See also the biography by David Glasner at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Dorrev7.html.
As for Rabbi Berkovits, he makes his points in a variety of locations, including Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha (aimed at secularly-educated scholars), Halakha: Kocha v'Tafkida (aimed at rabbinical scholars), Towards Historic Judaism, and Crisis and Faith.

Rabbi Glasner simply takes this entire philosophy a bit further thanmost. Likewise Rabbi Berkovits on Moshe seeing Rabbi Akiva's class andnot understanding and learning from this that Torah does evolve overtime; both are more extreme than most, but the gist of what they say is quite normative, as far as it seems to me. In fact, once we say that

1) halachot could be forgotten and had to be recovered by humans, 2) many drashot were in fact used by humans to actually derive the law(often **but not always** they were asmachtot for laws already knownas kabbalot)

(See, for example, Dynamics of Dispute by Rabbi Zvi Lampel, "Interpretation" by Menachem Elon in Encyclopedia Judaica, Rabbi Isidore Epstein's introduction to the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, Rabbi Gil Student "Midrash Halakha" at
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/11/midrash-halakhah.html)

we are admitting the human element of many halachot, and we can no longer say it is purely m'Sinai as most say Torah She'be'al Pe is, and we are forced, as it seems to me, to adopt some sort of opinion similar if not as extreme as those of Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits, as least as far as theory goes (Rabbi Berkovits's actualization of thisphilosophy is a matter for a separate debate.)

Therefore, for example, we ought to realize that an Amora's explanation of a Tanna may be his own personal thoughts, similar to any rav's understanding today of the intent of a prior authority. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his Essential Talmud remarks on the peculiar Talmudic method of okimta, remarking that it aspires not for historicity, but rather, it attempts to make as many pieces of evidence agree as much as it possible.

There is thus no guarantee that a creative drasha is the correct intent of Torah, nor is there any guarantee that an Amora correctly understood a Tanna - see Tosafot Yom Tov Nazir 5:5 for permission to permit mishna differently than the Gemara.

Evidently, the Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto) held similarly to this whole line of thought, that Chazal's drashot on mikra are not necessarily "correct". See Shmuel Vargon's "Samuel David Luzzatto's Critique of Rabbinic Exegesis Which Contradicts the Plain Meaning of Scripture",http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/sum2.html
(note: my Hebrew is insufficient to have read this article yet, so I am relying on the abstract).

Rabbi David Bigman, rosh hayeshiva of Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa (on Har haGilboa in the Jezre'el), for example, advocates critical Talmud study, asking, for example, what the Tanna meant independent what the Amora thought he meant; what different codifications of Oral Law say (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.), each in their own light. See his "Finding a Home for Critical Talmud Study",

http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/bigman2_1.pdf,
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/talmud/Gemara/ModernStudy/BigmanCritical.

The Kuzari in 3:41 opines that the omer could be brought on any date chosen by Chazal, and it was Chazal who chose the second day of Pesach. If so, then it means the contrary opinions of the Tzadukim (that it was to fall on Sunday, as the literal mikra indicates) is wrong only insofar as it goes against the binding ruling of Chazal, and not because it was an invalid drasha. It seems to me that perhaps alternatively, we simply don't listen to Tzadukim even if they are correct; there is a story in the Gemara of one rabbi being put to death, and he realized it was because he once found a drasha of a min to be pleasing; even though the drasha was valid, he still should have ignored it. In any case, we can extrapolate that in general, freedom of midrash is restricted more by Chazal's binding decisions than any claim of theirs to being the only correct opinion.

I thank Rabbi Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University for providing me with sources (most notably, he introduced me to Rabbi Glasner when I mentioned Rabbi Berkovits), as well as having extensive discussion with me on their implications. It should be noted, however, that this philosophy is still a work in progress by me, especially as I continue to learn more Chumash, Gemara, and Halacha. It should also be noted that any errors are mine, not Rabbi Elman's, as he has already pointed out certain errors in my thinking, and no doubt there are still more to be found.

Mikh'el Makovi

Parsha: Vayelech, "National Torah and Personal Torah"

We chose an article from the archives of Nishma's Online Library that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Vayelech, and the topic is the self. We invite you to look at an article on this topic. 

Shalom,

RBH

Parshah: Ki Tavo - Arami Oved Avi

Question 1:

Why did Chazal choose Arami Oved Avi to illustrate the Central theme of Exodus in the Haggadah as opposed to - for example - Parshat Bo?

And given that there is a Tosefta (Peshachim 10:8) that states: "Those who live the in the city and have nobody to recite Hallel would gather in the shul".

Question 2: 

How would you know how to lead a Seder without knowing how to lead Hallel?

Here is a proposed answer to the 2 questions 

Originally, all farmers, when they brought the Bikurim, the first fruit, would recite Arami Oved Avi. So Chazal chose Arami Oved Avi to explain the Exodus because every farmer in Israel would be familiar with Arami Oved Avi when they brought the bikkurim annually to the Beit Hamikdash in Yerushalyim.

Now we can answer both questions because we can now explain:

1. Why Hazal specifically picked this Parsha over any other
2. How a Leader at the Seder could be familiar with the Haggadah [Arami Oved Avi] yet still not be familiar with how to lead the Hallel

RRW

Ki Tavo: Free Choice

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Ki Tavo and the topic is free choice. So often, people use the argument of free choice to explain why knowledge of God is not clear -- for it it was, we would not have free choice but would clearly not sin -- and/or to contend that there can be no consequences for our actions -- for if there were, we would not have free choice as, for sure, we would do what is good for us. If one considers the brachot and klalot in the Torah, though, one must recognize that free choice exists even when knowledge of God is absolute and the recognition of the consequences of one's actions, even the punishment for sins, is clear and accepted. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-18.htm

Parshah Ki Teitzie 9/11, Amaleik, Honesty and Anti-Semitism

The juxtaposition of honest weights and measures has been used by Hazal to be a causal connexion.; viz. when Jews are dishonest in business the specter of Amaleik rears its ugly head. And I have heard similar statements by Holocaust survivors. Supposedly, Anwar Sadat had anti-Semitic feelings due to being ripped off as a youngster by a Jewish businessman.

So be it.

But I would like to suggest as slight nuance shift. The concept that dishonesty in business triggers Anti-Semitism or Amaleik is difficult to perceive. How can the simple act of being dishonest bring about full-fledged persecution?

I would suggest an alternative way of understanding this point. I.E. that there are Latent Anti-Semites all over the place. However, when we Jews behave ourselves we merit Divine Protection. However, when we Misbehave we are stripped of this special shield and we are now VULNERABLE to Amaleik or Anti-Semitism. This might be viewed as a form of negative re-enforcement philosophically speaking; nevertheless in pragmatic and historical terms this can explain how a relatively minor infraction can trigger such a virulent response.

The late Jerry Falwell and other Christian Leaders voiced a similar point of view [POV] with regard to 9-11. and that is normally America merits Divine Protection but for some misbehaviour this Divine Shield was removed. In the case of the Christian Right, that was attributed to Sexual deviance, etc. While the specific attribution might betray a right-wing or Fundamentalist mindset, the concept of Divine Protection being removed is IMHO indeed a very legitimate Jewish, Midrashic concept. In the case of us Jews, the shield subject to business practices. Woe unto us re: some recent allegations re: some prominent Jewish Businesses.

In the case of America I have no idea which sin was the egregious one that removed this Divine Protection. Perhaps the Christian Right has it right, but it is also possible it has it wrong. If the Dor Hamabbul is a precedent for the world at large, the issue would be "hamas" or a form of thievery - not sexual deviancy. Nevertheless. the impact is similar, i.e. that any catastrophe must bring about active introspection and is a call for self-improvement regardless of the specific shortcoming. To put it another way. the Christian Right might have the specific misdeed all wrong but could also be 100% correct that SOME misdeed permitted this plot to succeed and we are therefore impelled to take this as a wake up call.

With thoughts of Elul time Teshuva,

RRW

Parsha: Ki Teitzei, "War and the Innocent Bystander"

This week's parsha is Ki Teitzei and the topic is the response to terrorism. In the response to terrorism, the practical reality is that there is always a great possibility that innocent individuals will also be hurt and killed. How do we understand this action within the Torah's moral perception?

We have chose the article, War and the Innocent Bystander from the archives of Nishma's Online Library both to direct you to the Dvar Torah and to initiate some discussion.


Shalom,

RBH

Re: [Avodah] proofs of G-d

On Nov 21, 2007, 5:38 AM, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:

Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9)writes:

"Divine Providence is manifest for each Jew according to his spiritual
level as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine
Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is proportional to
their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence for the
prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of
prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according
to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels
lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals...
This concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level
is one of foundations of Judaism..."

Today, this idea (that the Chinuch explicitly rejects) of hashgacha
pratis on everything has taken hold. There is no question that it is a
very calming thought. You don't have to worry about chance occurrences
affecting you, everything is directly from Hashem. However, this was
not the view of the overwhelming majority of the Rishonim.

Regarding Moznay tzedek and Amaleik:

At the end of parshas Ki Teittzei there is the juxtaposition of Business ethics and Amaleik.
Questions:

1.  how does a failing of business ethics give Amaleik any power over us?
2. Aren't there anti-Semites all of the time,  What's new about this situation.

Speaking to my congregation - consisting of many survivors of the Nazi regime - I explained it thusly:
The normal/usual situation is that there are ALWAYS anti-Semites out there. BUT it is only when we fail to live up to the Torah standards of Business Ethics that Hashem ALLOWS them power over us [kind of hester panim due to our bad behavior]

Simlarly Ya'kov Avinu was promised safe passing by HKBH but was afraid of "shema yigrom hacheit" But we know from Rambam et. al. that HKBH never takes away a POSITIVE promise?  Shema yigrom might remove the higher level of protection that was required. [ e.g. vayhi chitas Elokim....]

L'havdil, many Evangelicals felt that 9-11 was a result of Hashem withdrawing His usual protection of America due to America's mis-behavior.  So this idea of removing Protection in the face of Sin is a fairly common concept.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 1

Actually this would be better phrased as:

"What Is the disposition of Parshat Zachor as per Shas and Posqim?"

Let's Start with Sources - Part 1:

See the texts in the Mishnah Brurah
SA O"Ch 685:7
Some say "Zachor" is d'oraitto.
Be'er Hagolah 10
Source: Tosafot Brachot 13
Ba'er Hetev 2 quibbles over Parshat Parah
He also quotes. Tosafot shantz that no other Q'riat Hatorah is d'oraitto other than Zachor
Quoting Magen Avraham - Also Parshat Zachor with 10 is more important than Megillat Esther...
Mishnah Brura 14
"And we learn in the Gmara that Zachor must be "amira mitoch hasefer b'libo"

Next post BEH
Positions of
Kaf Hachayyim
Aruch Hashulchan
Kitzur SA

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Re: Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 2

See the Aruch haShulchan
Orach Chaim 685:6

And see the new edition with fn to Mishna Brura notes 4 and 5

Kaf Hachaim esp. #33
[Vol. 8 p. 156]

Citing Talmud Bavli Megillah 18a

«Therefore [as per Rabbenu Hannanel on the Talmud there] both reader and listener need to intend to fulfill the positive commandment of the Torah»

Also see Kitzur SA 140:3. Quoting SA, Rema et al.


KT
RRW

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

Originally published 4/2/08, 11:06 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

I looked up ZECHER in the Even Shoshan Concordance - and in it I located 2 occurences of Zecher - and BOTH were proper names!

Zecher is clearly wrong. Rav Mordechai Breuer OBM has confirmed this with unassailable research While the Ma'seh Rav attests to this idea of Zecher Rav Haim Volozhiner protested this very attestation [albeit very politely]. In NO way were TWO readings ever suggested

But if safeik D'd'oraiito lehumra re: Zachor why not go all the way? [Reductio ad absurdum indeed- after all it is read around Purim time! So why not

1. Read it from BOTH a Sepyhardic and Ashkenaic Torah...
2. Read BOTH Scrolls with every permutation of pronunciation [e.g. litvisher, Hungarian, Yekkish, Sephardic Yemineite etc. etc.]?

The Vilna Gaon himself made fun of multiple pairs of Tefillin as ludicrous and came up with 32-64 possible permutations. Ironically we are beginning to perpetuate such a practice in his honor. [Incidentally, this proves there MUST be a God or else it would make no sense to practice such a minhag to honor the one who felt such permutation as unnecessary.]

One Rabbi insisted that whilst reading Ki Tetze both Zeicher and Zecher must be read TWICE, one for Shevii'i and once for Maftir! His argument? since we have changed the form [tzura] for Zachor therefore THAT becomes THE normative way to read it EVERY time we read the Torah, including Ki Tetze! No I am not kidding, I had a bar mitzva student who HAD to do it this way!



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 1

Originally published 3/3/10, 9:13 pm.

Re: Repeating to read Zachor to accommodate both Zeicher and Zecher

There are those with whom I may never agree and in particular there is this one fellow with whom I often lock horns; he sent me a private email that expresses some of my own outrage on this matter...

I think it's safe to snip out these two points:

1. The practice looks silly.
2. The practice looks ... to be huqa utelula.

When you think about it, they are almost the same point.
Here is my similar reaction in a private email to a completely different colleague.

I still think it's a bad approach, a bad precedent and a bad example. We're making Reform & Conservative frummer with regards to the Masoretic text than we Orthodox Jews are. As we play more games with it, we thereby making it appear "less holy" and more susceptible to error.

Next:
Zeicher and Zecher on steroids. ;-)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 2

Posted with permission from the author.

This post speaks for itself. -RRW


«Re zeicher and zecher.

My brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan Penkower of Br Ilan University wrote an extensive article proving that the correct pronunciation is zeicher. It's way beyond my expertise although Jordan acknowledged as a leading expert in Bible studies, Jewish manuscripts etc.

I asked a member of my shul, who is also an expert in this field and who often is the ba'al korey on Parshat Zachor, if he had read the article. he said he had and that Jordan was "absolutely" correct. So I asked him (as Jordan had asked me to) whether he would read it only that way (zeicher) on Parshat Zachor. "Of course not," he replied; "what do facts have to do with minhag Yisrael?" And sure enough, he read it both ways.

Joseph Kaplan»