Channukah & Purim

The Shulchan Aruch rules that [unlike purim,] on Channukah there is no requirement to eat a seudah.

ריבוי הסעודות שמרבים בהם הם סעודות הרשות, שלא קבעום למשתה ושמחה.

The Levush explains that there is a fundamental difference between Channuka and Purim. Haman's decree was against the "Guf" (body) of the Jews - to wipe them out physically, to kill every single Jew. Therefore when Chazal instituted the method of commemorating the miracle of the salvation they chose to commemorate it through our "guf" - mishteh v'shimcha. Channukah was different. There was no physical danger to the Jews. The decree was to try to force assimilation onto the Jewish people. It was a decree against the nefesh (soul) of the Jewish people. Therefore Chazal chose to establish a means of commemorating the miracle through the nefesh of klal yisroel - hallel v'hoda'ah.

Although this is the most well known reason (likely because it is quoted by the Mishnah B'rurah) there are others as well.

The Yosef Lekach writes that Chazal did not establish a festive meal on Channuka because in the wars that preceded the miracle there was great loss of Jewish life. Purim however was a complete trouncing, there was no loss of Jewish life, therefore there is a festive meal.

In other words, the element of sadness over the great loss of life, that existed alongside the simcha of the nes channuka precluded the festivities of mishteh. All it allowed for was hallel v'hodaah. Purim however was complete unmitigated simcha therfore there is mishteh v'simcha.

Perhaps we can take this thought a little further and come to somewhat of a hybrid pshat.

The physical body, the guf, is capable of understanding pleasure and understanding pain. When the two feelings are combined we require our intellect to comprehend it. Nuanced understandings is for the realm of nefesh. The absolute simcha of purim is something that can be celebrated through guf - therefore, mishteh. Very different are the nuanced feelings of channukah. They can only fully be appreciated by the nefesh - therefore, hallel v'hodaa.

Two nights ago in Lakewood

That's the sun.
No post-processing or color correction.

Mazal Tov LkwdGuy!

LkwdGuy's family just grew by one!
Mazal Tov!

If only Leo DaVinci had MS Paint!

...He probably could've saved alot of time.
This is ridiculously cool.

Hey, I'm talking here!

Is concern for others a lost art?

A few days ago I had a meeting in a Jewish community which will remain nameless. I was running a little late, and the traffic wasn't helping. I made a turn down a one-way street a few blocks away from where I had to be, and there's a car stopped in middle of the street, the obviously frum driver deep in conversation with another obviously frum man who is standing by his front passenger window. (I should mention that there was no lack of parking spots further up the street and he could easily have pulled over if he was so inclined).

I pulled up behind him and figure he will notice me and move his car. No such luck. So I guessed he just didn't see me. I gave a little tap on the horn. The man doesn't even look in his rearview mirror. More cars have pulled up behind me now, and their drivers are less patient than I. A cacophony of car horns ring out. I hold down my own horn a little more. The man is either deaf (unlikely) or just doesn't care (more likely).

This goes on for about 5 or 6 minutes. He is deep in conversation. Finally, he sloooooowly pulls his car into one of the empty spaces on the street. His friend walks over and they continue their conversation.

I'm all for judging people favorably. But there are times, when try as you might you can't come up with anything. I pulled my own car over, got out and walked over to the driver side window. He rolled down his window. This is the conversation that ensued:

Him: What's the problem"?

Me: "Didn't you see me waiting behind you? Didn't you hear all the beeping? I'm in a rush, I have to be somewhere, but you felt that everyone else should wait for you to finish your conversation? Do you care about anyone else?"

Him: "If you're in such a rush why are you standing here talking? Get in your car and drive away".

He looked at his buddy, they both laughed, he rolled his window up and continued his conversation. I walked away before I did something stupid.

Bishvili Nivrah HaOlam was not meant to be taken literally. I was honestly in shock that someone could be so self-absorbed, so oblivious to anyone else. I hope this is an isolated event, but I fear otherwise. When did people stop caring about anyone else? It's mind-boggling. Really.

L'shana Habaa...

Pesach Prerequisite

The haggadah begins with the passage "Ha lachma anyah". It starts out with a one line description of the matzah that we eat. "This is the bread of affliction that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt". Immediately following this, we proceed to extend an invitation to the poor to come join us at our seder. The question has been asked, what is this invitation doing at the start of the haggadah?

I would like to suggest the following explanation:

The Maharal asks, why does kabalas ol malchus shomayim begin with the words Shema yisroel? The point of kabalas ol malchus shomayim is really to proclaim Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, why do we preface it with the words "Shema yisroel"?

The Maharal explains, the kingdom of any king is only as strong as his nation is. If the people don't accept the monarchy, there is no monarchy. Ain melech b'lo am. The strength of the malchus is proportionate to how unified the nation is in accepting the king. So before we are mekabel the malchus shomayim on ourselves, we proclaim "Shema Yisroel", listen all fellow Jews, as if to say “We are one group, one am yisroel, totally united in accepting You as our King”.

One of the main themes of Pesach in general, and of the haggadah in particular, is the idea of וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם לִי לְעָם, וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים . Through the exodus from Egypt we became God's nation. The point of sippur yitziyas mitzrayim is to lead to the realization that we are Am Hashem. But a prerequisite of being an Am Hashem is that we first have to be an Am. A consortium of various splinter groups cannot rightly refer to themselves as an Am.

So before we begin to expound on the various aspects of yetziyas mitzrayim we first invite everyone to our table, thereby proclaiming, now that we are a unified Am, we can begin to discuss being an Am Hashem.

I heard the following vort from my Rosh Yeshiva regarding the above mentioned Maharal:

At the end of the tachnun we say the tefillah of shomer yisrael. In it we ask for Hashem's protection based on three things. 1. ha'omrim shema yisrael 2. hamiyachadim shimcha heshem elokeinu hashem echad 3. hamishalishim b'shalosh kedushas. Now if we examine this list we will see that items 1 and 2 seem to refer to the same thing, namely, kabalas ol malchus shomayim. However, according to the Maharal that we mentioned above it makes a lot of sense. Ha’omrim shema yisroel is not referring to Kabalos ol malchus shomayim. It is referring to the fact that we are a united people.

Making Sense of the Census

Everyone knows that the total number of adult men in the midbar was 600,000. In fact, there are a few specific halachos that are learned from that number. An example would be, the number of people needed [according to most Rishonim] in an area to qualify as a biblical reshus harabbim (See Rashi Eruvin 6b).

However, the results of the census taken in the midbar and recorded in the Torah, indicates that there were more than 600,000 people. The exact number given is 603,550. Why the discrepancy? Why do we not require 603,550 people to create a rishus harabbim?

I heard the following brilliant explanation from Rabbi Yisroel Reissman in his motzai shabbos nach shiur:

In parshas ki setzei the posuk relates regarding Amalek:

אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל-הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ
how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear

Who were these "enfeebled" people that Amalek smote? Rashi quotes the medrash that these were the members of the erev rav who were outside the protective cover of the ananey hakavod.

Now if it can somehow be demonstrated that these people numbered 3,550, we would understand why the gemorah refers to 600,000. That would be the total number of people that were actually inside the machaneh.

In this weeks parsha, parshas vayakhel, we read how most of the silver that was collected through the machatzis hashekel, the 1/2 shekel per person donation, was utilized for the construction of the adonim, the bases for the kerashim. There was however a small amount of silver that was left over after all the adonim were completed. This silver was used to make the hooks that held the curtains that surrounded the perimeter of the mishkan.

How did Moshe determine who's donations would go for the adonim and who's donations would be used for the hooks? The hooks were on the outside of the mishkan in an area where there was no kedusha (min ha-klayos v'lachutz). It would be a safe assumption that Moshe would use the donations of the erev rav for these hooks. (The donation of those that were outside ot the machaneh would be used on the outside of the mishkan.)

How much silver was left over and used to fabricate the hooks? The pasuk says:

וְאֶת-הָאֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע הַמֵּאוֹת, וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים, עָשָׂה וָוִים, לָעַמּוּדִים
One thousand, seven hundred and seventy five shekalom worth of silver.

If our assumption is correct, that the erev rav were the ones that donated the silver for the hooks, we can now determine the exact census of the members of the erev rav. Bearing in mind that each person donated a 1/2 shekel, it would follow that this silver was received from 3,550 people. 3,550 individuals. 3,550 people who were outside of the machaneh. Which leaves us with exactly 600,000 people inside of the machaneh.

גַּל-עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה נִפְלָאוֹת, מִתּוֹרָתֶךָ.

A Purim Kler

There are a number of pesukim of the meggilah that are recited aloud by the whole tzibbur. Among them is the pasuk that contains the names of the ten sons of Haman.

The Mishna Berura quotes the Chaye Adam that the minhag that the entire congragation says the eseres bnai haman out loud during the meggila reading, is not a [valid] minhag.

However, the Ragatchover famously held that it is required. His reasoning is, since the gemorah rules that the names of the ten sons of haman must be said in a single breath (b'nishima achas), the rule of shomeia k'oneh (hearing words can halachicly be considered as if those words were spoken by the listener) can only work for the actual words of the meggila but not for the method in which they are to be read. In other words, by listening to the korei read the eseres bnei haman, halachicly it would be considered as if I actually read them but it would not be considered as if I read them in a single breath. Therefore, the requirement of nishima achas demands that each and every listener read those words himself, in a single breath.

I believe that this machlokes can be explained as follows:

The basis for the requirement of nishima achas is (as mentioned above) the Gemorah in Meggilah [16B]:

עשרת בני המן ועשרת צריך לממרינהו בנשימה אחת מאי טעמא כולהו בהדי הדדי נפקו נשמתיהו

The mitzvah of kriyas hamiggilah contains in it two components. There is the aspect of kriyah, similar to krias hatorah and there is also the aspect of pirsumei nisa. The Gemorah quoted above is unclear as to the reason for the requirement of nishima achas. The Rambam however, quotes the Gemorah as follows:

וצריך הקורא לקרות עשרת בני המן ועשרת, בנשימה אחת, כדי להודיע לעם, שכולם נתלו ונהרגו כאחד.

The Rambam adds the words כדי להודיע לעם. The implication is that the words are read in a single breath in order to demonstrate that they were all hanged at one time. This clearly is a persumai nisa requirement. (See also Rambam, Hilchos Chanuka 4:12 where he uses very similar language in referance to persumei nisa).

If the requirement is a part of persumai nisa it would follow that only the korei would be required to do it. Just as the korei fulfills the requirement of persumei nisa by reading the meggila in public, he can also fulfill this additional persumei nisa requirement by reading these words in a single breath publicly. There is no reason to require each listener to say the words himself. (A careful reading of the Rambam in fact shows that the Rambam only requires the korei to say these words.)

The Rogatchover however, understood that the requirement of nishima achas is a part of the Halachos of kriyas hameggilah. It is not to serve the function of persumai nisa. Therefore he required each listener to say the words themselves because shmea keoneh cannot work for nishima achas (as explained above).

If the above was not clear, I'll try writing it in a language that I am more comfortable with.

We can kler a shayla, is the din of nishima achas a din in persumei nisa or is it a din in kriyas hameggilah. If it's a din in prsumei nisa then just like the korei is mikayem persumei nisa by layning the megilah betzibur he can also be mikayim this din nosef of persumei nisa (dhaynu, nishima achas) through his maisah kriyah. For persumei nisa we don't have to come onto shomea keoneh, we just need to be mefarsem the nes. Ma shein ken, if you hold that it's a din in kriah. Kriah is mechayev that each yochid layns. The only was to be mikayem the din kriyah (without layning yourself) is through the din of shomea keoneh. But shomea keoneh can only work for the etzem kriyah, to say that the kriyah of the korai is nisyaches to the shomea. It cannot shtel tzu the oyfen hakriah - nishima achas. Mimela the Ragotchover held that everyone has to layn eseres bnei haman themselves in order to be mikayem the din of kriyah bnishima achas.

New toy!

My new toy arrived!


If anyone is looking for me, you may not find me for a couple of months. :)

Rumors of Hayom's demise are greatly exaggerated

We're not dead!
Consider this a sign of life.

One sunny day in 2008, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue , where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton ." The Marine replied, "Sir, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton". The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton." The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mrs. Clinton . I've told you already several times that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn't reside here. Don 't you understand?"

The old man answered, "Oh, I understand you fine, I just love hearing your answer!"

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

Rabbeinu Yonah on Accepting Truth

In a comment to this post, Barzilai wrote the following:

See Rabbeinu Yonah on Avos 2:4 D'H Ahl Taamin B'atzm'choh. He says precisely the opposite of the oft quoted Rambam.

So last night I looked it up and this is what I found:

The Mishna in Avos says: Al taamin b'atzmcha, Do not be overly confident in yourself.

R. Yonah first explains that this is true in the area of actions, i.e., A righteous person who is careful in his observance of mitzvos and in refraining from avayros for many years should still not delude himself into believing that he is totally immune from sinning, because the yetzer hara does not give up the fight until a person is gone from this world.

He then adds that the Mishna's warning is applicable in another area as well. That is, in the arena of Emunah. He writes the following:

(translation by me, it may be somewhat imprecise but you'll get the gist of it)

We are warned against learning from heretics, and even from their true ideas because all contact with them is bad. It can lead one to believe ideas that are against our laws, because these ideas have the ability to draw at the heart. So do not be overly confident in yourself to say "I will learn from them and I will accept only the good but the bad I will reject". One should not rely on his own intellect as R. Meir did when he studied under Elisha the heretic, as we learn in Chagigah [15b] that it is said regarding R. Meir "He found a pomegranate, he ate the fruit and discarded the shell". But not all people are equal in their ability to do so.

While it seems to me that R. Yonah would certainly reject the way the Rambam's dictum is invoked by many people today, he also is clearly not totally rejecting it either. He does not condemn R. Meir for studying under Elisha. R. Yonah's concern seems to be, how can a person be absolutely sure that the idea that he is about to accept is actually a "truth". Relying on one's own intellect in this regard is faulty because who is to say that he has never been fooled.

In truth, this concern is voiced by at least one of the other major Rishonim.

ולא עבודה זרה בלבד הוא שאסור להיפנות אחריה במחשבה, אלא כל מחשבה שגורמת לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה-מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על ליבנו, ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב: מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו; ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו

Any guesses on which Rishon is being quoted?

If you guessed Rambam.... you are correct!

Clearly the Rambam didn't advocate a total pursuit of the truth by every individual relaying solely on one's own intellect as the only check against error. The Rambam did believe that he himself had the ability to do this - and that's what he is saying in his famous quote. The Rambam selectively quoted the sources that he believed to be true. Now when presenting it to the reader as a finished product, he implores the reader not to question his judgment but rather to accept the what the Rambam himself has already determined to be the truth, regardless of it's source. I don't believe that the Rambam meant for every person to go off on his own search for truth without any checks.

So in short, what it boils down to is - He could say it, we can't.

Rashi on Accepting Truth

The Rambam, in his introduction to his Peirush on Avos, Shemoneh Perakim, famously writes the following:

ודע, שהדברים אשר אומר בפרקים אלו ובמה שיבוא מן הפירוש, אינם עניינים שבדיתים מעצמי, ולא פירושים שחידשתים, אמנם הם עניינים מלוקטים מדברי החכמים במדרש ובתלמוד, וזולתם מחיבוריהם, ומדברי הפילוסופים גם הקדומים והחדשים; ומחיבורי הרבה בני אדם.
ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה.

My translation:

And know, that the words which I will say in these chapters, and in the explanation itself, are not ideas that I originated, nor are they my own novel insights, rather they are ideas that were compiled from the chachamim in the Midrash and the Talmud, as well as from their other writings, and also from the words of the early and later philosophers as well as from the works of many people. And accept the truth from the one who says it.

The Rambam goes on to explain that it is for this reason that he chose not to quote people by name in this work. He did not want the "inexperienced person" (thanks, S.) to disregard the statement because of its source.

In this post I would like to try to demonstrate that the Rambam's view in this matter is not the only view.

In Makos (5b) the gemarah relates the following incident:

ההיא איתתא דאתאי סהדי ואישתקור אייתי סהדי ואישתקור אזלה אייתי סהדי אחריני דלא אישתקור אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל ר' אלעזר אם היא הוחזקה כל ישראל מי הוחזקו זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי יוחנן אתא כי האי מעשה לקמייהו אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל רבי יוחנן אם הוחזקה זו כל ישראל מי הוחזקו הדר חזיה לרבי אלעזר בישות אמר ליה שמעת מילי מבר נפחא ולא אמרת לי משמיה

A woman once brought witnesses, and they were found to be lying. She then brought another pair of witnesses, who were also found to be lying . She then brought a third party. Said Resh Lakish: This woman has established herself [as someone whose purpose is to use false witnesses]. Said R. Elazar to him: Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves [to be suspected of testifying falsely]? Such a case happened also before the court of R. Yochanan, and Resh Lakish said "this woman has established herself". But R. Yochanan exclaimed: "Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves?" He (Resh Lakish) looked at R. Elazar rebukingly, saying: You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!

(Translation courtesy of Sacred-Text, edited by me to represent what the gemorah actually says)

What is not clear from this gemorah is why was Resh Lakish upset at R. Elazar? What exactly was his complaint?

There is a very similar gemorah in Kesuvos (25b). While the matter under discussion there is different, it does feature R. Elazar saying something to Resh Lakish which Resh Lakish subsequently heard from R. Yochanan. Again Resh Lakish was upset at R. Elazar and addressed the same rebuke to him. (You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!)

To this gemorah Rashi comments:

He [RL] turned his head around and stared at R. Elazar with an ayin ra'ah for he [RL] understood that R. Yochanan was the source for R. Elazar's words but when he [R. Elazar] said it [to RL] he didn't say it in the name of R. Yochanan, therefore he did not accept it from him.

Now in all honesty, I don't really understand Rashi's explanation of Resh Lakish's objection. But is there any other way to understand Rashi other than to conclude that Rashi (or perhaps, Resh Lakish) did not subscribe to the Rambam's dictum?

The Message of the Wind

This is a repost of last year's Parshas Bo post.

Right at the beginning of the parsha, Moshe warns Pharaoh of the impending plague of locust. Then the Torah tells us how the plague actually transpired:

יג וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיהוָה נִהַג רוּחַ-קָדִים בָּאָרֶץ, כָּל-הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל-הַלָּיְלָה; הַבֹּקֶר הָיָה--וְרוּחַ הַקָּדִים, נָשָׂא אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה

13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Why was the wind necessary? The only act that proceeded the earlier plagues was Moshe (or Aharon) hitting the ground or the river with a stick.

It seems like, for some reason, G-d wanted this plague to appear totally natural. The wind blew all night and in the morning they saw that wind was bringing in locust swarms. I assume that that is the way a locust swarm would usually arrive.

Perhaps G-d was saying (to the Egyptians as well as to the Jews), you all realized over the course of the last few months that I am the Master of the Universe, I can change the nature of water at will, I can cause an infestation of frogs to suddenly appear. But maybe you still don't understand that not only can I do all this supernatural stuff, I also control the natural events that happen all the time. Therefore, G-d sent this totally natural plague, complete with gusts of wind, and sandwiched it between two supernatural events to show everyone that from G-d's perspective there is no difference between the supernatural and nature.

The Ramban at the end of the Parsha says that the reason we are commanded to constantly remind ourselves of Yitziyas Mitzrayim (through mitzvos like shabbos, yom tov, teffilin, mezuzah) is not just to remember the shock and awe of the makkos and of yetziyas mitzrayim. The more important point is that through remembering the supernatural events that took place at yetziyas mitzrayim one will come to the realization that G-d controls every aspect of our natural existence as well.

That, I think, may be the message of the wind.

High Expectations

In this weeks Parsha:

ו וַתִּפְתַּח וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וְהִנֵּה-נַעַר בֹּכֶה; וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו--וַתֹּאמֶר, מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. ז וַתֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ, אֶל-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת, מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת; וְתֵינִק לָךְ, אֶת-הַיָּלֶד.

6. She opened [it], and she saw him the child, and behold, he was a weeping lad, and she had compassion on him, and she said, "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews."

7. His sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call for you a wet nurse from the Hebrew women, so that she shall nurse the child for you?"

Rashi comments:
From the Hebrew women.

This teaches that she handed him around to many Egyptian women to be nursed, but he refused to nurse, for he was destined to speak with the Divine Presence.

Interestingly enough, this Medrash is brought l'halachah.

The Rema (SA YD 81:7) rules that a yisroel child should not nurse from an mitzris if there is a viable alternative available. Biur HaGra cites this Medrash as the source for Rema's ruling.

The obvious question is, how could this Medrash possibly be the source for Rema's ruling. The Medrash clearly states that the reason that Moshe objected to nursing from a mitzris was because "he was destined to speak with the Divine Presence", why should that apply to every other child?

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes L'Yaakov, shmos 2:7) answers, that we can learn from here a vital lesson in how to be m'chanch our children. We must have the absolute highest expectations for our children. We must give them the tools that they need to reach the greatest heights. We must educate each child as if he is a future Moshe Rabbeinu. Obviously no child will speak directly with the shchina as moshe did, however, for parents to deny the child that chance right from the outset, to cripple him because of their low expectations is a sin.

A Really Old Book

A few months ago my great-uncle died. He was an askan in many Jewish causes, a respected man. He had a large collection of seforim and books. His children, unfortunately, have no need for seforim. So they called us asking us to take what we want before they sell his house. We collected several large boxes. Among these boxes was one box of really old seforim.

I was going through this box, and I found many different siddurim, tehillims, chumashim, etc. from various times and places in Europe. Then, on the bottom of the box I found a small, thin volume wrapped in plastic. I unwrapped it and carfeully opened the cover. It is completely handwritten. The pages are brown and splotchy and sometimes hard to read. The date on top reads 1719.

The chances of this actually being from 1719 is virtually nil, and as I began reading the cursive script I was more and more sure of that. It tells the story of Avraham Ben Avraham, the famous Ger Tzedek of Vilna. He wasn't killed until 1749. So it seems obvious to me that the date of 1719 is the date when the story begins in this book. The first sentence would also lead to that conclusion.

I had always accepted this story as factual, not having done any research into it.

But a visit to Wikipedia shows that there is some scholarly debate if this story really happened. If I could accurately date this little book, perhaps some of this doubt can be put to rest. I don't know when it's from but it looks really old to me. Significantly older than some of the 1850's era books that were in the box.

Closed book

This is what it looks like when you open the cover. There are obviously some pages that were cut out with a sharp-edged object.

There seems to be some kind of ledger, where the author wrote a list of names with a number near each one. There is no monetary symbol, unfortunately.

First page

I have a high-res (3.89mb) scan of the first page, if anyone wants it.

[Not] Agudah's Response

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, a renowned educator and writer, has written an excellent piece on abuse in the frum community. His article has been linked to by many JBloggers, including good old DovBear. Now, DovBear had been very critical of Agudah in the past for not being at the forefront dealing with the issue. Considering that Rabbi Horowitz is the director of Project Y.E.S. which is a project of Agudath Israel of America and that this article appeared on [what appeared to be] Project Y.E.S.' website, I, along with another commenter, pointed out to DB that he should be crediting Agudah for publishing such a courageous article.

My impression of the site being an Agudah site was based on this graphic that appeared at the bottom of the page:


Well, apparently someone somewhere was not too happy about this insinuation. The bottom of the website has been modified sometime in the last 18 hours. It now reads:




Well, at least I tried.

A Chanukah Kler

This past Shabbos, my brother (Bro #2 of this post ) was kind enough to join us at our home. He arrived Friday afternoon and planned on departing for house (approx. a 1 1/2 hour drive) shortly after Shabbos ended. The question arose as to where he should kindle the Menorah on motzai shabbos.

Chazal instituted the requirement to light the menorah in one's home. The point that needs to be defined is what constitutes one's "home" for this discussion. All agree that a certain level of k'vius is needed. Many poskim hold that spending a single night somewhere is enough of a k'vius to enable one to light at that location. So for Friday night, obviously Bro #2 lit at my house. Motzai shabbbos however, was not so clear. The tzdadim were, should he light at his home because that is his real k'vius, or, should he light at my house because the fact that he spent the past 24 hours there constitutes a k'vius, and it would allow for the additional benefit of lighting at the preferred time, whereas waiting until he would get home would mean lighting at least 90 minutes later.

Bro objected to this last point. How, he asked, can we consider the benefit of lighting on time on motzai shabbos, when it is long after the preferred time of shortly after sunset? And since either way he will not be lighting at the zman, he felt he would be better off lighting at his home at a later time.

I responded with the following chakirah. Is the zman of hadlakas neiros always shortly after shkiyah, and on motzai shabbos, because we have no choice we are forced to light later, or, the regular zman is for all other days but on motzai shabbos chazal were never misaken a zman hadloka of shkiyah but rather a later zman.

I suspect that the second tzad is correct. Therefore it would follow that there would be a benefit of lighting right away on motzai shabbos as opposed to waitng until returning home.

As always consult with a competent halachic authority with any halachic questions. Certainly, before following something written on an anonymous blog.

Happy Channukah!

Candles in the Park

A rabbi out West
wants some reasons
why we aren't with the rest
this holiday season

So I wrote this little thing
not for him alone
but for all who might sing
ma'oz tzur on a megaphone

A six-foot menorah
in it's legal place
standing with the tinsel
is a disgrace

Candles in the park
as night takes over the day
might light up the dark
but it's not the Jewish way

Menorahs on a cake
and draidel-shaped pizza
might be fun to make
but it's not persumei nissa

Halacha tells us how
to give our lives meaning
it's not just about
a warm and fuzzy feeeling

Yivanim Nikbitzu Alai
that was back then
if we do what we should
it may not happen again

So let's do what is right
not just how we feel
and perhaps we just might
see Moshiach - for real!

More on Chabad Menorah Displays

For what it's worth, here's my take on the Seattle Chabad Rabbi and his Menorah display that Shtender discussed in this post.

With both sides playing the PR game it's very hard to know what really went on there. The Rabbi claims he didn't threaten a lawsuit, I suppose we should give him the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, I think Shtender's broader point still stands. There is no need for public displays of menorahs. Chazal were quite explicit regarding where persumei nissa should be performed, namely at one's home and in shul. Nowhere else. Rav Elyashiv in a printed teshuva says that, because of this there is no reason to light a menorah at a public chanukah gathering.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky reportedly was not pleased with people wearing their taleisim in the streets of NY. We don't have to flaunt our religion in the faces of the Christian majority. We can behave like proud Jews by keeping the Torah and Mitzvos, not by making unnecessary public displays of our religious symbols.

Do they need more reasons to hate us?

Must we give it to them?

Yes, I'm talking to you Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky.

Who, you ask?

Well, let me tell you.

He's a Chabad rabbi in Seattle who was so offended by the Christmas tree display in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, that he hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if they did not add a huge menorah to the display.

So what did the airport staff do?

They removed everything. All the trees and ribbons.

In their words:
"We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive," said airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt. "We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year."

Of course people are outraged at the rabbi, as they should be.

We live in galus. Do we really need this? Must we continue to draw unwanted attention to ourselves? Do we need to make it so easy for them to target us? Does a tree display really bother anyone so much? Let them put up their trees. It's their country, not ours. But instead of being thankful for this medina shel chessed, this idiot needs his 6-foot menorah.

Personally, a menorah in the airport might actually bother me more than the trees.

Some people say that the airport should've stood up to him. Smart move by the airport people, in my opinion. They made the rabbi look like the dolt that he is. I say the Seattle Jewish community should stand up to him and say that we don't really care if there are trees in the airport.

Sheesh.

I don't live in Seattle but I herby publicly state that this rabbi does not speak for me.

Read the story here.

Helfgot performs Cantorial Classics

An admittedly non-mavens review of Yitzchok Meir Helfgot's "Cantorial Classics" performance this past Sunday night, December 3rd, at The Metropolitan Opera House in New York City.

1. Although I enjoyed the entire concert from beginning to end, I did find that the more familiar I was with Helfgot's rendition of a specific piece (from his CD's), the less I enjoyed it. This was even more pronounced in cases that I was previously familiar with Motti Sobol's arrangements (e.g., Hallilu , Brach dodi , V'chol hachayim). I would guess the reason is that digitally recorded studio music played at a high volume will always sound better than live music from a distance of 1/4 mile (roughly the distance between Family Circle, Row G, Seat 217 and the orchestra). Also, I was much more attuned to the slight variations in those pieces which was a little distracting.

2. Each piece was preceded by a short video introduction in which Sobol gave a brief history of the composer and the chazzan that popularized that piece. I enjoyed that format and there were some interesting tidbits in some of those clips. (Like Yossle Rosenblatt's fatal heart attack while being filmed for a movie in a boat in the middle of the Jordan river while he was singing "Hayam ra'ah vyanos hayarden tisov liachar"). However, I would urge all those that attend future concerts not to applaud during these clips. You see, IT'S PRERECORDED. The speaker will not wait for the clapping to die down. If you applaud for five seconds, you are going to miss five seconds of what he's saying. It would make more sense to wait until the end of the video and then to applaud. Even if he mentions the words "Boro Park". (For some reason every mention of BP elicited whoops and hollers).

3. In many chazzanus pieces, the climax of the entire piece is the ending. I therefore was perplexed and frustrated when the audience broke into applause and screams as Helfgot approached the last few notes of each piece thereby totally drowning out his voice.

4. I noticed a few members of my community who were trying to hide in the shadows. Apparently they wanted to be at this concert but they didn't want to be seen. Grow up.

5. I was a little uncomfortable when Rabbi Lau's thanks to Hakadsh Baruch Hu was met with thunderous applause. It could have been worse though,at least there were no chants of "Go G-d Go".

6. I overheard a few people commenting that it seemed like Helfgot was having a bit of an off night. Since I have never heard him perform live before, I have no benchmark to compare last night to. He seemed on top of his game to me although his voice did "phlegm up" two or three times during the evening, Interestingly, it never happened at the really high notes as far as I recall.

All in all, a very entertaining evening. Hopefully there will be many more of these in the future.

NY Giants Vs. Y.M. Helfgot

A few weeks ago, a customer of mine offered me and a co-worker Giants tickets for this Sundays game. My co-worker jumped at the offer. After checking the calendar I realized that I already had tickets for the Helfgot concert at the Met which will be taking place the same day. So, Giants vs. Helfgot, who shall it be?

If these were Yankee tickets and it was a huge game, I would probably go to the Yankee game. But the fact of the matter is, I am not much of a football fan. I would go to the game if I didn't have anything else to do, but not when it means missing the Helfgot concert. No way.

Problem is, I was planning on attending the concert with my brother. (My wife was not interested. Chazanus, it seems is a male thing.) When my brother heard that I had a ticket to a Giants game that I would not be using, well lemme just say, he's going to the Giants game.

So that leaves me with an extra ticket for the Helfgot concert. No big deal I figured. I have a few other brothers. Surely one of them would want to go to the concert. So I called brother number one.

Me: Hey bro, whats going on?

Bro #1: Not much.

Me: Any plans for Sunday?

Bro #1: You bet.

Me: Well I'm sure that will change after I tell you that I have a ticket for you for the Helfgot concert.

Bro #1: No chance.

Me: Why not. Whats going on?

Bro #1: Are you nuts? There is a HUGE Giants game this Sunday.

Oh well, no big deal. On to Bro #2.

Me: Hey bro, whats going on?

Bro #2: Not much.

Me: Any plans for Sunday?

Bro #2: You bet.

Me: Well I'm sure that will change after I tell you that I have a ticket for you for the Helfgot concert.

Bro #2: No chance.

Me: Why not. Whats going on?

Bro #2: Are you nuts? There is a HUGE Giants game this Sunday.

I tried a few friends. Friend #1 "Who's Helfgot?" Friend #2 "Give me a call back when I'm sixty".

So that leaves me with an extra ticket to a sold out concert.

The Real Issues

This Shabbos we were talking at the table about the situation in Eretz Yisroel and Iran.

Someone said, "You know, Netanyahu is right. It's 1939 again, and Germany is Iran. Unfortunately, Jews haven't learned their lesson. Sure, there are teshuva movements bringing people back, but not nearly enough people are coming back."

I thought about this for awhile.

While I don't disagree with that, I think there's a much bigger problem.

I remember a few weeks ago standing near the Kosel with a group of people. I saw a young Frum man talking animatedly with a group of Christian tourists. I edged closer and listened in. They were heatedly arguing about religion. Judaism is this, Christianity is that, Judaism believes in this, Christianity believes in that, so on and so forth. I waited until the discussion broke up. Then I went over to the man and asked him why he felt it necessary to convince people that we are right and they are wrong. In my words, "Jews don't proselytize. What's the point?" He replied, "We are supposed to be a light unto the nations. We should show them what the right way is." I strongly disagreed with him. I said, "Being a light unto the nations means to lead by example, that people should look up to us by the way we live." It doesn't mean to go out and try to convince the world that we are right. Our job in this world is to do what halacha requires of us, to do what we're supposed to do. When we do that, we will be a light unto the nations.

It's not our fault that Jews grow up in different parts of the world without knowing their history, heritage or religion, but it may be our fault that they don't come back. What is the perception that an irreligious Jew has of Frum yiddishkeit? Only what they see and hear.

And what do they see and hear?

This scandal, that scandal. Violent disagreements. This group in court feuding with that group. Again and again. Publicly. Mobs of people violently protesting in Yerushalayim. Destroying city property and physically assaulting policemen. I'm not arguing if the cause is just or unjust, I'm just talking about the way things are done and looked at. Of course the media just loves to play these things up as much as possible, and that only strengthens the outside perception. But it is our people doing it to begin with.

Obviously this is only a small amount of people, but it's enough to create the perception. When the shining jewel of yeshivos in Eretz Yisroel deteriorates into violent skirmishes, what is an outsider to think of yeshivos and those that study there? When those who are called ultra-Orthodox (whatever that means) spend their time squabbling in the courts and worse, what are outsiders to think of us? When the schools who educate our children use government programs improperly, what are outsiders to think? When individuals get plastered on the front pages for finanical impropriety, what are outsiders to think of us?

We are supposed to be a light unto the nations of the world and yet we aren't even a light to our own nation.

Not everyone can be involved in Kiruv, but we can all be involved in helping Kiruv work. And we should certainly not be involved in making sure it doesn't.