Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the Zoo Rabbi, wrote the following response to my posed question at the end - "I am still unsatisfied with the treatment of the eggs or babies, if they are not returned to the tree. Do you have a good answer?" (My emphasis added to his comments)
In response to Rabbi Billet's question on Shiluah HaKein:
According to most Rishonim (Rambam, Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ramban, Ralbag, Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher), the mitzvah of shiluach hakein is indeed about compassion. They explain away the Mishnah's statement that "One who says'Your mercy is demonstrated through the treatment of the mother bird' is tobe silenced" as meaning that God did not command this mitzvah out of His mercy upon the bird, but rather to teach us mercy; or, that this Mishnah follows an alternate viewpoint. The rationale behind the mitzvah is as follows: In earlier times, when food was not as plentiful as it is today, most people would seize the opportunity for a free meal. Eggs would be a delicious treat, and some people might even want to eat the chicks. The Torah commands us to restrain our desires; it forbids us from taking the mother too, and even when taking the eggs or young, we must send away the mother bird to spare her the distress of seeing her young being taken. But if one has no desire for the eggs or young (as would be the case today), there is no mitzvah to take them; one simply leaves them all alone.
Rambam agrees that not everyone will be tempted to eat chicks, and sees this as part of the idea: "He also forbade slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day, to take care to avoid slaughtering the young before its mother's eyes, for the distress caused thereby to animals is great... This is also the reason for sending away the mother bird from the nest, for the eggs on which the mother nests and the fledglings that need their mother are not generally fit for food; and when a person sends off the mother and she goes away, she will not be distressed at seeing her young taken. And since that which would be taken in most instances is not fit to be eaten, for the most part there will be reason to leave everything." (Guide for thePerplexed III:48)
An entirely different perspective was presented in with the Zohar, which states that the mitzvah functions to cause the mother bird distress, causing her angel in Heaven to protest to God, Who wonders why nobody is protesting on behalf of the Jewish People in exile, and as a result decides to have compassion on them. According to this approach, the mitzvah is about causing pain to the mother bird rather than minimizing it. Furthermore, following this approach, one should send away the mother bird even if one has no desire for the young. While some attempt to reconcile the Zohar with the aforementioned Rishonim, the truth is that they reflect fundamentally different approaches to Torah as a whole and this mitzvah in particular. I have just finished writing an extensive study of this topic which I hope to publish soon.
Kol tuv,
Natan Slifkin
ps. The Jewish Star posted all this as well
**************************************
I guess it boils down to one point, which was my main source of anguish. When the Torah says "Send away the mother bird and take the children" the second half of that statement is a suggestion of what to do in the event that you need and can use the eggs or baby birds. One is not commanded to take the birds.
The mitzvah, however, is merely to send away the mother bird so you can check what is in her nest. Through this, we either learn to be compassionate, or kabbalistically send a message to God to be compassionate to us, or we enjoy a good breakfast, or we just get mitzvah points which will help us merit extended days.
Do we need to take the baby birds? Unequivocally, NO.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
New Year and New Beginnings
This evening, in partnership with Temple Beth El of Hollywood, we had our first session of living room learning targeting parents of the Temple's Religious School's students.
We had a lovely time!
We used the Genesis story (the ultimate "beginning") as a metaphor for what the new school year is about.
"The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface. God said, 'There shall be light,' and light came into existence."
After a summer of fun and less than regular Jewish experiences, children have a clean slate and are ready to be formed by the new ideas we will throw their way. If we can only give them the "light" they will be guided on a proper path as it is clear that the light is "good."
A Second beginning
When Cain and Abel have their encounter, we see the tremendously difficult urges Cain had to overcome. There is nothing quite as potent as when God warns him, "If you do not do good, sin is crouching at the door. It lusts after you, but you can dominate it."
We know he did not overcome: he faltered and succumbed to his evil inclination when he killed his brother. The problem with the whole episode though lies not in the protagonists as much as in the missing players.
Where were the parents?
Parents must be present. And even when they are not or can not be present, their influence must be present. Children have to be raised to know and believe that their parents' values are their values whether the parents are physically present or not.
And as Joseph Telushkin writes, the rest of the Bible is an affirmative response to the question Cain asks in his own defense, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
A Second Chance
Adam and Eve have another baby, whom they call Seth. After his son is born, it seems Adam can now praise God. His family will live on through his third son.
Chapter 5 begins "This is the book of the Generations of Mankind: On the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God."
Interestingly this verse is one of the sources utilized in a debate between Rabbi Akiva and ben Azai over which is a more important principle in the Torah. Rabbi Akiva says "V'ahavta L'reiakha Kamokha" (a.k.a. the Golden Rule of loving your neighbor as yourself) is an important principle, while Ben Azai says "This is the book of the Generations of Mankind" is an even greater principle.
It's all about humanity
What is Ben Azai talking about?
Ben Azai is talking about the human experience. He looks beyond the plight of just the neighbor. EVERY human being is created in God's image, therefore the greater principle appeals to the divine spirit that lives in each person...
V'shinantam
Finally we concluded with a recitation of the Shma, in English, in which we discovered that the commandment "Teach them to your children and speak of them when you are at home, when traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up" follows immediately after the commandment/suggestion: "Love God your Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. These words which I am commanding you today must remain on your heart."
The way we can get our kids to do it, is if we do it. We model, they follow.
We have to make love of God and Judaism and values essential. When we do that, or even make efforts to do more than we do, it will inevitably rub off on our children.
Tizku l'mitzvot. Thank you for coming and for participating in our chavruta session.
We had a lovely time!
We used the Genesis story (the ultimate "beginning") as a metaphor for what the new school year is about.
"The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface. God said, 'There shall be light,' and light came into existence."
After a summer of fun and less than regular Jewish experiences, children have a clean slate and are ready to be formed by the new ideas we will throw their way. If we can only give them the "light" they will be guided on a proper path as it is clear that the light is "good."
A Second beginning
When Cain and Abel have their encounter, we see the tremendously difficult urges Cain had to overcome. There is nothing quite as potent as when God warns him, "If you do not do good, sin is crouching at the door. It lusts after you, but you can dominate it."
We know he did not overcome: he faltered and succumbed to his evil inclination when he killed his brother. The problem with the whole episode though lies not in the protagonists as much as in the missing players.
Where were the parents?
Parents must be present. And even when they are not or can not be present, their influence must be present. Children have to be raised to know and believe that their parents' values are their values whether the parents are physically present or not.
And as Joseph Telushkin writes, the rest of the Bible is an affirmative response to the question Cain asks in his own defense, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
A Second Chance
Adam and Eve have another baby, whom they call Seth. After his son is born, it seems Adam can now praise God. His family will live on through his third son.
Chapter 5 begins "This is the book of the Generations of Mankind: On the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God."
Interestingly this verse is one of the sources utilized in a debate between Rabbi Akiva and ben Azai over which is a more important principle in the Torah. Rabbi Akiva says "V'ahavta L'reiakha Kamokha" (a.k.a. the Golden Rule of loving your neighbor as yourself) is an important principle, while Ben Azai says "This is the book of the Generations of Mankind" is an even greater principle.
It's all about humanity
What is Ben Azai talking about?
Ben Azai is talking about the human experience. He looks beyond the plight of just the neighbor. EVERY human being is created in God's image, therefore the greater principle appeals to the divine spirit that lives in each person...
V'shinantam
Finally we concluded with a recitation of the Shma, in English, in which we discovered that the commandment "Teach them to your children and speak of them when you are at home, when traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up" follows immediately after the commandment/suggestion: "Love God your Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. These words which I am commanding you today must remain on your heart."
The way we can get our kids to do it, is if we do it. We model, they follow.
We have to make love of God and Judaism and values essential. When we do that, or even make efforts to do more than we do, it will inevitably rub off on our children.
Then we'll have accomplished our mission.
Shelo Asani Ishah Part I - Needing Better Hasbara
This is the first of two essays on this topic. Part II can be found here
In Israel, the term "hasbara" refers to "Good P.R." (Public Relations). When something looks bad to skeptical observers, good "hasbara" explains the rationale behind decisions and actions taken.
In essence, hasbara is a form of being a spinmeister - either to explain the unexplainable or to clarify a major misunderstanding.
Judaism has a lot of explaining to do. Not because our religion or its practices need defense (maybe it does, sometimes), but because there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. People may read a passage, in context, and even moreso out of context, and draw their own conclusions about what things mean.
The Talmud (and other Jewish books) were burned in 1242 because of misunderstandings in the Talmud (this is a very simple explanation, I know), causing the loss of hundreds of years of scholarship. Remember that pre-printing press all copies of books were hand copied, with no typeset and molds to reprint lost editions.
She'lo Asani Isha
I know this is a loaded topic. But I am going to give a new stab at it. With no apologetics.
A number of years ago I came across Joel Wolowelsky's book about women in Jewish life (I don't have the book, but I imagine it was probably "Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age"). He has a section in the book entitled "The Silent Bracha" in which he argues that the blessing recited in the morning prayers "Blessed are you God... that He did not make me a woman" should be recited silently in the synagogue.
The crux of the argument included the idea that since more and more women attend the synagogue, when they are present they are forced to answer Amen to such an insensitive denigrating blessing. To affirm that they are inferior. (I am not quoting verbatim - just as memory serves me, or perhaps as my own interpretation is taking the argument.)
This, of course, is more than insensitive - it is offensive.
An Impossibility
Is it really possible that the authors of such a blessing were unaware that half of the population are women? Can we accept the premise that the rabbis who put together the prayer book were so dumb they wouldn't realize women would read and understand this blessing and become incensed? Can you imagine them going home to their wives that evening
- "Honey, what did you do today?"
- "It was incredible. We composed the opening blessings of the prayer book. We bless God for the most incredible gifts He has given us. For giving us the ability to see, to wake up, to stand, for shoes, clothing etc."
- "Sounds really nice, dear."
- "Oh. And..."
- "Was there another blessing?"
- "Uhhhhh...."
- "Come on! You can tell me. I promise I won't get upset!"
- "Thank you for not making me a woman! You understand, honey. I don't want to be what you are. You repulse me! That's why we made such a blessing."
- she hits him over the head with a vase
Seems ludicrous! And yet I still remember the anger of the woman who said to me, "I will never forgive a religion that has such a blessing in its liturgy" (OK. Those weren't her exact words - but that was her point.)
As such, I feel this bracha needs better hasbara. It really gets a bad rap.
The Drama Man inside of me
As an actor, I often question what is the correct "dramatic reading" of statements which are supposed to be spoken. I ask this question when characters in the Bible speak, and I ask it here as well. What is the intention of the speaker? What information does the speaker have? What influences what the speaker says?
To put it a different way, the blessing could have just as easily read "She'asani Ish" - for having made me a man.
The fact that it is written in the negative, blessing for "not being a woman," is suggestive, and requires of us to think why these words were chosen and what was their original intention.
Blessing, not "Thank you"
We give blessings for all kinds of things, whether we appreciate them or not. It is the way of a Jew to bless God.
But this is not "thank you." This statement in thanks form could be offensive - "Thank GOD that I am not a woman." But that is not the blessing. The blessing is "Blessed are you God, that He did not make me a woman."
Bad Hasbara
The first interpretation of this blessing I ever heard was this: (Warning, if you are easily offended, skip to the next subtitle.)
"Women do things that men are not capable of doing. For example, childbirth. Men thank God for not having given them this responsibility, for having spared them this difficulty and painful experience."
What a pathetic explanation! I could go on a whole tirade of how the birth experience is something many women would not trade in for the world. The fact that birthing has become a medical procedure in this country (USA) (emergencies not withstanding) is a stain on the natural birth process that women could be experiencing.
Besides, how lame is a man for thinking such a thing, and even more so for saying such a thing.
Those men among us who are married and have children know all too well (and if not, here is your
wake up call) of how amazing our wives are for going through this, so we can share in parenthood. We know we could never do it. But we don't bless God for not putting us through labor. We thank God for giving us our wives.
The Apologist Answer
A different approach is the apologetic one. "The female is the stronger sex. They can handle being female. I could never handle being female. I couldn't live up to it. Bless God for not having made me a woman. I would be the most pathetic woman."
I don't think I could find a bigger loser than the person who reads the blessing this way. Be a man! Be proud of who you are and of what you are!
A Better Approach
Up until recently, this next approach was the one I favored. I heard it first from Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald, the founder of the National Jewish Outreach Program, and then saw a similar explanation in the Artscroll siddur.
Look at the blessing in context. It appears as the climax of three blessings that are worded in a similar way: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the Universe, that He did not make me a..." The three blessings conclude, in this order: a gentile, a servant/slave, a woman. As the three blessings are worded the same way, they are now poetry, and not meant to be viewed in an offensive manner.
The nice interpretation is that these are a progression. Each has a different level of obligations in Judaism - the gentile has 7 commandments, the servant/slave has more, and the Jewish woman still has even more. But even the Jewish woman is not obligated in all of the commandments. So the man blesses "For that He did not make me a woman" who is not obligated in as many commandments.
In other words, I am commanded to manifest my relationship with God through the active role I take in physically fulfilling commandments.
Some will argue women are naturally more spiritual (which is probably true). Some will say women should have equal obligations (to fulfill time-bound commandments) as men. Maybe they should. This is not the platform for having that discussion right now. The point is that in the status quo, a man is blessing God for having given him the opportunity to have obligations and to be able to fulfill commandments through his actions.
The Artscroll siddur takes it a step further in defining natural impulses of men as being negative, and the natural impulses of women as being positive, leaving a fairly logical explanation in its wake, which the reader may take or leave. (see the commentary on page 19 and 20, in the standard Hebrew English edition of the Artscroll siddur)
One More Stab At It
Up until now, every interpretation has started with the explanation "I am thanking God for not having been made a woman who is..." the stronger sex, the better sex, the less obligated sex.
The Talmud Brachot (33b, 54a, 60b) says "a person must make a blessing over bad things, just as one makes a blessing over good things..."
Hold that thought a moment...
The fact of the matter is that there is a set blessing for both men and women. Women say "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, that He made me according to His will."
If I were to make something "according to my will," the object I would make would be the absolute best, the most perfect, without flaw and error. Everyone would look upon this and say "Wow you really put a lot of work and love into this. You wanted this to be perfect." And I would say "You're right."
In other words, this blessing sounds like women are made perfect.
As a mohel, one of the reasons I give for why women are not circumcised (aside from the obvious reason), is because God wanted man to "correct himself" in order to become "Tamim" - complete, perfect. God told Abraham when he commanded him regarding circumcision, "Walk before Me and become תמים - perfect/complete."
As a woman was never given this commandment, obviously she does not need correction, she is already complete. In other words, she is perfect. (Meaning, with all the flaws that humans have, but nonetheless - there is an element of perfection in her creation.)
So what is the man saying?
A New Hasbara
"God, you did not make me a woman. You made me something else, and there are all kinds of things that I need to do to overcome desires and to correct and improve myself. Sometimes I need commandments to help me do this. I need to pray harder and I need to work harder because spirituality and a connection to You does not come as easily as it does to a woman. This is hard. This is rough. But this is the way You made it. And so I bless You, for Your eternal wisdom. You know there need to be men on this earth as well - and so You made me - just not a female, Your vision of perfection."
I am not suggesting that being a male is a bad thing. But I am saying that whether a person is male or female, we might bless God for what we are, or for what we are not.
And if we can walk around without a chip on our shoulders, and make a conscious effort to find better hasbara, we may find that those old rabbis had a little more sense than we sometimes give them credit for.
We just have to learn to think as they did.
Shelo Asani Ishah Part II is here
In Israel, the term "hasbara" refers to "Good P.R." (Public Relations). When something looks bad to skeptical observers, good "hasbara" explains the rationale behind decisions and actions taken.
In essence, hasbara is a form of being a spinmeister - either to explain the unexplainable or to clarify a major misunderstanding.
Judaism has a lot of explaining to do. Not because our religion or its practices need defense (maybe it does, sometimes), but because there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. People may read a passage, in context, and even moreso out of context, and draw their own conclusions about what things mean.
The Talmud (and other Jewish books) were burned in 1242 because of misunderstandings in the Talmud (this is a very simple explanation, I know), causing the loss of hundreds of years of scholarship. Remember that pre-printing press all copies of books were hand copied, with no typeset and molds to reprint lost editions.
She'lo Asani Isha
I know this is a loaded topic. But I am going to give a new stab at it. With no apologetics.
A number of years ago I came across Joel Wolowelsky's book about women in Jewish life (I don't have the book, but I imagine it was probably "Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age"). He has a section in the book entitled "The Silent Bracha" in which he argues that the blessing recited in the morning prayers "Blessed are you God... that He did not make me a woman" should be recited silently in the synagogue.
The crux of the argument included the idea that since more and more women attend the synagogue, when they are present they are forced to answer Amen to such an insensitive denigrating blessing. To affirm that they are inferior. (I am not quoting verbatim - just as memory serves me, or perhaps as my own interpretation is taking the argument.)
This, of course, is more than insensitive - it is offensive.
An Impossibility
Is it really possible that the authors of such a blessing were unaware that half of the population are women? Can we accept the premise that the rabbis who put together the prayer book were so dumb they wouldn't realize women would read and understand this blessing and become incensed? Can you imagine them going home to their wives that evening
- "Honey, what did you do today?"
- "It was incredible. We composed the opening blessings of the prayer book. We bless God for the most incredible gifts He has given us. For giving us the ability to see, to wake up, to stand, for shoes, clothing etc."
- "Sounds really nice, dear."
- "Oh. And..."
- "Was there another blessing?"
- "Uhhhhh...."
- "Come on! You can tell me. I promise I won't get upset!"
- "Thank you for not making me a woman! You understand, honey. I don't want to be what you are. You repulse me! That's why we made such a blessing."
- she hits him over the head with a vase
Seems ludicrous! And yet I still remember the anger of the woman who said to me, "I will never forgive a religion that has such a blessing in its liturgy" (OK. Those weren't her exact words - but that was her point.)
As such, I feel this bracha needs better hasbara. It really gets a bad rap.
The Drama Man inside of me
As an actor, I often question what is the correct "dramatic reading" of statements which are supposed to be spoken. I ask this question when characters in the Bible speak, and I ask it here as well. What is the intention of the speaker? What information does the speaker have? What influences what the speaker says?
To put it a different way, the blessing could have just as easily read "She'asani Ish" - for having made me a man.
The fact that it is written in the negative, blessing for "not being a woman," is suggestive, and requires of us to think why these words were chosen and what was their original intention.
Blessing, not "Thank you"
We give blessings for all kinds of things, whether we appreciate them or not. It is the way of a Jew to bless God.
But this is not "thank you." This statement in thanks form could be offensive - "Thank GOD that I am not a woman." But that is not the blessing. The blessing is "Blessed are you God, that He did not make me a woman."
Bad Hasbara
The first interpretation of this blessing I ever heard was this: (Warning, if you are easily offended, skip to the next subtitle.)
"Women do things that men are not capable of doing. For example, childbirth. Men thank God for not having given them this responsibility, for having spared them this difficulty and painful experience."
What a pathetic explanation! I could go on a whole tirade of how the birth experience is something many women would not trade in for the world. The fact that birthing has become a medical procedure in this country (USA) (emergencies not withstanding) is a stain on the natural birth process that women could be experiencing.
Besides, how lame is a man for thinking such a thing, and even more so for saying such a thing.
Those men among us who are married and have children know all too well (and if not, here is your
wake up call) of how amazing our wives are for going through this, so we can share in parenthood. We know we could never do it. But we don't bless God for not putting us through labor. We thank God for giving us our wives.
The Apologist Answer
A different approach is the apologetic one. "The female is the stronger sex. They can handle being female. I could never handle being female. I couldn't live up to it. Bless God for not having made me a woman. I would be the most pathetic woman."
I don't think I could find a bigger loser than the person who reads the blessing this way. Be a man! Be proud of who you are and of what you are!
A Better Approach
Up until recently, this next approach was the one I favored. I heard it first from Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald, the founder of the National Jewish Outreach Program, and then saw a similar explanation in the Artscroll siddur.
Look at the blessing in context. It appears as the climax of three blessings that are worded in a similar way: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the Universe, that He did not make me a..." The three blessings conclude, in this order: a gentile, a servant/slave, a woman. As the three blessings are worded the same way, they are now poetry, and not meant to be viewed in an offensive manner.
The nice interpretation is that these are a progression. Each has a different level of obligations in Judaism - the gentile has 7 commandments, the servant/slave has more, and the Jewish woman still has even more. But even the Jewish woman is not obligated in all of the commandments. So the man blesses "For that He did not make me a woman" who is not obligated in as many commandments.
In other words, I am commanded to manifest my relationship with God through the active role I take in physically fulfilling commandments.
Some will argue women are naturally more spiritual (which is probably true). Some will say women should have equal obligations (to fulfill time-bound commandments) as men. Maybe they should. This is not the platform for having that discussion right now. The point is that in the status quo, a man is blessing God for having given him the opportunity to have obligations and to be able to fulfill commandments through his actions.
The Artscroll siddur takes it a step further in defining natural impulses of men as being negative, and the natural impulses of women as being positive, leaving a fairly logical explanation in its wake, which the reader may take or leave. (see the commentary on page 19 and 20, in the standard Hebrew English edition of the Artscroll siddur)
One More Stab At It
Up until now, every interpretation has started with the explanation "I am thanking God for not having been made a woman who is..." the stronger sex, the better sex, the less obligated sex.
The Talmud Brachot (33b, 54a, 60b) says "a person must make a blessing over bad things, just as one makes a blessing over good things..."
Hold that thought a moment...
The fact of the matter is that there is a set blessing for both men and women. Women say "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, that He made me according to His will."
If I were to make something "according to my will," the object I would make would be the absolute best, the most perfect, without flaw and error. Everyone would look upon this and say "Wow you really put a lot of work and love into this. You wanted this to be perfect." And I would say "You're right."
In other words, this blessing sounds like women are made perfect.
As a mohel, one of the reasons I give for why women are not circumcised (aside from the obvious reason), is because God wanted man to "correct himself" in order to become "Tamim" - complete, perfect. God told Abraham when he commanded him regarding circumcision, "Walk before Me and become תמים - perfect/complete."
As a woman was never given this commandment, obviously she does not need correction, she is already complete. In other words, she is perfect. (Meaning, with all the flaws that humans have, but nonetheless - there is an element of perfection in her creation.)
So what is the man saying?
A New Hasbara
"God, you did not make me a woman. You made me something else, and there are all kinds of things that I need to do to overcome desires and to correct and improve myself. Sometimes I need commandments to help me do this. I need to pray harder and I need to work harder because spirituality and a connection to You does not come as easily as it does to a woman. This is hard. This is rough. But this is the way You made it. And so I bless You, for Your eternal wisdom. You know there need to be men on this earth as well - and so You made me - just not a female, Your vision of perfection."
I am not suggesting that being a male is a bad thing. But I am saying that whether a person is male or female, we might bless God for what we are, or for what we are not.
And if we can walk around without a chip on our shoulders, and make a conscious effort to find better hasbara, we may find that those old rabbis had a little more sense than we sometimes give them credit for.
We just have to learn to think as they did.
Shelo Asani Ishah Part II is here
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ki Tetze - Baby Birds and Their Mother
See my weekly column in the Jewish Star.
Or read it here:
Baby Birds and Their Mother
By Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of August 28, 2009 / 8 Elul 5769
Here is a contradiction for you. The Torah commands that if a person happens to come across a bird nest with a mother bird sitting with her eggs or babies, we are to send away the mother in order to take her offspring. (Devarim 22:6-7) This mitzvah is one of two mitzvot directly linked to lengthening a person’s life. It is so special, Naftali Weinberger wrote a 314-page practical guidebook on how to do it properly (Shiluach Hakan: A Practical Guide; Feldheim Publishers).
On the “Bird Watch Ireland” website, I found a page which states strongly that a bird’s nest that contains eggs or baby birds in it should be left alone (http://tinyurl.com/shiluach).
They suggest that if one comes across a bird’s nest, the nest “should be left strictly alone! Even casual observation of the nest can cause stress to the parents and young birds. Unless you have experience of caring for birds, taking a baby bird in to care may often reduce its chances of survival; the majority of hand-reared baby birds do not survive.”
The people who write this are experts in the care of birds, and are very sensitive to the fact that an untrained human touch can be detrimental to bird survival.
We, who are commanded against “Tzaar baalei chaim” – causing pain to animals (Bava Metzia 32b) — should be particularly sensitive to living animals, and even respectful with animal meats and skins when we use them for such purposes as food or to produce Torahs and tefillin.
Yet the Torah tells us (Devarim 22:6-7), “When you come across a bird’s nest with eggs or baby birds — do not take the eggs or babies while the mother is there. Send the mother away and then take the babies, in order that it be good for you and you merit long life.”
Jewish law requires the sending away of the mother bird to teach a person to be a compassionate being (Ramban). The compassion is learned from the fulfillment of a different commandment of, “Do not slaughter the parent [animal] and baby [animal] on the same day.” (Vayikra 22:28) We are not permitted to wipe out an animal family in one day, as this would be an evil characteristic, even though animals are “merely” animals. We should not become insensitive through our domination over animals.
Would it not be more compassionate to leave the baby birds alone?
In fact, this commandment is not meant to teach us to show compassion to animals, because the Mishnah in Brachot 5:3 states, “One who says ‘Your mercy is demonstrated through the treatment of the mother bird’ is to be silenced.”
I am comfortable saying I do not understand the mitzvah. Why would anyone want to take the baby birds? If they are fertilized eggs at the earliest stage of development, I understand. If they are unfertilized eggs, I understand. (If they are unfertilized, perhaps there is no mitzvah, because the bird is not a “mother.”)
But if the baby birds are developed in the egg, or if the baby bird is already born, what is the point of taking the baby bird? The egg is useless, unless you plan to feed it to your pet alligator, and for what purpose would one want a baby bird? For its meat? Because it will grow up in captivity? Because it will become a parent to more baby birds? It has no meat on it; it will most likely die on its own, rendering it neveilah (Biblically prohibited from Jewish consumption), and will be no more useful than the bug you stepped on last night.
In Weinberger’s book, he notes that according to halakha one may “make a kinyan hagbahah” on the eggs or babies (pick them up for a moment and say their yours) and then put them back – meaning you need not keep them. While this partially answers the question — what if someone chooses to keep the baby birds? What is the point if they will most probably die?
How is this cruel behavior to the babies (as compassionate as it may be to the mother, which the mishnah in Brachot has declared irrelevant) justified in the Torah?
Please don’t misinterpret this question as an animal rights protest. If there were a way that the baby birds somehow benefit humans, I would understand.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says the focus is not on the babies for a reason. “If she is occupied with her maternal functions, she is protected from harm and must be let free.” The focus is on the mother bird – not on her feelings, but on her role.
In essence, the mitzvah is symbolic, emphasizing the highly valued role of motherhood. The ability to produce and sustain life, to raise babies from their infancy until they are ready to go out into the world, must be preserved. Sparing the mother bird teaches us to value the role mothers play, even though in our human existence, we have dominion over animals.
While Rabbi Hirsch’s approach is helpful in understanding the meaning of the mitzvah, I am still unsatisfied with the treatment of the eggs or babies, if they are not returned to the tree.
Do you have a good answer?
See the follow up to this post here
All kinds of Jews
I attended a sermon seminar for rabbis at the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. About thirty rabbis, male and female, and a Reform Rabbi conducting the session - talking about this time of year, Elul, teshuva (repentance), and thoughts for improvement for the coming year.
It's amazing to meet Jews of all stripes who are passionate about what they do. Politics and party lines are irrelevant when Jews gather simply to study Torah. The truth is, that is how it should be.
One of the big ills of our day is the polarization of Jews from one another. Many years ago, I decided that if Hitler wouldn't distinguish between us - we are all 'Jews' to him - what gives us a right to look askance at others who are doing their best to live their Jewish lives the way they know best?
Ahavas Yisrael - loving other Jews - is one of the greatest assets we have and should always play up. It makes us stronger as a people and as a nation.
Should Torah be taught, studied, learned more? Absolutely.
Does every Jew need to be given a chance to grow his/her Jewish IQ? Of course.
But the way to have this happen is for every Jew, not just every rabbi, to become an emissary for our faith. We need to have discussions with all Jews about the things which bind us - our shared history, our shared religion, our shared nationality, our shared sacred writings. We need to have an open dialogue, bring texts to the table, and have a real discussion about fundamentals.
Today's instructor, for example, spent a significant amount of time quoting Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993), an Orthodox thinker and teacher. He even concluded his talk saying "We must have more inter-denominational reading." No one should be afraid of reading the works of thinkers from different movements. מכל מלמדי הסכלתי - There is knowledge to be gained from every teacher who has something to teach, and a particular skill in conveying a message.
Will we agree over the dogma of Orthodox v Conservative v Reform? No we will not.
But we have a shared history as the "people of the Book" and we have no excuse allowing us not to seek and not to study.
Any business professional who wants to stay on top of the game subscribes to magazines and journals, reads about the industry and is constantly reinventing himself/herself in order to stay relevant and to succeed. Should we not be doing this to become expert Jews? Should we not read books, articles, journals, speak with professional mentors and teachers who can answer our questions? Doesn't it behoove those of us who want Judaism to be central to our lives, to do everything we can to achieve that goal?
"You can't take it with you," the old saying goes. But you can take something with you - the good name you acquire, uphold and maintain, and that which we hope will be our defining title when we leave this earth.
What will it be? Here are a few options....
Good parent
Good spouse
Good child to his/her parents
Good boss
Good employee (hard worker)
Mentsch
Eved Hashem (servant of God)
Good Jew
Grandparent
Accountant
Lawyer
Doctor
Businessman
Honest person
Scholar
Friend
Entrepreneur
tzaddik
Yoshor (straight shooter, doesn't take shortcuts, cheat or subvert in any way)
For those who are happy with the mundane, professional titles, there is not much I can to you. Good luck, work hard, and that is how you'll be known when your time is up.
For those who are looking for the family titles, that is great. It is tremendously admirable to live your life for your family and to be known for the role you play in building that family.
But for those who seek depth in life and real meaning beyond family, there is an added element of religion which is meant to serve as a guide for how to achieve scholarship, wisdom, understanding, knowledge and all-out personal fulfillment. For Jews, the journey should start with Judaism, and it should never stop. We have so much going for us, we can fill books and books and university libraries.
Seek and ye shall find. Find and you will know. When you know, you can begin to understand. When you understand, you begin to teach others and have the process come full circle.
We have a lot to do - let's get crackin'!
It's amazing to meet Jews of all stripes who are passionate about what they do. Politics and party lines are irrelevant when Jews gather simply to study Torah. The truth is, that is how it should be.
One of the big ills of our day is the polarization of Jews from one another. Many years ago, I decided that if Hitler wouldn't distinguish between us - we are all 'Jews' to him - what gives us a right to look askance at others who are doing their best to live their Jewish lives the way they know best?
Ahavas Yisrael - loving other Jews - is one of the greatest assets we have and should always play up. It makes us stronger as a people and as a nation.
Should Torah be taught, studied, learned more? Absolutely.
Does every Jew need to be given a chance to grow his/her Jewish IQ? Of course.
But the way to have this happen is for every Jew, not just every rabbi, to become an emissary for our faith. We need to have discussions with all Jews about the things which bind us - our shared history, our shared religion, our shared nationality, our shared sacred writings. We need to have an open dialogue, bring texts to the table, and have a real discussion about fundamentals.
Today's instructor, for example, spent a significant amount of time quoting Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993), an Orthodox thinker and teacher. He even concluded his talk saying "We must have more inter-denominational reading." No one should be afraid of reading the works of thinkers from different movements. מכל מלמדי הסכלתי - There is knowledge to be gained from every teacher who has something to teach, and a particular skill in conveying a message.
Will we agree over the dogma of Orthodox v Conservative v Reform? No we will not.
But we have a shared history as the "people of the Book" and we have no excuse allowing us not to seek and not to study.
Any business professional who wants to stay on top of the game subscribes to magazines and journals, reads about the industry and is constantly reinventing himself/herself in order to stay relevant and to succeed. Should we not be doing this to become expert Jews? Should we not read books, articles, journals, speak with professional mentors and teachers who can answer our questions? Doesn't it behoove those of us who want Judaism to be central to our lives, to do everything we can to achieve that goal?
"You can't take it with you," the old saying goes. But you can take something with you - the good name you acquire, uphold and maintain, and that which we hope will be our defining title when we leave this earth.
What will it be? Here are a few options....
Good parent
Good spouse
Good child to his/her parents
Good boss
Good employee (hard worker)
Mentsch
Eved Hashem (servant of God)
Good Jew
Grandparent
Accountant
Lawyer
Doctor
Businessman
Honest person
Scholar
Friend
Entrepreneur
tzaddik
Yoshor (straight shooter, doesn't take shortcuts, cheat or subvert in any way)
For those who are happy with the mundane, professional titles, there is not much I can to you. Good luck, work hard, and that is how you'll be known when your time is up.
For those who are looking for the family titles, that is great. It is tremendously admirable to live your life for your family and to be known for the role you play in building that family.
But for those who seek depth in life and real meaning beyond family, there is an added element of religion which is meant to serve as a guide for how to achieve scholarship, wisdom, understanding, knowledge and all-out personal fulfillment. For Jews, the journey should start with Judaism, and it should never stop. We have so much going for us, we can fill books and books and university libraries.
Seek and ye shall find. Find and you will know. When you know, you can begin to understand. When you understand, you begin to teach others and have the process come full circle.
We have a lot to do - let's get crackin'!
Monday, August 24, 2009
It's Good to Be the King
Thursday night's class was hosted by one of our regular attendees - Jon G. A new host is always a welcome addition to our list of sponsors. Thanks to all who attended and continue to attend our "Beer and Shiur, + Cholent!"
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
f1. 20 He will then [also] not begin to feel superior to his brethren, and
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
Examining them more carefully in the context of the parsha, however, we see that of the three items the king may not gather in excess, horses, wives and money, only the latter is not given a specific reason directly in the text. Rabbenu Bachye says the statement categorized as "f1"(above) is the reason why he may not have too much money: to prevent him from feeling superior to his brethren - לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו.
How does a king become wealthy? Through taxation. If he is not meant to have too much money, perhaps the message to the king is one of the following:
A. If you do tax your brethren, the children of Israel, you must deliver it back to them so you do not feel superior, or have your heart flutter away from their plights.
B. You may not overtax them, because the money they have is the money they have earned. Obviously you will tax them to support the lifestyle you are entitled to live as a king, and to protect them militarily, but you may not be spendthrift with their money.
Isn't the Torah beautiful? Of the last two interpretations offered, the former suggests the monarchy of the Israelite king had to run a government with socialist economics, spreading the wealth around and making everyone equal.
The latter interpretation suggests the monarchy ran a capitalist economy, with small government and lower taxes, to boost the economy. While it gave the king wealth, he was held in check from beoming an autocrat or a pompous dictator, due to the divine limitations set on the position.
Which economic system did they employ?
I wonder...
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Taking off Our Tefillin Before Mussaf
I revisited this topic later - see here
At the Shacharis (morning) service of Rosh Chodesh, we take a seemingly out-of-place pause to take off our tefillin (see also here) before reciting the Mussaf service.
Normally, on days they are worn, the tefillin are left on until the end of the service. Why are they taken off early on a day when Mussaf is recited, such as Rosh Chodesh, and Chol Hamoed? [Most people who wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed take them off before Hallel.]
It seems there are a few reasons:
The main reason is recorded by Yosef Caro in his "Beis Yosef" (Tur O”C 25) (see also here for his biography). He says the reason for removing tefillin before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh is because it is our custom to say the kedusha prayer of “Keter yitnu l’kha” – that God will be given a crown by the angels - and it is inappropriate for us to be wearing a crown (tefillin) when talking about God's crown.
Following this line of thinking, the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserlis) says the custom to take the tefillin off before Mussaf should only apply in a synagogue where the "Keter" kedusha is recited, ie. in a Nusach Sfard minyan. [The Ashkenazic community has a different kedusha which does not mention a crown.] However, the custom to remove the tefillin has become widespread and it is the practice everywhere.
Another reason for taking off the tefillin, even when not saying the kedusha of “keter” is because the recitation of Mussaf is akin to bringing sacrificial offerings, which remind us of holiday celebrations. Once we are reciting Mussaf, the day is like a holiday and tefillin are not worn . (Taamei Haminhagim)
When are they to be taken off?
Magen Avraham (Rabbi Avraham Gombiner) (s”k 30) says they are taken off after the Torah is returned to the Ark (he is assuming it is returned after Uva L’Zion, right before Mussaf, as is done on Shabbos and Yom Tov), which rejects the opinion of the L’vush to take the tefillin off before Torah reading. Magen Avraham's reason – it is merely a custom to remove them on Rosh Chodesh before Mussaf, but by no means a halakha (law), so it should be done as late as possible in the davening - but before Mussaf is actually recited.
Mishneh Brurah (s”k 59) records two opinions as to when to remove the tefillin.
a. Since in Ashkenazic synagogues the Torah is returned to the Ark right after the Torah reading (and not after Uva L’tzion or immediately before Mussaf is recited), the custom is to wait until after the kaddish before Mussaf, and then to remove the tefillin.
b. Eliyahu Rabba suggests the tefillin be removed towards the end of Uva L’tzion, but before the kaddish is recited, so as to avoid a hefsek (break) between kaddish and Mussaf.
Shaarei Teshuva (s”k 22) has a fascinating analysis over whether one needs to remove the tefillin at all, particularly in a rushed situation where there isn’t time to take them off. One might be able to move them to the side – off-center on the head – which is considered as if you’re not wearing them. If a person already prayed and put the tefillin back on for studying purposes or the like, and a second minyan is now praying, he need not remove the tefillin during kedusha, even if he says kedusha along with the later minyan. (Orchos Chaim says to cover the tefillin so they won't be visible.) He concludes quoting the Dvar Shmuel who mentions a custom not to remove the tefillin at all during Mussaf, neither on Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamoed.
Point to Ponder
Mishneh Brurah (s”k 61) raises an interesting point. If the reason for removing the tefillin is to avoid saying “Keter” with tefillin on, then we should be removing the tefillin after the Silent Amidah in anticipation of when we’ll be saying kedusha, not before the silent Amidah. Nonetheless we remove the tefillin even for the silent Amidah. However, if a person forgot to remove the tefillin and is already praying the Mussaf Amidah, he need not pause to take off the tefillin, because taking off the tefillin for Mussaf is only a custom.
The Taz (s”k 16) quotes the Zohar (Kabbalistic work) who says wearing tefillin while saying “keter” is dangerous. There are, nonetheless, two schools of thought:
A. Those who without hesitation took the tefillin off, and
B. He mentions a “certain sage” who would not take his tefillin off for Mussaf, because it was not his custom to say “keter” in kedusha, and he justified his behavior saying he was not destroying a "minhag" because he can rely on the opinion that tefillin may remain on the person’s head.
– ps. Taamei Haminhagim concludes quoting the Zohar in Parshas Pinchas “Someone who prays Mussaf with tefillin on is worthy of death [“chayav mitah” – חייב מיתה]." I don't know what that means, but if taking off the tefillin is all I need to do to avoid such a culpability, I am happy to remove the tefillin before saying Mussaf.
At the Shacharis (morning) service of Rosh Chodesh, we take a seemingly out-of-place pause to take off our tefillin (see also here) before reciting the Mussaf service.
Normally, on days they are worn, the tefillin are left on until the end of the service. Why are they taken off early on a day when Mussaf is recited, such as Rosh Chodesh, and Chol Hamoed? [Most people who wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed take them off before Hallel.]
It seems there are a few reasons:
The main reason is recorded by Yosef Caro in his "Beis Yosef" (Tur O”C 25) (see also here for his biography). He says the reason for removing tefillin before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh is because it is our custom to say the kedusha prayer of “Keter yitnu l’kha” – that God will be given a crown by the angels - and it is inappropriate for us to be wearing a crown (tefillin) when talking about God's crown.
Following this line of thinking, the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserlis) says the custom to take the tefillin off before Mussaf should only apply in a synagogue where the "Keter" kedusha is recited, ie. in a Nusach Sfard minyan. [The Ashkenazic community has a different kedusha which does not mention a crown.] However, the custom to remove the tefillin has become widespread and it is the practice everywhere.
Another reason for taking off the tefillin, even when not saying the kedusha of “keter” is because the recitation of Mussaf is akin to bringing sacrificial offerings, which remind us of holiday celebrations. Once we are reciting Mussaf, the day is like a holiday and tefillin are not worn . (Taamei Haminhagim)
When are they to be taken off?
Magen Avraham (Rabbi Avraham Gombiner) (s”k 30) says they are taken off after the Torah is returned to the Ark (he is assuming it is returned after Uva L’Zion, right before Mussaf, as is done on Shabbos and Yom Tov), which rejects the opinion of the L’vush to take the tefillin off before Torah reading. Magen Avraham's reason – it is merely a custom to remove them on Rosh Chodesh before Mussaf, but by no means a halakha (law), so it should be done as late as possible in the davening - but before Mussaf is actually recited.
Mishneh Brurah (s”k 59) records two opinions as to when to remove the tefillin.
a. Since in Ashkenazic synagogues the Torah is returned to the Ark right after the Torah reading (and not after Uva L’tzion or immediately before Mussaf is recited), the custom is to wait until after the kaddish before Mussaf, and then to remove the tefillin.
b. Eliyahu Rabba suggests the tefillin be removed towards the end of Uva L’tzion, but before the kaddish is recited, so as to avoid a hefsek (break) between kaddish and Mussaf.
Shaarei Teshuva (s”k 22) has a fascinating analysis over whether one needs to remove the tefillin at all, particularly in a rushed situation where there isn’t time to take them off. One might be able to move them to the side – off-center on the head – which is considered as if you’re not wearing them. If a person already prayed and put the tefillin back on for studying purposes or the like, and a second minyan is now praying, he need not remove the tefillin during kedusha, even if he says kedusha along with the later minyan. (Orchos Chaim says to cover the tefillin so they won't be visible.) He concludes quoting the Dvar Shmuel who mentions a custom not to remove the tefillin at all during Mussaf, neither on Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamoed.
Point to Ponder
Mishneh Brurah (s”k 61) raises an interesting point. If the reason for removing the tefillin is to avoid saying “Keter” with tefillin on, then we should be removing the tefillin after the Silent Amidah in anticipation of when we’ll be saying kedusha, not before the silent Amidah. Nonetheless we remove the tefillin even for the silent Amidah. However, if a person forgot to remove the tefillin and is already praying the Mussaf Amidah, he need not pause to take off the tefillin, because taking off the tefillin for Mussaf is only a custom.
The Taz (s”k 16) quotes the Zohar (Kabbalistic work) who says wearing tefillin while saying “keter” is dangerous. There are, nonetheless, two schools of thought:
A. Those who without hesitation took the tefillin off, and
B. He mentions a “certain sage” who would not take his tefillin off for Mussaf, because it was not his custom to say “keter” in kedusha, and he justified his behavior saying he was not destroying a "minhag" because he can rely on the opinion that tefillin may remain on the person’s head.
– ps. Taamei Haminhagim concludes quoting the Zohar in Parshas Pinchas “Someone who prays Mussaf with tefillin on is worthy of death [“chayav mitah” – חייב מיתה]." I don't know what that means, but if taking off the tefillin is all I need to do to avoid such a culpability, I am happy to remove the tefillin before saying Mussaf.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Month of E.L.U.L.
There is very nice young man now entering high school who has gathered a group of friends - we try to learn together once a week.
As tonight is Rosh Chodesh - well, it is Rosh Chodesh, even though it is still the 30th of Av - I decided to learn with them rules surrounding the beginning of the month of Elul. So we picked the laws of this same title in the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (the one composed by Rabbi Ganzfried).
[As an aside, I've found really great resources on the internet, such as this website dedicated to the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh, when looking for links to put in this blog. The internet is incredible.]
Section 128 talks of how this time period, the forty day period from Rosh Chodesh through Yom Kippur is a time of longing and yearning - of the Jews to God, and of God for His people. It is a particularly open time for repentance, and those seeking to repent should utilize this time to do so. We compared it to the holiday season in the secular calendar, a time when people are apt to be more giving and more concerned for one another.
This time of year is a time in which God is exceedingly forgiving: He wants our repentance during this time.
The reason this time is so open for this yearning movement is because Moses spent this time period on the mountain, achieving forgiveness for the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden calf, and orchestrating the delivery of the second set of tablets.
Finally, we discussed the different acronyms which spell out E.L.U.L., which together indicate the moods of "teshuvah, tefillah, tzedakah" - repentance, prayer and righteousess (including charitable giving and behavior), which characterize where we need to focus our efforts of improvement during these times.
ואשר לא צדה והאלהים אנה לידו ושמתי לך, ראשי תבות אלול, לומר כי חדש זה, הוא עת רצון לקבל תשובה על החטאים שעשה בכל השנה. וגם רמז שגם על השגגות צריך לעשות תשובה בחדש הזה . עוד אמרו דורשי רשומות, ומל ה' אלהיך את לבבך ואת לבב זרעך, ראשי תבות אלול. וכן אני לדודי ודודי לי, ראשי תבות אלול. וכן איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים ראשי תבות אלול
May it be for a blessing.
Parsha Drama progress
I spent a portion of today calling schools in Miami Dade to offer them our Parsha Drama program. Some sounded interested. Others need a call back (I left a few messages). We'll see how this pans out.
The program was a tremendous success in Brauser Maimonides Academy this past year. We're hoping it will catch on elsewhere as well.
Here I am (as the serpent) offering an etrog (one interpretation of the forbidden fruit) to "Chava/Eve" last year.
Perversion of the Blemished Animal
Parshat Shoftim
There are many behaviors which the Torah describes as “to’evot” (abominations or perversions). Some are politically insensitive, but none of them call the people who do these behaviors abominable – the name-calling refers only to the actions.
Other than in Acharei Mot and Kedoshim, all of the to’evot appear in Moshe’s good-bye speech that is the book of Devarim – including our parsha. With an overview glance, one of the to’evot – offering a blemished animal as a sincere sacrifice (not idolatry) – seems not to fit in the category of to’evot, leaving us to wonder why it is included in such an infamous list. (Devarim 17:1)
Consider that the abominations or repulsive behaviors, from God’s perspective, can be summarized in the following categories: missionary and idolatrous activities, sins of sexuality, cheating in business, eating non-kosher animals, and utilizing witchcraft for any purpose. As bringing a korban is not, in and of itself, a problematic activity, where does an imperfect animal as an offering fit into this list? How is it repulsive to God?
Let us examine the other to’evot to see exactly why their perverse behaviors are considered repulsive to God.
In Vayikra 18 and 20, perversions of intimate relations, whether with close family relatives, same gender, or animals are all heaped into an overall category of “abomination activities.”
Devarim 7:26 categorizes idols which seem enticing as “abominations.” They are not to be brought into one’s home as a souvenir, even as spoils of war. In fact, Devarim 12:31 describes the acts of serving some of the pagan gods as abominable acts, for they include child sacrifice.
The next abomination is in Devarim 13:15 when the Torah describes a group of people who attempt to draw others away from Judaism, to seek to worship other deities or religions. Missionary behavior – to proselytize away from Judaism - particularly when undertaken by Jews, is considered abominable. (A similar episode is described in Devarim 17:4, when either an individual man or a woman is responsible for causing others to turn away from God.)
Before listing kosher animals in Devarim 14:3, the Torah says that eating non-kosher animals is an abomination.
Witchcraft, necromancy and forms of idolatry which include child sacrifice are together categorized as “to’evot” in Devarim 18:9.
A fascinating contrast exists in Devarim 22:4-7. The prohibitions against mistreating others’ animals and cross-dressing precede the statement “It is an abomination to God, whoever does these things.” Immediately afterwards, a compassionate treatment of an animal, the sending away of the mother bird, is described as one of the few commandments in the Torah which guarantee long life.
In the event a woman marries a new husband after a divorce, if her second marriage ends (divorce or his death), she may not return to her first husband, as this is repulsive to God (Devarim 24:4). [The original union could return if she did not marry anyone in the interim since their divorce.] The Seforno says the return to the original marriage after a different marriage is a to’evah because it opens the door for quickie marriages, to legitimize “experimenting” before returning to what may have been a more stable home. Marriage should be undertaken for completely honorable reasons, and spouse hopping does not fit in this rubric.
Finally, a person who makes a sculptured or cast idol is cursed in Devarim 27:15, for having carved an image which is repulsive to God.
With our list including idolatry, immoral behaviors in the realms of sexuality and business ethics, and putting non-kosher items in one’s mouth, the question of the blemished offering remains unanswered. Where does it fit in the to’evah scale?
The prophet Malachi says “When you present a blind animal… or a lame animal, is there nothing wrong? Offer it to your governor, will he be appeased? ‘Will he show you favor?’ asks the God of Hosts.” (Malachi 1:8) The questions are rhetorical, says Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak), as the foregone answer is “He will hate you and become angry at you for offering him such a miserable present.”
The Sefer HaChinukh (Mitzvah 286 – Emor) explains that a person is moved by the strength of his actions. A person won’t experience the value of the offering or sacrifice if it is a half-baked effort. A blemished animal smacks of an insincere service to God, while an unblemished, complete animal offering is indicative of a person’s devotion and dedication to his Creator.
As we enter the month of Elul and start thinking of the ways in which we must improve ourselves in anticipation of Rosh Hashana and beyond, the larger categories of to’evot are obvious behaviors to avoid.
It is the to’evah of Parshat Shoftim which is most in our hands to avoid and to improve upon. We can and must make our service to God, most notably as practiced in the synagogue, a sincere and respectful demonstration of our dedication to God.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Ladies Parsha Class - Shoftim
In our Parsha class today, we addressed three different topics: a. the commandment to listen to the teachings and rulings of the kohanim/priests and the judges, b. nuances to be found in the commandments surrounding the appointing of a king, c. what determines who goes out to war.
I. On the commandment to listen to the teachings and rulings of the leaders
Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-11 tells us that when a person is unclear of the Torah's ruling on a matter, the person should go to the place God has chosen - namely the High Court in Jerusalem, located at the Temple. Once there, when matters have been laid out before the judges, they will determine an appropriate ruling, as per their understanding of the law, based on their tremendous foundation of Torah knowledge which helped them achieve their appointment in the first place. It seems very clear from the words "You shall do according to the word they will tell you from that place that God will choose, and you should be careful to do according to the judgement that they will say to you" that this commandment only applies in a time when the Temple is standing, and the rabbinical court sits in that place.
Meaning, not in our days.
And the Sefer HaChinukh even supports this idea. (Commandment 495)
And yet.
Afterwards, at the very end of 495 and on into 496, the Sefer HaChinukh pulls out his rabbinical membership card, saying that verse 11 is what is most applicable in our days, the mitzvah to listen to the "Torah" of the teachers of each generation, based on how they understand and apply the law.
This led us into an important discussion as to who are modern day leaders? What is the difference between a community rabbi, a rosh yeshiva (head of a theological seminary), and a "gadol hador" (Torah sage)? With no real organized community, how do we determine who is the "leader" or the "teacher" that must be listened to as per this commandment?
In a world in which attitudes toward rabbis span the full gamut of possibilities, how does one keep this commandment?
For example, I know different kinds of people who have different attitudes toward rabbis, from total reverence to complete irreverence.
a. "I love the rabbi and will listen to his teachings and be inspired to act based on his instruction."
b. "I love the rabbi and I will listen to his teachings and do my best to follow his example."
c. " I like the rabbi and I will listen to him - but to a point. Let him give a nice sermon, but don't tell me how to be a better Jew."
d. "The rabbi is a nice guy, but that's where it ends."
e. "The rabbi? Feh!"
Where is the shortfall? In the rabbi, or in the people who couldn't care less?
There is a tremendous challenge that our generation and general communities face. How do we create faith in our rabbis to trust their judgement and to follow their rulings? Even more importantly, how can our generation create rabbinic leaders who have the respect of the global community? Where are the Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbachs, etc?
We had a very nice two-part discussion about a. how we determine who these judges and leaders are and b. how the Jewish community has been reinventing the wheel over the last two or three generations. It will appear in a separate post.
II. On the command to appoint a king
In the same chapter (17:14-20), the Torah describes the laws surrounding appointing a king. We decided it is one of the commandments in the Torah that are optional. In other words, there is no obligation to appoint a king, but were the need to arise, the Torah gives us instructions how to do it. Another example is divorce. Dissolving a marriage is not ideal, but when it needs to happen, the Torah gives us instructions for how to do it. (A note of irony: many people who claim to keep all the mitzvot that apply in our days have never fulfilled the "mitzvah" to divorce - and hopefully they will never have a need to do so.)
The king has three negative commandments, the first two are given reasons in the Torah: do not have too many horses [they'll bring you back to Egypt (or cause you to go back to Egypt to buy more)]; do not have too many wives [they'll cause the king to turn away from God]; do not amass too much silver and gold.
Why not too much money? Is it because "money is the root of all evil" (or the "love of money..." - but that's New Testament)?
Rabbi JH Hertz writes in his commentary that this was meant to be an internal check against Jewish kings becoming tyrannical despots.
But Rabbenu B'chaye says the reason actually is listed two verses later, when it says "So that his heart not become haughty over his brothers."
As Monica said, "It's to remind the king that he has a king above him as well - God."
And that while the king may take whatever taxes he pleases, he too has a responsibility to consider the financial state of his subjects. They are not "his people" as much as they are "his brethren" and he is to respect their earnings and take care of them as he would his own family.
III. On going to war
In Deuteronomy 20:5-8, the Torah tells us of how they would weed out those who were not ready to go to war. The one who'd built but not dedicated his home, the one who'd planted but not begun to use his vineyard, and the one who'd betrothed but not married a woman were all told to return home, lest another man come along and take all these from him in his absence, or in the case of his death. In other words, he is meant to begin to utilize these new features of his life before he lays his life on the line. Finally, the person who is afraid is sent home.
Except for the last one, this list is odd. Nowadays, those who go to war are more often people who have not yet begun life, who - other than their entire future - do not have much to lose in the case of their death. No wife, no children, no amassed fortune. Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be more advisable (once we're risking lives) to put those lives on the line, than those who have a potential of losing everything - their families, their possessions, their careers?
[Don't get me wrong - I hope no one has to go to war, but we live in a crazy world.]
Maybe it is better for those who have a need to protect something to be out there on the front lines. The best fighters are those who know exactly what stands behind them. Remember this image:
I. On the commandment to listen to the teachings and rulings of the leaders
Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-11 tells us that when a person is unclear of the Torah's ruling on a matter, the person should go to the place God has chosen - namely the High Court in Jerusalem, located at the Temple. Once there, when matters have been laid out before the judges, they will determine an appropriate ruling, as per their understanding of the law, based on their tremendous foundation of Torah knowledge which helped them achieve their appointment in the first place. It seems very clear from the words "You shall do according to the word they will tell you from that place that God will choose, and you should be careful to do according to the judgement that they will say to you" that this commandment only applies in a time when the Temple is standing, and the rabbinical court sits in that place.
Meaning, not in our days.
And the Sefer HaChinukh even supports this idea. (Commandment 495)
And yet.
Afterwards, at the very end of 495 and on into 496, the Sefer HaChinukh pulls out his rabbinical membership card, saying that verse 11 is what is most applicable in our days, the mitzvah to listen to the "Torah" of the teachers of each generation, based on how they understand and apply the law.
This led us into an important discussion as to who are modern day leaders? What is the difference between a community rabbi, a rosh yeshiva (head of a theological seminary), and a "gadol hador" (Torah sage)? With no real organized community, how do we determine who is the "leader" or the "teacher" that must be listened to as per this commandment?
In a world in which attitudes toward rabbis span the full gamut of possibilities, how does one keep this commandment?
For example, I know different kinds of people who have different attitudes toward rabbis, from total reverence to complete irreverence.
a. "I love the rabbi and will listen to his teachings and be inspired to act based on his instruction."
b. "I love the rabbi and I will listen to his teachings and do my best to follow his example."
c. " I like the rabbi and I will listen to him - but to a point. Let him give a nice sermon, but don't tell me how to be a better Jew."
d. "The rabbi is a nice guy, but that's where it ends."
e. "The rabbi? Feh!"
Where is the shortfall? In the rabbi, or in the people who couldn't care less?
There is a tremendous challenge that our generation and general communities face. How do we create faith in our rabbis to trust their judgement and to follow their rulings? Even more importantly, how can our generation create rabbinic leaders who have the respect of the global community? Where are the Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbachs, etc?
We had a very nice two-part discussion about a. how we determine who these judges and leaders are and b. how the Jewish community has been reinventing the wheel over the last two or three generations. It will appear in a separate post.
II. On the command to appoint a king
In the same chapter (17:14-20), the Torah describes the laws surrounding appointing a king. We decided it is one of the commandments in the Torah that are optional. In other words, there is no obligation to appoint a king, but were the need to arise, the Torah gives us instructions how to do it. Another example is divorce. Dissolving a marriage is not ideal, but when it needs to happen, the Torah gives us instructions for how to do it. (A note of irony: many people who claim to keep all the mitzvot that apply in our days have never fulfilled the "mitzvah" to divorce - and hopefully they will never have a need to do so.)
The king has three negative commandments, the first two are given reasons in the Torah: do not have too many horses [they'll bring you back to Egypt (or cause you to go back to Egypt to buy more)]; do not have too many wives [they'll cause the king to turn away from God]; do not amass too much silver and gold.
Why not too much money? Is it because "money is the root of all evil" (or the "love of money..." - but that's New Testament)?
Rabbi JH Hertz writes in his commentary that this was meant to be an internal check against Jewish kings becoming tyrannical despots.
But Rabbenu B'chaye says the reason actually is listed two verses later, when it says "So that his heart not become haughty over his brothers."
As Monica said, "It's to remind the king that he has a king above him as well - God."
And that while the king may take whatever taxes he pleases, he too has a responsibility to consider the financial state of his subjects. They are not "his people" as much as they are "his brethren" and he is to respect their earnings and take care of them as he would his own family.
III. On going to war
In Deuteronomy 20:5-8, the Torah tells us of how they would weed out those who were not ready to go to war. The one who'd built but not dedicated his home, the one who'd planted but not begun to use his vineyard, and the one who'd betrothed but not married a woman were all told to return home, lest another man come along and take all these from him in his absence, or in the case of his death. In other words, he is meant to begin to utilize these new features of his life before he lays his life on the line. Finally, the person who is afraid is sent home.
Except for the last one, this list is odd. Nowadays, those who go to war are more often people who have not yet begun life, who - other than their entire future - do not have much to lose in the case of their death. No wife, no children, no amassed fortune. Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be more advisable (once we're risking lives) to put those lives on the line, than those who have a potential of losing everything - their families, their possessions, their careers?
[Don't get me wrong - I hope no one has to go to war, but we live in a crazy world.]
Maybe it is better for those who have a need to protect something to be out there on the front lines. The best fighters are those who know exactly what stands behind them. Remember this image:
Having said that, perhaps another idea is that the person who is sent home can't fight simply because he has too many unfulfilled feelings gnawing at him: would I have enjoyed my new home? Would my vineyard have produced pleasant fruit? Would I have loved my wife? I wonder what it would have been like to have been a homeowner, a farmer, a husband, a dad...
So he is told to go home. To get a flavor. To begin his life. To learn about what he has to protect.
Only then will he be ready to go out to war.
Let "nation not take up sword against nation, and they will study war no more." (Isaiah 2:4)
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)