Successful REKA program

On Thursday, aka Thanksgiving, the REKA program was inaugurated at the Young Israel of Hollywood.

From the REKA flyer:

REKA (רקע) means background. As a Jew you may be aware of or familiar with various every day religious practices. But do you know how the methods of performance are informed by Jewish law, history and sociology? We invite you to empower yourself with the knowledge you need to be an "informed Jew" so you can make sensible decisions based on the facts. The classes will not present a conclusion. Rather, various approaches and differing opinions will be presented, leaving you to be the judge and jury in taking charge of your Judaism.

Our first topic was "Views on Others' Holidays" - a discussion about to what degree we may or may not participate in the celebration of American holidays, whether they come from secular sources, or even other-religion sources but have become for the most part completely secularized with no religious significance.

The main sources I used for a starting point were these two articles written by Rabbi Michael Broyde - on Thanksgiving, and on Valentines Day. (The Thanksgiving article also appeared in the RJJ Journal of Halakha and Contemporary Society, Vol XXX - without the addendum about Halloween which appears in the online version.)

We also explored the history and sociology of legal holidays through different articles and webpages accessed on the web, including howstuffworks.com and google searches on the origins of the Christmas tree and other traditions. Here, for example, is a well researched article about the history of Thanksgiving.

Rabbi Bryode summarizes his arguments about what makes or breaks a Jews permissibility to participate in a celebration created by non-Jews.

In general, Rama (YD 178:1) seems to posit that in order to permit engaging in conduct that might have pagan origins, one must show one of four things.

· The debated activity has a secular origin or value.

· The conduct the individuals engage in can be rationally explained independent of the gentile holiday or event.

· The pagan origins of are so deeply hidden that they have disappeared, and the celebrations con be attributed to some secular source or reason.

· The activities memorialized are actually consistent with the Jewish tradition.

We tried to apply the litmus test to the aforementioned holidays, with mixed results.

Holding them up to purely American dates such as Memorial Day, Labor Day, Mothers and Fathers Days, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Election Day, Presidents Day, Independence Day - particularly in that most of them are "celebrated" (much like Lag BaOmer) with outdoor activities and Barbecues, or just a day off from work, they don't present a problem of commemoration: None of them have noticeable religious origins.

In SUMMARY

It was a great inauguration of the REKA program. Hopefully we'll have even more people in attendance on the coming legal holidays, with the interesting topics we have lined up.

Lastly - as a credit to those who came, here are the last few lines of Rabbi Broyde's article on Thanksgiving:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik would reschedule shiur on Thanksgiving day, so that shiur started earlier, and ended earlier, allowing the celebration of Thanksgiving. It is important to note the Torah study was not canceled, or even curtailed. Rather, the day was rearranged to allow for a full compliment of Torah, hand in hand with the requisite "civil celebrations." That too is an important lesson in how we should mark Thanksgiving.

Torah learning must be an integral part of what we do, and how we function. Sometimes, because of the needs of the times or our duties as citizens, we undertake tasks that appear to conflict with our need to study and learn Torah. But yet we must continue to learn and study. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik did not cancel shiur on Thanksgiving. We, too, should not forget that lesson. Torah study must go on.

Dear Father In Law

This can also be read and commented on at the Jewish Star

Parshat Vayetze: Dear father-in-law

By Rabbi Avi Billet
November 27 2009/ 10 Cheshvan 5770

Before they went out of style, mother-in-law jokes were very popular. Have you ever heard of a father-in-law joke? I have not, but I suppose if anyone were to author such a joke, it would be our forefather Yaakov.

Consider this sequence of events, in chapter 29:14-28: Yaakov arrives in Charan and stays with Lavan for a month because he is a blood relative. Then Lavan tells him, “Just because you are my close relative, does it mean that you must work for me for nothing? Tell me what you want to be paid.”

While there is no indication that Yaakov was planning to freeload, it is also not clear that he was looking to work for Lavan. One can imply from Lavan’s words that, “You will work for me if you plan to stay here.” And the question becomes “for what wages?”

Due to his love for Rachel, he offers to work for seven years to marry her. 29:19 indicates this arrangement was agreeable to Lavan, who then offered room (and board?) to remain at status quo.

To think wedding plans were put on a back burner until the seven-year engagement period was up is hard to reconcile. Nonetheless, Yaakov needed to remind Lavan when it was time to live up to his end of the agreement. “The time is up. Give me my bride and let me marry her.”

The father-in-law switches the brides and agrees to make amends after a week of celebrations. Mind you, he does not simply apologize and give Rachel to Yaakov. He only allows the originally planned couple to marry in exchange for another coerced seven years of work.

One wonders how Lavan viewed his relationship with Yaakov. Did he admire and respect his son-in-law in any way, even minimally, as the father of Lavan’s grandchildren?

In 30:26, after having worked for 14 years to marry Lavan’s daughters, Yaakov respectfully requests permission to return home, along with his wives. Lavan convinces him to stay with a new “contract,” negotiated on Yaakov’s terms, and Yaakov works for an additional six years.

After fortunes turn and Yaakov feels, once again, that it is time to leave, he tells his wives of his intentions. Their response is ‘Do we then still have a portion and an inheritance in our father’s estate? Why, he treats us like strangers! He has sold us and spent the money! All the wealth that G-d has taken from our father actually belongs to us and our children. Now, whatever G-d has said to you, do it!’ (31:14-16)

And so he leaves.

Lavan discovers the flight, chases after Yaakov’s family, and a series of verbal exchanges plays out like this.

Lavan: How could you do this? You went behind my back and led my daughters away like prisoners of war! Why did you have to leave so secretly?…I would have sent you off with celebration and song, with drum and lyre! [but no money] You didn’t even let me kiss my grandsons and daughters goodbye.

Yaakov: …I thought that you might take your daughters away from me by force… By day I was consumed by the scorching heat, and at night by the frost, when sleep was snatched from my eyes. [I lived the life of a slave!] Twenty years now I have worked for you in your estate — fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for some of your flocks. You changed my wages ten times!

Lavan: The daughters are my daughters! The sons are my sons! The flocks are my flocks! All that you see is mine! But my daughters…what can I do to them today? Or to the children they have borne?

Yaakov always viewed his arrangement with Lavan as a financial one. It seems Lavan always viewed it as servitude, if not slavery. This is why he gave wives to his slave. This is why he feels the women and children belong to him. This is why the periods of service were six or seven years (see Exodus 21).

While I, thankfully, have not met too many people like Lavan, I have met sons-in-law who have felt similar to Yaakov in the way they are viewed and, in some cases, treated, by their in-laws.

If, as a parent, you trust your daughter enough to pay for (at least part of) her wedding, then the next step is to welcome the son-in-law into the family. If he ends up working for you, you can treat him nicely because he is married to your daughter, but don’t make him your slave because you provide his living. If he walks all over you and doesn’t work properly, give him severance and make his position go away.

At the same time, a son-in-law who doesn’t want to feel enslaved to his father-in-law ought to make important, thought-out decisions about how indebted you want to be to your father-in-law.

Finally, all parents who are looking to be future grandparents who have a relationship with their grandchildren ought to think about what will happen when the son-in-law gets the guts to move on with his life, cut the coattails and make a go of life independent of your input.

He wants to be married to your daughter. But he does not want to be married to you.

The author has a wonderfully healthy relationship with his in-laws.

Hakol kol Yaakov - said by Whom?

This appears in this week's Jewish Star (feel free to comment there or here!)

Redefining Ambiguities
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 20, 2009/ 3 Cheshvan 5770

One of the fun exercises I like to employ when studying Chumash is to attribute vague or ambiguous statements to the less obvious person.

Let us reread two familiar verses in Chapter 27. We’ll follow them with a series of questions to provoke the imagination.

22 Yaakov came closer to his father Yitzchak, and he touched him. He said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esav.’ 23 He did not recognize him because his hands were like Esav his brother’s — hairy — and he blessed him.

While most people will ascribe hard-set identities to the vague pronouns presented, what would the verses look like if we flipped things around? Who touched whom? Who said the words of the well-known statement describing Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands? Finally, who blessed whom before Yitzchak gave the true blessing in verses 28 and 29?

Yitzchak wanted to feel Yaakov — he said so in verse 21. But if Yitzchak is laying in a bed, as we imagine, who is making the effort to feel? Is Yaakov putting himself in position for Yitzchak to touch him, or is it Yitzchak’s action? This is a question of semantics; it doesn’t really matter.

Ramban and others say Yaakov was much less concerned about his voice being a giveaway than his hands, either because the twins sounded alike or because Yaakov could disguise his voice. Chizkuni suggests that people’s voices do not always sound the same (you could be hoarse, have a cold, wake up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.)

With this in mind, if Yitzchak describes the voice and the hands, we are left to ponder what he meant. Commentaries suggest a whole slew of ideas.

Curiosity — “It’s odd that Esav is talking this way, but whatever.”
Exasperation or confusion — Yitzchak was trying to comprehend the oxymoron in front of him, a person who speaks the way Yaakov speaks, yet who clearly fills Esav’s body.
A confirmation — Esav had arranged with Yitzchak that he would use Yaakov’s voice when he returned, just in case Yaakov tried to steal the blessings in his absence by using Esav’s voice. In this way, Yitzchak was affirming the test he was supposed to perform. (Ohev Yisrael and Beit Halevi)
A different kind of test – Yitzchak was using his senses to test the identity of the person. His taste, touch and smell all indicated Esav, while the voice indicated Yaakov. 3 out of 4 are good odds. (Toldot Yitzchak)

But what if Yaakov made the statement? As the Torah does leave it vague, the possibility — remote as it may be — remains. And if it was Yaakov, we can now ponder what he may have meant.

Patronizing — I know the voice is Yaakov’s, but look at the hands!
Clever — This is what you were expecting: Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands. (based on Beit Halevi)
Meek — The voice is Yaakov’s because I (in my role as Esav) am having “a moment.” I am feeling spiritual right now and have decided to speak in a different way.
Convincing — Don’t pay attention to voice or the things I am saying. Voice is the strength of Yaakov. But my (Esav’s) strength is the hands. And the hands prepared and brought you the food you asked for.

The vague blessing at the end of verse 23 can also have gone either way. Whether Yitzchak was giving a cursory blessing to Yaakov for having brought the food, or Yaakov was blessing Yitzchak for going along with the ruse thus far, we see two people challenged by the circumstances they’ve been put to, who relate to each other in a cautious yet respectful way.

When Rivka told Yaakov in 27:13 that any penalties would be on her shoulders, she gave Yaakov what football fans would call a “free play.” He could essentially do whatever he wanted or felt he needed to do in order to receive the blessings from his father.

If Yaakov said the “famous phrase” he teaches us how there are times we need to be our own best advocates. As long as we follow the rules laid out for us (in Yaakov’s case the rule was his mother’s instruction, “You are pretending to be Esav”), we are to make the best effort to achieve our desired outcome.

Married With Children - Sunday Morning at Temple Solel

This morning, I participated in a program for the religious school parents who brought their children to Temple Solel's Sunday morning program. Thanks to Rabbi Kurtz-Lendner for organizing the program, and of course for the introduction and for his participation.

Our topic was "Married With Children" - though we left Al Bundy and his machinations out of the equation.

Instead, our focus was on lessons to be learned from our forefathers and mothers, in the Torah portions of yesterday (Chayei Sarah) and this coming Shabbat (Toldot).

With a merging of drama and discussion, we focused on five points to be learned from the ways in which Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah raised their children.

1. Abraham makes a concerted effort to help his son find a spouse.

While most of us do not experience parental involvement in the choosing of our mate, as parents we can be involved in the process leading up to important life decisions our children make.

2. Rebekah recognizes the different nature of each child

From the time she was pregnant with her twins, she knew each one was different. Even twins can be dramatically different from each other. It is important to recognize the differences and never to assume that just because they are being raised in the same home that the same methods will work for both (or all) of them. And, of course, to relate to each child in a different way, in a way suitable to the needs of the individual child.

We compared this to the Cain and Abel story (interestingly, Esav is a farmer and Jacob is a shepherd, which are the same professions as Cain and Abel respectively). Cain and Abel each brought an offering to God: Abel's was accepted and Cain's was rejected. Abel had brought the choice of his flock, while Cain had brought secondary items.

It was not that God compared Cain's secondary offering to Abel's choice offering. Cain was compared against himself, and what he could have brought had he only cared more.

Children should never be compared to one another. They should only be measured against their own potential.

3. Isaac and Rebekah parent differently - and love their children differently

The Torah tells us that Isaac loved Esav because of the 'food he put in his mouth,' while Rebekah simply 'loved Jacob' - with no reason attached.

While a parent may "prefer" one child over another - and it also may depend on the day - it is never a good idea to express this to children. There are no favorites.

Additionally, love must be unconditional. The moment Isaac receives food from the diguised Jacob, he blesses Jacob, because he loves the bearer of food not for who he is but for what he does.

4. Isaac and Rebekah share a vision of what is best for their child

Recognizing the danger Jacob is in due to the violent tendencies of Esav (and his self-admitted plan to kill Jacob), the two parents discuss and conclude that Jacob's best bet is to go to her brother's home where he can continue his life. They know his presence will lead, minimally, to discomfort in the home, and maximally to his death. Together they come up with a plan that will work for everyone - though the amount of time he stays away (22 years) is not anticipated.

5. Subliminal Messages

One thing Esav did learn from his father is to marry at age 40. The problem is that Abraham establishd a rule for the family that the men marry women from his hometown - Charan - and not from the women of Canaan.

Esav's wives were Hittite women, and they were a tremendous source of anguish to his parents

However, when he heard that his parents did not approve of such marriages, he immediately went and married his first cousing, the daughter of Yishmael.

Sometimes a subliminal or subversive message can get the point a cross in a clearer way, such that the child gets the message without feeling the need to reject or revolt against what is being said and/or modeled in the home.

Our discussion

We had a lovely discussion between us and focused on the need to not only study, but demonstrate and explain to our children that they are not the only ones attending classes and furthering their Jewish experience and Jewish education.

This is the first ingredient in assuring Jewish continuity: creating a culture of continued learning, as we learn lessons from our ancient texts, as they speak to us in each generation.

Parsha Drama - Chayei Sarah

After Sarah's death and funeral (of which we, strangely, have no photos), Avraham tells his servant (standing) to go find a wife for his son, from the land where Avraham grew up.



We try very hard to get the instructions clear... Avraham grew up in Charan!



I (Midrash identifies me as Eliezer) arrived at a well and made a condition. If a girl at the well gives me a drink, and then, on her own decides to give water to my camels, I'll know she's kind, sensitive, caring, thoughtful, sincere, and she even likes animals! Here I am drinking the water she gave me.




And here she is filling her bucket from the well while I am explaining to everyone how much water ONE camel drinks. And she's shlepping water for TEN camels. Unbelievable!





Her brother Lavan (which means white) noticed the jewelry I gave her, and he wants to know if I have any more...


While he's pretending to hug me, he's really checking my pockets to see if I'm hiding anything.


After I proved to her family my noble intentions, even Lavan sent Rivkah off with a blessing...





When we got back to the place where Avraham lived, the first person we saw was Yitzchak. Out of awe, Rivkah fell off her camel, and then covered her face so Yitzchak could not look at her. This just proves how modest she was.

Yitzchak was a little concerned that he could not see her face, (he even wondered if she was hiding her face to hide the fact that she isn't so pretty...)


But I sure showed him! She is actually very pretty.
So they got married, and Yitzchak was finally comforted over the loss of his mother - who had died three years earlier.
Avraham continued his life, getting married to Keturah and having six more sons (aside from others he may have had with different concubines), and he lived to the ripe old age of 175. [He didn't want pictures taken from his second wedding because he didn't want photo documentation that he ever lived with a wife other than Sarah.]

Growing to Love

This appears in the Jewish Star

Parshat Chayei Sara
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 13/ 26 Cheshvan 5770

Take a careful look at Bereishit 24:67. “And Yitzchak brought Rivka to his mother’s tent. He took Rivka, she became his wife, and then he loved her, and then he was comforted over the loss of his mother.”

In modern parlance, we might say “He dated her, he married her, and then he grew to love her.”

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch points out the classic beauty of the ideal Jewish home. “The more she lived as and grew into her role of being his wife, such did his love for her grow.” This, Hirsch argues, is the fundamental ingredient to a successful Jewish marriage. (And, yes, it goes both ways!)

A Jewish home is not built on lustful thoughts and feelings; it is built upon common values and similar approaches to how to live the best Jewish life, sharing an overall gestalt that serves for a harmonious existence. This intellectual and spiritual connection strengthens love, as the couple gives themselves the chance to get to know one another.

Hirsch emphasizes the marked distinction between pre-marital “love,” and the love which comes after the commitment to one another has taken complete effect. It is that commitment which becomes the fuel that drives a person to achieve and to accomplish, and ultimately to make the home a model of respect and caring behavior.

The wedding is not the pinnacle of love. It is the root which allows love to blossom. This is the difference between the Western, romantic notion of love, and love as described in the Torah.The fact that Yitzchak, a forty-year-old man, is only comforted now, three years after his elderly mother’s death, indicates not only the tremendous connection and regard a man can have for his mother, but the tremendous role a wife can play in the life of her husband.

Quoting Onkelos, Ramban explains that the love Yitzchak felt for his wife began because of her righteousness and the straightness of her deeds — things he learned of as they were living together. Could this mean that he loved her because of the things she did? Absolutely.

The Mishnah in Avot (5:16) describes two kinds of love: love which is dependent on something, and love which is dependent on nothing. If love is dependent on something, when that is lost, the love falls apart. The other kind of love never goes away.

The example the Mishnah gives of the love which can fall apart is Amnon and Tamar, two children of King David who had a very disturbing, one-sided relationship. (Samuel II:13) The other kind of love is modeled by David and his best friend, Yonatan, the son of King Shaul. As best friends who shared a vision of how each other could shine, and how they could both become leaders of Israel, all they ever wanted for each other was the very best.

A husband and wife will often begin their marriage out of love of the first kind: egotistical, what he/she can do for me, to make my life better. This is normal. In the initial stages, love based on deeds is the healthiest type of love. How does one love others just because they are there? Love, in a sense, needs to be earned. A person has to work hard to love and to be loved, to do for someone else, to be worthy of being the recipient of someone else’s true (non-lustful) affection.

Love which comes out of infatuation, or a tingly feeling a person gets, is meaningless. It doesn’t take long for that tingly feeling to go away once the excitement becomes routine, unless the love continues to derive strength from other factors. The former and the latter sentiments can best be summarized in this distinction: the difference between “I love you because you are beautiful” and “You are beautiful because I love you.”

Yitzchak is the first person in the Torah who expresses love.

And he does so with thought, with consideration, and most importantly, with time.

Yitzchak teaches us that the ideal state of love in a marriage begins when people do things for one another. This is love which is dependent upon something.

But as the two sides grow together, and create their home in such a way that they think alike, feel alike, believe alike and have common goals, their love will no longer be dependent upon anything. Their love will last till eternity as they live out their lives as the best of friends.

Age Doesn't Matter

Or does it?

There is a lot of talk in the parsha blogosphere about the age of Rivkah at her wedding.

I wrote about it last year [original post is here, and how some people disagreed (understatement) is here (note the disclaimer they add because of the inflammatory nature of the article), and another blog which picked it up is here. And the last one - to which I was the last to comment - is here - (his layout is the same as arabbiwithoutacause... :) ]

Rabbi Marc Angel wrote about it this year over here

Lessons to be Learned Are More Important

Practically speaking it does not matter if Rivkah was three at her wedding, nor does it matter how old Yitzchak was at the Akedah, nor does it matter what caused Sarah to die at age 127.

My Chayei Sarah parsha class this year focuses on these issues.

I have found numerous sources which indicate a younger Yitzchak (most likely 13 at the akedah), and older Rivkah (more likely 14 at her wedding), and that Sarah did not die at 127 from the shock of being told by an outsider that Avraham was on top of a mountain about to kill her son.

So Why Make a Big Deal?

I think that it is more important to see that there are differences of opinion, which are all legitimate, they are typically backed by talmudic or midrashic sources, and we need to open our eyes.

Many people learned something once as a child, had it reinforced over and over without ever subjecting it to real critical-thinking analysis, and have ingrained it in their psyche so deeply that a suggestion which challenges their assumptions is not only difficult to conceive, it must be labeled heretical (!) which will automatically make it meaningless, useless, and not worthy of a response.

Sounds a little like communism, no?

A Better Flavored Palate

Bear in mind that the source for the ages of 37, 3 and Sarah's death caused by news of Akedah is because all three events take place within 8 verses of each other in the Torah - the end of Chapter 22 and the beginning of Chapter 23.

With that argument, however, let us look at the end of Chapter 16 and the beginning of Chapter 17, in which Avram is first 86, and then in the very next verse he is 99.

13 years pass in the space between sentences.

Why can't we say the same thing takes place here, a quick skip of 13 years between the Akedah and the birth of Rivkah? Another 11 years or so pass before Sarah dies... Now we are talking!

If Yitzchak is 13 at the Akedah, then the test remains all about Avraham, because the agenda was hidden from Yitzchak, he could not figure it out, and the fact that Avraham is able to overpower him is not even mentioned. Yitzchak is still a child. Were he 37, his submission would be a bigger test of faith than that of his father for doing exactly what God told him. God never told Yitzchak to sacrifice himself.

If Rivkah is 14 at the time she is propositioned for marriage to Eliezer's master, then we have no problem with her carrying tons of water for camels (approximately 300 gallons), her thoughtfulness, and her family's willingness to let her go based on her own agreement. The fact that she is called a "נערה" in the Torah (a term which usually indicates an age significantly higher than 3) is no longer misunderstood.

If Sarah did not die because of the shock of the Akedah, we can reconcile why she and Avraham seem to be living in different places at the time of her death, we can understand a little better why Yitzchak is still mourning for his mother by the time Rivkah arrives (despite the fact that some midrashim suggest he went away after the at-age-37-akedah and might not have even known about his mother's death until he brought Rivkah into Sarah's tent), and we also remove from the Torah an example of someone who dies from shock.

Any person who dies in the Torah is either murdered, punished, or dies of natural causes such as old age (or to protect them from bad things that may happen). We never find an incident where "shock" causes someone's soul to exit the body.

While the incident of the Akedah may have been shocking, there are many midrashim which indicate Sarah actually met Yitzchak afterwards (meaning, hearing the news of her husband on top of the mountain with a knife in his hand did not kill her).

Other midrashim suggest she lost (depending on how you count how long she should have lived), either 38, 43 or 48 years of her life over the way she treated her husband when Hagar first became pregnant. If this is the case, her death at 127 has nothing to do with the Akedah, no matter how you slice it.

Bottom Line

Let us open our eyes to new ideas, let us learn lessons from whichever age you prefer, but to decide what is the simple meaning and explanation without fully exploring the breadth of Torah to find other approaches... Not just intellectually deceiving (to yourself), but the ultimate disservice to your growth as an educated Jew.

Shalom Zachar: Sources, Reasons, and Cute "Khaps"

There is a custom that on the first Friday night after a boy is born, his family hosts a party celebrating his arrival. This party is called the “Shalom Zachar,” שלום זכר – which can be translated any number of ways, most likely “Greetings, male child.”

In honor of the birth of our son, this class was prepared for and shared at his Shalom Zachar celebration. I present it here with the name of the source and what is presented in the work cited:

Why is it called Shalom Zachar?

Torat Emet – Through one method of gematria (Jewish numerology/’geometry’), the words Shalom Zachar equal the same amount as the word Bris, for which the Shalom Zachar is a pre-cursor.

Shalom = 376 :: Zachar = 227 :: add 7 (letters) + 2 (words) = 612
ש = 300, ל = 30, ו = 6, ם = 40
ז = 7, כ = 20, ר = 200

ברית
ב– 2, ר– 200, י– 10, ת– 400
altogether 612

Talmud Niddah 31b - כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם – When a male זכר comes to the world, peace (שלום) comes to the world (He brings cause for celebratory parties, including one which takes place on the Sabbath, which is a day of peace)

Matamim (A book which describes the reasons for customs) – זכר equals the words ז' כר – 7 gifts God sends to those who have a male child. Milah, Pidyon Haben, teaching him “Torah Zivah Lanu,” teaching him to read, wearing tefillin, teaching a profession, marrying him off. We celebrate a “shalom zachar” because of the things which come with the arrival of a male child.

Why We Come to Greet the Baby

Matamim – As per the Moses story in Exodus 4, the one who is to be circumcised is called a groom. From elsewhere, we know a groom is compared to a king. The words לבד מאשר יושיט לו המלך refer to the treatment of a king [it appears in the context of whom may visit Achashveirosh, the king in the Esther story]. The beginnings of those words, their acronym, spells מילה, circumcision. Just as everyone comes to greet the king; and just as everyone comes to greet the groom on the shabbos before his wedding, so do we visit the ‘blood groom’ on the shabbos before his bris

Bris Avos – It seems to me, the reason we visit the baby is because when a guest comes to town, people come to greet and visit him on Shabbos. This is particularly so if he is a famous Tzaddik. And the baby is considered a Tzaddik, as the Magen Avraham writes…

Magen Avraham - And I saw one cantor who [, on the Sabbath, when praying for the ill is generally downplayed,] was accustomed to blessing those who had difficulty having babies [during labor?]. This is permitted according to everyone, because the baby is a Tzaddik, and he can bend the merits of the world.


Why We Have a Shalom Zachar (and why it’s Friday night)

Talmud Bava Kama 80a - Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi went to the house of the “Shavua haben” (week of the son), and some say it was the “house of Yeshua Haben” – where the son was saved.

[Rashi says this refers to a Pidyon Haben, others say it refers to the bris, based on “week of…”]

Tosfot there - Rabbenu Tam believes it refers to when the son is born. Since he was saved from inside his mother, the language of “saved” is used – there was a custom to prepare a feast/meal, [before any meal celebrating the bris.]

Terumat Hadeshen – Even though it is explained in the name of Rabbenu Chananel that there was a custom to prepare a meal when a boy was born, because he’d been saved, this is not a disagreement with Rashi who says the Gemara refers to the pidyon haben meal. One of the sages proved from there that [the shalom zachar] is, according to Rashi, a seudas mitzvah (meal celebrating the fulfillment of a commandment), based on the idea that Rav attended the event (normally he only attended those kinds of meals, and not plain meals)… That it is our custom to enter the home to taste something at night – this is a fulfillment of a seudas mitzvah, and the reason why it is done Friday night is because everyone is home.

Midrash Vayikra Rabba 27:10 – … [A newborn animal that is to serve as a sacrificial offering is to stay] with its mother for 7 days… There is a parable to a king who entered a country saying “Anyone who wants to see me will not be allowed to until after you are approved by the matron.” In other words, an animal may not be brought as an offering until it has lived a shabbos, and the bris cannot take place until the baby has lived a shabbos.

Matamim – It is called Shalom Zachar because bris milah is the first closeness to holiness that a Jewish soul can attain through the removal of the foreskin, which is a cover for the holy crown which can otherwise not be revealed… he should experience one Sabbath before the bris, because it is the strength of the holiness of shabbos through which all activities of the week are filtered. Anticipation of excising the foreskin helps sanctify the previous shabbos, when we celebrate the Shalom Zachar.

Other Suggestions and Meanings of the words “Shalom Zachar”


Biras Migdal Oz of Rabbi Yakov Emden - 1. Eat fruits and sweets (no need for tons of food), 2. during the 1^st week of life (as per BK 80a above), 3. It is called the “Meal of זכר”, 4. זכר means “remember” – we come to visit him for forgetting all he learned in the womb (see below Nidah 30b) [we come on Shabbos because of זכור – “Remember the Sabbath”], 5. Shabbos is the first mitzvah he fulfills, 6. We also “remind” (להזכיר) him of his promise (שבוע) [Another interpretation of שבוע הבן – the “swear of the son”], 7. Why not a similar party for girls? Males have more commandments…, 8. Females are sworn in through their destined spouses

Mourning

Niddah 30b – One of the most inspiring and moving passages in the Talmud, the baby’s experience in utero is described in great detail, how it is the most peaceful and blissful experience of a person’s life, how Job and others yearned to return to the womb, how a baby has a light over his head and vision to see from one end of the world to the other, how the baby is taught all of the Torah, and how it all comes to an end when the child emerges and an angel taps his mouth causing him to forget all that he has learned.

[Some say this is one of the reasons a baby cries when s/he is born. Others say this is a challenge for every baby to spend the rest of life trying to rediscover and relearn all the things forgotten at birth.

Because of this, another reason for visiting the baby is because he is mourning over the Torah knowledge he lost.

Mishnah Avot 4:22 – Reminds us that we are created, born and live against our will. All of which may be cause enough to mourn.

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 – The dead are better off than the living, and better off than both of them are those who had not yet been born

Shefa Chaim – There is a custom to serve chick peas at a Shalom Zachar because they are considered a food of mourners (all round foods are considered such), and a source for this idea [reminiscent of the simanim/symbolic foods we eat on Rosh Hashana] is the verse הרבה ארבה את זרעך (Genesis 22:17). If you read that quickly, with a Yiddish pronunciation, you say Harbah Arbes Zar’ekha – which means “Have lots of chick peas with your children.”

Why No Similar Party for Girls?

Dagul Mervava – asks a very legitimate question: With the exception of one or two things related to bris, every reasons for the Shalom Zachar should apply to the arrival of a girl and there should be a similar party celebrating her first Shabbos.

Kings I 8:66 – On the eighth day he dismissed the people, and they blessed the King and went to their homes, rejoicing and delighted of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had wrought for David His servant and for His people.

Talmud Moed Katan 9a – To their homes [tents] – they went home and found their wives in a state of tahara. The rejoiced – because they merited from the divine presence. Delighted of heart – each of their wives became pregnant with a male child…


Talmud Bava Batra 16b – A daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon and he was disappointed [because he had hoped to fulfill the commandment of Pidyon Haben on the first-born boy]. His father said, “Propagation has come to the world.” Bar Kapara said to him “Your father gave you worthless comfort,” as we are taught in a Braita, “The world cannot exist without males and females – but praised is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females [because he will worry much more about his daughters than about his sons]”

Concluding Thought

Chavot Yair 70 – Suggests a different reason for the party is a celebration of thanks that the mother of the baby survived childbirth. He continues with a debate over what constitutes a סעודת מצוה – a meal hosted in celebration of the fulfillment of a mitzvah, v just a celebratory meal.

The conclusion we arrived at is that no matter what the Shalom Zachar is, it should consist of more discussions of Torah thoughts, and shared divrei Torah. It is very nice that the rabbi comes and speaks. But the rabbi should not be the only one who shares a serious word, thought out idea to provoke thought and to stimulate conversation.

Relatives and friends should be encouraged to participate, to help the celebration of the baby’s arrival, the mother’s being saved, the anticipation of baby’s bris, rise from a party to a sanctification of God’s name.

Lot's Daughters

This article appears in this week's Jewish Star

Parsha: What happens when we assume

Parshat Vayera

By Rabbi Avi Billet

Issue of November 6, 2009/ 19 Cheshvan 5770

I always thought the story of Lot’s daughters was not taught in grade school because the material is inappropriate for children.

Reading it again, the initial sentiment still holds true. But an even bigger problem exists: the story makes no logical sense. Zero.

Consider: two daughters escape the Armageddon of their time. According to Rashi (19:31) they thought the world had been destroyed and that they and their father were the only survivors.

Considering his age and that there seem to be no other men, they take matters into their own hands, quickly become pregnant through him and give birth to Moav and Ammon — the fathers of two nations who were so devastating to our people.

It would seem that because of his age they were concerned he would not father another child. So what? If they believed they were the only survivors in the world, their father’s inability to marry and have another child is irrelevant. Even if he could, the son their father might have would be their brother, making a future marriage to him impossible according to most rules of the world.

If they were right in assuming there were no other men in the world to whom they could be married, and that their father was the only option, their focus on his age indicates the necessity for expedience. But what was their long-term plan?

They both had boys. Were they planning to continue to reproduce with their offspring, assuming Daddy would kick the bucket before their children were old enough to become fathers? And what would they have done had they both had girls?

Ramban writes (19:32) that they hoped one would have a girl and the other would have a boy. This is sincere, almost admirable. What lovely intentions. Did they consider alternative possibilities should they not produce their desired gender outcome?

More likely they weren’t really thinking of different permutations. Considering the relationship that existed between Lot and these two daughters, along with the family history of living in Sodom, there were bigger problems than “what will happen to the children born from Daddy?”

Lot offered his daughters to a mob in Sodom in exchange for protecting his mysterious guests. Between them, there seems to have been no love lost over the demise of Lot’s wife. The city of Sodom seems to have been a breeding ground of sexual immorality in which about everything “went.” This is the background for our strange tale.

To their intellectual credit, the girls were pretty sure that in a sober state their father would never go along with their plan. Perhaps that is to Lot’s credit as well.

On the other hand, the Talmud (Nazir 23a) explains that the word “u’v’kumah” (“and when she arose”) — which appears in the context of Lot not knowing of his elders daughter’s deed neither when she went to sleep nor when she woke up — appears in the Torah with dots to indicate that he actually did discover her deed when she woke up. As such, he was at fault when he allowed them to get him drunk the following night, now having full understanding of their intentions.

Ramban records two points of note: a Talmudic opinion that a Noahide is permitted to marry his daughter (Sanhedrin 58b), and a Talmudic defense of Lot (Nazir 23).

But if the midrash is correct that the daughters of Lot felt the destruction was as devastating as the flood (Bereishit Rabba 51:8), making it their duty to repopulate the world, why did they not wait for Divine instruction? If they felt they had been chosen, and they modeled their story on that of Noach, wouldn’t they expect directions from G-d?

How Adam and Chava populated the world beginning with two sons is a topic of one discussion. That Noach had three married sons who could procreate after the flood is a different discussion.

Whether one looks at their intentions as honorable or otherwise, the outcome of their actions produced Ammon and Moav.

As much as we can, we are meant to seek Divine guidance through the Torah and the mesorah (heritage) available to us. When there is no guidance, or the script is not written, what do we do to move on with our lives?

Sometimes we need to do a lot of legwork to find an answer. Sometimes it requires leaving the cave, finding the right person who can help and guide us along the way. And sometimes it means really exploring to see if our assumptions were correct, or if the difficulty in our life was really limited to a small time and place, making it, in the scheme of things, much less of a big deal than we originally thought.

But if we jump to our own conclusions, even if we’re not literally guilty of bringing an Ammon and Moav into this world, we are at least guilty of the same kinds of behavior that lead to a devastation of our people.

An Important Issue - Quick Marriages and Divorces

Last week an article I wrote about what I call the "post-shidduch crisis" appeared in The Jewish Star. It made its way to the vosizneias.com, where it created a bit of a splash.

It made it to Gil Student's hit list on his blog - hirhurim.blogspot.com - one of the Thursday links.

Here is the article - please feel free to comment below...

Opinion: The Post-Shidduch Crisis

By Rabbi Avi Billet

Issue of October 30th/ 12 Cheshvan 5770

Our community has a lot to say about the “shidduch crisis.” First, we blame the singles themselves. Why can’t young people date like we did? Why can’t they meet people in normal ways? Why can’t they have social functions like we had? Why can’t they get over their hang-ups of dating one person at a time? Why do they have to be so picky? Maybe they don’t really want to get married, because if they did, they would.

Then we blame their teachers. Why don’t the rebbeim do something about it? Why do they teach the boys that girls are taboo until it’s time to get married? Why are girls prohibited from talking to boys because of a stigma?

Then we blame halacha (Jewish law). It’s because they can’t be normal teenagers or adults – they don’t hold hands (plenty do anyway — that’s for a different discussion). What’s the big deal about a casual hug or impersonal kiss? Modesty shmodesty — they’re going to share a bedroom once they’re married, so why the need to dress modestly now?

Then we blame the culture we’ve created. Ridiculous background checks that put FBI and El-Al security to shame. Measuring tapes to check lengths of skirts, sleeves, and hat-brims. How classy are the “mechutanim”? (What does any of this have to do with whether the dating couple will honor, respect and care for each other in what will hopefully be a long marriage?)

It’s been said before that people get more excited about, and put way more hours into, preparing what will be a five-hour wedding than what should be, in good health, a fifty-plus years marriage.

Which leads to a newer, more serious crisis: the post-shidduch “very short marriage” crisis.

One of my professors in Yeshiva University would quip that college students got engaged so they could tell their friends “I’m engaged.” He’d say, “You people don’t know anything about love and romance. And you’re all too young to get married.”

Based only on informal polling, I would bet most people would probably prefer to experience or witness a broken engagement than a divorce. One of the last statements in Tractate Gittin (90b) is Rabbi Elazar’s comment that when a divorce takes place, even the mizbeach (altar) sheds tears.

At one point a couple of years ago, I personally knew of five marriages and divorces between the same couples that had taken place over a period of ten months. It is sad to think that all the joy, optimism and hope that took place at the wedding resulted in misunderstandings, disrespect (in some cases), and shattered dreams.

Unquestionably, men and women go into marriages with different expectations. Men and women have different needs spiritually, emotionally, and physically. They each bring different strengths to a marriage. But they each need to know in advance that not only is the marriage a partnership, but it is also a team. Sometimes you need to sacrifice yourself so the other person can shine. But the sacrifice helps the team win.

What is lost in communication pre-marriage? In all the hours dating and talking and sharing dreams, what is missed? How does the “love love love” feeling drastically switch (in such a short time) to “divorce”? Could it be we are not teaching ourselves that problems can come up and we need to deal with them? Could it be our eyes are so glazed over at the thought and process of preparing for that walk down the aisle we forget that five hours after the procession there’s a life to live together? And we need to prepare for that?

In America, it’s been said that “Marriage as an institution is a failure.” (To a similar statement, Groucho Marx said “And who wants to live in an institution?”) But it doesn’t have to be. It can be stressful, at times, and it requires work all the time. And that is why the married couple is a team. When a team works together and communicates, they can succeed. If each player is only worried about his or her own stats, the team has no chance.

Communication is hard at first. How does one give up being single, independent, making your own decisions, and replace that with having to think of another person? How does one communicate intimate, private thoughts about very personal dilemmas that one has never shared with anyone before? It sometimes takes time to really get to know and trust one’s spouse.

People who have never lived together do not really know each other until they have lived together for some time. I heard a great speaker talk about love and marriage and he declared, “Knowing what I know about love now [after 25 years of marriage] I would venture to say I did not love my wife when we got married.” But they grew together and built a wonderful marriage together.

There are a number of very traumatic events in a person’s life that can have a negative impact on one’s psyche and lead to symptoms of depression. They include: getting married, birth of a baby, moving, starting a new job, getting fired, divorcing, death of a close loved one. Marriage and moving usually take place at the same time, and if the wife or husband is from “out of town,” the move can be even more traumatic. The two people need to be there for each other, to trust each other, to share with each other, validate feelings, work together, see a marriage counselor if necessary, and work through kinks. The first few miles of any new road can be bumpy, but that doesn’t mean it’s an altogether bad road.

This is not to say that mistakes don’t happen. Some things creep up and come out in a way a person might never know until a man and woman share a roof. In some cases, there can be no reparation and the two parties will really have a miserable marriage if they stay together. This is why the Torah describes a method of divorce, why an entire tractate of the Talmud is dedicated to the topic, and why a complete section of the Shulchan Arukh is devoted to interpersonal relationships between men and women in the context of marriage and divorce. It is certainly hard to know the future. But divorce after a four-month marriage shouldn’t always be the answer to what seem to be, after such a short time, irreconcilable differences.

The mizbeach would like to stop crying.