Vayelekh

 In preparing for the High Holidays (sermons which are a little too long to share here), I did not have the time to write a new thought for Vayelekh.

Last year's is relevant though as there is a debate as to when Hakhel would be observed.

https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-book-of-devarim-hakhel-and-teshuva.html

Being Bound to an Eternal Covenant

Parshat Nitzavim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Nitzavim begins with what is in effect a “swearing in” of the Israelites for all time. “It’s not with you alone that I am making this covenant… For it is with those who are with us today, and those who are not with us today.” (29:13-14) Most interpret “those who are not with us today” as referring to future generations. A question posed in Abravanel’s generation asked simply, what gave them the right to take an oath for all future generations not yet born? 

He presents an example to which we can probably relate. Imagine a person who takes a loan, whose heirs are responsible for the loan after the person passes away. They inherit his assets, but they also have to pay his debts. 

Being taken out of Egypt assumed a debt to God in body, and through giving the Torah at Sinai, God had a claim on the souls of Bnei Yisrael as well. Finally, the gift of the land was associated with many conditions, as well as an understanding that the land was not granted to Israel on account of their strength, but more as a pledge and loan contingent on observance of the laws of the Torah in the land. 

Later generations are included, therefore, because their existence in the land is contingent on the continuation of their part of the oath taken at this point in time. If they want out of the oath, then the land is no longer available to them. 

 Malbim makes three points that are worthy of consideration: 

1. The undertaking of this oath was made for the souls of the future generations. Even though an oath was taken by those in body, since all the souls of the Jewish people were present at Sinai, the oath was taken by all. The ancestors have the potential of their descendants in them, much as the seed of a tree which has all of its potential in it. 

 2. Ancestors can not take an obligation upon their descendants, but they can take a positive step towards benefiting their descendants. Taking the oath of mitzvos can be viewed as a merit which would benefit future generations. 

 3. God does not need the agreement of His creations in order to obligate them. God wants them to have the merit that comes from voluntarily taking the obligations of the covenant. 

 Presumably, in this third point, the oath is a minder that a person ought to consider the greater picture of what constitutes our history, and what drives the fate and destiny of our people. 

 It is a daunting challenge to consider where we are in the scheme of history – I refer not as much to world history but to Jewish history – and how all the ups and downs, trials and travails, successes and failures, commonwealths and genocides, Temples and destructions all brought us to where we are today. And where are we? 

We live in a time of rampant assimilation. While tolerance is the State policy in many nations, anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world. We enjoy a fair amount of success, but there are many religious Jews who cannot afford a religious life, and who often live in debt just to figure out school tuition, how to put food on the table, the latter being especially true in parts of Israel where reaching just above the poverty line is a pipe dream for too many people. We are a giving people, but is it possible to give to everybody? 

 hile violence is far less pervasive in our religious Jewish communities, our values are often shaped by the culture around us. Our divorce rates, dropouts from religious life rates, and submission to secular values rates are not very different from other religious communities, and in some ways reflect the general secular society who don’t include God in any aspect of their lives. 

 Many of us read far more newspapers and magazines than Torah articles, watch far more television than listen to or watch Torah lectures, and are more consistently not attending daily services, though many do make a special effort for Shabbos and for Yom Tov. 

The covenant was given to us as a binding oath, should we want it, and if we accepted it, then it is our task to fulfill it as best as possible. 

 Do we take upon ourselves the debts of our ancestors? Within a reasonable timeframe, we ought to. As far as the oath or debt of Torah goes, it is the defining factor which distinguishes us from our fellow man, for time immemorial. If that distinction is worth anything, then we need not ask “Why were we included?” Instead we ought to be grateful that God chose us and wanted us to be part of an eternal covenant that we believe is still carrying us to this day.

No - You Can't Lead the Davening

Or - Having a Yarzeit Doesn't Give You Rights

Or - You Really Need to Be Merutzeh La'Kahal

Or - You Might Think You're Pavaratti But the Rest of Us Are In Pain

Or - When It's Time To Hang Up the Boxing Gloves

In discussing with other Rabbinic colleagues, I have found that a relatively common problem in many shuls is how to tell someone he can no longer serve as Shaliach Tzibbur on Shabbos or holidays?

No Dilemma

There are circumstances in which everyone understands. If the individual in question is a blatant sinner such as he cheats on his wife, he has been convicted of a crime (after he has served his time is a different question, particularly if he has done Teshuvah and is no longer engaging in that activity), or if he has a nasty personality that no one wants to serve as their representative, there is not much explaining necessary.

Defining the Problem

More often, the objection that comes up is that the person, while a fine person with good middos, can't carry a tune, or doesn't know the proper nusach, or makes many mistakes in ivrah (pronunciation of Hebrew, including making basic mistakes when decoding vowels and consonants). And yet the person wants to lead the davening - sometimes just any given day, and sometimes for a yarzeit (anniversary of death). And even for the yarzeit, some people have come to a conclusion that they have an obligation to lead the davening. Never mind that no such "obligation" exists - though proper yarzeit observances will be addressed later! And certainly there is no requirement of the tzibbur to grant such a request, and no obligation to succumb to such a demand, simply because someone is observing a yarzeit. 

Yarzeit is not "An Exception"

And just to be clear, in either case, halakha does not grant any credence to anyone's yarzeit observance "synagogue obligations" except when observing a yarzeit for a parent. Not for a brother or sister, not for a deceased wife, not even for the observance of the yarzeit of a son or daughter. A shul may give an aliyah, and may offer the person to lead the davening, if there is no one else who a. has a higher level of "chiyuv" and b. the person is otherwise me'rutzeh la'kahal. Everyone (at least in most Ashkenazic shuls) is welcome to say Kaddish! But that is personal, and does not put any burden on the congregation. (We'll see at the end that all yarzeit observances are personal and are not obligated upon the tzibbur to suffer through if the person observing the yarzeit is not desired by the congregation) 

Nothing Personal! Accepting Reality...

In other words, denying someone the "right" to lead the davening is not personal. But it is a very serious k'vod HaTzibbur issue in that the Tefillah experience in the hands of someone with negative skills (as defined above in "Defining the Problem," but also addressed below in "Halakha's Criteria" and "Other Factors?"), as a result, ranges from being unpleasant to painful to unbearable to the congregation. And the only person who doesn't realize it is this person who, for whatever reasons, really really wants to lead the davening. Perhaps the person's motivation is slightly ego-driven. Or perhaps the person is completely unaware. And to be fair, there are some people who may have once-upon-a-time led the davening nicely, but as the years go on, the person's hearing is different, the person's range changes, and the person's abilities of yesteryear are simply not what they were. Not only are they not what they were, but they are no longer even in the category of "pareve" or "nothing special" but they are a turn-off to the congregation.

Where Halakha Comes Into the Discussion

There are a few halakhic terms which come into play at this point.

1. Is the person me'rutzeh la'kahal? [Desired by and acceptable to the congregation]  [Once again I note that this is not personal. The person may be a very fine person - it is the so-called skills of the individual which are not desired!]

2. Does the person's performance fulfill the concept of kavod ha'tzibbur? [Does it bring honor to the congregation and the Tefillah experience of all present?]

3. Does the prayer experience become a tircha d'tzibbura? [Is it an unfair experience to subject the congregation to have to hear and sit through, especially when painfully drawn out?]

And perhaps most importantly....

4. Is giving this person the opportunity to lead the davening a violation of lifnei iver lo si-ten mikhshol (Vayikra 19:14), not to put a stumbling block before the blind, putting the congregation in a position of inevitably speaking Lashon Hora about the shaliach tzibbur?

THIS (#4) IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE AT PLAY HERE, THAT A PERSON IN DENIAL IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF - YOU ARE SETTING EVERYONE UP FOR FAILURE.

In Halakha there are (at least) two discussions surrounding criteria of who can lead the davening. One is for during the week (and in general) and one is specific for the High Holidays. This information can be found in the Shulchan Arukh OC 53, and OC 581:1 (Rama's comments + commentary there). We will confine our remarks here to the former source and commentaries.

Weekdays Are Usually Not a Problem

Most issues I have heard raised are about Shabbos and Yom Tov. The weekday "tune" varies, and it is hard to be "off-key," especially when simply reading or chanting. Also, no one is looking to stretch out the davening or give an unwanted "concert" during the week, so most shuls will have far less of a problem - if any - with someone leading the davening during the week, who might be the subject of this discussion for Shabbos or Yom Tov (unless it is a day when we recite Hallel or Mussaf - such as Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Chol HaMoed).

Halakha's Criteria

Some of the criteria are impossible to insist upon, such as that the person be one who hardly sins, or who never had a negative reputation even in his youth. But in 53:4, he should:

1. be humble

2. be desired by the congregation

3. have a pleasantness about him

4. have a pleasant voice 

5. be a person who reads from Tana"kh regularly (in other words, skilled at reading Hebrew fluently)

6. If it is impossible to find someone with the above qualifications, the person who is wisest and has the best reputation of doing good-deeds is preferred.

In 53:10 it says:

The emissary who lengthens his tefillah so the people can hear what a lovely voice he has... if he's doing this because he has joy in his heart and is giving thanks to God with pleasantness, he should be blessed, as long as he leads the prayers with humilty, and stands before the Almighty with awe and trepidation. BUT if he is doing it to show off, and he rejoices in his own voice, this is viewed as being negative behavior, undesirable, especially when his lengthening the davening causes tircha d'tzibura (a burden on the congregation)

The Mishneh Berurah notes that while a "blemished" person who is known to the congregation is not  considered blemished, a fine quality is someone who is לב נשבר ונדכה - in other words, someone who is humble and emotionally a good fit for the congregation. This might not be easily findable nowadays since, unfortunately, many people are jaded and don't demonstrate such emotion, but the other criteria of having a pleasantness PLUS a pleasant voice is often enough readily found.

Someone who is a ba'al machlokes (someone who has a very disagreeable character) is not worthy to represent the Tzibbur. This is not to say that people can never have disputes - but they need to be resolved so a person can represent ALL members of the congregation. 

Mishneh Berurah 53:38 quotes Teshuvas R'i B'rona that someone whose voice has become ruined and sounds "off" is pasul - disqualified from leading the davening. 

Other Factors?

The person should not be arrogant, nor pushy about leading the davening. Anyone who pushes to lead is actually NOT supposed to lead. The only person who is to go up to lead davening without being asked is a hired/employed Chazzan. Otherwise there is to be an appointment regimen in every shul. And this applies to any aspect of leading davening, or reading the Torah or the Haftorah. And really, the key criteria that should be employed is “will those in the Tzibbur have a pleasant experience, or will they talk badly about the person who led the davening?”

To give a simple example of discernible criteria: There are some people who do not have the nicest voice, but they can carry a tune, can pick pleasant melodies that engage the tzibbur, and can sing on-key. This is FAR MORE DESIRABLE than someone who believes he has a nice voice (but doesn't!), believes he can carry a tune (but he is tone deaf!) and believes he is on-key (when he is way off-key!).

Knowing Our Abilities and Knowing Our Present Reality

Some people know very well that they are a decent "go-to guy" for weekday davening. Or their skill for Shabbos or Yom Tov is limited to leading for Pesukei D'Zimrah. And they are more than content with that. And they are even content with never leading the davening at all.

That is also a mark of humility - having the attitude that "I am available if you ever need me, but I am perfectly fine with never being asked, and with never being the Shaliach Tzibbur." Such an attitude puts no pressure on the gabbai or the tzibbur, and lets everyone know where you stand, if you truly are OK with that.

We have to know our abilities and we have to present well, because if we are opting to be a Shaliach Tzibbur we can’t afford to be an embarrassment to the Tzibbur, or to ourselves. As noted above, there are some people who may have once-upon-a-time been worthy candidates for leading davening based on their abilities years or decades ago, but now those skills have deteriorated.

A Great Measure of Self Awareness

I heard a great line in the name of Cantor Moshe Shulhof: “When you open your mouth and a nice sound comes out, don’t ever think it’s you. God gave you a voice and one day God will take it back.” The Blessing is KNOWING WHEN GOD HAS TAKEN IT BACK, and therefore when to retire those boxing gloves, and just taking a seat on the sideline as a member of the Tzibbur.

The Haftorah - Also Requires Abilities

Some people believe that they honor their deceased parent through reading the Haftorah. Maybe... Maybe, if you read without errors, if you know the trop (cantillation), if you don't stretch what could be a 4-minute reading into a painful 10-minute reading. But if you misread words, skip a number of the cantillations, or don't know the trop all that well, there is no honor given to anyone: not to a parent, not to the tzibbur, and not to you, the person reading. 

Wrong Attitude v Right Attitude

I’ve heard it argued, “I have to honor my deceased parent through davening for the Amud.”

I've also heard, “It is more kavodik to my father to not fight than to insist on davening, make a big deal, or to carry a grudge.” 

Obviously the latter attitude is more humble. And particularly if the former attitude is accompanied by a davening that is not respectful to the tzibbur because the person either doesn't have the right skills or has waned-skills which are no longer adequate for the congregation, then the former attitude is entirely wrong. 

Why Yarzeit is Not an Exception - A Mini-Essay to Conclude

In Halakha, a yarzeit is considered to be a day of difficulty for the Neshama – which is why the person observing the yarzeit needs to do whatever the person can do to bring a merit to the Neshama, to the soul of the deceased. Our tradition lists a number of practices, some are infrequently observed. All of them are very personal, as they are meant to impact the life of the person observing the yarzeit, and no one else.  The Chelkas Yaakov, Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov Breisch of Switzerland, listed a number of these in his teshuva in YD 233

1.      Fasting

2.      Doing Teshuvah

3.      Making a siyum on a Masechet

4.      Learning Mishnayos

5.      Saying Kaddish

Most of the halakhic sources that discuss this speak of getting an Aliyah, of reading the maftir – which presumably includes the Haftorah (though this is not necessarily clear - the Maftir is usually 3-5 Pesukim versus the Haftorah which is typically 21 or more!), and of leading the davening for Maariv on Saturday night, because it is a segulah for the neshama, because on Saturday night, souls who are unworthy, who don’t have people building merits for them, return to Gehinnom at that time. Shabbos is a day when the soul rests from whatever negative experiences it may be undergoing. So Saturday night is a good opportunity to build merits for the soul. 

 Everything else – and this can be seen in a lengthy comment of the Rama on YD siman 376:4 – focuses on the recitation of Kaddish. Who says which kaddish? Who has the merit to be מתפלל ומקדש ברבים – brings a merit to the soul. This discussion has largely become a moot point in Ashkenazic shuls because all those saying Kaddish, mourners and those observing yarzeit alike, all say it together. [This was different once-upon-a-time, and is still practiced in some Yekkishe communities. One can only imagine the kinds of fights which took place in shuls when people were clamoring to be the sole person saying the kaddish.] 

 There are others practices as well. Lighting a candle is a kabbalistic practice based on the verse of נר ה' נשמת אדם, though there are other explanations for the practice. 

 As it turns out, the idea of leading the davening on the yarzeit in general is weighed down by a different concern in halakha. It turns out that it isn’t an automatic that someone who has a yarzeit gets to daven. Even in mentioning the practice, the Rama calls it a minhag (custom), while he uses the language of מצוה להתענות ביום שמת אב או אם. It is a "mitzvah" to fast on the yarzeit for a parent. So which is more important? A minhag, or a “mitzvah?” 

 It has been noted above that halakha really drives home the need for the Shaliach Tzibbur to be מרוצה לקהל. Note, firstly, that he is called the Shaliach - appointed emissary - of the congregation. So he has no rights unless he is asked. Secondly, the congregation must want him to lead, no matter how much he wants to lead. It is a category too often ignored in shuls, but I think it is very important, not just for the congregation, but for the person with the yarzeit. And it is a category which takes priority regardless of anyone's feelings. The Tzibbur's desires are far more important than the individual's desires. 

 Let us examine this through a story of a Chazzan that no longer had a voice, but was very Merutzeh La'Kahal - a clear exception to everything written above. 

 One of the tunes Shlomo Carlebach made famous in a recording was the niggun of the Blind Chazzan. Who was the blind chazzan? We only know this story because he told it from a personal experience. 

 Shlomo Carlebach was in a shul in Europe one Shabbos, when much to his dismay he found that the chazzan had no voice. NO voice. And he couldn’t read the Hebrew! And his melodies were terrible. SC assumed it was some rich guy who gave a lot of money so he could daven. And he decided, in anger, to daven B’y’chidus - alone, not participating with the congregation and this unworthy "chazzan". Better that than have a turned-off tefillah experience because of this unworthy person. 

 But when they took out the Torah, he didn’t want to disrespect the Torah. So he went over, only to see there were two people holding the Chazzan as he held the Torah. 

 "Why are they holding him?" 

 "Don't you know who that is? That's the blind Chazzan… He was the most famous tenor! People came from miles around to hear him. But he was tortured by the Nazis…   He didn’t want to daven. We told him, 'No, we remember how you davened in Lemberg!'" 

 Carlebach was ashamed – and instead of kissing the Torah, he kissed the Chazzan's hands. The Chazzan asked "Who kissed my hands?" They told him it was Shlomo Carlebach. The Chazzan smiled and told him, "Shlomo, I like your niggunim." 

 While this story is an exception, because a person with no voice who could no longer say the words was wanted by the congregation, that circumstance is obviously different than anything we encounter. This was a Chazzan who lost everything because he was beaten by the Nazis, and he didn't want to lead the davening. For that congregation to have him lead was a great honor for them. 

 In our congregations though, someone who leads like that is a disgrace to the congregation, because people who lead like that now do not have the excuse that they were Holocaust survivors tortured by the Nazis. And so we will be judgmental, because we are human. 

 Carlebach admitted he was wrong. But how often do we encounter the Blind Chazzan from Lemberg? We don't. So that exception is null. 

 So yes, even someone observing a yarzeit for a parent must have an honest personal, and if need be, direct from an objective party, assessment.

 You want an Aliyah? No problem. Lead the prayers for most weekday davenings? – usually not a problem. Pesukei D’zimrah on Shabbos morning – usually not a problem. But to be the Baal Tefillah Friday night, or for Shacharis or Mussaf, the person needs to be aware! And the same is true for every Yom Tov, any Tefillah with Hallel, and certainly for the Yamim Noraim! 

 Mourning practices and yarzeit observances are meant to be private and personal. The yarzeit observer should take a personal reckoning. "Am I fasting? Am I reading Tehillim? Am I learning mishnayos? [Mishneh and Neshama have the same letters, which is a source for their connection.] Am I making a siyum? Am I being sure to say the kaddish? Did I light my candle? None of these impact anyone else. If I can get an Aliyah to the Torah, great. And if can’t? That needs to be fine with me too.

"But once I’m reading the Haftorah – I better know how to read it. Once I’m hoping to lead the davening, I must fit into the category of being מרוצה לקהל because I can sing on key, carry a tune, and be overall pleasing to the congregation."

And if the answer is "I don't belong up there because I don't fit the criteria, I don't have the skills, or I will cause people to speak badly about me" then the best place to be during tefillah is at your seat, honoring the deceased parent through being a part of the Tzibbur, not imposing yourself on the Tzibbur, and saying Kaddish to honor the parent's memory.

Sinai In Reverse? How ‘Listening and Doing’ Empowers Self Improvement

Parshat Ki Tavo

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The first time the Bnei Yisrael declared their unity, and their willingness to learn, was at the bottom of Har Sinai, when they said נעשה ונשמע – “We will do the commandments, and we will learn their details afterwards.” It is a tremendous leap of faith to accept a burden before completely understanding it. How often do we do that – sign a contract before reading it, or having our lawyer read it? Trust a person’s credentials without checking them out first? Marry someone the first time you meet? Agree to be financially responsible for all medical bills before we are treated? (… wait a minute…) 

It is possible that Moshe used the same formula in our parsha to inspire the long-term commitment of the Jewish people to God, except that he adapted it a little, because maybe there’s a better method to learn than blind faith alone. 

 Our parsha is most noted for its Tochacha, the devastating rebuke that takes up 54 verses of Chapter 28. But the chapter begins with the opposite, a promise of good tidings to those who attached themselves to God’s word through commitment and deed.

 Interestingly, the phrase which indicates the need to follow this path repeats itself several times, each time in a slightly different format. 

 (א) וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע֙ בְּקוֹל֙ יְקֹוָ֣ק אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמֹ֤ר לַעֲשׂוֹת֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם

“It will be that if you surely listen to the voice of God, to observe and to do all His commandment that I am commanding you Then God will make you the highest above all the nations of the world, as the blessings he wishes to heave upon us are spelled out – healthy children, animals, productive fields, etc.” 

A few verses later

 (ט) יְקִֽימְךָ֙ יְקֹוָ֥ק לוֹ֙ לְעַ֣ם קָד֔וֹשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר נִֽשְׁבַּֽע־לָ֑ךְ כִּ֣י תִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֹת֙ יְקֹוָ֣ק אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ֖ בִּדְרָכָֽיו: 

God should establish you as a special nation as He swore to you when you observe the commandments and go in His ways! 

 יג) וּנְתָֽנְךָ֙ יְקֹוָ֤ק לְרֹאשׁ֙ וְלֹ֣א לְזָנָ֔ב וְהָיִ֙יתָ֙ רַ֣ק לְמַ֔עְלָה וְלֹ֥א תִהְיֶ֖ה לְמָ֑טָּה כִּֽי־תִשְׁמַ֞ע אֶל־מִצְוֹ֣ת׀ יְקֹוָ֣ק אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָנֹכִ֧י מְצַוְּךָ֛ הַיּ֖וֹם לִשְׁמֹ֥ר וְלַעֲשֽׂוֹת: 

You will be a head and not a tail and you will only be on top and not on bottom, when you listen to the commandments of Hashem your God, that I am commanding you today to observe and to do.

 (יד) וְלֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִכָּל־הַדְּבָרִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָנֹכִ֜י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֛ם הַיּ֖וֹם יָמִ֣ין וּשְׂמֹ֑אול לָלֶ֗כֶת אַחֲרֵ֛י אֱלֹהִ֥ים אֲחֵרִ֖ים לְעָבְדָֽם: 

 And the concluding statement: Do not veer to the right or left from all the things I am commanding you, such as by following other gods and serving them. 

 The point is clear: Fulfill the Mitzvos, don’t turn away from God. 

 Some of the phrases repeated here are “תשמע” – if and when you Listen 

 And תשמר or לשמור ולעשות. – you should observe and do. 

 Clearly these are reminiscent of Sinai and נעשה ונשמע, as we have Moshe instructing both listening and doing. Perhaps נעשה ונשמע was more of an emotional response coming from a place of gratitude and an overwhelming moment of elation on account of the events of Revelation, in contrast to Moshe’s commandments here. 

 What is the difference between נעשה ונשמע and these instructions to listen and to observe and do, which lead to blessings? Firstly, they are reversed. There is no blind faith. There is method to the method. 

 Perhaps we can better understand the method through two midrashim which can give us pause to reflect on where we are and where we need to be in our Teshuvah and growth processes, and how proper hearing and doing can help us get there. 

 In Devarim Rabba, Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta said, “anyone who learned Torah and does not fulfill it has a greater repercussion than one who did not learn.” 

 The Midrash proceeds to give an analogy – a king has two workers, one who plants trees and cuts them down, and one who hardly plants and doesn’t cut down anything. Which one, the Midrash Rabba asks rhetorically, do you think the king will be upset at? Clearly the one who is knowledgeable, but is nonetheless destructive. Or, to bring it back to the parsha, the one who knows, but ignores and disregards the Torah. 

 The second Midrash – from the Midrash Tanaim – says והיה אם שמוע תשמע – if a person can listen a little, he will be able to listen a lot. If he learns – he’ll be able to observe (לשמור). If he observes, he’ll be able to do, and therefore accomplish. 

 The method of listening and then doing should be easy for us, for we all have the capacity to listen, and we all have the ability to do. But it is how we use these skills that defines who we are. Do we exhibit good listening skills – learning from others perhaps – in figuring out the proper path for our choices, behaviors, actions and deeds? When we observe, do we do things correctly? Do we set a good example? Are we model Jews to all those we meet? 

 A message from these Midrashim can simply be that knowledge is very empowering. However, what one chooses to do with that knowledge determines where experience will bring the person. 

 The verses quoted above spoke of listening and of doing with reference to the Mitzvos of the Torah, and with reference to enhancing our relationship with God. This cannot be overstated. We have to become more knowledgeable, and we must use that knowledge to be even more committed to God and His Torah. Listening leads to understanding and proper action. And Moshe is saying it has to follow that order to achieve the best results. 

 Our two teachings from the Midrash are most important: The first: being knowledgeable isn’t enough. Even if we plant trees, as long as we cut them down, we upset the king. And the second: that the acquisition of knowledge, when applied correctly through the ability to listen, begets observance, which begets fundamentally significant achievement in fulfilling our duties in this world, answering the question of “why are we here?” 

 נעשה ונשמע is blind faith. But learning then doing leads to doing what’s right. It trains us to learn more. To have an open ear. To be open to new ideas. To be open to hearing from others. To be open to different perspectives. To be open to changing your mind. To be open to improving. To be open to committing. And to be open to sometimes thinking that “maybe maybe maybe I am wrong, and a change is in order” 

 And hopefully, if we can listen and do, we should be blessed to see the fulfillment of the blessings of the parsha come true – in which the inhabitants of Israel and all the world share in the bounty of God’s earth and work only to advance the human condition. May we, the Jewish people, be blessed with a holy relationship with God, with prosperity, with שלום בית, and with admirable relationships with our fellow Man.

The Sensitivity of Chalitzah

Parshat Ki Tetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 The Torah describes the case of a married man who dies without children and the obligation of his brother to either do Yibum or Chalitzah to bring closure to the deceased’s wife – he is to either have (or attempt to have) a child with her that will be considered the son of the dead brother (Yibum), or he is to release her so she may marry any non-Kohen (Chalitzah). There are similar cases to this in the story of Yehuda, his sons, and Tamar, as well as a quasi example of this in the Book of Ruth, when the closer relative releases his obligation to Boaz, who marries Ruth and produces a child who is the grandfather of David. 

 Reading it over reminded me of a story I heard directly from Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Z”L, that he witnessed as a child growing up in –as he would fondly recall - “a small European shtetl on the Lower East Side.” His father, Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Tendler Z”L, was the rabbi at the Kominitzer Synagogue, and one day a younger man originally from Yemen passed away, childless, leaving a young widow. A few weeks later his brother showed up from Yemen, looking to do Yibum, to attempt to have a child with his brother’s widow. Rabbi Y Tendler told him that in America we don’t do Yibum, and that he would have to do Chalitzah, to release his sister in law to be able to marry whomever she might choose. 

 This Temani Jew started to cry – obviously in Yemen, Yibum was not only an option but was practiced – and he said, “People are going to call me Beit Halutz Hana’al?”

To understand the sadness this man underwent in those moments, one merely has to read the Torah’s depiction of this ritual to see that the moniker he was hoping to avoid is what the Torah uses as an insult to the one who is shaming his dead brother and not fulfilling his responsibilities. [Surely a reason we insist on Chalitzah only is because our society doesn’t force or enforce matters that are viewed with a different sensitivity than that which the Torah presents – what was once upon a time viewed as looking after the woman and giving her a chance to have a child reminiscent of her dead husband might now be viewed as putting the woman in a position she does not want, either with her brother in law, or possibly being left to raise a child alone.] 

 The Torah describes how she is to claim “My brother in law refuses to establish his brother’s name in Israel, as he doesn’t want to perform the levirate marriage with me.” After he articulates this position himself, she takes off his shoe, spits in front of him, and declares “So should be done to the man who will not build his brother’s household!” And then he becomes known as “Beit Halutz Hana'al” – the house of the one whose shoe was removed. [For more about the ceremony and ritual, read here: https://yaacovhaber.com/rth/chalitza/] 

There are two Chalitza ceremonies currently on youtube – one presided over by Rabbi Ralbag, and one in Yiddish by the Karlsburger Beit Din. While we might typically assume a Chalitzah would take place with a young widow (tragically) it happens that both of these cases happen with women who seem to be older (in the latter video we don’t see the woman, but the brother-in-law is an older man in a wheelchair), which means they either never had children over the course of a longer marriage, or got married later past childbearing years. In these cases, while it is unlikely that Yibum would have produced a child anyway, the ceremony nevertheless remains the same, and is necessary, according to halakha, in order for the woman to be free to marry. 

Rabbi Yona Reiss, Av Beis Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Concil, has shared stories of Chalitzahs that the Beth Din of America presided over following the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11, including one case of a teenager whose brother had died, who released his sister-in-law to be able to marry again. 

 Most commentaries who address this tale and mitzvah in the Torah suggest that the ritual, as our Temani Jew knew quite well, was meant to embarrass the brother-in-law for shirking his responsibilities to his deceased brother and to his sister-in-law. The way things go now, in our society, and certainly since we don’t even give Yibum as an option, it would seem the ceremony has lost the “shaming” aspect, and is viewed as “obligatory” and even as a kindness. 

 The Midrash Tanaim answers what might be an obvious question: why can’t he simply give her a bill of release, similar to a get, the bill of divorce? Because the Torah says “So shall be done to the man” who doesn’t perform the levirate marriage, it means this way, and only this way, is the right way to sever the connection between them, and not through some makeshift-bill-of-divorce. 

 Certainly no system is perfect, not every measure or ritual undertaken can include all the sensitivities needed. Due to the need for witnesses, as well as a Beit Din in the latter of the following ceremonies, Marriage, divorce, Chalitzah typically have many more men present at the ritual than women. Marriage typically has family and friends present and is a festive and simcha-oriented event so it is less noticed. But divorce and Yibum/Chalitzah are or can be harrowing moments for both sides regardless of all else that is going on. Divorce is a culmination of either a short or drawn out process of a marriage ending with “irreconcilable differences” while a Chalitzah comes in the wake of a death, she having lost her husband and the man having lost his brother. 

 What our present reality demonstrates, where Yibum is not an option, is that while the ritual remains the same, the sensitivity involved evolves with societal changes. Perhaps the sensitivity is easier at Chalitzah where everyone is sharing the same hurt, than it is at divorce, where everyone comes to the table with different baggage and with different attitudes that bring them to the get. It is harder to find an equal balance at divorce, but every time I have been present for the deliverance of a get I have witnessed the presiding rabbi be as sensitive and caring as possible, wishing both sides well, and giving them each a blessing for life going forward. It doesn’t matter who initiated the divorce, or the reasons, and it is not his job to take sides – it is simply to facilitate something that needs to happen, and to help two human beings get to the other side of their dispute peaceably. 

 To be clear, not all societal changes align with our worldview. Sometimes hard lines need to be drawn as to which part of society influences our thinking and which viewpoints or flavors of the day are beyond the pale of how we think, how we operate, and what fits within the guide the Torah presents to us. Certainly some people are influenced more by their politics and aim to make the Torah fit to their worldview from other spheres of thought. And some times lines of thinking are just very loud when repeated over and over by modern influences, such as print media and visual media. 

 Our job is to aim to find a balance, certainly in human relationships, in being sensitive to a person’s circumstances, while turning to halakha to guide us where halakha has what to say. As one of my rebbeim told me, halakhic decisions can only be made when a person has done due diligence to get a better understanding of facts on the ground, and to decide based on research and knowledge, and not based on emotion. 

 Emotions must guide our sensitivity. Halakha guides our action. As the Torah gives both options – Yibum and Chalitzah - both are options for moving forward post the death of a childless man, should he have a brother, and should his widow wish to marry another time. Chalitzah is the more sensitive option in our time, and so it is viewed as a ritual that does not taint the man who participates in it, but views him as a man who is doing the right thing to allow his sister-in-law to mourn as she needs to, and to otherwise pick up the pieces and move on with her life.

Overcoming Fear and Eradicating Evil

 Parshat Shoftim 

  by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 There is a common theme that appears a number of times in our parsha. The phrase ובערת הרע, which we will now see presented three times, also appeared once in Re’eh, and will appear 5 times in next week’s Torah portion. 

 “If a man or woman turns away from God and starts to worship something [such as] the sun or the moon, etc” you are to do an investigation and if they are guilty, they are to be executed publicly וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ: (17:7) [translation: you shall eradicate the evil from among you] 

“If there is a dispute about the law, it should be brought to the judges, leaders, and kohanim of that generation” who will tell you what to do. You should follow them. BUT a person who purposefully does not follow them is to die, וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל: (17:12) [translation: you shall eradicate the evil from Israel]. This is followed by וְכָל־הָעָ֖ם יִשְׁמְע֣וּ וְיִרָ֑אוּ וְלֹ֥א יְזִיד֖וּן עֽוֹד [and all the nation will hear and be afraid and won’t do such things purposefully any more] 

“If a false witness comes along… an investigation should be done… and you are to do to the false witness what he intended to have done… וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ:” (19:16-19) And then וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִ֖ים יִשְׁמְע֣וּ וְיִרָ֑אוּ וְלֹֽא־יֹסִ֨פוּ לַעֲשׂ֜וֹת ע֗וֹד כַּדָּבָ֥ר הָרָ֛ע הַזֶּ֖ה בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ [And all the remaining people will hear and be afraid, and will not continue to do this terrible thing among you] 

 And finally, the last segment of the parsha deals with the unfortunate and tragic tale of Eglah Arufah, when a murder victim is discovered on the outskirts of a city, and the local court and elders need to undergo a ritual declaring their blamelessness over the poor victim’s fate. The last verse of the parsha states “וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְקֹוָֽק” [and you shall eradicate the [guilt of] the innocent blood from among you, as you do what is right in God’s eyes.] (21:9) [The corrective for innocent blood also appears in the context of the blood-relative taking vengeance for an accidental murder] 

To summarize, the repercussions to those who commit idolatry, who purposefully ignore the ruling of judges, and who are evil (false) witnesses is extreme, justified in the directive to eradicate evil. When an unsolved murder comes our way we are to do an unprecedented action to indicate we have nothing to do with purported evil, and we are to aim for a kind of atonement for our city. 

 When one looks at these examples, one is hard pressed to find relevance at least in some of these cases. When was the last time someone you know turned to idolatry and tried to take you along for the ride? When was the last time an unsolved murder victim was found on the outskirts of the city? How often do we even hear of rulings of the a Bet Din which is binding on anyone other than those involved in the case? For most halakhich questions we have, we ask our personal rabbi (whoever that may be and however we define that on a personal level) and we typically follow the answer given to us. (While certainly people can (and sometimes do) give false testimony in court, there are perjury laws in this country and everywhere, and it is not advisable in court or in Bet Din to tell anything but “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”) 

And yet, there remains a striking relevance to these passages due to their charge to us of eradicating evil, which is nonetheless difficult for many to quantify, due to fear. 

 Fear is one of the more powerful emotions that can completely overtake individuals, squash rational thought and reasonable conversation, causing sensible people to, in a manner of speaking, “lose their minds.” 

FDR famously said at his first inaugural address, which was during the difficult period of the Depression, “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Regardless of what one things of the 32nd President, there is much psychological truth in this statement, and how fear is paralyzing, and how evil cannot be allowed to overtake our interests and our spirit. 

 It is not so much that the guilty parties mentioned above share a common theme in their evil or their deceit, as much as their conduct is destructive to the fabric of society. Sometimes they prey on fear (which is another topic raised in the parsha, with several mitzvos being dedicated to diviners, sorcerers, and those who practice witchcraft), and sometimes they simply don’t care about the social order, and what is for the good of society. 

Any kind of innovation in society is surely subject to scrutiny and debate, and it is not a simple matter for any individuals or groups to decide what is best for “Everyone” – but what is best for everyone is the kinds of things that everyone indicates they are on board with as being good for them. To bring some social examples, once upon a time people bathed far less frequently than we do now. Once upon a time (and I know this from listening to old-time radio “Lux-soap” commercials from the ‘40s) “B.O.” was something peopled contended with, while the advent of deodorant (in the ‘50s) helped very much in masking that concern. When the car was first invented (with all of its problems in the early days) there were people who argued it would never replace the horse and buggy. Bringing the “outhouse” indoors was surely met with much skepticism. When people see something is good, they vote with their pocketbooks, and when they see it is bad, they vote with their feet. 

But in our times, society turns with the loudest voices – which often enough are media and those who control the media. Reasonable opposition, caution, valid opinions are marginalized or even sacrificed on the altar of an unelected (and sometimes an elected!) ruling class who are not interested in debates, who change the subject when challenged, who don’t take questions because they don’t have good answers, who deflect and who put down those who want better answers. 

This too is evil, in a shinier form, presented in a costume of “we know better than you” and “you go back to your corner and do what you are told.” 

The examples with which we opened demonstrate individuals engaged in behavior that destroys the social fabric – murder, tampering or falsifying evidence, causing people to turn from God, and ignoring the best and brightest who are charged with teaching God’s Torah in the most pure form (if the best and brightest can’t answer questions, then they don’t have the Divine Authority the Torah gives to those who can). 

Our task is to not be afraid to have the opinions we have, and to go back to a time when people were not punished, berated, socially ostracized for having counter opinions. God did not make a world in which people may only have one shared collective opinion (see: Dispersion at Tower of Babel), or are so robotic that they have NO opinion, and merely repeat what someone else has said. 

 It is to our benefit to eradicate evil, so we can live the kinds of lives which aren’t distracted by a Godless world and a perspective that seeks to enslave the mind. Service of God requires a mind free of outside influence, a mind filled with Torah knowledge, knowing the truth of God’s existence, and of our requirements and responsibilities in enhancing our relationships with man and with God. When the evil is eradicated and taken away from having influence over us, and we are no longer controlled by fear, we can truly achieve our potential.