Passover 10

So why does the Talmud see lettuce as the preferred choice for Maror? While it is true that wild lettuce (also known as "opium lettuce", as it contains a mild narcotic) is extremely bitter, it is listed as the least preferable of the five species in the Talmud. The Talmud itself points out that cultivated lettuce is sweet, not bitter. One explanation given is that if not harvested early, it does turn bitter. Thus, it is a fit species for Maror, even when used young. That would seem to be a problematic idea. If the intent of the Torah was to experience a bitter taste, what does it matter if it would eventually turn bitter? Right now, it is not! Another explanation, in my opinion, makes far more sense. The Torah tells us that the Israelites were a welcome group in Egypt...at first. Then they began to be oppressed with hard labor. According to the Midrash, they VOLUNTEERED to do Pharaoh's building projects, in order to curry favor with the Egyptians. The volunteer work eventually became compulsory. So, our ancestors' stay in Egypt began as sweet, eventually becoming so bitter, as to make it intolerable. Lettuce is a perfect metaphor for that process! It begins as sweet, then gets a "tang" to it, until it is unbearably bitter. The Seder is a kind of psychodrama, portraying past, present and future. The lettuce is a symbol of slavery, not of freedom. It foretells a bitter end for those adopting the ways of the oppressor. It reminds us to beware of traps that now seem sweet, but bear the threat of destruction. Unlike the matzah, which we lean when eating it to show the freedom of the wealthy (who would recline at meals), the Maror is eaten without leaning. It is a warning, rather than a celebration. This pattern has often repeated itself; with Jews becoming very involved in a society. only to have that same society oppress them. We also adopt, as individuals, unfortunate habits and behaviors, not really thinking of where they lead. The lettuce Maror thus reminds us of the fact that bitter may begin as sweet. Another explanation, offered by historians, derives from the fact that in the Assyrian language (a cousin of Hebrew) "Mariru" actually meant lettuce. The command in the Torah to eat the Paschal lamb with matzah and Maror may simply mean "with matzah and lettuce", with the bitterness idea being a later interpretation. Lamb with lettuce was a common Spring delicacy in the ancient Middle East. (think of lamb with mint for Easter in Christian tradition). Thus, the word "Maror", though meaning "lettuce", serves ironically as a reminder of the bitterness of slavery. This ties in very well with the command of the Torah to take the lamb into our homes several days before the Passover of the Exodus. The lamb was sacred to the Egyptians. On the one hand, we were boldly showing the Egyptians that we are about to slaughter their god as a sacrifice. On the other hand, the Israelites were being called upon to negate idolatry within their minds and hearts. The very symbol of Egyptian paganism would be the tool to negate those doctrines! Thus, we eat the lettuce; essentially saying that the superficial symbol of the sweetness of Spring, bears a significant message that not all that glitters is gold. Egypt was a great civilization, whose efforts centered around hedonism...and death. In gematria (Hebrew numerology), the letters of Maror do, indeed, equal "death".That is the lesson of Maror.
Many who use lettuce as maror insist upon Romaine lettuce. This type has been used since at least Talmudic times. However, most rabbis allow any variety of lettuce. Some actually prefer other types, which are often somewhat bitter. At the Seder, we eat a k'zayit (Olive's bulk) of Maror twice; once by itself, after the eating of matzah, and then again in a "sandwich" of Matzah and Maror.  In my next post, I will go through the order of the Seder, with some of its symbols and meanings.

Passover 9

The Maror (bitter herb) was an adjunct to the Passover sacrifice, rather than a mitzvah in and of itself. By rabbinic enactment, it was instituted to be eaten at the Passover Seder in memory of the bitterness of slavery, as well as to inculcate the memory and feeling of the original Temple-era Passover. Just as the Talmud enumerates five types of grain that are acceptable for matzah, it also enumerates five kinds of bitter herbs that are acceptable as maror. However, unlike the case of the grains, where all others are excluded, there is a debate among rabbis if the five herbs are exclusive, or merely examples of what is acceptable. I am of the view that only the five that are enumerated are OK, many disagree with that stance. Unlike in the case of the grains, where we are uncertain about three, we do know what the five bitters are, as the rabbis in Babylon immediately after the Talmudic era left us an Arabic translation of the list. The problems arose as the Jews settled in Europe, where the flora and fauna are different from those in the Middle East. Folklore stepped in and connected various species with those enumerated in the Talmud. This has caused many debates, some lasting to this very day.  As the Jews migrated further North in Europe, the herbs mentioned in the Talmud, all of which are leafy vegetables, simply were not available yet in early Spring. Horseradish was substituted, although unknown in the Talmud, or even in the Middle East until modern times. According to the view that any bitter vegetable is OK when the specific ones are unavailable, that would be fine. Those who didn't follow that view argued that horseradish was, in fact, one or another of the herbs mentioned. This was fanciful (the Jerusalem Talmud even indicates that all the herbs are either lettuce or related herbs). I do not consider horseradish to qualify as Maror at all, although most rabbis do. In my view, this stance is indefensible. It should be noted that in the U.S., most traditional, but not knowledgeable, Jews use prepared (pickled) horseradish. This is clearly not acceptable according to any authorities. The Maror must be fresh; not pickled, not cooked. This has become another "tradition" that is contrary to halachah. During all my years in the congregational rabbinate, conducting communal sedarim, most people would not accept lettuce, or even fresh ground horseradish, for Maror. It was a losing battle. 
In some communities, only lettuce is used (this is my practice). Some of those insist on one particular variety or another (I don't), although most prefer Romaine. Some wrap fresh horseradish in lettuce leaves. Some use endive, which IS one of the five. Some use wild lettuce, which is almost unbearably bitter, albeit one of the five. But why lettuce? It isn't really bitter. It is clear that the Talmud prefers lettuce over the other options. This would seem strange. That will be the topic of my next post.

Passover 8

The measurements used in the Torah (cubit, eifah, hin, and others) are only known approximately. Those used in the Talmud would seem to be more straightforward; the bulk of an olive (k'zayit), the bulk of an egg (k'beitzah), the hand breadth (tefach), the width of a thumb (etzba').) However, this is not the case. How big were the olives then? The eggs? Were the people the same size as we are? This comes into play in many areas of halachah, but is especially important for Passover. There is a Biblical requirement to eat a k'zayit of matzah on the first night of Passover (and the second in the Diaspora by rabbinic law). Moreover, we eat more than one k'zayit; one after the narrative part of the Haggadah (this is the main one), one together with the maror (bitter herb; also requiring a k'zayit), and one after the meal as Afikoman (some say two at this point). Estimates for the k'zyit vary all the way from 3 gm, to 60 gm.! (I go by 3, but most people go by 30, with the 60 gm. measurement standard in "Yeshivish" communities.) That would mean from a ninth of a machine matzah, to two whole machine matzot for the k'zayit). The Israeli ambulance service, Magen David Adom, reports their busiest time for calls is on Passover night, with many people choking on the exaggerated estimates of a k'zayit, exacerbated by the practice of many Ashkenazim to swallow the entire k'zayit at once. Why the vast difference? It began with a debate between RAMBAM and RASHI. RAMBAM writes that an olive is "less than" the size of a third of an egg. RASHI opines that it is the size of half of an egg. The opinion of RASHI was widely accepted and is codified in the Shulchan Aruch. However, many present-day rabbis have questioned this. RAMBAM lived first in Spain, then Morocco, then Egypt; all olive-growing lands. RASHI lived in northern France. Olives don't grow in France (except in extreme Southern France, hundreds of miles from where RASHI lived). In all likelihood, he never saw an olive. Now the question comes up, were the eggs and olives the same size as ours? Most say yes. However, there is an apparent discrepancy between two statements in the Talmud on this point, regarding the size of a receptacle measured in "eggs". One case is almost double the other! The probable solution to this discrepancy is that one passage was talking about a square receptacle, and the other a circle. Nevertheless, one late 18th century rabbi declared our eggs to be half the size of the ancient ones. This opinion was enthusiastically adopted by a prominent early 20th century rabbi. This view doubles the egg, as well as the olive. As opposed to this, many point out that olive trees in Israel and surrounding areas, some of which are still alive from before the destruction of the Temple, produce the same size as those which we have today. This is true as well of the olives uncovered in archaeological digs. As to the egg, some were found in the ruins of Pompeii They were a third SMALLER than our modern eggs. However, partial eggshell remains found recently in Jerusalem, were shown to be identical to modern eggs. In any case, they were never larger than today's eggs. On top of this, two early twentieth-century rabbis came up with idea that a k'zayit demands that a foodstuff be ground up and compressed. Thus, an entire loaf of bread may be considered to be one k'zayit. There is not the least indication in sources that this was ever seen as the proper understanding. Human skeletal remains show that people were several inches shorter then. In my opinion, all halachic estimates of size have become vastly exaggerated. This opens up an entire topic, beyond the scope of this post. To what degree is empirical evidence a factor in halachah? Now, you may ask "what's the big deal? So eat more matzah!" The answer is that we are meant to rejoice in our Festivals. Stuffing vast amounts of dry matzah down our throats is unpleasant, dangerous, as well as superfluous. As an aside, I would add that the Sepharadi soft matzah (roughly the texture of pizza crust) is not difficult to eat. With some knowledge, Passover is the great joy it was meant to be, the Seder a celebration of past, present, and future, without distraction by centuries of speculation and insecurity. It's easy when you know how!

Passover 7

A great debate has raged over the last one hundred and eighty years, regarding matzah made by machine, rather than by hand. The fact is, however, that the early responsa on the subject are actually irrelevant, as the nature of the machine process used today is nothing like the one discussed in the early literature. The hand made matzot required, after the dough was kneaded, to be rolled very thin, especially in Ashkenazi tradition. This was both time consuming, and labor intensive. From the adding of the water, until the baking, had to be under eighteen minutes. In the late 1830s, a gadget was developed in which the dough could be put in, and a series of rollers would make the dough flatter and flatter. (Similar to a pasta maker).This gadget was hand cranked to make it work. The several minutes needed to roll the dough of each matzah,, now changed to two minutes...for an entire batch. Immediately, battle lines were drawn. Most of the East European rabbis considered this invalid...and maybe even Hametz. How do we know that pieces of dough aren't getting caught in the works, becoming hametz, and falling back into the the unbaked matzah? Also, this would negatively affect the income of elderly widows, who were dependent on their salaries for the entire year from the months of kneading matzah. They would now starve. And finally, and probably most significantly, it was a change in something that was as old as the Jewish people itself. Reform was on the rise. The slippery slope was staring the rabbis in the face. The rabbis of Central and Western Europe, on the other hand, considered this gadget to be a great boon. Matzah would become cheaper. The preparation time would be vastly shortened, preventing the possibility of the dough becoming hametz. As to cleaning, the stainless steel machine parts were, in fact, much easier to keep clean than the wooden rolling pins used traditionally. Many of these rabbis recommended that everyone switch to the machine method. Later, the process became completely automated, with different pluses and minuses. Flour and water were automatically placed into a great mixing bowl, which did the job in seconds. A conveyor belt would move the dough along to be flattened, have the customary holes poked into the matzah just before baking, cut into individual matzot, put through a temperature controlled oven, where the matzah would bake evenly; enough time to do the job, but less time than would take to become burnt. The entire process, about three minutes. Many rabbis raised several basic issues. Firstly, the machine was always going. The mixing bowl was never emptied. Parts of the mix could be there for much more than eighteen minutes. Supporters of the machine process countered that, except for one prominent seventeenth century rabbi, the time factor was, according to the Talmud, irrelevant, as long as the dough was being kneaded and mixed. As to the dissenting rabbi's view, surely the powerful electric machinery was doing a much better job of mixing and kneading than an overworked, exhausted, elderly baker, thus obviating the fear of fermentation taking place because of insufficient kneading. As some rabbis still objected that Ashkenazi tradition had, for nearly 300 years, largely abided by that rabbi's opinion, it was decided that two separate lines would be maintained; one that would run continuously, and one in which the machines would be stopped and be thoroughly cleaned every eighteen minutes. The former are known as "peshutot" (simple), the latter as "18 minute matzah". The process of stopping and cleaning slowed down the operation, therefore raising the price, but the product was still far cheaper than hand matzah. For those who wanted shmurah matzah, runs were also made using shmurah guarded flour. Many rabbis still objected, since for most mitzvot, there is a requirement of "intent". When hand matzot are manufactured, everyone involved repeats often "for the sake of mitzvah matzah". A machine could not have intent. Even if the machine was started by someone with intent, can we say that intent is still there hours later, while the machine works continually on its own? Many countered that we have no solid evidence that matzah needs intent in baking, only that it be guarded against becoming hametz. No problem. An observant Jew will always be present during the baking, watching out for any glitch. The advantage? Low cost, and speed of baking, with essentially no room for human error. Just for comparison, a pound (453.592 grams) of hand shmurah matzah costs about $30. A pound of machine shmurah costs about $10, a pound of 18 minute matzah costs about $7. A pound of peshutot is theoretically $1, but is almost always given out for free by supermarkets. A free package of 5 pounds is usually given out for every $100 spent on other products. Some, especially most Hasidim, insist on hand shmurah for the entire holiday. Many others will buy hand shmurah for the sedarim, and use machine shmurah, or 18 minute matzah, for the rest of the holiday, when intent in baking is not required. Many Sepharadim, unconcerned with the minority opinion that even when kneaded continually, the dough can still become hametz, will use peshutot, except for the sedarim. There are some rabbis who consider the efficiency of the machine process to outweigh considerations of intent, and therefore prefer machine matzot, even for the sedarim. There are fanatics on both sides; those who insist that now that we have machine matzot, hand matzah is unacceptable, and those who, when they burn their left over hametz on the morning before Passover, make sure to have a box of machine matzot on the top of the pyre, that all may see that they regard it as hametz. Personally, I use hand shmurah (Sepharadi style; soft, similar to a pizza dough) for the sedarim, and peshutot for the rest of the holiday. Yemenite matzah is soft, but thicker than Sepharadic. It usually has no holes, and often contains salt; something avoided by both Ashkenazim and Sepharadim. I understand and respect those who use only hand shmurah, as well as those who use peshutot even for the sedarim.  I can see no clear right or wrong for either side in this issue.  I would only caution that I consider it foolhardy for anyone to attempt baking their own matzot at home, unless they have watched experience matzah bakers several times. In my next post, I will go into the huge controversy of the "k'zayit", the "olive's bulk" required in many of the seder rules, as well as in certain halachic criteria for all year round.

Passover 6

From the Talmud, we can see that matzah looked very different at that time than what we are now familiar with. First of all, there were no matzah bakeries., Each family baked their own, throughout the holiday. (This is still done in many Yemenite communities). Their matzah was thicker; the maximum being a hand-breadth thick (about 8 cm). They were soft, not the crunchy texture that we are used to. (Many Sepharadim and Yemenites still make them soft, but adhere to a maximum thickness of 2 cm; the breadth of a finger). The usual oven for baking matzah in those days can still be seen in the Middle East. It is known today as a ta'abun; a sort of barrel placed over a fire, with the loaves of dough pressed along the inside to bake. That we have a question in the Talmud regarding bread found in the street during Passover, under which conditions can it be assumed to be matzah, and which hametz, shows that their matzah and their bread looked identical. (The practice of making holes in matzah is quite recent, despite what unscrupulous missionaries may tell you). The only differences were those not readily seen. Special flour was used, no leavening agents were allowed. and water used in the baking had to be kept overnight, in order to equalize the temperature, as warm water will hasten the leavening process. Matzot were also made with ingredients other than water (eggs, fruit juice, honey, etc.), but not for the sedarim, as it would not fit the Torah's command of "bread of affliction". This type of matzah is called "Matzah Ashirah" ("rich" matzah) Sepharadim still do this. Ashkenzaim only allow this for children, the elderly, and the infirm. Check your package of egg matazah, and you will see such a warning printed on the side of the box. The fear is that the additional ingredients could serve as a catalyst, shortening the usual fermentation time, should a minute drop of water enter the mix. In Ashkenazi lands, the type of oven used is more like a pizza oven, heated with wood. Over the centuries, it became customary to make the matzot thinner and thinner. The main reason for this is so it will become completely baked quickly, thus averting the possibility that due to the thickness, the inside might become hametz before the baking is complete.(Sepharadim point to sources that disprove this assertion). Another reason is that Rabbenu Asher (ROSH), writing in about 1300, recommended the practice of baking all the matzot BEFORE Passover (as opposed to every day). The reason for this was that, in case there was an unnoticed particle of hametz somewhere, it would be nullified before Passover. According to most opinions, nullification of hametz is impossible during Passover. A regular soft, thick matzah would not keep for eight days. Therefore, the cracker-like matzah was born. The Jews of Djerba also baked a similar matzah, although not as thin as the Ashkenazi variety. Their descendants still use this type. Sepharadim still use the ta'abun, but many have substituted a small electric oven for home baking of matzah. In Israel, some Sepharadi owned pizza shops bake matzah! In Ashkenazi areas of Medieval Europe, Jews were not allowed to own land,.As a result, it was difficult to have Shemurah Matzah, guarded from the harvesting. Matzah made from wheat purchased on the open market was the standard. The custom in Germany and France was to bake three huge matzot for the seder, enough for the entire family. A single, double, or triple set of holes was made in each matzah, so as to indicate its proper place on the Seder table, with the single holed matzah placed on top. This was known as "Matzat Mitzvah". When other communities say "Matzat Mitzvah", they mean something different entirely. As Matzah was an adjunct to the Passover sacrifice, it is considered ideal to make or obtain matzot made at the time appropriate for the sacrifice, in the afternoon before the Seder. This is by no means the law, but it is considered an ideal. These are known as matzat mitzvah, or Erev Pesach (Passover Eve) matzot. The same method of baking was traditionally used for Shemurah and non-Shemurah matzot. Today, however, only Shemurah is hand baked. Machine made matzot came in during the last part of the nineteenth century. They became, and remain, controversial. That will be my next installment.

Passover 5

The Torah has two mitzvot relating to matzah. One is that the Passover sacrifice must be eaten together with matzah and maror. There is, however, a second command to eat matzah "in the evening" (of the first night of Passover), aside from that eaten with the sacrifice. Therefore, the eating of matzah, as opposed to maror, is a Biblical requirement, even when no sacrifice is possible. We are required to eat a K'zayit (an olive's bulk) of matzah at the seder. (In fact, we do that several times, but only the first is Biblically required). In the Diaspora, this must also be done also on the second night by rabbinic law. (How big is a k'zayit is a hotly debated topic, with estimates varying by twenty fold. That will be a separate post). The definition of matzah is taking flour from one of the "five grains" (only of two of which is the identification certain), mixing it with water, and baking it before it has a chance to ferment. (Special water is used for all matzot, that has been allowed to sit in a container overnight at room temperature). But how long does the beginning of fermentation take place? At one time, people would break the dough open to look for signs of fermentation. Later, it became assumed that dough that had stood for a period of time without being kneaded, would ferment. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, that time is seventy two minutes. According to the Babylonian Talmud, that time is eighteen minutes. The latter became the universally accepted standard. (One online rabbi does go by the seventy two minute standard). Technically, if the dough is kneaded all day, it never will ferment, and matzah can be made from it. One turn of the seventeenth-century rabbi questioned if we are sufficiently proficient in this, and insisted that from the adding of water to the flour, until the baking, less than eighteen minutes can go by. This is widely accepted by devout Ashkenazim, and. of late, many Sepharadim make an effort to follow this as well. (I do not). The simple, inexpensive machine made matzot the are given away for free at many supermarkets rely on the lenient view. In my opinion, it is kosher, but not ideal. I see no problem with it for non-seder use, other than political considerations. There is no requirement to eat matzah for the rest of Passover. Some authorities do, however, consider it a non-obligatory mitzvah. The Torah states "you shall guard the matzot".(Exodus 12:17). This is understood to mean guarding the flour from becoming hametz by coming into contact with water prematurely. There are three interpretations of when this obligation starts. Opinion number 1 has it that the grain must be harvested before fully ripe, as fully ripe grain can become hametz even while still on the stalk. From the point that the grain is cut, until the final baking, it must be guarded either by watchmen, or be stored in sealed containers between stages of production. (There are several months between the harvesting and the baking!) This is commonly called Shmurah (guarded) Matzah. Throughout our history, only the strictest of the strict used Shmurah Matzah, as it was expensive and difficult to come by. In the last century, it has become the standard for most Orthodox Jews, either for the entire holiday, or at least for the Seder. Certain groups consider anything less to be invalid. Opinion number 2, which is the accepted halachah, and is what was done by our ancestors, allows wheat kernels to be purchased from anyone. From the time it is milled into flour, it must be guarded that it not become wet. Since today, virtually all commercially sold wheat is washed, we would need to be certain that this was not the case for the particular kernels we plan to use for matzah. This level is known as "ordinary matzah", although it is, according to the vast majority of authorities, also considered "shmurah". This type of matzah costs a fraction of those made in accordance with opinion 1. Opinion number 3 says that flour may be purchased from anyone. The guarding required by the Torah is only from when the water is added in order to make it into dough. Most Ashkenazi authorities do not accept this view at all. Most Sepharadi authorities do accept it if nothing else is available. The fact that, as I said, commercial wheat is washed, thereby possibly becoming hametz,  means that even most Sepharadim would not accept this today. There are, however, some who disagree and allow it. My own practice is to obtain matzot made in accordance with opinion 1 for the seders (more properly: sedarim), while I use those made in accordance with opinion 2 for the rest of the holiday. How these morphed into all the sundry varieties I mentioned in my last post, will be explained next time.

Passover 4

Passover (Pesach) is NOT the Biblical name for the holiday, but rather "Hag HaMatzot" (The festival of unleavened bread). Pesach is actually the name of the sacrifice, which was offered on the afternoon BEFORE the actual beginning of the holiday, and was eaten in the evening. Occasionally, the Torah refers to that afternoon as Hag HaPesach. By Talmudic times, the name "Pesach" had "stuck" as the name of the entire Festival.. Unleavened bread has been used since time immemorial as the food of peasants and slaves. With the Exodus, it takes on a dual meaning; It is the bread of affliction, and is the bread of freedom. The intertwining of the two contradictory concepts is central to virtually all the ceremonies of Passover. Life is not monolithic; there is the bitter and the sweet. The Torah's explanation of the matzah is that when the Israelites left Egypt, they fled in haste. There was no time for the bread to rise in their kneading troughs. This is the explanation that we recite during the Seder. However, the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice a lamb, and eat it at night before leaving Egypt, with Matzah and bitter herbs (Maror; to be discussed in another post). Many see this as problematic. Why are they eating matzah, before the Exodus? Now we can understand. They are summing up centuries of affliction. They had been eating matzah as slaves. This was a last goodbye to bondage. The matzah they ate on their way out had a new meaning; freedom. The same element, but with a new and wonderful meaning. The Israelites were now commanded to reenact this ceremony annually, but not in haste, as one about to flee. Rather, calmly, relating to what had happened, what is happening, and what is yet to happen. There is a beautiful Sepharadic custom, as the middle matzah is broken near the beginning of the Seder, the broken piece is placed in a bag, and given to a child. The child leaves the house, and then knocks on the door. The leader of the Seder asks "Who is there?" "A Jew" replies the child. "Where are you coming from?" asks the leader. "From Egypt!" says the child. "Where are you going?" asks the leader. "To Jerusalem!" replies the child. All those present shout out "next year in Jerusalem!" at this point, as opposed to, or in addition to, the usual practice of saying it at the end of the Seder. The leader then asks "Why have you come?" The child says "I have some questions", whereupon he walks in, sits at the table, and asks the traditional Four Questions. (I must admit that I am tearing up just writing about it).
This seems simple enough. But when we seek to buy matzah, we are faced with a confusing array. Machine Shemurah Matzah, Machine regular, machine 18 minute, hand Shemurah Ashkenazi style. Hand Shemurah Sepharadic style, hand Shemurah Yemenite style, Erev Pesach (Passover eve) matzah. Egg matzah. And, although I'm not sure if it is made anymore, the German Matzot Mitzvah. What are the differences? Why would one prefer one over the other? That will be my next post.

Passover 3

The prohibition of owning hametz is stated in the Torah "there shall be seen no leaven or sourdough in your homes", which appears several times in the Torah, albeit with slightly different wording. One who possesses hametz, even if not in his home (e.g., a warehouse, or an office) transgresses a Biblical prohibition (technically two, as the Torah says in one place "there shall not be found", and in another, "there shall not be seen"). By the Oral Torah, we are informed that the prohibition refers to hametz as small  as the bulk of an egg, or admixtures containing significant amounts of hametz. Crumbs are NOT a problem (unless in a place where they may fall into food). Dust is not hametz. The excessive cleaning efforts of Jewish housewives, and the huge efforts of Jewish men to search and destroy every possible deposit of unidentified dirt in the house, has no basis in halachah. I know many people who prepare their homes weeks, or even months, in advance, only to have an anxiety attack when a child goes into a room with a cookie in his hand. The Torah commands that we remove hametz on the day before Passover, not three months before Passover! The anxiety is palpable; but is unnecessary. The Talmud makes clear that even if HUGE amounts of hametz are in our homes, declaring it null and void, while sincerely determining that we will have no benefit from it ever, is sufficient to satisfy the Biblical requirement. We are required to make such a declaration before Passover, both on the evening before, as well as the following morning. However, as it was feared that someone may forget his declaration, and absentmindedly eat some of it, by rabbinic law, one is required to physically remove and destroy all significant (more than the size of an egg) amounts of hametz from one's possession.
The Talmud relates an incident in which one of the rabbis was bringing a load of hametz grain to the Land of Israel, and was unexpectedly delayed at sea until Passover.He sold all of his hamez to a non-Jew, buying it back after Passover. Based on this precedent, it became common in all Jewish communities that owners of businesses with large amounts of hametz sell their entire stock to a non-Jew, usually through a rabbi with expertise in the halachot of sales, and it is bought back afterwards. The premises of the business would be rented to the non-Jew, so that the hametz would not be in the Jew's domain at all. Although this was originally an emergency measure to prevent "great loss", the custom became, in nearly all communities, to allow each householder to sell his hametz in this way. He would simply go to a rabbi, and sign a power of attorney to authorize this transaction. The householder would then put the hametz into a separate closet or a portion of a room that would be partitioned off and rented to the non-Jew. This became standard about 300 years ago. One rabbi, Eliyahu of Vilna, strongly objected to this practice, as he felt it was not a legitimate sale. Because of his view, the non-Hasidic Ashkenazic community in Israel, as well as many "Yeshivish" communities around the world, either do not sell their hametz, or else sell only non-hametz items which they fear may contain some hametz. Most Hasidic and Sepharadic communities do sell their hametz freely. Chabad has a special method of sale, which essentially removes all real halachic objections. (I sell mine through Chabad. This can be done for free through the chabad.org website). It must be remembered that once the declaration of nullification is made, the physical removal is only because of the decree "lest we find a nice pastry..." One may be lenient on a doubt concerning a rabbinic decree. The sale of hametz removes one's concern for "great loss" (especially in our era of refrigeration and packaged foods, where everyone has much food that would go to waste), as well as taking away much anxiety. Remember, we are supposed to rejoice in our festivals!

Passover part 2

Although all agree on the definition of hametz, any one of a  specific group of grains that has been allowed to ferment, many other foodstuffs have become "forbidden" by custom. These customs took on a life of their own.This is especially true of Ashkenazim, but not exclusively so. The classic example of this is the kitniyot controversy. (I call it the kitniyot superstition) As we shall see, there are other related phenomena, but none as hotly debated as this. In the Talmud, there was already a question if the five grains that can become hametz are really six; the additional one being rice. This was the view of one Talmudic rabbi (Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri). The Jerusalem Talmud leaves the question unanswered. The Babylonian Talmud emphatically rejects this position. In fact, some of those rabbis were particular to have rice on the Seder table. As I have written in previous articles, we follow the Babylonian Talmud. However, Ashkenazic and North African communities often had long-established customs in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud, and hence avoided rice. There was also a mention in Talmud of a rabbi who was opposed to a particular dish being served at a public event that looked too much like hametz, and he was afraid that people might come to eat hametz as a result. However, there is no indication that this view was accepted generally. We suddenly find that Ashkenazim stopped eating lentils on Passover in the late twelfth century. Where this came from is something of a mystery.  After a few hundred years, it became widely accepted that the rabbis of Franco-Germany had made an enactment forbidding lentils, or even all legumes, for fear of confusing them with grain. I have an open offer out for many years that I will give $10,000 cash to anyone who can show me which rabbi or Beit Din made this decree. Indeed, we find Rabbi Yechiel of Paris writing at the beginning of this custom "I don't know where it came from, but it should be stopped before it spreads". One rabbi (Rabbenu Yerucham) called it "a foolish custom". Legend has it that in fact that it was an ancient practice, which the Sepharadim, who supposedly had a legume-based diet, simply were unable to uphold, and therefore continued to eat legumes (kitniyot) despite the "ban". Again, this is nothing but folklore. There is absolutely no evidence of such a "ban" at any time by anyone. So where did it come from? Modern research has found the answer. At this time, in Franco-Germany, there was a great agricultural reform, known as the Ottonian Renaissance. New methods were introduced, as well as old methods that had been forgotten being resurrected. One of these was crop rotation. Fields were divided into sections; with one section for vegetables, one for grain, one for lentils, and one to lie fallow. Every year, there would be a rotation of these fields, which helps the earth maintain its fertility. So, the section that grew grain last year, would grow lentils this year. Anyone who does gardening can testify that last year's tomato patch will still produce some tomato plants this year as well. When the men brought in the lentil crop, the women found grain mixed in with the lentils. Rather than checking through the sacks of lentils for the wheat and barley, they simply refused to use the lentils! Thus, the custom of kitniyot was born. However, the custom became pervasive among Ashkenazim. Rabenu Asher, the preeminent Ashkenazi halachist of his era (1250-1328) declared kitniyot to be an "excessive stringency". But his pleas went unheeded. Over the centuries it was extended to most types of seeds as well. In the sixteenth century. RAMA (R. Moshe Isserles), the primary Ashkenazic voice in the Shulchan Aruch, declared the "prohibition" of kitniyot to be an established halachah for Ashkenazim. However, if the amount of kitniyot in a dish was less than fifty percent, it could be ignored. Today, most Ashkenazim would NEVER knowingly eat a dish containing kitniyot in any amount. For many,  this is one of the most stringent parts of Passover; not to be toyed with. Even Sepharadic rabbis who privately consider the kitniyot issue as "nonsense", do not say so publicly. As I have written in the past. I was very close with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. He wrote in his books many rules about how to handle kitniyot in mixed Ashkeanzi/Sepharadi settings, especially in marriages where one was Askenazi and one Sepharadi. Nevertheless, any Ashkenazi who wanted to go over to the Sepharadi practice in this regard, he would consent without hesitation. I asked him why, if he considered kitniyot nonsense, he simply didn't say so publicly. He replied "Do you want me to be at war with everyone?" Today, in Israel, there are several Ashkenazi rabbis who urge the dropping of the custom. There are others, however, who urge Sepharadim to "get with the plan". Most urge maintaining family custom. This includes other, purely local customs that may have had reasons once, but no longer do. This would include no garlic (Russian Jews), no fish (Hungarian Jews), no dried spices or dried fruit (several Ashkenazic communities). A somewhat similar situation exists in some Sepharadi communities, where chickpeas are not used. Why? Because they are called "Hummus", which sounds like "hametz". The difference is, that the vast majority of Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis argue for the abolishing of such customs, while Ashkenazim urge their preservation. Some argue "Oh, come on. What is the big deal of avoiding beans for a week?" For many, including yours truly, that is a fallacious argument. We have a Written Torah. We have an Oral Torah. Do we have a folklore Torah as well? That can be seen as a mockery of the divine commands. But, then again, the issue of the binding nature of custom is still something that has not as yet been fully dealt with. The matter awaits a valid Sanhedrin. In the meantime, we have Ashkenazim radically changing their diets for Passover, while Sephardim only have some minor modifications. Let us remember that rejoicing in the Festivals is a Biblical command. We must consider these issues carefully

Passover part 1

The Exodus from Egypt is one of the most central themes in Scripture. Many of the commandments specifically are done "as a memorial of the Exodus". We are often reminded in the Torah "I am HaShem who brought you up out of Egypt". Although all of the three pilgrimage festivals are connected with the Exodus. one, Passover (Pesah), is totally about it. How we observe and celebrate Passover today, is vastly different from the way it was observed in Temple times, as the Passover Sacrifice cannot now be brought (primarily because of political reasons). Together with circumcision, its non-observance is a rare case of "He shall be cut off from his people", usually reserved for violation of the most severe negative commands. Many of the commandments involving Passover can be performed in the absence of a Temple. Those that cannot be done, are remembered by various symbolic actions, that we may remember that some things are missing, only to be regained at the building of the Temple. Of those that remain, we have the mitzvah of eating matzah (to be defined below), the non-eating and non-possession of Hametz (leaven; likewise defined below), and the retelling of the story of the Exodus. The Talmud details what must and what must not be done, as like in most mitzvot there is insufficient information on how to fulfill these commandments in the Written Torah. However, customs grew up in all communities that often overshadow both the Biblical and rabbinical laws. The difference between Ashkenazi and Sepharadi attitudes towards the place of custom in Judaism accounts for the VAST differences between the observance of Passover in these two communities. At the risk (likelihood?) of offending some people, I will trace the origins and status of many of these customs.
What is "hametz"? Literally, it means "sour". Many followers of Karaite heresy will consume no fermented foods during Passover (yogurt, cheese, wine, as well as grain products that have risen). In our Oral Torah, the definition of "hametz" and the definition of "matzah" are inextricably linked. There are five grains that, if allowed to ferment, become hametz. The same grains, if baked before fermentation can take place, result in matzah. The Torah tells us that the Israelites left Egypt in haste, and had no time for their dough to rise; hence the command of matzah. (A problem here is that they were also commanded to eat matzah at their Passover observance hours BEFORE they left Egypt! I will deal with this problem in a later post). The Talmud lists the five grains. However, we are actually only certain about the identification of two of them. The present understanding of the identity of these grains comes from the Middle Ages. Already in the eleventh century, it was pointed out that some of these identifications are impossible. Both among Ashkenazim and Sepharadim. most accept the traditional identification. Some, however, are adamant that we must not. There is also a view, only among Ashkenazim, that even if some are doubtful, over a thousand years of tradition makes it acceptable. Sepharadim totally reject the idea that a mistaken custom could alter a Biblical rule. The ones we know for sure are wheat and barley. The doubtful ones are spelt, rye and oats. No other grains can become hametz. Likewise, they are the only grains from which matzah can be baked. Just for the record, I agree with those who will only use wheat or barley, and consider oats to be impossible, and rye and spelt to be doubtful, but most likely acceptable for matzah. I will admit that I am in the minority on this issue. Ashkenazi tradition includes a whole slew of other grains, seeds, and legumes. insisting that this was an ancient enactment, while most Sepharadim believe that to be an error, based on a custom of housewives. This, too, will be the topic of a subsequent post. 
A complicating factor in all of this is the question of how far we need to go to avoid eating and possessing hametz. Traditions vary widely, for reasons I will discuss in another post. But this question is pivotal in considering to what degree our Passover observance is "laid back", or tension-inducing. Against this, we must consider the Biblical command of "Rejoice in your festival". Too laid back might result in violating the prohibition of hametz, while overly strict would tend to violate the theme of "joy". The first year my wife and I were married, she received a letter- (remember those?) from a friend, who wrote "thank G-d Pesah is over". I told Sima to write back to her friend that we read in the Ethics of the Fathers that one who despises the holidays, loses his share in the World to Come. In which direction should we lean? What hints do we have in the Talmud and subsequent sources? We have much to discuss.

The World to Come part 4

Diametrically opposed to the approach of RAMBAM, the understanding of Olam Haba in Kabbalah is far more egalitarian and positive.  A relatively small percentage of Jews study Kabbalah, but many study RAMBAM. Nevertheless, the Kabbalistic view has become the popular accepted one, especially concerning Olam HaBa. Basically, the soul of Man is divided into units which correspond to the limbs and organs of the body. Through the various aspects of the soul, the body can be brought to connect with parallel aspects of the Divine realm. Man can connect to G-d through his soul. This connection is called "devekut" (clinging), and is responsible for true feelings of transcendence and spirituality. In turn, each mitzvah is the vehicle for linking part of the body, through the soul, back into the "root" of the mitzvah above. If one has fulfilled everything they should have, the soul, at the death of the body, ascends to its proper place in Heaven, delighting in the knowledge and closeness with G-d. If something has been blemished, it must be cleansed. It will then descend to Gehinnom, of which there are several levels. This is for the sake of the repair (tikkun) of the soul, not Divine vengeance. Think of it being like surgery. At the conclusion of this cleansing, nearly all souls ascend, with the exception of the most brutally wicked, who must wait for their tikkun, in some cases, until the coming of Mashiach. In many cases, the great Tzaddikim, living and dead, will have pity on these souls, and through their prayers and meditations repair and elevate them. This is done daily during the Tachanun prayer after the morning amidah. Good deeds done in their memory by others will also serve to repair and elevate these people. Upon ascending to Heaven, the soul is constantly rising from plane to plane. coming ever closer to G-d Himself. There is a special elevation on the anniversary of death, known as Yahrtzeit (literally, "the time of the year"). There are various customs performed by relatives and other loved ones on the occasion of the Yahrtzeit. However, if, after cleansing, it is found that the soul is missing an area of fulfillment, something vital left undone, then it is sent back to be born again into this world. It can sometimes happen that a soul already in Paradise, might ascend to a level at which something has been left undone in relation to that level, and will be sent back down to complete the task. Some are sent down not for their own tikkun, but in order to teach and guide others. In some cases, people are reincarnated in non-human form; animal vegetable or mineral. These await being used by a living person in the service of G-d, affecting their final tikkun. Reincanation as a fish is the most common. This is a primary basis for the Kabbalistic understanding of the custom of eating fish at every Shabbat meal. We are elevating souls that still require some tikkun to reach their proper place. In fact, any physical object we use in the service of G-d may have a soul lurking there, awaiting tikkun. There is a constant connection between the living and the dead. In fact, Rabbi Nachman used the spinning dreidel as a metaphor of physical transforming to spiritual, and vice versa. At the coming of Mashiach, a process will begin in which the world will become increasingly spiritual, until Olam Hazeh (this world) and Olam Haba will come together. Then the resurrection of the dead will come about.
Rabbi Nachman, speaking in the first decade of the nineteenth century, once foretold: "A great spirit of Atheism and Heresy is descending on the Earth. A simple Jew who washes his hands for HaMotzi (the blessing for bread. Washing being one of the most elementary aspects of Jewish life. In fact, in observant circles, one doesn't say "Let's eat" but rather "let's wash") will be as unique as the Baal Shem Tov in his time". His students became frightened. "Perhaps we shouldn't bring children into the world?" Rabbi Nachman replied: "You do yours...when Mashiach comes, everyone will have a tikkun, going all the way back to Adam".

The World to Come part 3

Moses Maimonides (RAMBAM) is arguably the most central figure in Jewish philosophy. To this day, there is great controversy about his true thoughts. Some see his philosophy as a kind of code, hiding Kabbalistic teachings. Many deny this. It is often forgotten that his books were burned in Ashkenazic lands during his lifetime, and after his death. Rabbi Jacob Emden wrote in the early eighteenth century that it is inconceivable that the great halachist of RAMBAM's legal code could have written such a heretical book as Guide for the Perplexed. He concludes that it is certainly a forgery. Some early Hasidic leaders venerated his philosophical works, while others forbade glancing at them. His legal code is clear in halachah, but vague in philosophy. This is nowhere more true than in the matter of Olam HaBa; the World to come. After having published his great Code, controversy broke out as to what he was saying, or even if he might be guilty of heresy. This was true to such an extent, that he wrote a separate treatise "Maamar Tehiyat Hametim" (Treatise on Resurrection). His views differ from those expressed in the Talmud, as well as from the views of most of his contemporaries. First of all, he pictures life after death as a spiritual plane, in which those who have toiled in the understanding of G-d in this world, will TRULY understand in the next. This understanding will be a great pleasure and joy. This is the meaning of the Talmudic statement that the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads. They will perceive that which they only know externally in this world. He posits no hereafter for those who failed to ponder these matters on earth. (Rabbi Nachman of Breslov railed against this elitist idea of Paradise). The statement "All Israel have a share in the world to come" is speaking of potentiality, not what is. The vast majority of people, including Jews, will never see the World to Come. He also separates the ideas of Resurrection from the Messianic Era. Resurrection may occur before or after the coming of Mashiach. It will be a temporary, limited, miraculous phenomenon. Those who will be resurrected will also eventually die. What the purpose of this resurrection is is not clear in RAMBAM. In Daniel, it is for the purpose of a great Judgement. RAMBAM makes no mention of any future judgment. He also posits a post Messianic joining of the physical and spiritual worlds, which is the ultimate goal. At this time, knowledge of G-d will exist in this world on the ultimate level. The wicked will simply go into non-existence. Those guilty of great crimes, will experience great shame; presumably, eternally. In RAMBAM, there is no possibility of anything after death rectifying past deeds. This includes prayers or actions by the living, and even Divine punishment. I must say that these ideas are in striking contrast to what most Jews believe. Even staunch Maimonists tend to shy away from them. It is no wonder that these views were put aside for centuries in favor of Kabbalistic concepts (next post). Even after the Shabbatean debacle, when many "rediscovered " Maimonist philosophy as a safer substitute, few chose to talk of these ideas. I cannot imagine speaking at a funeral, or even within my own heart and mind, that eternity is granted only to PhDs. I love RAMBAM, and study his legal code daily, but see his approach in these matters as far too cerebral, or simply Aristotelian. As he wrote in his Guide, that the views of the Talmudic sages about the hereafter were "Imagination", I would prefer to apply those words  even more to his own philosophy. It is vital, however, to understand that there is more than one Jewish view on almost everything. In my next post, I will go into the Kabbalistic viewpoint. Honestly, that is where I really live.

The World to Come part 2

The ideas of both the afterlife, and the world after the resurrection, are basic beliefs in the Talmud, as well as post Talmudic Judaism. Nevertheless, as Judaism is primarily concerned with sanctifying the here-and-now, the ideas are vague, and subject to interpretation. In fact, RAMBAM, in his philosophical work, Guide for the Perplexed, while accepting both concepts, considers any and all descriptions as "imagination". (More on that in my next post). What are we told? First of all, we have the statement "All Israel have a share in the world to come". However, the very next line says "And these are they who have no share in the world to come". Several names are then given of those whose deeds have excluded them from reward. What is the afterlife like? "The righteous sit with crowns on their heads, basking in the rays of the Divine Presence". We are told that "each righteous person inherits three hundred and ten worlds". We are not, however, told the meaning or nature of these worlds. Interestingly, the word for "worlds" is ""olamot", which is very close to "alamot" ("maidens"). Some speculate that this may be the source of the concept of Paradise in Islam. The word for "Paradise" is "Gan Eden", literally, "the Garden of Eden (delight)". Is this the same Garden of Eden as in Genesis? No, there is a Heavenly Garden of Eden and an Earthly Garden of Eden; the latter being the one in Genesis. (Although the Zohar seems to indicate that the Garden of Eden in Genesis was also not in this world) There is a debate in the Talmud if Righteous Gentiles also enter the World to Come. The conclusion is yes, indeed they do. What about those people, Jew or Gentile, who do not merit this reward? They go to Gehinnom. This is pictured as a place of great suffering, although the nature of that suffering is not described, except by saying that earthly fire is "one sixtieth" of the fire of Gehinnom. Interestingly, the word "Gehinnom" is actually the name of a valley next to Jerusalem, in which people used to sacrifice children to the pagan god Molech. The Talmud tells us that the maximum sentence for Gehinnom is twelve months, with most people receiving lesser sentences. Gehinnom, therefore, is more like the Catholic Purgatory than Hell. Some individuals, however, are not so fortunate. Some very great sinners have punishment that is ongoing. When people exit Gehinnom, they achieve Paradise. There are some aggadic statements that people can be aided in the next world by the good deeds of others, especially their children. This would later be hotly debated. There are also stories in Kabbalah of individuals who return to this world, to teach or aid others. Often, people come back to complete tasks that were left undone.
As to the Resurrection, it is described in glowing terms as the righteous arising from their graves, dressed in many beautiful garments. They will encounter a very different world from the one they left behind. It will be a world in which spirituality will be manifest in all things. The unity of the material and spiritual will have been accomplished. Many later rabbis consider this, rather than the afterlife, as the main "World to Come".
Both philosophers and mystics enlarged on these ideas, giving profound insights on the meaning of these ideas. Especially in Kabbalah, the spiritual world takes on more tangible meaning, and is intrinsically connected with our lives now. To be continued.

The World to Come part 1

First, it must be remembered that the Torah is not a book of doctrine, but rather a code of behavior. We look in vain for clear pictures of the meaning of death, the nature and fate of the soul, or the future events awaiting Man or the Jewish people. There are, to be sure, hints; but these can often be understood either literally or allegorically. All of these questions are the province of the Oral Tradition. Even there, however, we find many opinions and interpretations. The ancient Sadducees, who rejected the Oral Torah, denied a hereafter. The views of the afterlife found in other religions that stemmed from Judaism are much more influenced by the Oral Tradition than by Scripture.
Well, let's see what we DO find. The term "Sheol" is frequently used throughout the Tanach. It may, and probably does, simply mean "the grave". Non-traditional scholars, as well as Karaite heresy, interpret it to be like the Greek "Hades", where the souls continue a shadowy, dull existence. According to the Karaites, all are equal there, with no concept of reward or punishment. Many Christian groups understand Sheol to mean Hell. That this is unlikely can be seen from Jacob's statement, after hearing of the supposed death of Joseph, "I will go down in unhappiness to Sheol".Did Jacob believe he was going to Hell? When King David learns of the death of his first son with Bathsheba, he says "He will not return to me, I will go to him". Is he speaking of an afterlife, or merely metaphorically of death? The one case I can think of that strongly implies the continued existence of the soul, is the story of Saul and the Witch of En Dor. G-d has abandoned Saul, and he resorts to going to a Witch (most of whom he has killed) in order to bring up the soul of Samuel, who had anointed him and guided him in the first days of his reign. Samuel "rises from the Earth", and tells Saul of his doom the next day. But did the Witch actually have power? Many of the rabbis interpret this story literally. Many believe that the Witch was powerless, but G-d sent Samuel , much to the Witch's amazement. Still others believe that the entire story is to be interpreted allegorically. King Solomon, in the cynical mood of his last years, questions: "Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?" (Kohelet 3:21). Yet, he also says: "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to G-d who gave it". (Kohelet 12:7) But what does returning to G-d mean? How? Where? These are all questions that are dealt with at length in rabbinic literature, which I will discuss in my next post.
Much clearer than the afterlife, is the idea of bodily resurrection. Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones coming to life would seem to imply resurrection. But it is most probably, from the context, a metaphor for the reestablishment of the exiles in Babylon to the Land of Israel. There are several verses in Isaiah that allude to resurrection, but Daniel has it most clearly: " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.  And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever". (Daniel 12:2-3) Daniel seems to clearly state that the dead will live again. But his words indicate a terrible judgment. That idea is to be found in Talmud and other rabbinic literature. However, RAMBAM, as we shall see, totally rejects the notion of a day of judgment. Moreover, these verses imply an eternal punishment. But the Talmud rejects eternal punishment. Why? And what has been happening to the souls in the time between death and resurrection? The Karaites assume that it has been in a sort of suspended animation, or more correctly, the shadowy existence in Sheol. The rabbis, however, see it as a time of heavenly bliss, with the resurrection finally uniting Heaven and Earth. Interestingly, RAMBAM, in his legal code, deals only briefly with resurrection, and much more with the afterlife. Yet, in his Thirteen Articles of Faith, he lists the resurrection as a bedrock principle, but fails to mention the afterlife at all. The apocryphal Book of Maccabees speaks of the Jews praying for their dead comrades after a battle. Can the dead be "helped"? Many of the Jewish philosophers, including RAMBAM, vigorously reject this notion. Yet, prayers for the dead are a major feature of Jewish worship in nearly all communities. (Interestingly, the quote in Maccabees is probably the reason why Catholics accept, while Protestants reject, that book). Like in many areas, the Tanach contains many treasures and secrets, waiting to be unlocked by the Oral Tradition. I will discuss some of these "keys" in my next installments.

Christianity

I'm about to do something I said would not be tolerated here. If someone wants to boot me...
I made a policy of not discussing other religions. But I see that there is much misunderstanding, and much resentment on this topic.
First of all, what is a Jew? Our Tradition recognizes one as a Jew who was either born into that Nation that made a Covenant with G-d at Sinai, or who had duly joined that Covenant by means of conversion. "Feeling Jewish" is not a criterion, any more than my deciding that I like your family, and am therefore your brother.
Once Jewish, one cannot be made non-Jewish, even if they should sacrifice to Zeus every day. They are, however, violating the covenant. A covenant is a contract. One party not keeping the terms of a contract does not mean that the Contract is null and void. They will, however, face consequences. I have a close friend (of 40 years standing) who is a Wiccan Priestess. She worships many gods and goddesses. But she is born Jewish, and darn proud of that. If you tell her she is not Jewish, you had better duck...fast! She has two children, who are, according to halachah, Jewish. No Orthodox rabbi would ever say differently.
Now, we must talk about Jesus. Some question if he even existed. There is only one contemporary mention of him, and that is likely a forgery. He could very well be a composite figure. Many of the events, in both Jewish and Christian sources, do not jive chronologically. The name "Yeshua" was the second most common male Jewish name at that time, after Simeon. Confusion between figures is certainly possible. I will go here by the assumption that the stories in the Gospels are substantially historical, albeit written from a non-objective stance. Let's start at the beginning. Mary was "Betrothed" to Joseph, who had not yet "taken her". See my series about Jewish marriage. That means that she had had "kiddushin", the part of the ceremony when she becomes forbidden to any other man, but is not yet permitted to her husband, but not "Nissuin", which permits her to him. We know from Jewish sources that the custom in Judea was to separate these ceremonies by 12 months. (Today, we do both together, separated only by the reading of the Ketubah). According to Torah law, that made Jesus a "Mamzer", a bastard born of adultery. It would invalidate him from ever marrying, or holding any official position. He would be an outcast, a pariah. (I do not wish to discuss now the morality of this rule). Now, when we look at what Jesus is alleged to have taught, we see a great deal of frustration and anger against what he perceives to be injustice. This could very well be a reflection on his personal situation. Beyond that, about 90% of what he said is completely consistent with Jewish law and tradition. In many ways, he can be seen as a continuation of Hillel, who lived a centurt earlier, who put Man and human dignity first. However, there is nothing new in these teachings, only a different emphasis. As to the other 10%, there are denials of basic Jewish concepts (It has been said unto you...but I say...), violation of Shabbat in non life threatening situations, and at least broad hints of both Messiahship and Divinity. (Although these statements can be otherwise interpreted). There is little doubt that he would have been seen as a heretic, although there are contradicting stories in the Gospels about his relationship with the rabbis. The upper classes (the ruling class and the Priesthood) were vassals of Rome, and feared any talk of a King of the Jews. (Crucified criminals had a sign over their cross indicating their crime. Hence, the sign "King of the Jews" over Jesus' cross.) His followers were common people and the disenfranchised. There is no indication that he had a following among the learned or devout. In terms of the Jews, he is a footnote on one page of Jewish history. As a Messiah, he had failed miserably. He was just another pretender to that role, one of scores. Then comes Paul. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh; only in vision. Paul rarely quotes Jesus, or makes reference to the events in his life. Paul's message is overwhelmingly about Jesus' death. Paul is a Hellenize Jew. The Greeks believed that the gods sometimes came to Earth, born as humans. (You will recognize this idea from its Hindu version; the Avatar). This form of the gods is called "Soter" in Greek, meaning Savior. Paul made a Jewish heretic into a Greek god!. Among early Christians, there were both Jews and non-Jews. Paul posited that all believers were grafted on to the original covenant (Romans 9 and 11), which no longer requires observance of the laws "If there is salvation under the law, Christ died in vain" (Galatians 2:21). (Salvation itself was a Pauline concept, but let's leave that for anther day). The Jews were henceforth flooded with non-Jews, claiming to be Jews "grafted by faith". The rabbis saw this as a grave danger to Jewish identity, and composed an anti-Christian "blessing" that was inserted into the amidah prayer. (For the last thousand years, it has been changed to a curse upon "evil doers and slanderers".) This forced Christianity to go its own way. Nearly all Christianity after this point is antisemitic. Fortunately, the most virulent groups were thrown out at the Council of Nicaea, in CE, albeit not becasue of their antisemitism. Persecution of Jews continued from that time until today, in various guises (NOT only Catholics). More Jews have been killed in Jesus' name than any other cause. It is no wonder that for most Jews, the name "Jesus" is emotionally on a par with Hitler. Christian missionaries had very little success with Jews, until "Moshe Rosen" (ordained and funded by the Southern Baptist Church) founded Jews for Jesus in the 1960s, which presented the option of being Jewish and following Jesus. Before the 1967 Six day War, most Evangelicals were anti-Israel, but switched to a supportive position as it seemed that Israel was fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Thus was born the "Messianic" movement.
Jews today take different stances concerning Jesus. Some see him as an evil, almost demonic, figure. Medieval legends and superstitions have been melded into a kind of paranoia. At one time, Jews in Christian Europe were not allowed out in the streets on Christmas Eve, so as not to pollute the "Holy Night". Christmas, in Italian, is Natale. Jews could not go to synagogue or study halls. Today, many Ashkenazi Jews do not study Torah on the first half of Christmas Eve. The reason has been forgotten. The belief has become that if we study, we are giving Jesus "energy" (chiyut). I know many who are "strict" to avoid study on Roman, Greek and Russian Christmases! Others, including yours truly, see this as ludicrous. On the other hand, most Reform, and many Conservative rabbis, are perfectly willing to give Jesus "billing" as a Jewish thinker, minus Messiahship, Divinity...or Paul. For many others (including me), he is simply irrelevant, an "also ran". But, as I have shown elsewhere, most rabbis regard Christianity as acceptable for non-Jews. As such, it has brought them to G-d, and we await their coming closer. I freely and sincerely wish my Christian friends a "Merry Christmas", as they greet me for my festivals. (I usually get unfriended by a few people every year for this). So, I have little regard for Jesus, or for Christianity. We have suffered immensely becasue of him. But over a billion people acknowledge the G-d of Israel through that faith. I see it, as RAMBAM states, as a necessary stage in the development of Man's quest for G-d. I look forward to human progress in that area.

Hanukah

I have been asked to speak about Hanukah. I originally wasn't going to, as this group is about community. Then I realized that Hanukah is, essentially, about community and its meaning. When the Judeans returned from the Babylonian Exile (c. 400 bce), they were vassals of Persia. We actually know less about that period than any other time in our history. Persia fell to Greece, in the time of Alexander the Great. Alexander died at the age of 33, in 323 bce. His empire was then divided among his generals. Judea was in a tug-of-war between Egyptian-Greek rule and Syrian-Greek rule. The Syrians eventually prevailed. The policy of the Alexandrian Hellenistic Empire was to conquer the known world (they came pretty close!) and to establish that culture on all subject peoples, while making allowances for local nuances. The majority of the Jews welcomed the opportunity to become "citizens of the world". The Temple of Jerusalem was converted into a Temple of Zeus. A small band of zealots, led by a Priestly family, rebelled. This was not, however, as usually pictured, a fight against foreign oppression and domination, but primarily a civil war between the more numerous Hellenists, and the smaller group of those loyal to Torah and Judaism. (Syrian Greek troops aided the Hellenists) The war lasted for seven years. Two years into the fighting, the Temple Mount was liberated, even though most of Jerusalem, as well as most of the country, were still in Hellenist hands. The Temple was cleansed, and the Divine Service was restored. If not for this event, Judaism would likely have ended at this juncture in history. At the end of the seven year struggle, a Maccabeean State arose. This was the only independence that Judea knew in the Second Temple period. As I wrote in my piece about Thanksgiving, the heroes of this story can be criticized for many things. Firstly, we are speaking about a bloody civil war. Secondly, the surviving Maccabees usurped the Throne, rather than re-instituting the Davidic Kingdom. After a few generations, they became oppressive to Judaism itself, and murdered hundreds of rabbis. Along the way, they forcibly converted the Iddumeans to Judaism, eventually resulting in one, Herod, seizing the throne and murdering the remaining Maccabees. Two Maccabeean brothers struggled for power, and one INVITED IN THE ROMANS! (Herod was their puppet). Hanukah gets one quarter of a page in the Talmud, while Purim gets an entire tractate. In fact, we have no Jewish source for the word "Maccabee". (There are two possible explanations for the word, and two possible spellings). So why do we celebrate Hanukah? For the rededication of not only the Temple, but the people to G-d, and the rebirth of Judaism. Hanukah means dedication. The story of the cruise of oil, and the Menorah burning for eight days, is unknown in our literature until three centuries after the event. (The Books of Maccabees are to be found in Catholic Bibles, not ours. They do not mention this event. Neither does the "al hanissim prayer which we recite during Hanukah). Many consider it a mere legend. In my opinion, it was a real event that was known only to the few. The historian, Josephus, writing in the first century, after completing the historical details, writes "it is also called the festival of lights, but I don't know why". It seems to me that there was a vague memory, which had been largely forgotten by all but a few. In any case, the miracle of the oil is secondary to the rededication, and rebirth, of Judaism. The Maccabees aren't even secondary. They are almost incidental. We ceelbrate the miracles of G-d, and His workings through history. The rabbis instituted the command of Hanukah candles, and put great emphasis on it. It is one of the few commands that we must sell our shoes, if necessary, in order to fulfill. That is becasue it is "pirsuma nisa", making the miracle known, recognizing that G-d is the G-d of history. Customs arose in Jewsih communities to eat fried foods, in memeory of the oil of the Menorah, as well as dairy foods, since one of the Greek generals was killed by a Jewish woman named Judith, who gave him dairy foods, causing him to sleep (This, too, is in the Catholic Bible, but is also preserved in a Midrash).. Once asleep, she killed him. (This is very similar to the story of Yael in the Tanach). Happy Hanukah!

The Messiah part 12

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was adored by many, but also hated by many. The heads of the Lithuanian Yeshivot, traditionally opposed to Hasidism in general, had made their peace with it for the most part. But Chabad had, in a relatively short time, made a profound impact not only on American Jewry, but worldwide. That spelled danger for the Lithuanian Yeshiva approach. Tones of Messianism had been present in Chabad for at least a century. As soon as Rabbi Shneerson assumed his position, one Rosh Yeshiva, who had long been an opponent of Chabad, stated "That crazy man from Lubavitch thinks he is Mashiach". As the years went by, the most prominent representative of the Lithuanian approach, Rabbi M. Shach (of Bnai Brak, Israel), made a point of opposing everything the Rebbe did and said. Even when the Rebbe instituted a daily study session in RAMBAM's legal code, Rav Shach was opposed."If it is such a good idea, why didn't the Chafetz Chaim come up with it, WHOSE HEART WAS CERTAINLY MORE OPEN!". He decried the Rebbe's statements as being things that "should not be thought, let alone said". When the Rebbe passed away, and Meshichist Chabad essentially took over the movement in Israel, the floodgates were open. In the U.S., the cudgel was taken up by Rabbi David Berger, one of the deans of the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University. He wrote a book in 2001, called "The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference". He argued that the Chabad concept of Mashiach contradicts traditional theology (which I pointed out in a previous post had only become "standard" after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle). As such, they are no longer to be considered Orthodox Jews. He chastised those Orthodox Jewish groups that cooperated with them, and paints Chabad as modern-day Hebrew Christians, only with a different Messiah. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate has largely accepted that view, and will not convert non-Jews who believe that the Rebbe is the Messiah. Rabbi Berger's attacks continue to this day. There was a popular blog "FailedMessaih.com" that was founded especially against Chabad Messianism but later dealt with all types of scandals in the Orthodox community. In 2015, it was bought out...and closed down. A rather unlikely defender of Chabad appeared in the form of Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, a long-time Rosh Yeshiva in Chicago, and a scion of one of the main streams of Lithuanian Jewry. Although he certainly didn't regard the Rebbe as Mashiach, he pointed out that there were many conflicting views on the subject (as I have shown in part 2 of this series). Even the possibility of a dead Mashiach finds advocates in the Talmud, and therefore people espousing that view cannot be considered beyond the Pale. Ironically, his statements were immediately celebrated by Jews for Jesus, as being a vindication of Christianity. They dubbed him "The Tzaddik from Chicago".This served to further alienate many Jews from the Chabad approach. Although I in no way support the idea of the Meshichsts, I agree that Jewish thought is not as rigid as we have been led to believe by those who accepted Maimonist philosophy as the sole definition of Judaism. (Ironically, Chabad are big fans of RAMBAM's philosophy, albeit heavily reinterpreted). There is a wide spectrum in Judaism for varying outlooks, and we should not be quick to rule anything out, as long as it accepts the basic concepts of Torah and halachah. The entire topic of Mashiach, as we have seen, although a central theme, is only marginally defined. Disputes over it have brought us a very great deal of suffering. When Mashiach comes, we will know it. When I lived in Israel, I had a neighbor who tried to convince me that Yitzchak Shamir (then Prime Minister of Israel) was Mashiach. I laughed. I didn't try to stone him. I didn't even consider him a heretic; just silly. When the Exiles are gathered in, the Temple rebuilt, and Peace will reign, we will know that Mashiach has arrived. Speculation is, in my opinion, silly. May HaShem send His righteous redeemer soon.

The Messiah part 11

One of the most amazing phenomena of modern Judaism is Chabad. It has gone from an obscure, rather elitist, White Russian movement of the turn of the nineteenth century, to a worldwide force. There is no place in the world with a significant Jewish population that doesn't have a Chabad emissary. Although quite rigid within their own community in terms of their own version of Jewish law and custom (which differs widely in many cases from the standard), they maintain an open-door policy, without pressure to accept their ways, until one makes the decision to join them. Each person who comes is offered everything, but may pick and choose what they are comfortable with. They spearheaded the Baal Teshuvah movement at a time when most rabbis thought it unwise to so dilute the community with "outsiders". They essentially founded the Noachide movement. Although there are no membership records, it is believed that they have already surpassed Orthodox, Conservative and Reform in terms of participation. I have been told by Reform rabbis that Chabad has "stolen" their membership!
However, the issue of Messianism has divided their own community, and has, in many ways, set up a wedge between themselves and other Jewish groups. As we have seen, the idea that there is a potential Messiah in every generation has been with us since the sixteenth century, and has become widely accepted. Chabad believes that Hassdism represents a leap forward over pre-Hassidic Judaism, and Chabad, in turn, represents a leap forward over other forms of Hassidism. It follows, therefore, that the leader, the Rebbe, of Chabad must be the potential Messiah. The feeling of an imminent Redemption has been a characteristic of Chabad for the last hundred years, at least (although it is absent in the early movement). The last Chabad/Lubavitcher Rebbe was seen as the obvious choice for the role. Under his leadership, the incredible spread of Chabad, and the strengthening of Judaism in general, had occurred. Plus, he had no children; no heirs. He would be the last Rebbe, and therefore MUST be Mashiach. Also, as the seventh Rebbe of Chabad, he fit into the idea of Malchut (Kingship). The spiritual battle for the souls of lost Jews was viewed by the followers of Chabad as making him the "Presumed Mashiach" of RAMBAM, a "king" fighting the Wars of the L-rd. Already in the 1960s, an unofficial split came among Chabad Chassidim. One group, while accepting the potential Messiahship of the Rebbe, did not make that the emphasis. Rather, the main effort is to keep, and spread, Torah and Mitzvot, thereby paving the way for the ultimate redemption. The other group felt that this is it, Mashiach had arrived, and only awaited the right time to reveal himself. Two separate outreach structures were formed by these two divisions. Animosities sprang up. There were two ideologies, each one seeing the other as missing the point. To my knowledge, the Rebbe never took a stand on this issue (Although each side points to quotes of the Rebbe that would seem to favor one side or the other). Someone whom I know very well (OK, it was I), was sent by the Rebbe in 1973 to work at the first Chabad House in a major Midwestern city. The first day he arrived, he was told by the rabbi in charge "you're on tonight. We're speaking at a college. I want to see how you do". After the lecture, the young man said "Well, how was I?" The older rabbi said "you were terrible. You used a word we never use; G-d. We are here to win "sacrifices" for the Rebbe. All else is worthless". Eventually, these two factions got names. "Meshichistim" (messianics) and "Non-Meshichistim". It's not that the Non-Meshichistim didn't believe in the Messiahship of the Rebbe, but rather that this was not the focus of their mission. In the U.S., the Meshichistim are the minority of the movement. In Israel, they are the vast majority. The crisis came, however, in 1994, with the passing of the Rebbe. At his funeral, many people were shouting "Long live our master, teacher, and rebbe, King Messiah for ever and ever". One leader of the non-Meshichist group was asked by a reporter what this meant. "I don't know. I don't think they know". The "long live.." mantra is still to be heard at the end of every prayer service in the Meshichist community. The non-Meshichists were, of course, devastated at the Rebbe's death. What did it mean? Their response was "we don't know. We'll continue the things he taught, and await developments that will come from G-d". The Meshichistim were in denial. "He is the Mashiach even now, working from wherever he is!" One group even denies that he died at all. Rather, he is in hiding! That group will not visit his grave, so as not to lend credence to the idea that he may be dead. The rest of the Jewish world stood with their mouths agape. Was this Judaism? Had a line been crossed? Books were written defending and denouncing the Meshichists. Other Jewish groups struggled with the question if Chabad, and especially the Meshichists, could still be considered Orthodox Jews. Lines were drawn in the sand. That will be my next post.

The Messiah part 10

There are numerous legends, theories, and interpretations of the rise and meaning of Hasidism. I have already gone into many of these in earlier posts. One approach, however, is that of the noted historian of Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem. Scholem saw Hasidism as a redirecting of Messianism inward. (Sort of a parallel to the Christian "the Kingdom is within you"). He posited that the Hasidic form of Messianism is more of a personal, rather than a Cosmic, transformation. I think that there is much merit in this view, but it does not tell the entire story. It is well known that Hasidic Kabbalah transfers the emphasis from the macrocosm to the microcosm. But, just as it doesn't deny the importance of the macrocosm, neither does it deny a personal Mashiach. But, for the most part, the focus on a transformed and rectified world is dulled. Yes, we are to hope for and believe that deliverance is coming; but, in the meanwhile, let's get our lives in order. Let's learn how to be happy in the midst of adversity. Let's find G-d in prayer and every experience. A famous letter from the Baal Shem Tov, Hasidism's founder, tells of a vision, in which he encountered the Mashiach. "When are you coming?" asked the Baal Shem Tov. "When your wellsprings overflow" was the answer. That is, a joyous awareness of the presence of G-d must precede Mashiach. (More recent research casts doubt upon this letter.In any case, it is at a minimum  indicative of the ideology of early Hasodosm). Early Hasidic literature gives little indication of a speedy redemption. Even the Tanya, the cornerstone of Chabad Hasidism, only mentions the Mashiach a couple of times. Yes, several Hasidic leaders swore before their deaths, that they would give G-d no rest until He had sent the Mashiach. Many Hasidic stories explain the failure of these efforts by saying that when they got to Heaven, they were distracted by the many wonderful things they saw, and simply forgot. Yes, there was a collective effort in 1814 of several Hasidic greats to bring Mashiach with their meditations during the Simchat Torah celebration. But all those involved met with personal calamities; including death in some of the cases. The time had not yet come. What we do find, is the idea that one who is spiritually "together", is already living in the Messainic era. Many Hasidic leaders were seen as pre-Messiahs. They were worthy to be Mashiach if the world was ready, but it wasn't. But that didn't stop them from making great "rectifications" even now, which will pave the way for THE Mashiach. One telling story has it that the Baal Shem Tov actually promised a man that he would live to see Mashiach. Time passed, and the man grew old. His friends and family were all dead. He was well over a hundred years old, and tired of living.He visited many Tzaddikim, who expressed respect for the assurance he had received, but told him they could do nothing. He finally came to Rabbi Nachman, who simply smiled at the man. The man walked out, and told the people gathered around that he believed that the Baal Shem Tov had meant this young rabbi. He passed away peacefully a few hours later. Did Rabbi Nachman consider himself Mashiach? There is no indication of that. He said that he had paved the way for Mashiach. When an infant son was born to him, he named the baby Shlomo Ephraim. Shlomo (Solomon) was the son of David. Ephraim was the son of Joseph. A hint of both stages of Mashiach! He said that if the generation was worthy, the boy would live and become Mashiach. But the boy died in infancy one year later. Rabbi Nachman said "Now, Mashiach is delayed at least for a hundred years". That was in 1806. Rabbi Nachman predicted that before Mashiach came, there would be machines that fly in the air! (Some of the Breslov Hasidim danced for joy when they heard about the Wright Brothers.) One of the leaders of Breslov in the early twentieth century was asked if we could now expect Mashiach. He answered" "It looks to me like his grandfather has not yet been born". So Hasidim wait for Mashiach, but they do not put everything on hold while waiting. It is true that the Chabad Hasidim have, in the last century, put a great deal of emphasis on "bringing Mashiach". I have heard Chabad rabbis say that this is our main purpose in life. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe was asked why, if this is the case, there is no indication of this in early Hasidic, or even Chabad literature, he responded that when a craftsman first begins fashioning a project, no one looking on can have a clue what that project is to become. But the craftsman knows from the beginning. Most other Hasidim do not share this view, They wait until the time that G-d will choose for deliverance. But, in the meanwhile, pursue their lives in constructive and holy ways. When I lived in Israel, I had a friend who was a member of the Gur Hasidic community. He once said to me "I don't need Mashiach. I study Torah all day, every day. The unlearned need Mashiach". While that is a rather extreme expression, it is a fair representation of a general feeling. We must make our lives holy, even magical. We seek people whose lives are already that way and look to them for guidance. Together, we await the person and time that will put everything together. "Pushing the envelope" will only lead to disaster, as has already happened too many times.

The Messiah part 9

I "became" Sepharadic in the Spring of 1991. Two months later, I was in a Sepharadic synagogue for the Shavu'ot holiday. Special prayers were said at the opening of the Ark. I was reciting them, when I suddenly stopped in my tracks. One line of the prayer contained the words "Ateret Tzvi Meshichecha". That could mean two things. It could mean "the beautiful crown of your Messiah". Or, it could mean "the crown of Tzvi your Messiah". I asked the rabbi of the synagogue. He replied "yes, that is a Shabbatean prayer. Many of our customs come from there. Any that are obviously heretical we eliminate, but those that appear harmless, we keep". (It can also be understood as "the beautiful cown of Your anointed", but the context did not fit that). After the holiday, I asked the eminent rabbinic scholar, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for an explanation. He said "How did you know?!?! We are trying to keep this quiet, and remove those things gradually, so as not to open up old wounds". At that point, I began to realize that 1666 was not yet over. Like in the aftermath of a hurricane, the landscape is never the same. Jewish communal life, in fact, Judaism as a whole, looked very different after Shabbetai Tzvi. History was rewritten. The annals of some Jewish communities had the pages for 1663 to 1666 simply ripped out. But bigger things were also ripped out. The Jews of Western Europe discarded Kabbalah, as that was seen as the cause of the problem. Central Europe didn't go that far,. but restricted Kabbalah to scholars who would only study it in private or in small groups. Anything smacking of Messianism was seen as a potential threat. Of course, Orthodox Jews clung to the belief in a Messiah... someday. The great rabbis of Central and Eastern Europe remade the course of study in the Yeshivot so as to deemphasize, or even eliminate, a sense of transcendence that might get out of hand. A sterilized Judaism emerged that I would consider...boring. Even study of the Talmud was limited to portions not lending themselves to speculation; marriage, divorce, damages, loans. The open questioning and exchange of ideas that had always characterized Judaism, was suddenly a potential weapon for heretics. Things became carefully defined. RAMBAM's Thirteen Principles of Faith became standard theology, even though they had been attacked by many rabbis as inconsistent with Talmudic principles. But they were better than the potentially explosive alternative. Books of halachah began to be composed for the layman. Rather than the openness of rabbinic discourse that is seen in more scholarly works, these were ultra-conservative. "Here's how we do it folks. Don't listen to anything else". The concept of Daat Torah was formulated, concerning which I have an entire series. (Check files). "Don't think, we will do that for you" became standard. Sepharadic lands handled it much better. The attitude was "OK, we made a mistake. Let's go back to where we were. Shabbatean ideas and practices that have already been adopted, just let them be, so long as they don't violate any essential principles". One finds in many of the writings published in Sepharadic lands such concepts as the suffering of the Messiah, his spiritual prison, as well as other Shabbatean concepts mingling freely together with more classical Kabbalah. The imminence of the Messiah is to be found in these works, but with care taken so as not to identify him with Shabbetai, or any other heretical figure. But the wild card was Eastern Europe. The pleas of rabbis not to get involved in Messianic fervor tended to fall on deaf ears, especially as far as the masses go. The result was Hasidism. Its roots and origins are still being debated. But new directions were formulated. The concept of Mashiach was still very alive and vibrant. But, at the same time, it was channeled in new ways. That will be the next part of our story.