All Rabbis are NOT Created Equal part 8

The next group of online rabbis I wish to deal with is those who have "discovered" a hitherto unnoticed statement of RAMBAM. RAMBAM usually writes in a clear and concise manner. His Hebrew is nearly flawless (with the exception of a few Arabisms), but this is also deceptive. First of all, he does not always define his terms.  For example, he says Hannukah candles must be lit exactly  at shki'ah. But authorities differ if shki'ah, in RAMBAM, means "sundown", or "when the stars come out". Some rabbis do fancy detective work, comparing RAMBAM's use of the word in other contexts. Too bad he didn't tell us what he really meant. Between his various compositions, he often contradicts himself. Rabbis scramble to try to reconcile these contradictions. However, RAMBAM himself writes that he contradicts himself in order to throw simple-minded people off the track, leaving his true meaning to be determined by the truly wise. Beyond that, some of his commentators were sure he couldn't have really meant one statement or another, and "fixed" the text. In many areas, he differs widely from the views of other, earlier rabbis, but rarely explains himself. One famous rabbi, writing at the turn of the twentieth century, built huge halachic and philosophical essays based upon his interpretation of unusual wordings or phrases in RAMBAM. But the twentieth century saw the discovery of the oldest manuscripts, one with RAMBAM's own signature on every page. Lo and behold, these unusual wordings were not there! They were either censor's "corrections", or copyists' and printers' errors. So this rabbi's writings, considered masterpieces in some circles, can be seen as a sad example of reading into a text. I love studying RAMBAM's halachic works, but I am careful to keep all of these things in mind. I use Rav Yosef Kappah's edition, in which he points out all the corruptions of the text, and tries to discern the real meaning. However, "little foxes spoil the vineyard" (Song of Songs 2:15), and "rabbis' of dubious credentials or knowledge announce that they have discovered a new statement in RAMBAM, that is a game-changer. Instead of publishing these ideas for peer review, they go to YouTube. Often, they do so with smirks and giggles, mocking any who refuse to see what is so obvious to them. Sadly, the response from many rabbis is to accuse them of "turf" violations (WE are the rabbis here! You'd better toe the mark!). These upstarts' arguments are easily refuted, but they have not been offered in a way that would make any legitimate rabbi take them seriously. Beginners in Judaism are convinced by their claims, and act on them, which rabbis see as a threat. When I watch one of these videos, and I hear the "rabbi" mispronounce basic Hebrew terms, my puzzlement is answered. I am only left to wonder at how much money he paid for his smichah, if, indeed, he has one. The layman is left confused and disillusioned.  "Messianic" rabbis are, for the most part, pure deception. They give the impression of being actual ordained rabbis, who have found Jesus. If there are rabbis like that, I am unaware of them. Although a few are Jews, most are not.Most are ordained Ministers of the Gospel, who put on an act of deception. Many dress like Chabad hasidim; Borsalino hat (with a pinch in the front) pulled down over their foreheads. In true Russian style (as opposed to those who joined Chabad later), they have a pained expression on their faces, looking like they are in dire need of a laxative. Some show some knowledge of sources, others are clearly making it up as they go along. As one of our members quipped to me "Messianic Judaism is Christianity with a tallit." That is not to say that some aren't genuinely searching for answers, but most are simply missionaries preying upon Jews (and others) with lies and deception. The message is almost always a fundamentalist version of Christianity, with Jewish window dressing. In short, caveat emptor.

Sefard/Sepharadi

I was asked by one of our members for a recommendation for a good "Sefarad" siddur (prayer book) with English translation. As I use few things with translations, I asked in synagogue this morning (I attend a Sepharadic synagogue, of course), and was told that the best is "Kol Sasson", put out by Rabbi Eliezer Toledano. There is a separate volume for Shabbat and for weekday prayers. I believe that a word of explanation is in order about the prayer books called Sefarad (or Sefard), and the authentic Sepharadic prayer book. The original Sepharadic prayer book, used in Spain and Portugal, is still used in synagogues around the world that call themselves "Spanish/Portuguese". It differs from the Ashkenazi in many important ways. In the 16th century, ARI z"l, who used a Sepharadic siddur (from Venice, about 1500), made many changes in it, based on Kabbalah., His revised version was adopted by virtually all Sepharadic communities, from Egypt to Persia. Sometimes, it is called the Edot Hamizrach (Eastern Communities) prayer book. This is the authentic Nusach (version) of the ARI. North African Jews use something very similar, but maintained some features of the S/P siddur. When Chasidism began, its leaders urged adopting the Nusach of the ARI, over the classical Ashkenazi prayer book. What happened actually, was that the Chasidim kept the Ashkenazi version, adding in various features based on ARI. Different groups, adopted different prayer books, with varying numbers of changes based on ARI. Some were very close to Ashkenazi, some were closer to Sepharadi. None went all the way to adopting the Sepharadi versions with ARI's modifications (including Chabad, which calls its prayer book "Nusach ARI", yet differs from ARI in many features.) In the common perception, these additions and modifications were seen as "Sepjaradic", and these versions came to be called "Serfard". In reality, the Sefard version is as Sepharadic as gefilte fish. Some versions will actually have many phrases followed by alternatives in parentheses, to accommodate different Chassidic communities. It is also used in synagogues where the congregants are descended from countries whose Jews followed Chasidic ways (Most of Poland, Ukraine, White Russia, low lands Hungary), even if they are in no way Chasidic. Koren has an excellent Ashkenaz siddur, as well as a Sefard sidddur, with English translations. They do not yet put out an authentic Sepharadic siddur. 

All Rabbis are NOT Created Equal part 7

Like in the Jewish community in general, the "online rabbis" are a mixed bag. The difference is that whereas in the general community, especially in a large city, charlatans will be quickly identified, with warnings put out for the public, an online rabbi, unless he gathers large numbers of followers, will generally be ignored by the "mainstream" and stay under the radar..  This enables many with little training, no credentials, who may not even be Jewish, to worm their way into the hearts and minds of a group of followers, often swindling their victims out of large sums. In some cases, they turn out to be sexual predators.  Other self proclaimed rabbis, are convinced that they have found a totally new interpretation of a passage in RAMBAM, and dedicate their lives to preaching their New Truth. Some are mainly rabble-rousers, of one political ideology or another, who lend an air of respectability by using the title "rabbi". And then there are missionaries, using the term "rabbi" as a deception in order to convert Jews to other faiths. I will deal with these one by one.
First of all, I would like to say that the vast majority of online rabbis are learned and sincere men. True, Gedolim rarely do YouTube broadcasts, although their followers may put their lectures "out there". But typically, the online rabbis, like their synagogue counterparts, have studied in Yeshivot, and usually possess a smichah. (Many perform professional roles in the rabbinate aside from their online activities). Like most rabbis "in the field", they usually do not possess great erudition, but have sufficient knowledge to explain basic Jewish concepts, explain everyday halachah, and impart a love of Judaism. My main criticism of these rabbis is like my criticism of ArtScroll; superficial, painting an unrealistic picture of Jewish life (Jewish families have no strife, there is no alcoholism or substance abuse, no emotional/psychological problems, and most important EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE). I think that people who are attracted by these platitudes may come to Judaism, but they don't stay.  I am reminded of Woody Allen's brilliant "Spring Bulletin", where he describes the course "Economics 101" as "the study of money and why it's good". There are people on this group who came to Judaism through the teachings of Rabbi Nachman, only to be told by this ilk of rabbi that it is "forbidden" to read these books. Of course, Rabbi Nachman deals with bad habits, strife in families, depression...none of which exists in Orthodoxy (according to these men). A subgroup of these are rabbis who put their main efforts into "counter missionary" activities. These men are both dedicated and sincere. Personally, I question this format being online, where it serves as fuel for antisemitism. I would prefer to see this type of work done on a one-on-one basis, rather than openly declaring billions of people to be either frauds or idiots. Next, we have equally sincere rabbis, who come with a message of faith and inspiration. Some, like Dror Moshe Cassouto, are widely persecuted. He makes it very clear that he is NOT an ordained rabbi, but is merely sharing the insights that have meant so much to him. Why is he hated? He speaks to non-Jews. He speaks to women. He favors speaking even with great sinners. More important, perhaps, is that he is not on anyone's  "team". He is seen as a loose cannon. This, despite the fact that he inspires many, rather than put them to sleep. (Now perhaps you can understand why I stay anonymous). Then there are the rabble-rousers. We must hate someone. Perhaps it's the Muslims. Perhaps it's the Christians. Perhaps it's non Orthodox Jews. In the case of one such rabbis (who insists he has smichah but just doesn't want to show it) all of our problems are rooted in the basic impiety and immorality  of Jewish women. He has been denounced by nearly every major rabbi, but still has a following of thousands. He boldly states that Chabad rabbis are going to Gehinnom, and Breslovers are idolaters, but goes ballistic when anyone criticizes him, declaring it lashon hara (slander). But many people love those who speak in absolutes, especially if they call themselves Orthodox rabbis. I will deal with the "New Truthers" and the Missionary rabbis in my next post. Stay tuned.

Kabbalah part 16

What is the state of Kabbalah today? Hasidim are centered on the ideas of Kabbalah, but, for the most part, not on studying the primary texts. Only people on an advanced level would touch the actual Zohar or Writings of the ARI, The big exception is Breslov,  where Kabbalah is freely studied. . Chabad is very Kabbalah  centered, but only as seen through the lens of Chabad Hasidism.  All but the most advanced do not study Zohar, or the actual Writings of the Ari. .  There is a video of Rabbi Ashlag, who wrote a Hebrew translation of the Zohar and a commentary, urging the Lubavitcher Rebbe to encourage his followers to study Zohar daily. His entreaty was met with refusal. Yet, Kabbalistic ideas abound in Chabad literature and thought. In Middle Eastern Sepharadic circles, even the uneducated will read the Zohar, without knowing its meaning. They find the recitation alone to be inspiring. Rabbis in those communities are generally well versed in Zohar, and Kabbalistic rituals are common in those circles. Sadly, however, many present day Sepharadic rabbis have studied in Ashkenazi Yeshivot, and little that is Sepharadic remains with them, other than their pronunciation of Hebrew. Among non Hasidic Ashkenazim, Kabbalah is either put on a shelf, or actually opposed. At best, a sterilized, non emotional Kabbalah is studied. In Modern Orthodox circles, Kabbalah is usually rejected outright. This is not true in Israel, as the writings of Rav Kook are almost totally based on Kabbalah. "New Agers" rediscovered Kabbalah, but mostly as a way of "spacing out", often in combination with drugs and promiscuity. The mid twentieth century saw the birth of various Kabbalah Centers, teaching a "New Agey" Kabbalah. For example, the Messianic Era becomes the "Age of Aquarius". Observance of the mitzvot is absent, and Kabbalah becomes a quasi philosophical/self help, Universalist movement. On the positive side, the Open Orthodox movement sees Kabbalah as a major part of Torah and Jewish life, recognizing that it is, in fact, the soul of Judaism. Non Orthodox movements have historically rejected Kabbalah, but that is now changing. An ethical understanding of Judaism, as preached by classical Reform, or an historical approach, championed by Conservative, solves few people's spiritual longings and questioning. Several people have come forward  in both those movements, with a message that spiritual truths are to be found in Kabbalah. The urge to find G-d is strong. Ironically, it is often the local Orthodox rabbis who try to squelch this impulse. I know many people who were attracted to Judaism because of the Kabbalistic writings, especially those  of Rabbi Nachman, only to be told by their rabbis that it is forbidden to read these works. Indeed, the ArtScroll editions of classical Torah commentaries have Kabbalah carefully censored out. I don't believe that this can continue. Numerous people seek G-d through His Torah. Besides the roadblocks put in the way of those seeking conversion, the next hurdle is a Judaism that is essentially "do this, and don't do that", with incredibly shallow explanation of why that is good. Eventually, people will simply not stand for it. I am told that in many parts of the U.S., spiritually sterile Modern Orthodoxy is already being replaced with Chabad. I see this as a step in the right direction. Like when Hasidism first began, and was persecuted by the Yeshiva heads of Central and Eastern Europe, the people "voted with their feet", and non Hasidic Orthodoxy was mostly left in the dust in many areas. In the words of Rabbi Nachman in one of his stories: "Keep your treasures! Make use of them!".

Living in the Land of Israel part 4

The Zionist call for a mass return to the Holy Land, was firmly rejected by nearly every European rabbi. To be sure, there were communities of Jews living in the Land since time immemorial, surviving mostly on charity provided by their brethren in the Diaspora. This was the core of the present day Hareidi community, which predated Zionism by several centuries. One rabbi who did support Herzl was Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (1839-1915). He made no claims of a a religious, halachic need to live in Zion. In fact, he was enthusiastic about a British proposal to give the Jews Uganda. He believed that Jewish life in Europe was nearing its end. Jews needed somewhere to go. He supported Herzl, despite the latter's secularism. He founded a religious faction within the Zionist movement called "Mizrachi". "Mizrach" means "East", but this was also a contraction of the words "Merkaz Ruchani"; a spiritual center. He managed to temper, and even defeat, some of the proposals of factions that sought the total obliteration of Torah from Jewish life. A second, and  more far  reaching figure to come on the scene, was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935). He believed that the secular, vehemently anti religious Zionist leaders were actually responding to a deep religious calling, that they themselves did not understand. Yes, he believed that it was a mitzvah to live in the Land. But beyond that, he believed that the Redemption had begun, and every Jew was called upon to come to the Land in order to help the Redemption along to greater and higher stages.Those who remain in the Diaspora are betraying the call of history. He is often painted as the ultimate inclusive, all-loving rabbi., This is primarily the result of a massive editing job by one of his students in the 1950s. His original, unedited works spoke of temporary tolerance, but wrote of a religious popular coup to follow independence. He also spoke with great revulsion about the Zionist leadership. However, he felt it necessary to work with them, in order to bring about the full Redemption. He actually developed a doctrine, previously unknown in Judaism, that we had entered an era of Great Mercy (Rachamim Rabbim), in which the observance of mitzvot was of only secondary importance. This concept is very close to the Pauline idea of Grace.  He was a hardliner on conversion, urging rabbis to avoid participation, as every sin of the new convert was on the heads of the rabbis who converted him. He immigrated to Ottoman Palestine in 1904. He spent World War I in Europe, accepting a rabbinic position in London. He returned to the Holy Land in 1919, where he occupied several major rabbinic positions, and opened his own Yeshivah. His many writings spanned the areas of halachah, philosophy and Kabbalah. but the persistent themes in his writings were the uniqueness of the Jewish people, and G-d's imminent redemption of His people and His Land, already underway. Many of his rabbinic colleagues were scandalized by his ideas. The illustrious Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnefeld (1848-1932) remarked "Rav Kook's great love of Zion, has taken him out of his mind, and away from the mind of his Creator". Rav Kook worked tirelessly within the Zionist communal structures for recognition of a religious meaning to Jewish life. This is especially evident in his hard-fought battle for the establishment of an official Chief Rabbinate for the Jewish community, with rabbis in every town working under its aegis. He died well before the independence of Israel, but virtually all government rabbis ever since have been his students and student's students. They are the backbone of religious Zionism ever since. His supporters see in these efforts his great foresight in keeping the country Jewish. His detractors see this as a fig leaf for an essentially anti-Torah and anti-G-d political entity. Some see him as almost a Prophet. Some see him as delusional. Where one stands on this question, will greatly influence his approach to the "obligation" of aliyah, to a country where fully one-third of the people, seek the annihilation of the Torah way of life, and in extreme cases, the annihilation of Torah observant people. (A bumper sticker often seen during my last years in Israel read "Dros kol dos, hashmed kol chared"; run over every Orthodox person, destroy every ultra-Orthodox person) But the followers of Rav Kook's ideology insist that these are all stages in the Redemption that must not be interfered with or opposed. A student of a student of Rav Kook, very prominent in Israel today, said that the Palestinian Authority and its soldiers must be given great respect, as they exist by virtue of an agreement with the State, and are therefore part of the process of Redemption... Each side in this debate sees the other side as completely delusional, blind to the reality of what is happening. May HaShem enlighten us!

Living in the Land of Israel part 3

Every Torah Jew has a deep love for the Land of Israel. Whereas some saw Zionism as the fulfillment of the prophecies of Redemption (to be dealt with in more depth in my next post), others saw it, and continue to see it, as a sinister force of not only secularism, but of rebellion against G-d. It is important to remember that the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was an assimilated Jew, who became aware of the dangers of Jews remaining in European society during France's infamous Dreyfus Affair, that lasted from 1894 to 1906.. France had just lost a war with Prussia and a Jewish officer was made the scapegoat. Mobs ran through the streets of Paris, shouting "Death to the Jews". Herzl was terrified. If it could happen in France, it could happen anywhere. He published a proposal, that at a particular hour, on a particular day, all Jews around the world, led by their rabbis, must present themselves at their local churches for Baptism, thus ending the "Jewish Problem". When his proposal was met with great opposition, he instead took the stance  of a separate Jewish State. Herzl was a man of practicality, but not of ideology. He proposed a Jewish homeland, to be totally secular and Western, with German as its language. Nothing special. The real ideologue of Zionism was his follower, Max Nordeau. (Every major Israeli city has a Nordeau street or avenue). Nordeau reasoned that the Jewish religion was originally designed to unite the people. Today, religion divides people, and should be done away with. What unites people today (on the eve of world War I) is nationalism. The Jews must have a State to unite them, which would take the place of their "Ancient Religion". The ideas of Nordeau, combined with Socialist ideas, were the moving force behind the founding of the Zionist movement, the State, and still drive most secular Zionists. Nearly every European rabbi vehemently opposed the new movement. Rabbi Sholem Dov Ber Schneerson, the Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, wrote a famous letter in which he declared Zionism to be "worse than Christianity", in that the latter at least believes in G-d. Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rabbi, gave this opposition a theological base. This basis is the Three Oaths:

To what to these three oaths refer? One, that Israel should not go up as a wall. One, that the Holy One, blessed is He, made Israel swear not to rebel against the nations of the world. One, that the Holy One, blessed is He, made the gentiles swear not to subjugate Israel too much. (Ketubot 111a)


Whereas some rabbis, sympathetic to the Zionist movement, argued that the Oaths no longer applied, either because the Balfour declaration meant that the Nations had presented us with the Land of Israel as a gift, so that we are not rebelling, or, alternatively, that the Nations had not fulfilled their Oath of not subjugating us 'too much", thereby relieving us of our Oaths as well,  the fact is that this entire line of reasoning is a red herring. First of all, the above Talmudic passage is aggadah (legend or allegory), not halachah. It had never, in almost two thousand years, been quoted in any halachic work Who made these oaths? When" Where? Why are they not recorded in any works of history, Jewish or non-Jewish?  Rather, the Satmar Rebbe feared Jews being drawn to a secular, anti-religious State, stripped of their Faith and Identity. A more minor Hasidic rebbe quoted him as agreeing that this was his intent. But the issue of the Oaths remains a cornerstone in the Hareidi opposition to Zionism. Zionism is not only the submission of Jews to a hostile, secular entity, but is actually the breaking of a Sacred Divine Oath. As the Nazis were taking over Europe, and the British had closed the gates of the Land of Israel, some nevertheless obtained visas. Some European rabbis urged these people to better face death under the Nazis, than spiritual annihilation under Zionism. What a horrible dilemma. Where these rabbis right, or horribly wrong? In my next post, I will deal with the small group of rabbis who totally favored Zionism, and saw emigration to the Holy Land as not only a practical necessity, but as a religious one as well.

Blessings After Eating and Drinking

There is only one blessing ordained by the Torah. That is the Birkat Hamazon (Grace after meals), as it is written: "You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless..." (Deut. 8:10). Oral Tradition teaches that one need say Grace only after a meal with bread, as only bread truly satisfies. The Birkat Hamazon consists of four blessing; one for the food, one for the Land, one for Jerusalem, and one giving thanks to G-d for His kindness. The exact wording of Birkat Hamazon differs from community to community, but most communities have greatly "padded" these blessings. The original, short version has of late been popularized by Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi. Birkat Hamazon must also said on bread-like foods such as cake, if eaten in quantity. What is meant by "in quantity" is a vast topic, with many opinions.. A qualified rabbi should be consulted.
Foods not in the bread camp, but still of great value, like grain dishes, wine, or the five fruits that Eretz Yisrael is blessed with (grapes, olives, dates, pomegranates, figs), get a mini Birkat Hamazon, containing all the themes of the large Birkat Hamazon in one blessing. Whether this blessing is of rabbinic or Biblical status is a subject of dispute.
For other foods, a short, one line blessing called "borei nefashot" is said. It is not only of rabbinic origin, but came in quite late, to the extent that some consider it optional. A devout Jew will be careful to say it. All of the above blessings can be found in any traditional siddur (prayer book).
A major difference between the blessing before and after eating is the quantity needed to require a blessing. The blessing before is said on any amount, as we are blessing for the pleasure of eating and drinking.There is pleasure in one raisin or in a taste of ice cream. The blessing afterwards is for the "satisfaction" which only comes with some quantity. The minimum quantity for saying a blessing after food is an "olive's bulk" (k'zayit). How big that is is also controversial. (Some imagine that ancient olives were the size of an egg or more).Most Ashkenazi rabbis say about 1 oz. (29 g.),(some double that!) whereas most Sepharadic rabbis privately say much less; little as 5 g.) but rarely will say so publicly,for fear of denunciation by Ashkenazim. For liquids, an after brachah is required if a "revi'it" is drunk. This is estimated to be just under 3 oz. (86 ml), but is probably less. Some Ashkenazi rabbis double this as well..

My Story 11

Within days of my wife's departure from our home, I began receiving phone calls from distant places, from people who had had the same experience. Most were from men, whose wives had left them as a result of their infatuation with Carlebach, but there were also women whose husbands had become his groupies. When these women criticized Carlebach's behavior, he told their husbands to "get out fast". Only after his death, in 1994, did numerous women go public with their horror stories. Many had asked him for spiritual guidance, but, instead found him quickly on top of them. Those who protested, were shown the door, with rude remarks made to them. Some of these women wanted nothing further to do with Judaism. Some even converted to other faiths. But for all of his victims, whether the women (and girls) who were abused, or the men who loved them, the experience caused alienation from the community. First, there were cries of "lashon hara". (As I have pointed out, most of the "lashon hara" arguments are halachically baseless. It is a mitzvah to expose dangerous people). One of my closest friends at that time, upon hearing my story, told me to my face "I don't believe you". My congregation was very supportive of me, but even they could not understand my grief. "You're better off without her! You lost your child? You'll have other children!". I never felt so alone. When I did get back into dating, my being divorced made me almost a leper. Carlebach was too much a part of the American Jewish  scene to be ignored. All those complaining must be crazy...or evil. Parents refused to believe their daughters' stories. Even when the victims were not being persecuted, there was little sensitivity to our pain. We might be deep in prayer, when the congregation will begin belting out a Carlebach tune. No one seemed to be sensitive to our feelings. When my children got married, I insisted that no Carlebach music be played. There were many objections from their spouses. Even when I remarried, I told the band that I wanted no Carlebach music. They were mystified and stunned. "How can you have a wedding with no Shlomo?" My experiences had driven a permanent wedge between me and most of the organized Jewish community. Unlike many, I didn't leave Judaism; but I became an island unto myself. After his death, even many of those who had always opposed him, fell under his spell. It irks me to no end that his tomb in Jerusalem is the object of pilgrimage, even for many ultra-Orthodox Jews. (There is an Arabic proverb: "Many a saint's tomb is painted white, while its occupant is in Hell").  Even his daughter, Neshama, said "I believe the stories, but I refuse to let them define my Father." Too bad countless others had no choice but to have their lives defined by him. Since he often quoted Rabbi Nachman, he is identified in the minds of many as a great leader of Breslov. There is even a "Carlebach Minyan" in Uman during Rosh HaShana. When the Breslov Research Institute published their monumental translation of the Likkutei Moharan, a donor asked that a volume be dedicated to Carlebach's memory. I was called with an apology, but was essentially told that "business is business". I later learned that Carlebach's behavior was not unique. There are many other "Carlebachs" out there, and one needs to exercise caution. My journey had hit a major bump in the road. Wounded, but wiser, I continued.

My Story 10

At last, I had found the love of my life...or so I thought. It only took two weeks for difficulties to emerge. I had recently gotten a position in Mohegan Lake, in Northern Westchester, New York, in a mostly Summer lakeside community. I was given the use of a cute six room country house. I moved in with my new bride. Life seemed complete. Carlebach went to Israel every Summer. Before he left, he would conduct a retreat at a camp in upstate New York. As my official rabbinic duties didn't begin for a few weeks, my wife begged me to come with her to the retreat. I agreed. I immediately spotted some fairly minor violations of halachah that I pointed out to my wife (besides the hugging and kissing among the participants). I wasn't pointing a finger, but merely asking her to explain. More problematic than what I had seen, was her response. "I know Shlomo's sins, and I pray every day that I may be punished in his stead". I was shocked that a young wife would speak that way. "Were you romantically involved with him?" She hung her head, almost tearful, saying  "no. We both know I am not what he needs". She then "explained" "I am ninety-five percent Shlomo. When he looks into my eyes, I am one hundred percent Shlomo." (I told this at our divorce hearing a few months later. The judge and the court stenographer couldn't stop laughing.) This came as a blow. My wife was in love with someone else, who was unattainable. That was why she had settled for me. I did look a little like him, and I could tell that often, when she looked at me, she was seeing him. Once Carlebach left for the Summer, we actually had two beautiful months together. I did pick up on some disturbing things, however. In Carlebach's inner circle, there was a special jargon. Words took on different meanings than their dictionary definitions. Most obvious was the word "holy". It now was synonymous with "feels good". (as in "that was such a holy pot roast"). Also, her friends, although ostensibly  Orthodox Jews, were mostly living lives of licentiousness and debauchery. (as in "It was such a holy thing that HaShem helped her find a new boyfriend who is so much better for her than her husband."). It became clear that the dark rumors about Carlebach were true. Everybody was sleeping with everybody, and it was "such a holy thing". I have been told by experts in Jewish Clergy Sexual Abuse, that there were more complaints against Carlebach than all other offenders combined. It is estimated that he had some one thousand victims. I urge you to do an online search. There was no doubt about it; this was a classic cult situation. I dreaded the coming of September, that would mean Carlebach's return. But come it did. My wife was off to Manhattan one night a week for a Carlebach class. She would return home the next day. I can't say that I wasn't suspicious. In the week between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, she discovered that she was carrying our child.  She called Carlebach, explaining that I was critical of him, and now she was pregnant. Carlebach did the unthinkable. He told her "get out fast". The day after Yom Kippur, she left. Not finding any place to stay, she came back a few days later for the first days of Sukkot. She made it clear that it was only a brief stay, as she had nowhere else to go. I spent those days in tears. She said "what a pity this is. You would have made a wonderful father". She left again on the third day of Sukkot, never to return. It would be twenty-five years until I would know my daughter. Just before Sukkot, I actually ran into Carlebach on Manhattan's Lower East Side, a once-bustling Jewish neighborhood. I approached him, asking how he justified telling a wife to leave her husband. Suddenly, it was no more "Holy Brother" but almost a hissing voice telling me that I was not worthy to criticize him, and that when he died, the angels would come and carry him to Heaven. He had left me with a huge gaping hole in my heart, that never completely healed. It all becomes fresh when I hear a Carlebach song, or read of a Carlebach Shabbaton, or see a new book come out of wondrous tales of this "saint". I would soon learn that I was not alone. He had left a trail of broken lives all over the country, and beyond. More of that next time.

The Yemenites part 9

Things have gone much better for the Yemenites after the 1950s. Many have "made it" in Israeli life, becoming businessmen, merchants, writers, even politicians. Ironically, although Yemenites and other Mizrahi Jews have political views that are right of center, those in government almost always gravitate to the left of center parties, despite the fact that these parties were their oppressors in the 1940s and 1950s. The reason that is usually given for this is that the right wing parties generally promise more, but give virtually nothing, while the leftist parties keep their promises. Nevertheless, Israeli society treats Mizrahi groups, and especially the Yemenites, as third class citizens. Most Ashkenazi Israelis would object to their children marrying Sepharadic or Yemenite spouses. A study came out in about 2000, that an Arab Israeli is far more likely to earn a college degree than a Mizrahi Israeli. From time to time, issues surface that highlite this situation. The 1995 assassination of Yitzchak Rabin was carried out by a Yemenite law student, who was also religious. Graffiti appeared at the site of the assassination "here, a little Yemenite, murdered a great man". Those words stood there for a month. Anti Yemenite and anti religious sentiments ran high for the next several years. The assassin, Yigal Amir, has been in solitary confinement ever since, in violation of every standard of International Law. His brother, Haggai Amir, was in solitary for sixteen years, for allegedly being an accomplice, but was finally released. He now writes extensively against the racism and prejudice in Israeli society. Many beleive that had their name been Goldberg, they would have been treated very differently. A current controversy centers around Elor Azaria. Elor, a sergeant in the IDF, was serving as a medic in Hevron, when two Palestinian terrorists stabbed an Israeli soldier. One terrorist was wounded, the other killed. Elor went to attend to the wounded terrorist, and shot him in the head, killing him. An army investigator came on the scene quickly. He asked Elkor what had happened. Elor said that the terrorists was making suspicious movements, and he feared that he was wearing an explosive vest. He felt his life to be in danger, and had acted in self defense. Elor was put on trial, in a way that many consider  to be a show trial.  The investigator told the court that Elor had said that he had acted in self defense. A few weeks later, he retracted that testimony, saying that Elor had admitted to acting out of vengeance. Elor, claimed the investigator,  is nothing more than a murderer. The Israeli left is anxious to show the world that it scrupulously safeguards the lives and rights of Palestinians. Calls were made for going tough on the young sergeant. To the right, it was obvious that he was being scapegoated. Elor was found guilty, but given only an eighteen month sentence.  His lawyers sought an appeal. They were told that if he appealed, the prosecution would press for a much tougher sentence,. If he didn't appeal, they would get him out quickly. His lawyer asked "how quickly, and will you put it in writing?" He was met with a refusal, and went on to appeal. The new trial is now ongoing. Even the Israeli Justice Minister said that he did not receive a "clean trial". Netanyahu asked  President Rivlin for a pardon, that was not forthcoming. In the last few days, Elor has been released to house arrest. The fact that he is Yemenite has figured prominently in news coverage. An entire community is, in effect, on trial. It is widely felt by many (including yours truly), that an expendable Yemenite is being sacrificed to appease world opinion. Elor's friends have been warned by "justice" officials not to speak to the media. There is the overwhelming feeling that had he been an Ashkenazi, nothing would have happened. How this turns out, remains to be seen. Many Yemenites have made their way to the United States. Yemenite synagogues are now commonplace in major American cities. They still have their internal conflicts, but are now a thriving community, here as well as in Israel, but with far less prejudice here. We must wait for not only the national redemption of Israel, but for the psychological and spiritual redemption as well. May it be soon!

The Yemenites part 8

All in all, some 4,500 Yemenite children "died" in hospitals from the late 1940s until the mid 1950s. Bodies were never returned to families. This also happened to other Mizrahi (Eastern) Jews,. as well as those from the Balkans, albeit on a smaller scale. Rumors abounded that the children had been given for adoption, in a Machiavellian social engineering  plot to insure smaller families of Yemenites. Denials from the government  were strong and unambiguous. In the late 1980s, some Yemenites formed a political party around this issue, that did not succeed in making it into the Knesset. Aging parents were desperate to learn of their children's' fate, before they went to their own graves. People whispered, but no one knew for sure. I had several Yemenite friends who had missing siblings. In 1994, a relatively unknown figure, self styled Rabbi Uzi Meshulam, went public with the claim that he had in his possession proof that the children had been given for adoption to wealthy Ashkenazi families. Meshulam alienated the vast majority of Israelis, both religious and secular, with his claim that the secularists, especially those in government, were not actually Jews at all, but were souls of the Mixed Multitude; non Jews who joined the Israelites at the Exodus (Exodus 12:38). Such divisiveness was offensive to nearly all Israelis. Meshulam demanded an impartial commission of inquiry. I, personally, saw a photocopy of a letter to Meshulam from a high ranking government official, telling him that if he dropped the issue, he could have any rabbinic position he wanted; even Chief Rabbi. If he didn't, he would become an "ex". Police came to arrest him at his home. He barricaded himself, together with a group of heavily armed followers. A Waco style confrontation occurred, with a standoff of over as month. Finally, the police stormed his compound, killing one follower and arresting the rest. Meshulam was given an eight year sentence, but was pardoned after five. He was released from prison paralyzed, with many suspicious illnesses.Many beleive he was poisoned. He lingered between life and death for over a decade, finally succumbing in 2013. A commission of inquiry was set up, that concluded that the vast majority of the children had died from natural causes,  with only fifty six unaccounted for, who may have been given for adoption. Case closed. A few months ago, after the death of Ben Gurion's last remaining close associate, archives were opened. They told a story beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Thousands of babies were given for adoption to wealthy Ashkenazim. Many were sold for adoption overseas, transported by the government's own shipping lines. But many others were used for experimentation in Israeli hospitals. After the experiments were over, they were allowed to die by neglect. The doctors saw them as "laboratory monkeys", not as fellow Jews, or even fellow human beings.Photographs of these victims were in the released  archives. Israel was in shock.  One member of this group told me of her efforts to hide the news reports from her daughter. Uzi Meshulam had been vindicated, at least posthumously. Israel is now in the grip of dealing with its legacy. The Yemenites are dealing with their identity as Israelis.

The Yemenites part 7

This part is difficult for me to write, and will be difficult for many to hear. If you are offended, I am sorry. These are facts. Israel was founded as a Socialist Paradise, for European, secular  Jews. David Ben Gurion, the head of the Jewish community in pre State Israel, and Israel's first Prime Minister, ran strict policies against Right Wing elements, as well as marginalizing the religious, as well as Eastern Jews and their culture. On  the other hand, Eastern Jews were necessary to strengthen the ranks of the military, as well as providing cheap, unskilled labor. The young State absorbed over a million Eastern Jews, tripling its size in a short time. A whimsical picture of this situation can be seen in the classic movie "Salah". The Yemenites proved to be a special challenge. Although they were well versed in Torah literature, and many were skilled artisans (especially silver smiths), they had virtually no secular education, and were, essentially living in a different century. In operation "Magic Carpet" (also called Mashiach's Coming), some 49,000 Yemenite Jews were airlifted to the fledgling State between 1949 and 1950.. One often hears the story of how these people were so backward, that they lit fires on the planes for warmth! What one doesn't generally hear, is that they were led to beleive that they were coming to a spiritually based Torah society, where the promised Redemption had begun. When they got on the planes, they were told that their belongings were too heavy, and they would have to be shipped to Israel separately. People parted with gold, silver, family heirlooms, as well as priceless ancient manuscripts. Most of these were  never seen again. Some of the manuscripts were later found on display in museums, and were later recovered through legal action. The new immigrants arrived to find secular officials in charge of their absorption, who "explained" to them that Torah observance was no longer necessary, as its purpose had been to bring them back to the Holy Land, and now they were back. Many had their peyot forcibly cut, as they might harbor lice. It must be understood that for the Yemenited, peyot, which they call "simanim" (signs) are their ultimate symbol of Jewishness. They were first put in tent camps, later replaced by "maabarot" (transit camps) consisting of makeshift temporary buildings. They were perturbed by the fact that European immigrants were quickly switched to permanent housing, while they, and other Eastern Jews,  languished for years in sheds.Most became either farm hands for more established, mostly Ashkenazic communities, while the women worked as domestic help. New mothers were told that if tehy nursed their babies, they would be denied medical care. The State needed then to work.  But the worst was yet to come. Families would go for medical check ups to the government  clinics. Large families frequently were told that one or more of their children needed to be taken to the hospital for observation. The next day, they were told that the children were dead, and had already been buried. After forty years of clamoring "where are our children?", some of the graves were opened. There were no remains. What happened and why? Why has this story been covered up until recently? Why were previous investigations always stymied? What were the effects of these policies on the attitudes of the Yemenites to the Isreali establishment and vice versa?

Kabbalah part 15

Some of you have been asking why Rabbi Nachman and his teachings were, and to a degree, still are, persecuted. In thinking about it, I realized that this question is, indeed, pertinent to the entire theme of this group. Community can be a great benefit, or it can be a straight jacket of conformity, stifling everything; especially spiritual growth. There are several reasons for the opposition to Rabbi Nachman. I will take them one by one. Some of you may have come across the name of Rabbi Nasan Maimon. When he was a young man, he worked as a computer systems analyst. He had with him at work a volume of the teachings of Rabbi Nachman. His boss, who was also Hasidic, from a group not opposed to Breslov, picked the book up, and read on the title page great praises of Rabbi Nachman. He immediately threw the book down on the desk. Rabbi Maimon asked for an explanation. "Nobody is that great. Nobody is as great as MY Rebbe, and he's not so much".While it is true that the Talmud speaks of a "yeridat hadorot" (a spiritual decline in all generations after Sinai), this cannot be taken as a hard and fast rule. Great luminaries have appeared throughout history. Most people would agree with this...but not about now. Sima and I became attracted to Judaism through very different teachers. Yet, both of us had been told "you can't imagine the awesome level of the average Jew one hundred years ago". Someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish history will understand how totally nonsensical that statement is. Similarly, I was once in the home of a pious man, whose grandfather was a very prominent Hungarian rabbi. He showed me his grandparents' wedding pictures. I was surprised that there was no "mechitzah" (partition) between the men and the women. He looked at me and said "You're comparing our women to the women of two generations ago?!?!" (that is, they were all very pious and modest then, not like "our" brazen women). In my opinion, this attitude prevents not only progress, but also keeps us from marveling at great spiritual giants among us. Rabbi Nachman CAN'T be seen for the remarkable person he was, because he lived only two hundred years ago! Five hundred, he'd have a chance. It was, at one time, common for great Tzaddikim to sing their own praises. This was not done out of arrogance, but in order to let the people know to whom to turn for help. In Rabbi Nachman's time, this was no longer common. But Rabbi Nachman did praise himself and his work. At the same time, those close to him spoke of his great humility. Outsiders, however, saw him as a braggart. It's as if Einstein would have been rejected by science because he dared disagree with Newton, who lived over two hundred and fifty years earlier! Another, more spiritual factor, lies in Rabbi Nachman's teaching that the more righteous the person, the more he becomes like a polished mirror. Others then see their reflection in him, and don't like what they see. They ascribe the failing to the Tzaddik, when they are actually seeing themselves. Hasidism's heyday was in the past, and Hasidim were now content with mediocrity. Rabbi Nachman tried to give it back its soul. Many saw this as impossible. It threatened the stature of recognized  Rebbes. He "upset the apple cart".In my opinion, it needed upsetting.

The Prerecorded Rabbi

When I studied European History in college, I was very surprised to learn that in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, a major target of the Catholic Church was, of all things, Bible Societies. In fact, Pope Gregory XVI issued an encyclical in 1844, condemning these groups that were publishing and distributing Bibles to the masses. But wasn't the Church all about the Bible, at least their interpretation of it? The answer was that they wished to tell people what the Bible meant from THEIR perspective. Reading sources makes people think. That can be dangerous. A very similar situation exists, I am sorry to say, within Judaism. While one of the beauties of Judaism is that we have a wide spectrum of thought and ideology, even within Orthodoxy, nevertheless many groups see their own understanding as not only the "best" one, but often as the only "real" one. We have books and videos put out by various factions of Orthodoxy, that spoon-feed us the "true" meaning of Torah. All too often, sources and facts that contradict that group's ideology, are either censored out, or conveniently  glossed over. I especially get upset when a rabbi is covering a text, and then concludes "but this is not what we do nowadays". Why not? Who said? Are his conclusions valid? Who exactly, is "we"? I want to ask him, but he is only a recording. What is a "newbie" to do? First of all, a knowledge of sources is essential. While the traditional method of study in Yeshivot is to take a single verse or Talmudic passage, and analyze it and reanalyze it for hours or days, I believe that it is essential to first have learning that is big on scope, if short on depth. Once one possesses broad knowledge, one can delve into more minute points and nuances. This view is expressed a number of times in the Talmud. (Although some claim that it doesn't apply "nowadays").Teachers and guides are very helpful while one is learning, in order to point out subtleties that one might overlook, or background material that might not be apparent in the text. Notice, I said "teachers" plural. Having more than one teacher, especially of different "streams" of Orthodoxy, is of inestimable value in seeing the multifaceted magnificence of Torah. Questions may be asked. Learning happens. Most lay publications, as well as the phenomenon of online rabbinic lectures, do not allow for questioning. Sources may be quoted, but rarely in context. One online "rabbi" (I question his credentials) often attacks other Jewish groups and leaders (especially Chabad and Breslov), but when exposed, shouts "lashon hara!" (slander!). Like the Catholic Church's old opposition to Bible Societies, some teachers simply do not want us to think or question. In my opinion, such is not the path of Torah. The Torah is vaster than the Heavens. Let's not allow anyone to constrict it.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 8

We have seen how the views of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch brought many to accept "culture" as something apart from Jewish Tradition, and the necessity of using Torah for the sanctification of "culture". There were many others who had similar ideas, although usually seeing secular, non-Jewish culture as something that needed to be dealt with, and where applicable, accepted, rather than a positive value in and of itself. Hirsch's colleague, Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, favored a pragmatic approach to "culture", rather than an ideological one. He favored the method of the Wissenschaft school, without, however, accepting their deviations from religious norms and practices. His famous seminary in Germany was, in many ways, the forerunner of Modern Orthodox institutions such as Yeshiva University, the "flagship" of Modern Orthodoxy. YU's motto "Torah U'Mada" (either "Torah and Science" or "Torah and Knowledge") basically says it all. Secular studies are carried out on the highest level, with religious studies kept strictly Orthodox, albeit modified by the modern world. For example, in traditional Orthodoxy, there is an emphasis on modest dress for women, with standards that have mostly remained constant for centuries. In Modern Orthodox circles, one will often hear the admonition "keep on the conservative side of modern fashion". It is, in essence, a blend of the teachings of Hirsch and Hildesheimer. When Yeshiva University took as its rabbinical mentor  Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, himself the heir to a famous Lithuanian tradition in learning, a synthesis was born between Modern Orthodoxy and systematic analysis of old and new ideas, sometimes with reconciliation, sometimes put into contrast.
Several different forms of Modern Orthodoxy exist today. However, sociologists generally place them into two camps; the "Ideologically Modern", who are very careful about observances, but nevertheless see the need to be involved with the modern world, and "Behaviorally Modern" who will keep the essential framework of Jewish law and tradition, but will compromise on details. Basically, in many Modern Orthodox communities, a person who openly violates some standards of Jewish law will still be welcome in the community, UNLESS he makes an IDEOLOGY out of his lapses. These two groups have, in recent years, grown further apart. As Western culture has gone further away from a basic Biblical ethic, to one of relativism, atheism and consumerism, the Ideological Moderns have more and more separated from unnecessary participation in many aspects of society. There have even developed not only more connections with the Haredi world (so-called "Ultra-Orthodox"), but acceptance of much of its leadership. The Behaviorally Moderns tend to accept many current cultural ideas and norms, and try to fit them somehow into a Jewish framework, even if they conflict with Jewish law.
Besides these two divisions which are more individual and cultural rather than institutionalized or formal. No one will say "I'm Ideologically Modern", or "I'm Behaviorally Modern", there exists a wide spectrum of halachic norms, as well as theological questions. At the left-leaning edge of the spectrum, one can even find those who question the origins of the Torah, or who are willing to make peace with clearly non-Torah ways of life and trends, such as homosexuality. Many question if this is Orthodoxy at all.
Ironically, in most Western countries, Modern Orthodoxy has become the dominant form, while those to the right (the Traditional Yeshivot and Hasidim) are seen almost as "outside the camp", often wielding little influence in major decisions on issues affecting the entire community. Personally, I am quite critical of Modern Orthodoxy. In my opinion, it puts more emphasis on the form, rather than the substance, of Judaism. Often, big words substitute for big ideas.
As I noted in my last post, Rabbi Hirsch's teachings gave birth to two distinct, even opposing, ideologies. The second is often simply called "Breuer's". That will be my next post.

Why I Am a Fanatic About Kitniyot

When I was a child, my parents warned me not to tell my non-Jewish friends that there is no Santa Claus. I never did, but somehow, they eventually did find out. Some confided in me that although they were disappointed, what really hurt was that their parents had deceived them. I have always avoided Jewish parallels to the Santa Claus story. In many homes. parents tell their children to watch the Cup of Elijah during the Seder, as the Prophet Elijah will soon be coming to take a sip. In less traditional homes, children are sometimes given gifts for Passover, and told that they are from the "Passover Chicken". My guiding light in all of this is the Talmudic dictum "the seal of G-d is Truth". As I wrote in my Passover series, the custom of not eating kitniyot (legumes, later extended to most seeds), was originally an aversion of twelfth-century housewives to cooking lentils during Passover, for fear that the recently introduced system of crop rotation might result in wheat becoming mixed in with the legume. Opposition to this innovation was widespread in rabbinic circles. Rabbi Yechiel of Paris said "It must be stopped before it spreads". Rabbenu Yerucham (1290-1350) called it a "custom of stupidity".ROSH (1250-1327), perhaps the foremost of Ashkenazi codifiers of the medieval period, called it "an excessive stringency". Nevertheless, after a few generations, the origins of this custom became forgotten, and it was assumed to be a rabbinic enactment. Today, with better information retrieval systems, we now know the real origins of this mistaken tradition. Many rabbis, especially in Israel, have come out in favor of the abandonment of this tradition. Most rabbis, however, urge the continuation of the kitniyot "ban", because it is "tradition". Even more insidious, are the private statements of many rabbis that "OK, it really has no basis. But if we tell people that, they will come to disrespect rabbis, and jettison even real halachot". I was very upset when I read some postings to the effect of "Oh, what's the big deal? Can't you go for one week a year without rice and beans?" That is not the point! The point is that we have Biblical laws, rabbinic laws, and legitimate customs (according to RAMBAM. customs are only legitimate and binding, if they were in force by the time of the demise of the last Sanhedrin, in the late fourth century.) With kitniyot, we know where and when it came from. We know that it was opposed by the rabbis, and we know how it came to be extended way out of its original proportions. Instead of fearing that people will come to disrespect the rabbis if they find out that this custom is without basis, perhaps their respect will grow when they see the rabbis' emphasis on truth? Is Judaism a religion of folkways, or the continuing reverberations of the voice of the Living G-d at Sinai? It is perhaps comforting to celebrate holidays the same way our parents and grandparents did. But can we call that Judaism? Does G-d dictate our observances, or do our ancestors? If the latter, then I would recommend that you look into Confucianism, with its ancestor worship,. If G-d's Torah is not at the center of our Faith, is it perhaps Santa Claus? Food for thought. (Pun intended).

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 16

An item in the  Israeli news almost two years ago leaves me with very mixed feelings. As I have discussed in previous writings, perhaps the most troubling situation in Jewish law is the "'agunah"; the "chained" woman, whose husband either is unwilling, or unable, to grant his wife a divorce, despite the fact that he is no longer acting as her husband. That the man must give a bill of divorce into the woman's hand, is a clear Torah law (Deuteronomy 24:1). No rabbi or Beit Din has the authority to change that. Tragically, this has led to a horrible situation of extortion, or just plain vindictive behavior (I'll give you a get when you give me one million dollars). In the past, it has also brought about the formation of "goon squads", that would "convince" the husband to grant the "get" (Bill of Divorce) by means of fists and brass knuckles. In the last few years, the civil authorities in the U.S. have cracked down on this, and several rabbis now sit in prison as a result. About twenty five years ago, a maverick American rabbi, Marvin Antelman, came up with a possible solution. Since one may do a favor for someone without their knowledge (I can decide unilaterally that I owe you $100, I can't unilaterally decide that you owe me $100), a man who is not acting as a husband, providing his wife with financial support, shelter, and sexual satisfaction, would be required to give his wife a "get". He's not doing that, then a Beit Din can, and should, act on his behalf and give the woman a "get". They would, in effect, be doing him a favor. Rabbi Antelman formed his own Beit Din, and granted divorces to many 'agunot. He even flew to Israel, and performed these ceremonies in the U.S. Embassy, thus avoiding arrest. He actually found a precedent for these actions in the annals of Moroccan Jewry, where this was practiced three hundred years ago. This innovation was heartily approved of by Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman, one of the leaders of the Modern Orthodox movement. It has come to be known as his innovation.The vast majority of rabbis, both in the U.S. and Israel, denounced this maverick, declaring these divorces invalid. However, little by little, a number of rabbis from Orthodoxy's Left Wing began to accept the idea. As I have previously written, there is a not insignificant sector of Israeli rabbis who are openly challenging the Chief Rabbinate's ultra Right Wing policies, most famously in the area of conversions. But this has now spilled over into the area of divorce. A duly constituted rabbinic court in Safed (Tzefat) granted an 'agunah a "get", in the name of her husband who has been in a coma for several years, thus permitting her to remarry. Middle of the road and Right Wing rabbis were horrified, and they petitioned the Supreme Beit Din, headed by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, to invalidate this divorce. Before the Beit Din could issue an opinion, the woman's lawyers petitioned the High Court (secular) to not allow the Chief Rabbinate to speak, on the technicality that the petitioners were not parties to the case. In March, 2017,, the High Court issued a ruling that the Chief Rabbis could not undo the decision, and must allow the decision of the lower rabbinic court to stand. So where are my mixed feelings? The Chief Rabbinate is given, by Israeli law, sole jurisdiction in matters of marital status, and in matters of personal identity (Is a person Jewish or not Jewish? Married or single?). The High Court has essentially undone that jurisdiction. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that the Chief Rabbinate is a body selected by a Knesset committee, on the basis of political deals. It no longer represents the approach of most religious Jews, let alone the views of most Israelis. However, the fact remains that secular, non religious, or even anti-religious, judges are making decisions about Torah and rabbinic law. This should be troubling to anyone who takes religion seriously. What if the U.S. Senate told me which prayer book I must use? On the other hand, what good is a discussion of political science, when a woman is doomed to a life of loneliness through no fault of her own? I have no answers. But I am troubled. So, is the Chief Rabbinate a blessing or a curse? It is clearly both.

Passover 28

The Eighth Day of Passover has no special rules. It might even seem anticlimactic. But Jewish tradition, and especially Hasidic Tradition, has made it into a climax. As I pointed out in one of my posts about the Seder, although the immediate emphasis is on past events, the future is also a factor. (Next Year in Jerusalem!). Prayers for the restoration of the Temple are also present. The Eighth Day is the flip side of this, when the historical makes way for the history that is yet to be. The Prophetic reading (Haftarah) prescribed in the Talmud for that day is Isaiah 11 and 12, which speaks of the coming of the Messiah (although the word is not actually used); a descendant of David, who will gather in the exiles from all lands, and reunite the alienated portions of our people. Peace will reign. From a Jewish standpoint, this is THE central Messianic prophecy; a great Prophet and Teacher, who will gather the exiles, and usher in a period of universal Peace. Any claimant to that title must fulfill these things, or is simply to be regarded as an imposter. One of the frustrations of our long exile is not only that the Messiah has not yet arrived, but that strangers sit on his throne. As far as Jewish tradition goes, that reading from Isaiah tells it all. We are being reminded not to lose hope, Deliverance is coming. Hasidic tradition took this much further. Every holiday would conclude with a meal (or other celebration) extending into the night after the festival. This was at once to savor another hour or two of the joyous occasion but was also seen as "illuminating the darkness" ahead, with the light of the Holy Day. (This has long been a feature in most communities for the end of Shabbat). But the last day of Passover is different. Many Hasidic communities call this "The Meal of the Mashiach". The Rebbes encourage their flock to keep faith strong. The Egyptian Exile had lasted for centuries, and when Moses announced that deliverance was here, few believed him. The reality of deliverance is emphasized. Chabad Hassidim actually drink four cups of wine at this meal. At the Seder, these symbolized the past redemption. But now, they are a symbol of a new deliverance that is surely coming. Often, a famous letter, purportedly from the Baal Shem Tov, written to his brother in law, Rabbi Gershon Kitover, describing a vision he had had, is discussed. In this vision, the Baal Shem Tov saw the Messiah. "When are you coming?" he asked. The Messiah responded "when your wellsprings overflow into the world". In other words, when a more spiritual understanding of Judaism, as taught by Hasidism, is accepted, Mashiach will come. Historians doubt the authenticity of this letter, but its message rings true nevertheless. These are, to say the least, comforting words. It is interesting to note that Moroccan Jews have a similar institution called the Mimouna. It is held the night after Passover. Hametz food is served, especially traditional pastries, and fried wraps called mufletas, which the participants fill with either jam or butter and honey The rabbis speak words of encouragement and faith. (Mimouna is derived from the Arabic word for "Faith"). The tradition is rapidly spreading to other communities. Should you walk by a Mimouna celebration, you can expect to be dragged in, dressed in North African garb, and stuffed until you can hardly walk.There are culinary differences for the Hasidim as well on the Eight Day. As I have discussed earlier, most Hasidim observe a tradition of not eating matzah that has become wet. (No matzah balls, etc). This is known as gebruchs. This has little (if any) halachic basis, and was denounced and mocked by non-Hasidic rabbis for many years. (I do not observe this, and urge others not to follow this absurd stringency). Today,however, it has become almost standard in most ultra-Orthodox communities. For seven days, the matzah is kept covered on the table, for fear that a crumb might fall into the soup. But on the Eight Day, not only is wet matzah permitted, but it becomes a sort of ritual. In some groups, a huge bowl of soup is brought to the table, with forty-nine matzah balls in it. The number forty-nine is an obvious reference to the Omer period. The Omer, brought on the second day of Passover, consisted of barley, which was primarily an animal food. After the Omer period, on the holiday of Shavu'ot. two loaves of hametz wheat bread were offered. This is a symbol of transformation. The transition from no wet matzah, to the deliberate, ceremonial wetting of the matzah, has many interpretations. But most obvious is the transformation from a strictness born of concern for possible transgression (no matter how unlikely), to a confidence that we live under Divine Providence, where soon even the dreaded hametz will become not only permissible, but an actual Divine service. Oppression shifts to Redemption. Next year in rebuilt Jerusalem!

Biblical New Year? Not in my Bible!

In some heretical Jewish sects, and especially in their online versions, one sees the New Moon of Nisan referred to as Biblical New Year. The supposed basis for this assertion is Exodus 12:2 "This month will be for you the first of months". Indeed, the months of the Jewish calendar are numbered from Nisan (called in the Torah "The Month of Spring"). People are often confused when they find out that Rosh HaShana, the "real" Jewish New Year" is in the seventh month! Yet, we never find the first of Nisan referred to in Scripture as the "new year", nor do we find any special observances for this New Moon more than the others. The sacrifices of the Temple were the same. No special ceremonies were ordained to mark this New Moon more than others. The problem here is that New Year has a totally different meaning in the context of Torah, from our modern concept of celebrating January 1st. The New Year, or, more correctly, the New Years, are the dates marking shifts in status of various things. A modern example is that racehorses, when said to be two or three years old, are counted from January 1st. A horse born anytime between January 2nd to December 31st, becomes one year old on January 1st. Similarly, in the Jewish calendar, we have four such "New Years".The first of Nisan is the New Year for dating the reign of Kings, and for setting the order of festivals. Therefore, Passover, which occurs in Nisan, is considered the first festival of the year. The first of Elul is the New Year for tithing animals. One may not tithe animals of different ages together. Like the racehorses, their age is determined by the first of Elul. This, too, has no special ceremonies. The first of Tishri, which we actually call "Rosh HaShana", establishes the years for Sabbaticals and Jubilees, agricultural cycles of grains and vegetables, as well as the Divine Judgement, made for every person. It is not so much a day of celebration, as of introspection. The Torah calls it "the Day of Remembrance". We find the month of Tishri, the Seventh Month, referred to as the New Year twice in Scripture. One time is in Exodus 34:22, with the Sukkot holiday (which occurs in the Seventh Month) referred to as "the Feast of the Harvest, at the return (renewal) of the year". In Ezekiel 40:1, the prophet speaks of a revelation on "Rosh HaShana, at the tenth of the month". The Tenth of Tishri is Yom Kippur. There is no special observance connected with the tenth of Nisan. The fourth Rosh Hashana is the fifteenth of Shevat, the New Year of the Trees, when the trees are considered one year older, which has implications for tithing of fruit, as well as fixing the first three years of a tree's life, when its fruit is forbidden ('orlah). Sabbatical year laws regarding fruit are also dependent on the fifteenth of Shevat. It should be noted that the years marked on the Jewish calendar today, originate from a Second Century work called "Seder Olam". Before that, years were marked by the reigns of Kings, later replaced in most Mediterranean lands by years marked from the reign of Alexander the Great. This was the dating system in force in Talmudic times, and is still used by the Yemenites. Other Jewish communities employ the system of the Seder Olam. Each of these days is significant. But only the First of Tishri is marked by special observances, and has become known as Rosh HaShana.

CREDO

"Credo" (I believe) is a major part of every Church service in traditional Christianity. One of the first parts of the service is the recitation of one or more "creeds"; basic beliefs of the Church, formulated mostly in the fourth century. The worshiper must recite, and subscribe to, these basic tenets. In Islam as well, there is the "Shohada", the declared belief that there is no deity but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger. In fact, conversion to Islam only involves the recitation of the seven words of the Shohada before witnesses. We search in vain for a Jewish equivalent to either of these. Although some basic ideology is present in both the Tanach and the Talmud, is not systematized in either work. Yes, certain Talmudic rabbis put forth some ideas that are "bedrock", but even most of these are challenged by other Talmudic rabbis. With the exception of the existence of G-d, no other Jewish idea (that I can think of) has gone unchallenged within Judaism. Classical Judaism refrains from conceptualizing and fixing dogma. In Leviticus 19 and 20, we have a parshah named "Kedoshim" (Holy). It opens "Be Holy, for I, the L-rd you G-d, am Holy". We would expect an explanation defining "Holiness". We do not find it. Instead, we meet a list of observances, that go from "Love thy neighbor", all the way to a prohibition of cross dressing. The message is "we don't define holiness. The way of life of the Torah will teach you what holiness is all about. Keep these rules. Make them part of your life. Words are cheap".It is only after the rise of the Karaite heresy in the seventh century, that Judaism had to define itself, in order to defend itself. Rabbis penned works of philosophy, theology, and apologetics, in order to defend the faith. Some limited their sources to Tanach and Talmud. Many relied more on Greek philosophy, which was widely accepted in intellectual circles, in order to defend the Torah. Here we are faced with an unanswerable dilemma. Often, these works take an Aristotelian (more rarely Platonic) interpretation of the Torah, and come to far reaching conclusions that are incompatible with the simple meaning of Scripture, or the express views of Talmudic rabbis. Did the authors of these works really mean what they wrote, or were they being less than candid in order to save Judaism from strange views, whether Karaite, Islamic or Christian? I have in my possession a book written by a contemporary rabbi, based on the idea that the Big Bang theory justified the Biblical narrative of Creation. His ideas are quite brilliant, actually. However, one of my daughters-in-law had that rabbi as a High School teacher. In class, he lectured extensively against his own words, urging simple faith, without recourse, or even reference, to science. Tempers will flare when we bring this discussion to RAMBAM. In his legal work, he rarely says anything contrary to Biblical and rabbinic theology. His philosophical work, on the other hand, is replete with statements that contradict both Scripture and rabbinics, to the extent that one eighteenth-century rabbi refused to believe that the same man had authored both books, declaring the philosophical one to be a forgery. In his legal works, RAMBAM outlines "Thirteen Principles of Faith". These are somewhat curious, as they contain elements not mentioned in earlier sources, and therefore could hardly be considered to be our Credo. However, in his philosophical work, he demonstrates that he, himself, founded some of these principles. They are, shall we say, other than bedrock. Was he being untruthful in his legal works, in order to win the hearts and minds of the masses, or was he fooling the non-believers, by using their own heresy or secularism, against them? For example, his legal code goes into great detail on how the sacrifices are to be performed; even how may Priests carry various limbs onto the altar. In his commentary to the Mishnah, he blasts those who doubt that sacrifices will return., In his philosophical "Guide", he says that G-d does not desire sacrifice, and the Torah only included it as a concession to the norms of the day. (This, despite the fact that two thirds of the laws of the Torah relate to sacrifice). In any case, before the Shabbatean debacle of 1666, philosophy was the province of an intellectual elite. Most Jews either performed the mitzvot simply, or else delved into the mysteries of the Kabbalah (which I contend were the original, albeit not widely known, tenets of Judaism). When many communities jettisoned Kabbalah after 1666, they turned to philosophy. The prose exposition of RAMBAM's thirteen principles is printed in most prayer books, although I have never witnessed their public recitation. The poetic form of the thirteen principles, "Yigdal", is sung in many communities, but few realize that this was meant as a Credo rather than just a hymn. Judaism, then, is not committed to a Credo, but rather to a way of life, connecting us with G-d. There may be many approaches, all valid. (Another reason I dislike ArtScroll, which paints a very narrow view of matters that are vaster than the sea). I find greatest meaning in the understanding of the Kabbalists and the Hasidic Masters, especially Rabbi Nachman. Others may find inspiration elsewhere. That is fine, and as it should be. In the words of the Talmud "every river takes its own course".

Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 9

It is forbidden to heat water on Shabbat to the point that one could be scalded. There are different estimates of how hot that is, but scientifically, that is between 130 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit (54-60 C). One may not wash in water that has been heated to that level  on Shabbat, or even drink it. If it was heated before Shabbat, one may only wash their hands, face and feet with it; not the entire body. What about the hot water in my sink or shower? Logically, it should be forbidden. The water in the boiler was heated before Shabbat, and should then be suitable for the limited washing mentioned above. But once a sensor "notices" that the water level has dropped, cold water enters the boiler to be heated. I am therefore "cooking". Besides this, when the water temperature falls below a certain point, a flame goes on to reheat the boiler. Perhaps I caused that to happen by removing some hot water, thus allowing in the cold. In light of all of this, most Ashkenazim will not touch the hot water faucet on Shabbat at all. Many Sepharadim have also accepted this approach. However, a very distinguished minority of Sepharadic rabbis has challenged this. Firstly, it is a long accepted practice to heat a mikveh, even on Shabbat. How? No one is heating it! A thermostat controls the temperature automatically. Any human influence on that process is a very indirect causation. Rav Moshe Feinstein suggested that the person entering such a mikveh should have in mind not to enjoy the heat. Therefore, the "distinguished minority" I spoke of permits, especially in cases of illness or great discomfort, the use of hot water for bathing, showering, or any other similar usage. (I am speaking of a hot water system employing a boiler. The type of system where water is heated instantly, as it comes out of the cold water pipe, being more direct, is much more problematic.) Rav Yitzchak Abadi goes a step further. If the thermostat is set for well under 130 degrees, the water never actually "cooks", and may be used freely, even where no minor emergency exists. Therefore, many Sepharadic Jews freely shower on Shabbat morning, and see it as part of the mitzvah of honoring the Shabbat. This is also my practice. Although some object to the washing of hair on Shabbat, even most Ashkenazim permit it if patted dry with a towel, rather than being wrung out. Many Sepharadim are far more lenient, understanding the admonition found in some sources that one may not wash hair as referring to a hair garment, not hair still attached to a living person, which should be viewed as any other part of the body.. As mentioned earlier, Sepharadim have no problem with solid soap. Sepharadic rules of the Shabbat, as well as other areas, differ on key points. Let's see what those are.
1.For Ashkenazim, Minhag (custom) is a major factor in determining halachah. For most Sepharadim, (other than North Africans), this is not the case. Most follow the ruling of RAMBAM that customs later than about 400 ce have no validly, and even then, no custom can uproot a halachah,but only add to it. Although this is challenged in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is bedrock in the Babylonian, which we follow.
2. Ashkenazi rulings are often personality based. ("Rabbi so and so ruled this way. Therefore it's what we do"). Sepharadim will examine both the logic of a rabbi's ruling, as well as its fidelity to sources. 
3.Svara (Theoretical constructs). Ashkenazi poskim will often base a decision on a theory; as in the case of the tea leaves we discussed earlier. Heated leaves that are wilted, are considered "cooked" in the laws of tithes. Therefore, why not apply this to the laws of Shabbat? Sepharadim will need a textual basis for such a far reaching  conclusion. 
4. All agree that we have no authority to make new halachic decrees after the last Sanhedrin. Many Ashkenazim will nevertheless say of a new situation, that had the Sanhedrin known about it,they would have issued a ban, so we must even now consider it banned. The "logic" of this leaves Sepharadim scratching their heads. 
5. There is a concept of "halachha k'batrai (the halachah follows the later authority). RAMBAM limits this to opinions only of Talmudic rabbis. (Until about 400 ce). Ashkenazim will prefer a 20th century rabbinic opinion to a twelfth century rabbinic opinion; a rabbi in Brooklyn trumps RAMBAM.. 
Sadly, many Sepharadic rabbis have been heavily influenced by Ashkenazi opinion. This is especially true since the passing of Rav Ovadia Yosef in 2013. I see no figure of stature on the horizon to "return the Crown to its former glory." I wait and pray. 
The ways of the Torah are "ways of pleasantness".Enjoy your Shabbat.

Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 8

Wait, did I say at the end of my last post that we should have some tea? Wow, does that open a can of worms! How shall we make it? I have discussed in other posts, that ,in the laws of Shabbat, a vessel cooking over the fire is a "kli Rishon" (first vessel). Theoretically, we may put into it any dry, fully cooked food. But most avoid doing this. Anything not fully cooked will become cooked in a kli rishon, thus violating Shabbat. If we pour the water from a kli rishon into another vessel (kli sheni; second vessel), according to the vast majority of authorities, no further cooking takes place. However, the boiling water coming out of a kli rishon, before it comes to rest in the kli sheni, still can "cook", at least by rabbinic law. Since there is "no cooking after cooking", a Sepharadi will not hesitate to pour boiling water over coffee, which has, of course, been roasted. An Ashkenazi will never do this, as they fear we do not know if the principal of "no cooking after cooking", also applies to roasted, baked, fried, etc. Sepharadi eyes roll at this point. In the kli sheni, we may place anything...probably. In a totally different area of halachah, in the laws of tithes, we find an idea that one cannot take tithes from cooked food on raw food, or vice versa. Thus, carrots grown in Eretz Yisrael, if raw, can only be tithed with raw carrots. But how do we define raw? If they were heated, until they appear cooked, they are cooked. This would apply even in a kli sheni. So, since a kli sheni will make certain foods appear cooked, especially thin leaved vegetables. perhaps we need to apply this to Shabbat as well? Most Ashkenazi rabbis do, in fact, apply this to leafy vegetables and herbs. They insist on placing these foods into a kli shlishi (third vessel), before putting in hot water. One seventeenth century posek even wrote that anyone avoiding putting ANYTHING into a kli sheni "will be blessed". (One early twentieth century posek wrote that although this makes little sense, it's worth it to be strict, in order to receive that rabbi's blessing.) Some Sepharadic poskim are also hesitant to put leafy foods into a kli sheni, but most see no relationship between the principal of tithing, and the laws of Shabbat. Tea leaves, although they have been heated as part of the drying process, are not actually "cooked". The degree of heat is generally under the temperature needed to "cook". Therefore, most Sepharadim will put a tea bag into a kli sheni (into which the water has already been poured). Most Ashkenazim will insist on a kli shlishi. Some will argue that even this may be problematic, and prepare, before Shabbat, a tea "essence", to be mixed with hot water in a kli shlishi. So, if you are following Ashkenazi practice, pour the water into a kli sheni, then into a kli shlishi, and put in your tea bag, or, better yet, use tea "essence", and enjoy.If you are following Sepharadi halachah, pour the hot water into a kli sheni, then feel free to add whatever you wish. Rav Ovadia Yosef writes at length that it is permitted, but qualifies his ruling with a "better not to". I do not know if he meant that for real, or if it was merely a nod to Ashkenazi sensibilities. I, personally, will place a tea bag into a kli sheni. Now. let's have that cup of tea, and please squeeze some lemon into it.

Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 7

Since we have enjoyed out gefilte fish, how about a salad? If we are Ashkenazi, not so simple. If vegetables need to be peeled, we run into the issue of "borer". Even if we determine that peeling a vegetable is NOT borer, the halachah stipulates that most permissible preparations, cannot be performed with "a specialized utensil" (kli hameyuhad l'kach). According to most Ashkenazim, that woulod rule out a vegetable peeler. Sepharadic rabbis disagree, arguing that a vegetable peeler is merely one of many types of knives, and hence permissible, But wait. May I cut the vegetables? Ashkenazim point to a Talmudic passage that says that we may not cut vegetables "finely". This is interpreted as a prohibition of "grinding" (tohen). How fine constitutes "grinding"? As it is not defined, we had better leave the vegetables in fairly large chunks. In fact, to be safe, let's cut them a little bigger than we do on weekdays. Sepharadim will say "Wait. The context of the above mentioned passage in the Talmud is cutting vegetables or herbs finely in preparation for cooking, either for food or medicine. It has nothing to do with "grinding'." The Sepharadi will prepare the vegetables as finely cut as he pleases. Do you want some lemon juice on that? Not so fast. We have before us a question of "sohet" (squeezing, wringing out). "Sohet" is a subset (toldah) of "separating". The Talmud informs us that the squeezing of grapes to make wine, or olives to make olive oil, is Biblically forbidden, as we are separating the desired liquid from the rest of the fruit. The Talmud extends this, as a rabbinic "fence", to pomegranates and raspberries, which were frequently juiced and fermented at that time, in that part of the world. All other fruits, where juicing is uncommon, are permitted. Ashkenazi opinion later extended that to all fruit that we may wish to juice. Sepharadic opinion, based on RAMBAM, says that no new decrees can be made after the demise of the last Sanhedrin (fourth century), except for a recognized local rabbi, for his community only. Many Ashkenazim, on the other hand, consider a situation that, had it been known to the Sanhedrin, we may reasonably assume that they would have forbade, to be, in fact, forbidden. (Lemons were unknown in the Middle East in Biblical and Talmudic times). Therefore, all juicing is now prohibited on Shabbat according to Ashkenazi opinion. An almost universal "out" in this, is if we are squeezing the lemon not into a bowl, or even into a drink, but rather only onto a solid food. It never had the status of a juice, but only of a condiment. Even here, though, many Ashkenazim say "it's permitted, but better avoided". Most Sepharadic rabbis see this as a strange interpretation. Only the juicing of grapes and olives is Biblically forbidden. Pomegranates and raspberries are rabbinically forbidden. No decree was made on anything else, and hence it is permitted. (Surprisingly, Rav Ovadia Yosef forbade the juicing of oranges, as orange juice today is extremely common). Since lemon juice is almost never consumed as a beverage, unless other ingredients are added, it is not considered juice at all. Therefore, it may be freely squeezed, even into a bowl. Again, it is not that the Sepharadim are looking for "outs", but rather that they do not consider the stricter opinions in this case, to have any textual or logical merit. That one great rabbi or another ruled differently, is of no interest or importance, unless he put forth a source, or a reasonable argument. Now, let's have some salad, along with tea and lemon.

Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 6

The next part of our story, I like to call "the Gefilte Fish". It is a long established custom of most Jews to have a fish course at all, or at least some, Shabbat meals. This is mostly custom, but greatly emphasized in Kabbalah. However, some see a problem in doing so. One of the prohibitions of Shabbat is "borer"; the process of selecting out bad from good, or even good from bad if it is to be kept for later. For example, a bowl of fruit, in which one is rotten. It is absolutely forbidden to remove the rotten one on Shabbat. Rather, one may take out the good ones. This, too, would be forbidden if the good is put aside for later use. This even applies where one item is not bad, but not what I want right now. If peanuts are mixed with raisins, and I want the peanuts now, pulling out one or more raisins would be "borer". What does one do with fish? Most Ashkenazi poskim (legal decisors) see the removal of a bone from the fish as a Biblical prohibition of "borer". One must eat the flesh from around the bones. Therefore, European Jews developed the "Gefilte". The bones have been removed before Shabbat, with the flesh being cooked and seasoned. Classically, it was then stuffed back in the fish skin, or more commonly, made into a sort of fish dumpling. In Poland, even the non Jews enjoyed it, calling it "Jewish Fish". Problem solved. One early nineteenth century posek even forbade the eating of nuts on Shabbat (although this practice is widely reported as being done in Talmudic times), as sometimes a piece of shell gets mixed in. Its removal would constitute "borer". Most Sepharadic poskim see here no problem. First of all, if done in the normal process of eating, there can be no "borer".(Derech Achilah) That is the way of eating. One would not be likely to eat a nut without removing the shell. It makes no difference if the shell has inadvertently become mixed in with the nut. To do so BEFORE the meal, in the course of preparation, would indeed be forbidden. But not during the meal. Furthermore, most Sepharadic authorities say that there is no such thing as "borer" within a single item. The fish and its bones constitute a single item. The bones can be removed, according to this view, even before the meal! In addition, most Sepharadim see no problem in separating an unwanted solid from a liquid. They were never really "mixed", thus obviating the need for separating. if a fly fell into one's wine, most Ashkenazim would be sure to remove it along with some of the wine, with others saying that even this is forbidden. A Sepharadi would simply remove the fly. It never was "mixed" with the wine. I can still remember my younger, Ashkenazi self, swallowing watermelon seeds along with the flesh, in order to avoid "borer" (most people would spit out the seeds once in the mouth). Now, I freely remove the seeds before eating.The more relaxed the atmosphere of Shabbat observance, the more the soul can soar. I love being Sepharadi.

Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 5

I mentioned in passing in my last post, about the issue of medications on Shabbat. The ancient rabbis forbade medication on Shabbat, as the herbal medicines used in those days (and by modern day practitioners of herbalism), often involved grinding an herb, and then cooking it. Grinding is one of the thirty nine melachot. But what if one already has an herbal formula prepared? The rabbis feared that someone experiencing pain or discomfort might be so agitated that he might prepare such a remedy on Shabbat. Therefore, they forbade the use of a remedy, even if it had been prepared before Shabbat. Jewish law recognizes three degrees of illness. One who is, or might be, dangerously ill (holeh sheyesh bo sakanah), one who is not in danger, but is experiencing pain all over his body, or else is so uncomfortable that he must lie down, or else is so uncomfortable that he is unable to sleep. (Holeh she'ein bo sakanah), and lastly, someone who has a localized, not unbearable pain (miktzat holi, or meihush).An example would be a moderate or slight headache. In the first case, nearly all commandments, even Biblical commandments, may be, and must be violated, if necessary in curing the person. (Exceptions are idolatry, adultery, incest, murder). In the second case, no Biblical command may be violated, but rabbinic commands may be, including taking already prepared medicines. In the third case, we may violate nothing. Both Ashkenazi and Sepharadic rabbis agree that even now, when medicines are rarely made from herbs, the prohibition still applies, based on the principal of "lo pelug" (no differentiating). That is, if the rabbis forbade "medicine", they made no distinction. It is also clear that they made no distinction between a medical preparation made at home, and one purchased from a physician or herbalist. However, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013), in my opinion the greatest halachic authority in the last seven hundred years, issued a responsum shortly before his death, that all medications purchased in a store or pharmacy, are now permitted. His reasoning was that we not only do not make our own medicines, but don't even buy them from an herbalist. We buy them from a store, that in turn buys them from a pharmaceutical company, that makes it in a factory, that is connected with a laboratory, There is no longer any reasonable fear of making it up on Shabbat. We are at least five steps removed from the person who prepares the formula. This is even too far to apply the principle of "lo pelug", as this is way beyond a reasonable doubt that our sages could have envisioned. He did not present this as a "heter", a dispensation for an emergency situation. Rather, he felt that this is an absolute reality in modern circumstances, that must be accepted. This has been a great boon to allergy sufferers, people with an annoying itch, as well as countless others. Strictly speaking, this is not a Sepharadic-Ashkenazic issue, but it illustrates the willingness of great Sepharadic rabbis to meet the challenges of new realities, while Ashkenazi rabbis are more determined to preserve the eighteenth century..