Shabbat, Sepharadi Style part 1

Political correctness would dictate that we should say that all systems of halachah and tradition are equally valid. But truth be told, few people actually beleive that. When we win the confidence of members of different communities, we will often here why "our" way is by far the best. One online Kashrut "expert" even wrote that the opinions of Sepharadic rabbis can be ignored, as "our" rabbis are far greater. Words like these can be heard in many groups and sub groups, even between Ashkenazim themselves. Sepharadic Jews, however, tend to be more open to outside criticism, and have, at various times and in various places, abandoned their own ways, out of respect for someone whom they consider to be a great personage. Recently, my wife, Sima, read a posting for a dinner being held by a Sepharadic synagogue in our area, that boasted of the authenticity of the Sepharadic  cuisine that will be served. The keynote speaker...a popular Ashkenazi rabbi.Over the course of the last two centuries, many communities have adopted Ashkenazi customs and halachah. The tide began to be turned by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,(1920-2013, who made his motto "To restore the Crown to its former glory", preaching far and wide about the validity of Sepharadic tradition. Privately, he went much further, declaring Ashkenazi ways to be "confusion", and the Sepharadic way to be infinitely more valid.I have come to accept that view. Elsewhere, I have discussed the reasoning behind these ideas. The great Sepharadic rabbis of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, were the heirs to the heritage of the great Yeshivot of Babylon, where the Talmud had been composed, while their Ashkenazi counterparts received primarily a written text, which begged interpretation. Subsequent generations of Sepharadic rabbis put their efforts into arriving at the true meaning of Tanach and Talmud, while Ashkenazim sought to read between the lines. One must question how much of this reading between the lines is actually uncovering true intent, and how much is reading into the text ideas that are alien to it? In this series, I will not go into difference of cuisine or melodies; but into the actual differences in observance of Shabbat between the two groups. I hope to show that the Sepharadic way is almost always faithful to sources, while the Ashkenazi approach emphasizes custom and "svara" (theoretical constructs). Also, where there is some doubt in the intent of a Talmudic principle, Sepharadim will attempt to clarify which interpretation is the most valid, while Ashkenazim will often rule that all interpretations, even contradictory ones, must be upheld in practice. Although these differences can be found in all areas of Jewish life, they can most readily be found in Shabbat observance. The Sepharadic way seems like it is more lenient; but in fact, it is stricter where sources call for strictness, whereas Ashkenazim will be lenient where custom has spoken. On the other hand, Sepharadic authorities see no problem for Shabbat in such everyday amenities as brushing teeth, washing with soap, reheating foods that have been previously cooked, squeezing a lemon into a cup of tea, or many other little ways that make Shabbat less restrictive, so that one can concentrate on its transcendent spirituality,.Ashkenazi understanding has declared these same actions as possible Biblical prohibitions.Moreover, its not that Sepharadim  are bending over backwards to be lenient, but are merely following the sources to their logical conclusions, rather than reading in layer upon layer of insecurity. Only in the area of Passover observance is the difference more evident. But a Sepharadic Shabbat is, I believe, a less obsessive one, filled with more joy and celebration.

The Work of a Non Jew on Shabbat

First, it must be emphasized that non-Jews are in no way commanded to rest on Shabbat. On the contrary, it is "a Sign between Me and the Children of Israel". (I have discussed elsewhere the issue of potential converts observing Shabbat, as well as Noachides who wish to observe mitzvot beyond the Noachide laws). But what about a non-Jew, performing a labor for a Jew? Biblically, this is not a problem. The command "that your manservant and maidservant may rest", is universally understood to refer to a slave, not a "servant". Non-Jews who became slaves to Jews went through a process similar to conversion; including circumcision and immersion, but with the intent of becoming a slave, not a convert. Nevertheless, a slave had to observe all Torah prohibitions, and, upon being freed, became a Jew in every respect. They were part of the household. In fact, the slave of a Kohen could eat of the Terumah (heave offering), which would be a great sin if done by an ordinary Israelite. (I have dealt elsewhere with the issue of the morality, or lack thereof, of slavery. Basically, it was a concession to a societal norm, which the Torah put limitations and safeguards on, without forbidding it outright.).Biblically, there is no problem whatsoever of having a non-Jew do labor for us on Shabbat. The rabbis, however, forbade many things as a "fence" around the Torah. For example, writing on Shabbat is a Biblical prohibition. The rabbis forbade handling any writing implement, lest we come to write. The handling of said implement would constitute a rabbinic, rather than a Biblical, prohibition. These actions are called "Shevut", designed either to prevent an actual Biblical violation, or else to guard the special feeling of Shabbat. Along these lines, they ruled that instructing a non-Jew to do work for us on Shabbat is forbidden, lest we take the idea of work on Shabbat so lightly that we do it ourselves. Since this rule is completely rabbinic, many exceptions were built into it. For example, a person who is ill, but not dangerously so, can be treated by a non-Jew, even if Biblical prohibitions (performed by the non-Jew) are involved. If the action of the non-Jew would only constitute in itself a rabbinic prohibition, then instructing him to perform the action would be a "shevut of a shevut", which is actually completely permitted, although we avoid even doing that without some necessity. (Controversy will often come into this as to whether a particular act is a rabbinic or a Biblical prohibition). We generally only do this in cases where either a mitzvah is involved, or great discomfort. I have written earlier about the issue of electricity on Shabbat. Some consider electricity as "fire" Biblically, others consider it as fire rabbinically, others see it as irrelevant. Since there is a doubt, we need to be strict, until such time that a valid Sanhedrin will arise. But many will be lenient about asking a non Jew to turn on an electric circuit for us. Some, but not all, rabbis permit asking a non-Jew, even in the case of a Biblical law, to do work that is needed for a communal mitzvah. If what I ask a non-Jew to do will likely, but not necessarily, cause him to work for me on Shabbat, it is permissible. . For example, I can bring my car into the garage of a non-Jewish mechanic on Friday afternoon, with the understanding that I will get it back on Monday. Although I know that he will work on it on Shabbat, the fact remains that he could have worked on it on Sunday. That he chose not to, is a question of his convenience and preference, for which I am not responsible. Contrary to popular opinion, something we may not request from a non-Jew may not be done by a 'hint" (gee it's dark. It would be nice if someone lit a candle). In fact, in most cases, we must stop a non-Jew from performing work for us, unless he is actually doing it for his own benefit. In the early days of Zionism, when there was still pride in  Jewish labor, many recoiled from the idea of needing a non-Jew to work for us on Shabbat. Many ingenious inventions were developed and put into place, that would automatically do the necessary work for us on Shabbat. This has mostly gone by the wayside; but was based on ideological, rather than halachic, needs. In all cases of doubt, a qualified rabbi should be consulted. But it must be understood that not having a non-Jew work for us on Shabbat, is not for the purpose of making him somehow "Jewish", but is intended not to undermine our awe of G-d's holy day for us. The exceptions are not "outs" but rather built into the system, in order to meet human needs, with minimal violence done to our transcendent Shabbat experience.

The Non-Sabbath Observer

There is a recognition in our sources that not all sins...or sinners, are created equal. Besides the different punishments prescribed in the Torah for different offenses showing what is of greater or lesser severity of a particular action, the rabbis recognized other gradations. First, there is a huge difference between committing a sin because of passion or weakness, and one doing so as a show of spite or disrespect. Second, one who worships idols, or has converted out of the Faith, although remaining technically a Jew, is not to be regarded as such by the community. (A significant minority of opinions say that he is, in fact, no longer Jewish. This is not the accepted view.) There is a Talmudic ruling that willful Sabbath desecration is a form of idolatry, as Shabbat is a testimony that we believe G-d created Heaven and Earth. Historically, a Jew who did not keep Shabbat was, in essence, writing himself out of the Jewish people. When Shabbat desecration became common with the rise of Reform in the Eighteenth Century, many were left in a quandary as to how to relate to our brothers and sisters who were misled into neglect of this most central observance. There were, and are, rabbis and communities that turn these people away, in the hopes of maintaining the pristine observance of Judaism. Most, however, were far more lenient. The Shulhan Aruch had already ruled that one who transgresses only privately, has not lost his status of credibility. Many pointed to a Talmudic dictum that one who refrains from violating Shabbat in front of a sage (showing that he is embarrassed), is still considered "kosher". Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman (Melamed L'hoi'l) went even further, opining that since Shabbat is not observed by so many Jews, most do not consider it as being such a severe transgression, thus rendering their willful transgression accidental. Although this approach was rejected by Chofetz Chaim in Mishnah Berurah, it was accepted by Chazon Ish. In fact, Chazon Ish actually gave non-Sabbath observers the honor of being called to the Torah. Many are lenient based on the concept of "Tinok Shenishbah" (a baby captured by Gentiles, who grew up without Torah knowledge), extending that concept to include one who was brought up without a solid Jewish education. However, as I pointed out in a previous series, that entire concept is based on a censor's correction in RAMBAM.  Moshe Feinstein was lenient to count non-Sabbath observers in a minyan for the saying of Kaddish, but not for public prayer. Mahari Assad (19th century) wrote that Jews who have strayed should be encouraged to return, and in no way should be made to feel rejected. In my experience, most Israeli rabbis do not allow a non-Sabbath observer to be counted in a minyan, whereas most American rabbis do. My own policy is based on a teaching of Rav Ovadia Yosef, that a non-observant Jew who comes to synagogue even occasionally, and recites the blessing "Mekaddesh HaShabbat" (in Kiddush and in the Shabbat Amidah prayer), is not to be seen as one who rejects the Shabbat, and, although transgressing, is to be seen as a full part of the community. May G-d restore all our lost ones.

Who Counts in A Minyan?

Who does or doesn't count in a minyan (quorum of ten) is a most controversial topic. First, we must decide if the concept of "minyan" is Biblical or Rabbinic. The rule is that in case of doubt, we must be stringent with a Biblical law, but we may be lenient with a rabbinic law. The Talmud derives the requirement of ten from the story of the spies. Twelve men were sent to spy out the Land; two brought back a good report, while ten brought back a bad report. G-d tells Moses and Aaron "Separate yourselves from this evil congregation". We thus learn that a "congregation" is ten. But is this a principle derived from the verse, and hence Biblical, or a rabbinic concept, that was "leaned" on to the verse (asmachta)?The view of the majority of authorities is that the principle is rabbinic, allowing leeway for some flexibility. The conclusion of discussions in the Talmud on this topic, clearly state that only adult (over thirteen) males can count towards the requisite number of ten. There is, however, an opinion that the Ark, containing a Torah scroll,can be counted. This view is rejected. However, in many times and places, this view was relied upon in emergency situations. Rabbenu Simchah, the author of Machzor Vitry (a student of RASHI, d. 1105) opined that in case of need, a minor, a woman, or a Torah scroll could be counted as the the tenth "man". However, about a century later, Rabbenu Tam, the greatest of the Tosafists, refused to consider this view whatsoever. A somewhat later authority, Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel (1250–1298), quotes Rabbenu Simchah's view, wondering if it must be limited to one child, scroll, or woman, or even several, as long as there is a clear majority of adult men. Practices varied. The author of the Shulhan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo, totally rejects these ideas, including only adult men in a minyan. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (RAMA), the major Ashkenazi voice in the Shulhan Arusch, reports that the widespread Ashkenazi custom was to allow a boy, over six years of age, to hold a Humash (text of the five Books of the Torah), and count him as the tenth man. This view is based on the concept of "Tziruf"; combining two rejected, minority opinions, as a positive. (The Vilna Gaon consistently fought this approach). The vast majority of later rabbinic opinion rejected this liberal view, yet it persisted in many places. The turn of the twentieth century legal code, known as Mishnah Berurah, rejected the counting of a child, which sounded the death knell for he practice in "Yeshivish" circles. The practice still continues in many Hasidic circles, as well as some non Hasidic. It was commonly followed in many American congregations. I have seen non Orthodox synagogues count the Torah scrolls in the Ark towards a minyan, but I have never seen that in an Orthodox synagogue (although this practice can be justified based on the Talmudic opinion to this effect, combined with the view of Rabbenu Simchah that this may be relied upon in an emergency). Rabbi Moshe Feinstein opined that only in case of the greatest emergency, such as a synagogue in a dying community that no longer has a regular minyan, can a child, WITHIN A YEAR OF BAR MITZVAH, be counted while holding a Torah Scroll (NOT a printed Humash), for the purpose of reciting Kaddish, Kedushah, and Barchu, but not saying any extra blessings, such as the reader's repetition of the 'amidah. Non Lithuanian Ashkenazim continue, in many places, to rely on the child alone (without Humash), conducting a full service. Israeli Sepharadic rabbis have condemned the practice, but it is accepted by some American Sepharadic rabbis. This issue has not yet been resolved. Each side has valid arguments. Like many other issues, it awaits the ruling of a Sanhedrin.

The Kaddish part 6

While the Kaddish is one of the most central parts of our liturgy, it also raises two red flags that cannot be ignored.. When I was a teenager, someone, I can't even remember who, said to me: "Judaism in America was destroyed by the first rabbi who took ten dollars to say Kaddish". Now I can't fault the rabbis. While salaries of non Orthodox rabbis, as well as Orthodox rabbis in choice positions, begin at $130,000 a year, with some earning seven figures, small, non organizational synagogues often pay their rabbis in the neighborhood of $30,000 a year, with the expectation that he will make up the rest of what he and his family need to live on by doing weddings, funerals, conversions,  providing kashrut supervision, and...saying Kaddish. It should be noted that in the Conservative movement, accepting money for these services is grounds for expelling rabbis from their rabbinical organization. Some of the above, especially conversions, actually present halachic problems when done for money. But, in smaller congregations, this is the norm. I haven't looked into it  in about ten years, but the last I checked, the going rate for saying Kaddish for a year was then about $3,000. A rabbi may have a list of names that he glances at, recites Kaddish for all, and can put food on the table. Besides the ethical problem of treating the rabbi in this way, it also gives people a "bad taste", seeing rabbis who need to hustle, being more about money than religion or spirituality. In many ways, this is similar to the situation in the Roman Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century. Everything, including licenses to sin (indulgences) was for sale. This was one of the primary reasons for the rise of Protestantism. I have met many people who complained that "rabbis and synagogues are all about money". Charging thousands of dollars for putting a name on a list would seem to confirm that accusation. This is one of the reasons that I have urged my sons not to become congregational rabbis. The second red flag is that the saying of Kaddish has helped to make Judaism into a "cult of the dead". In reality, Torah is all about life and its sanctification. Observant Jews go to synagogue every morning and evening. When the Kaddish comes up, mourners will rise, and recite it. Each Kaddish takes under a minute to say. But people less involved in synagogue services, will often see "going to shul to say Kaddish" as an awful burden, but one they owe to their deceased loved ones. On major holidays, when Ashkenazic custom features prayers for the dead (Yizkor), people "guesstimate" what time it will be said, so as not to "waste" all morning at services. Regular visits to the graves of loved ones are seen as a must; with itinerant "rabbis" standing around, who will recite a short prayer for a few dollars. For most unaffiliated Jews, death is the one thing that brings them to synagogue. This is what I grew up with. So did countless others. The Kaddish, instead of being a beautiful affirmation of G-d's Majesty, has become a dread burden. How can we expect young people to rush to Torah to drink deeply of its life-giving waters, when this is all they know? I am reminded of the incident when a young Jewish woman came to the Dalai Lama, seeking conversion to Buddhism, The Dalai Lama told her "it would be better to seek out the depth of your own religion". She answered "But I'm Jewish. There is no depth". He said to her "Then you do not know Judaism". Kaddish should be a door into a glorious realm of Truth,  Insight, and Eternity. But for many, it has become a brick wall keeping them in a sense of fear, guilt, superstition, and a false sense of obligation. Many, including yours truly, are trying to open that door once again.

The Kaddish part 5

When discussing matters related to women, we must be aware that we are treading on two different issues. One, like all halachic issues, is sources; Bible, Talmud, etc. (Some would add custom to this list. I don't). The other is the fact that non Orthodox movements have put Egalitarianism at the forefront of their ideology, even where it contradicts clear halachic sources. The reaction of the Orthodox establishment, rather than seeking where compromise is possible, or even warranted, is to "circle the wagons". On the halachic side, it is to be remembered that Kaddish is not an adjunct prayer, like a "Mi Sheberach" for the sick. It is part and parcel of the order of public prayer, that an eight hundred year old tradition has given over to those who mourn. The person reciting Kaddish is, in actuality, serving as the prayer leader (shaliah tzibbur). Traditionally, this was the province of males, and was solidly based upon the fact that men and women have different obligations in many areas. But the "circle the wagons" mentality is alive and well here as well. Take for example, the reading of the Book of Esther on Purim. According to virtually all authorities, the obligation of women in this mitzvah is equal to that of men. This would lead to the obvious conclusion that a woman could read the megillah for a man. This is, in fact, the ruling of many prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. The more "Modern" Orthodox rabbis, anxious to not be perceived as Conservative, forbid women reading the megillah...even for other women. Thus, in Yeshiva University's Stern College for Women, where many would be qualified to read it, a man is brought in to do the job. The rabbi who was most widely accepted in Orthodox circles in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s was Rabbi Eliezer Silver, who lived in Cincinnati, Ohio. Once, at a funeral, there were no ten men. He had the men step to once side, and had the deceased's daughters say Kaddish in the midst of ten women. (I heard this directly from his son, Rabbi David Silver). In 2000, I told this to one of the heads of the RCA, who warned me "you are in possession of very dangerous information". In the late 1970s, when "Women's Minyans" were being formed in many places, J.B. Soloveichik was asked to provide guidelines. Among his rulings was the idea that women could not recite any part of the service that requires a minyan (Kaddish, Barchu, Kedushah, the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy). Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, however, felt that they may do anything at a women's minyan that men do. The view of J.B. Soloveichik would preclude a woman reciting Kaddish. We must ask ourselves, however, how much of this is halachah, and how much is politics? (J.B. Soloveichik stood in the forefront of lenient personal rulings on the one hand, and stonewalling any liturgical changes on the other). In practice, some Orthodox synagogues allow women to say Kaddish IF at least one man is also saying it, while others frown on this practice. I believe that it will take a duly authorized Sanhedrin to sort out fact from fiction in this, as well as many areas of Judaism. Personally, I have advised the women in my family that they may recite Kaddish in a minyan where this is accepted, but not to do so where it would raise eyebrows, and cause strife. We must maintain the perspective that the recitation of Kaddish by mourners is no more than custom. Not everything is worth World War III. But the basic issues here must eventually be resolved.

The Kaddish part 4

When Kaddish was only the demarcation between the various parts of the service, there were initially seven Kaddishes in the liturgy; three in the morning service, and two each in the afternoon and evening service, for a total of seven. This was connected with the verse: "Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous statutes" (Psalm 119:164).When the custom arose in the thirteenth century to recite Kaddish for the dead, it was initially seen that the one saying Kaddish was momentarily the prayer leader, therefore only one person could say Kaddish at a time. As often there were many mourners present, especially in a large community, accommodating everyone was a problem. Therefore, many additional Kaddishes were instituted, after every scriptural or Talmudic reading in the prayer book. As many as twenty Kaddishes are recited in some communities. When Sepharadim adopted the idea of saying Kaddish for the dead, they altered the custom to have all the mourners say Kaddish in unison. This spread to Eastern Europe as well. However, in many communities it became standard to have each mourner say Kaddish at his own pace, resulting in a cacophony of unintelligible sound. Many rabbis have condemned this practice, but one still finds it often. Most German, and some Central European communities, still follow the custom of only one person saying Kaddish at a time. Rules were set up of a hierarchy of Kaddish sayers (those saying for a parent come first, those in the first month of mourning have precedence.over those past that time, etc.) In a very large community, an individual mourner, especially if saying Kaddish for a different relative (sibling, spouse, child), might only get to say Kaddish once every few days, or even never. But how often does one need to say Kaddish? Some say once a day is sufficient. Some say that one should say Kaddish at each service at least once, making for three times a day. (This was the practice of ARI z"l). Some insist on eighteen times a day. Although there is some basis for this in the Zohar, ARI z"l declared it a mistaken interpretation. Nevertheless, some still do this, especially Chabad. In any case, this has resulted in different numbers of Kaddishes in different communities. Opinions differ if one person can say Kaddish for more than one deceased individual. One can see people with lists of deceased  people, having them all in mind when saying Kaddish. Some even do this for a living, saying Kaddish on behalf of those who need to say Kaddish, but cannot attend synagogue. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that one cannot say Kaddish for more than one person at a time. He recommended that one saying it for many people should "get in" one Kaddish a day per name. It is difficult to make rules in this area, as it is a relatively late custom, with almost no sources. Any "rules", will be based on local practice rather than actual halachah. A more modern controversy is the question of women saying kaddish. That will be my next topic