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.