Thanksgiving part 3

First, I would like to make short shrift of the anti-Thanksgiving argument heard from certain Christian groups, particularly "Hebrew Roots", that the Torah forbids any new holidays. They base this upon the verse "These are the Festivals of the L-rd", understood as "these, and no others". (The Talmud advances an identical interpretation). However, we understand this to mean the appropriation of idolatrous festivals. The addition of Purim which is post the Five Books of Moses, and Hanukah, which is post-Biblical, are the paradigms for festivals instituted by our sages. Nearly every Jewish community, and even certain families, have significant days that they celebrate as holidays, due to some special event. Jews never had a concept that we are forbidden to celebrate, and give thanks for what good things have happened to us; collectively or individually. On the other hand, we do have a prohibition of ":Hukat HaGoy" (copying the ways of non-Jews). Some rabbis understood this to mean that any practice of Gentiles, for which there is no logical reason, is Biblically forbidden. Some East European rabbis forbade the necktie on this basis. Most rabbis, however, consider the prohibition of Hukat HaGoy as referring specifically to customs with pagan roots. In the 1950s, Jews having a "Hanukah Bush" was in vogue. It was essentially a Christmas tree, with a Star of David on top. Even many Christians object to the tree, as it stems from Druid celebrations. Fortunately, this aberration has now died out from among us. Rabbi Feinstein's fear that Thanksgiving may harbor Christian doctrines, or even missionary content, was based on this. But we know from historical sources that Thanksgiving always represented a generic acknowledgement of the Divine, as the source of whatever good we have. Another concern is seeing Thanksgiving as assimilationist. Many feel that we must always remain "A people that dwells alone" (Number 23:9). Some see any acknowledgment of the dominant culture as an existential threat to the survival of the Jewish people. In my opinion, this is a reality belonging to Eastern Europe. One's Polish or Ukrainian neighbors were usually ready to attack and kill Jews with the slightest provocation of the secular government, or of a benighted clergyman. In Western Europe (after the Middle Ages), or the Middle East, Jews usually had friendly relations with their neighbors, with each respecting the others' differences. Not that antisemitism didn't exist, but it was, in most times and places, the exception rather than the rule. I personally have close friends of many religions. Some Jews are shocked at that. To me, it seems natural, provided there is mutual respect. As I have written in "My Story", I had, when living in Israel, good friends who lived in Palestinian refugee camps. In the final analysis, people are people. As Jews, we must remember who we are, and what we stand for. But we are not to put up walls of animosity. My experience has always been that the vast majority of people respect that. I would like to add a painful note. (Many will say I shouldn't mention it). When my kids were going to Jewish Day Schools, there was no bus service on some secular holidays. The schools remained open, with the parents expected to drive the kids to school. Fair enough, why suspend Torah study? But the letters of the principal to the parents always made me shudder. "We want to impress upon our children that these holidays are not our holidays, and even when Mom and Dad have the day off from work, they will drive their children to school, to prove how far we are willing to go to ignore their holidays". I thought "What would we say if Christian schools held classes on Yom Kippur, even if it was not a scheduled school day, in order to show the kids that they disrespect the Jewish holy days?" The Anti Defamation League would be on it in no time. In my opinion, this attitude is downright hateful, and the cause of much antisemitism. Surveys have shown that Western countries have rates of antisemitism from fifteen to twenty-five percent (only Greece far exceeds that). That still means that most people do not harbor animosity toward us. Why not extend the hand of friendship and fellowship? Where we have legitimate differences, we must be separate. Where we can join together, why not follow the advice of the Sages, to maintain and nurture "the Ways of Peace"? If my neighbor says "Let's thank G-d for our blessings", on what basis should I refuse? I will make mention again of a beautiful quote from the late Rabbi of Belz: "If my neighbor celebrates, I'd rather celebrate with him, than cry alone". Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Thanksgiving part 2

Thanksgiving part 2
Proclamation of Thanksgiving:
Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

The proclamation of a uniform Thanksgiving celebration, with praise of G-d for what he have, supplication for healing our wounds, and forgiving us our shortcomings, expresses ideas and ideals that resonate with Judaism, and have become part of the American heritage. Until recently, every Presidential proclamation of Thanksgiving has called upon Americans to gather in their houses of worship, and give thanks to G-d. More recently, this has been watered down to simply gather, and be thankful.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 26, 2015, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage the people of the United States to join together -- whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors -- and give thanks for all we have received in the past year, express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and share our bounty with others.
Although this de-emphasizes the religious aspects of the day, it nevertheless reflects values that Jews share with our fellow Americans.
However, more recently:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 28, 2019, as a National Day of Thanksgiving.  I encourage all Americans to gather, in homes and places of worship, to offer a prayer of thanks to God for our many blessings.Until the mid twentieth century, I am unaware of any rabbinic opposition to the observance of a day of thanks. For Jews to oppose such an idea seemed ludicrous. If our country is asking us to praise G-d, in our own synagogues, in our own way, refusal to do so would amount to a Hillul HaShem (desecration of the Name of G-d), as well as spitting in the face of the country that gave us refuge and freedom,unparalleled anywhere (with the possible exception of Canada). . In the 1950s, a huge shift took place in Jewish consciousness, which brought many to oppose these celebrations. But why? What could be wrong with praising G-d for all we have? The first voice of doubt, and then dissent, was Moshe Feinstein; the doyen of American Lithuanian Judaism. He wrote three responsa in rapid succession on the topic. In his first one, he applauds the making of this holiday, and considers its observance praiseworthy. In his second responsum, he expresses doubt if this might be a Christian plot designed to convert us. Therefore, caution must be exercised. In his third, he writes that there is no way to verify the origins of Thanksgiving, and it must be seen as an effort to evangelize us, and is therefore forbidden to observe. J.B. Soloveichik, writing at the same time, reviews the origins of Thanksgiving, and concludes that there is no aspect of this holiday with missionary intent. It would be a disgrace, when everyone involved in giving thanks, for a Jew to absent himself. Other reasons, pro and con, were written by other rabbis. I will write about these next.

Thanksgiving part 1

This Thursday, Americans celebrate Thanksgiving; when all Americans are called upon to enter their houses of worship, and give thanks for the abundance that G-d has bestowed upon our country. In practice, few houses of worship have special Thanksgiving services. Most people observe the day as a time to gather with friends and family around a turkey dinner, with many other traditional foods. Many give thanks, but many just eat and watch sporting events on television. In recent years, there has arisen much questioning about this holiday, as it commemorates the Pilgrims, a group of Puritans; Englishmen who felt that Queen Elizabeth's reformation of the English Church had not gone nearly far enough. Later kings were even worse. They arrived in Massachusetts in 1620 (they had been told they were being brought to Virginia) at the beginning of a cold, harsh winter. Many did not survive. Those who did, did so with the help of local Native Americans who provided them with food. When the harvest came in the following year, they made a celebration of thanksgiving, based on the Biblical harvest festival; Sukkkot. They were joined by some Natives. In the ensuing years, they killled many of the Natives, while enslaving the others. We usually see the Pilogrims as champions of religious liberty. In fact, they only championed their own religious liberty. They were intolerant of people of other religions, including other Protestants. As a result, many Americans today refuse to celebrate Thanksgiving. The fact is, however, that the Pilgrim story is NOT the basis for this holiday. Rather, Abraham Lincoln, during the dark days of the Civil War, instituted a day of thanks for what we DO have, despite the violence and killing around us. (There had been sporadic, local holiday observances before and after). It became an official legal holiday only in the twentieth century. For a while, there were even partisan difference in the date of the holiday, leading for a time to separate Republican and Democratic Thanksgivings. (Canada observes it in October). But as much as Thanksgiving is a subject of dispute between Americans, it is a huge controversy in the Orthodox Jewish community; with some rabbis saying that it is a mitzvah to observe this day of thanks together with all Americans, and others saying that it is totally forbidden. (I am in the former camp). What are the issues for and against? That will be the topic of my next post.

Shabbat part 22

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, to the extent that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. I mentioned previously that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances that may be used on Shabbat, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals,Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation).They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second.This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance, not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, a few years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", that was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV, and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered "fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as absolute rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that have no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharadim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a worthwhile stringency calculated to preserve the character and sanctity of Shabbat? I have not offered answers, but I hope you now better understand the problem.

Shabbat part 21

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it to be the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940)(considered by many to be the greatest rabbi of the generation) at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on the electricity, or start-up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat (in case it is fire) nor Yom Tov (in case it is not fire). Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1975), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if it heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain. The ruling is that it may be extinguished. RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by a passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. (Or. alternatively, the entire topic may be speaking of a piece of metal that had been heated in an actual fire, rendering the whole issue of electricity a non-topic. This is the private view of several major rabbis with whom I have spoken). Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for  Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles). Nearly all that has been written since struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth-century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when  Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". What would Shabbat be like with people glued to their cellphones? A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.

Stringencies part 2

The type of stringencies that I was referring to in my last post was those actions that either have no basis in halachah, or that have been, at one time or another, proposed, but were firmly rejected, based on both sources and logic. This must be distinguished from other forms of stringency. There are other considerations and cases. One would be where a very lenient, almost fringe view has been widely accepted; usually because of an unusual emergency situation. Such a case might be the observance of the Sabbatical Year rules in the Land of Israel. The location of agricultural lands being distant from population centers makes the real observance of these laws virtually impossible. (All fruit being declared ownerless, and giving all people the right to come and take). Two methods of "outs" for the circumvention of these laws have been proposed, with one or the other found by most to be acceptable under the circumstances. A significant minority, however, do not appreciate the "thin ice" situation, and choose to either buy produce from non-Jewish farmers, or to use only imported produce. Many can, and do, argue that this is unfair to Jewish farmers, and bad for the Israeli economy. But that may not be enough for a pious individual, who remembers all the dire words of the prophets concerning the non-observance of the Sabbatical year. (Please don't write to me that some groups actually observe the laws. No one does.). Are the legal "outs" acceptable? Under the circumstances, I would say yes. But I can't disparage those who refuse to accept the legal fictions. Another case would be where a particular question has significant opinions on both sides. A final decision has never been made. However, one side has received the sanction of custom. Some individuals may choose to not accept such a tenuous position, and thus try to follow both opinions. One example would be Tefillin. The order of the four Torah portions written in the Tefillin has been debated for almost two thousand years. In the last seven hundred years or so, custom has accepted one of the two opinions. This is widely accepted. But many (including yours truly) choose to wear two pair of Tefillin in order to be certain (besides Kabbalistic considerations). Another debated point would be stringencies that originate in Kabbalah, but have no basis in either Torah or Talmud. Many see these as being the pinnacle of Jewish practice. Some see this as appropriate for those deeply involved in Kabbalah, but not for general consumption. Some (CHATAM SOFER), while recognizing the truth of Kabbalah, totally reject it as part of the halachic system. One example would be the morning washing (Neigel Vasser). The Zohar and ARI are very strict that the impurity of sleep be washed away first thing in the morning. Many keep a basin of water at their bedside for this purpose. The Shulhan Aruch mentions the washing, but with little of the emphasis that is to be found in Kabbalah, despite that the author of the Shulhan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo, was himself a Kabbalist. Many far fetched explanations for this apparent omission have been proposed. But others point out that in the Talmud, RAMBAM and other early sources, the washing is only a pre-prayer sanctification; so no need to hurry or stress. Those who choose to be strict, as well as those who are lenient, each have a solid basis. An Ashkenazi-Sepharadi issue would be the matter of statements by rabbis, that express opinions not to be found in any sources. In fact, they may even contradict sources. Sepharadim would greet these with a chuckle. Most Ashkenazim will follow these, especially if expressed by a rabbi who lived in their region. This process continues until today. Some would say that this is the way of Oral Torah. Some call it heresy. Of course, all of this is hurt by the lack of a valid Sanhedrin. The Torah puts the proper interpretation of halachah into the hands of this body (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Although the existence of a Sanhedrin would solve much, this is nowhere more true than with situations engendered by modern technology. (Opposition to such an institution far exceeds the desire to solve these problems, however). I have been pleasantly surprised that I have largely been able to avoid the minefield topic of electricity for the last several years that I have been writing. The time has come to deal with this issue, and see what is actually law (Biblical or Rabbinic) and what is merely stringency, and where we must admit ignorance. Next time

Stringencies Part 1

A few years ago, a former Facebook friend posted, a few days before Passover, "Just got up off my hands and knees, after cleaning the cracks in the floor tiles with a tooth brush for six hours". I wrote to him "This is a needless stringency, unless you are planning to eat or cook on the floor. The prohibition of owning hametz only applies to pieces larger than the size of an egg. Although the prohibition of eating hametz applies to even a crumb, that is only if you know it's there, or at least have good reason to suspect its presence. We are commanded to rejoice in our Festival, not to become enslaved by anxieties and insecurities". He replied "what are you talking about? Passover is all about stringencies". I can find that idea neither in Torah or Talmud. Yes, we have a halachic principle that we may, in a situation of doubt, be lenient in a rabbinic law, but we must be strict in a Biblical law. But where was the doubt in the above case? RAMBAM makes clear that even in the principle that we need to be strict in a Biblical law, this concept is itself purely rabbinic. (RASHBA disagrees).Biblically, if an object or an action is doubtful, it is permissible. The rabbis instituted that we are to be more careful, so as not to violate the laws of G-d. The Talmud rules that if I find a piece of meat lying in the street, in a place where kosher butcher shops outnumber non kosher, the meat may be considered kosher. Nevertheless, the rabbis ruled it should be avoided, as there is more than a reasonable doubt that it might not be kosher. The Talmud enumerates many guidelines to what is and isn't a reasonable doubt in each case. Yet, many communities take a very stringent view on many issues, way beyond any rhyme or reason. Their feeling is that we can show our devotion to G-d by taking the most strict approach to every law. Think of a husband who loves his wife so much, he can't imagine doing anything that may remotely hurt her feelings. So one who truly loves G-d will want to please Him, and in no way offend Him. Others disagree. They argue that stringencies are generally not shows of love, but rather of insecurity in one's relationship with G-d. Moreover, they often violate the intent of the law, or even a larger principle. Going above and beyond the requirements of halachah to avoid hametz on Passover, will lessen the sense of joy and freedom we are urged to feel. If one is overly strict in the menstrual laws, the ideal of a loving relationship between spouses can be hurt, not to mention the mitzvah of procreation. The Talmud pictures King David as devoting a great deal of time and effort every day, into permitting a woman to her husband a day sooner. Qualified Orthodox rabbis spend much time learning the details of these laws, not just to say "well, I'm not sure if this stain invalidates you, so just be strict". Moreover, stringencies can lead to an unjustified sense of accomplishment and pride (arrogance). Rabbi Nachman even said that they lead to depression, and are to be avoided. (Please don't write that you know a follower of Rabbi Nachman who observes all sorts of stringencies. We live among other Jews who do things differently, and follow rabbis who have the wildest ideas of propriety. Rabbi Nachman would not approve. Rabbi Natan, his main disciple, makes a point of saying that Rabbi Nachman observed no stringencies).Rabbi Shabtai Sabato, a Sepharadi Rosh Yeshiva in Israel, said to me once "Look how the rabbis of the Talmud put every law through 'thirteen sifters' before saying either yes or no. They didn't just say 'we're not sure, so let's avoid the question by being strict". As you may have guessed, this, too, is an Ashkenazi-Sepharadi battleground. (There are exceptions on each side, however). The approach that stringencies are a good thing, is a major feature of (most) Ashkenazic opinion, whereas most Sepharadic opinion prefers a straightforward lenient approach. Askenazim tend to respect a rabbi who can show that something we have been seeing as permissible is actually problematic (I have previously shown that the standards of avoiding insects in food gets stricter every five years or so), while Sepharadim will hail the rabbi who shows that an action assumed to be prohibited is actually permissible. Each group will have its sources, as well as its logical arguments. Each will see its approach as following the will of G-d. None of this is arbitrary. Already in the first century BCE, the Jews were divided between the strict approach of the School of Shammai, and the lenient approach of the School of Hillel. We are told that this debate went on for several centuries, until a Heavenly Voice rang out "Both are the words of the living G-d, but the halachah follows Hillel". We sure could use such a voice today! What are the basic considerations for each approach, and where do they come from? To what degree do history and sociology, rather than purely religious considerations come into the picture? To be continued.