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.