The Sukkah fiasco at the Rye Town Hilton by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times     If the facts reported are correct, the events that unfolded this past Sukkos at the Rye Town Hilton are a bit shocking.  Apparently, a few hours before Sukkos began, the Westchester Department of Buildings came down and forbade use of the Sukkah designated for use by over 200 guests.  They then actually confiscated the Schach to ensure that the Sukkah not be used.  Although the tour operators offered to post 24 guards and fire personnel to ensure the safety of the guests, the offer was not accepted.

It seems that some people did get hold of two pop-up sukkos and the three days of Yom Tov were spent with the guests switching off making kiddush in these two smaller sukkos.

There is no doubt that hearing and reading of this incident will cause quite a stir, however, in this article we will deal solely with the halachic aspects of the incident.

The issues can be divided into two parts:  The first is how best to handle the situation from a halachic perspective.  The second issue is how best to try and ameliorate the lack of a Sukkah on Yom Tov.

HANDLING THE SITUATION

Regarding the first issue, it would seem that the hotel kitchen staff should prepare mini portions of meat and challah.  Each male guest should wash before entering  one of the two pop-up Sukkos, make Kiddush on wine,  Hamotzi on bread and eat the mini meat portion.  He should then bentch.  The entire process should take between five and seven minutes.  He may have a second meal in the regular hotel and avoid mezonos foods, bread, and wine. [...]

US Jews losing their religion, survey finds

Ynet   Jews in the United States are overwhelmingly proud to be Jewish, yet nearly one in five of them describe themselves as having no religion, according to a Pew Research Center survey published Tuesday.

The gap is generational, with 32% of Jewish Millenials identifying as Jewish on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity or culture – compared with 93% of Jews born in 1914-27 who identified on the basis of their faith. [...]


"Americans as a whole – not just Jews – increasingly eschew any religious affiliation," with 22% of all Americans identifying with no particular faith, it said.

Nevertheless, 94% of respondents said they were proud to be Jewish, while seven out of 10 felt either very attached or somewhat attached to Israel, a proportion essentially unchanged since the turn of the 21st century, Pew said. [...]

Lashon harah learned from rechilus – how?

Rambam(Hilchos De'os  7:1) states that the Torah prohibits rechilus (gossip). But he goes on to say (Hilchos De'os 7:2): "There is a much more serious sin than rechilus (gossip) which is included in this prohibition and that is lashon harah. Lashon harah is saying negative things about another person – even though they are true.... The Ravad disagrees with the Rambam and states that lashon harah is not a more serious sin than rechilus – the opposite is true.

Rav Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher Vayikra #41) notes that the Rambam seems to be learning the prohibition of lashon harah is learned from rechilus by a kal v'chomer. In fact he says that the Chofetz Chaim(Be'er Mayim Chaim 1:4) states that according to the Ravad's view that lashon harah is not as serious a sin as rechilus that means that it can't be learned by a kal v'chomer. So how does the Ravad learn the prohibition of lashon  harah? The Chofetz Chaim suggests that the Ravad learns lashon harah from verses other than those dealing with rechilus. However Rav Weiss disagrees and notes that there is no problem because both the Rambam and the Ravad agree that lashon harah is learned from the verse of rechilus. The Rambam doesn't say that there is a kal v'chomer but rather says that lashon harah is "included in the prohibition " of rechilus. Therefore the dispute is only which of the prohibited speach learned from Vayikra(19:16) is a more serious sin.

Rechilus - what is it? Idle gossip or informing what others did or said about him?

The question of which halachic authorities hold which position is often not clear. For example the Rambam (Hilchos De'os 7:2) clearly says, "What is the definition of gossip (rachil) that the Torah prohibits? It is someone who takes information about people and spreads it from one person to another and says, "This is what so-and-so said" or "This is what I heard concerning so-and-so." It is a sin even if what he says is true - because gossip destroys the world."... Thus it is obvious that the Rambam views rechilus as idle gossip – not informing. 

However we find that the Kesef Mishna (Hilchos De'os 7:1) disagrees with this conclusion. He says, A person who gossips (rechilus) about another...The view of the Rambam is that rechilus saying "so-and-so said something about you" or "he did something to you" even though the alleged statement or act is not negative or degrading to that person. The classic example of rechilus is what Doeg told Shaul that Achimelech gave bread and the sword of Goliath to Dovid. If you had asked Achimelech whether he had said these things he would not deny them because there is nothing negative about these statements. In fact the opposite is true. He considered that he was properly serving Shaul as can be seen in his defense for saying these things.  So even though the statements contain nothing inherently negative about another person, but since he is spreading the information from one person to another- this is called rechilus because it is like a peddler (rochel) who travels around the cities.

The Kesef Mishnah's understanding is discussed also by Avodas HaMelech (Hilchos De'os 7:2): Gossip (rechilus) is when one says "this is what so-and-so said" or this is what I heard about "so-and-so". See the Kesef Mishna who explains that rechilus according to the Rambam is when says, "So-and-so said about you such and such" or "So-and-so did such and such to you." That even if there is nothing inherently degrading just as we saw concerning the gossip of Doeg who mentioned to Shaul that Achimelech gave bread and the sword of Goliath to Dovid and if he was asked he would not have denied saying it because there was nothing degrading said but in fact he considered that he was doing a favor to Shaul and we see when he defended himself. Therefore even though the information conveyed is not inherently negative to someone but since it was conveyed from one person to another – it is called rechilus (gossip) which is exactly what it is. It is like a peddler traveling around the cities with his wares.<

Thus we see from the Rambam's example of Doeg that he views Rechilus as informing someone what another person had said or done which impacted the listener – and not idle gossip about other people. The Chofetz Chaim accepts this as the correct understanding of the Rambam and what Rechilus is.

David Cohen, CEO of Chevra Hatzalah, Resigns

FiveTowns Jewish Times   David Cohen, the CEO of Chevra Hatzalah, resigned on Sunday afternoon, in a communication with the Executive Board of Hatzalah.  The resignation was a result of allegations of Mr. Cohen’s involvement with recent scandals at Met Council, where Mr. Cohen served both as an advisor and as the former Chief Executive Officer prior to Mr. Rapfogel. [...]

Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results

Wall Street Journal   I had a teacher once who called his students "idiots" when they screwed up. He was our orchestra conductor, a fierce Ukrainian immigrant named Jerry Kupchynsky, and when someone played out of tune, he would stop the entire group to yell, "Who eez deaf in first violins!?" He made us rehearse until our fingers almost bled. He corrected our wayward hands and arms by poking at us with a pencil.

Today, he'd be fired. But when he died a few years ago, he was celebrated: Forty years' worth of former students and colleagues flew back to my New Jersey hometown from every corner of the country, old instruments in tow, to play a concert in his memory. I was among them, toting my long-neglected viola. When the curtain rose on our concert that day, we had formed a symphony orchestra the size of the New York Philharmonic.

I was stunned by the outpouring for the gruff old teacher we knew as Mr. K. But I was equally struck by the success of his former students. Some were musicians, but most had distinguished themselves in other fields, like law, academia and medicine. Research tells us that there is a positive correlation between music education and academic achievement. But that alone didn't explain the belated surge of gratitude for a teacher who basically tortured us through adolescence. [...]

I would ask a different question. What did Mr. K do right? What can we learn from a teacher whose methods fly in the face of everything we think we know about education today, but who was undeniably effective?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Comparing Mr. K's methods with the latest findings in fields from music to math to medicine leads to a single, startling conclusion: It's time to revive old-fashioned education. Not just traditional but old-fashioned in the sense that so many of us knew as kids, with strict discipline and unyielding demands. Because here's the thing: It works.  [...]

Balancing the terror of Lashon Harah with Obligation to help others with negative information

This is a continuation of previous posts  Lashon harah revisited and Lashon harah and to'eles
Today we have a strong fear of the evil of speaking lashon harah - largely due to the efforts of the Chofetz Chaim. It is unfortunately true that in many common situations this fear does not stop us from speaking lashon harah - as the Chofetz Chaim himself points out. Nevertheless in many important situations this fear does prevent us from conveying negative information even though the Torah requires it.  There are people who marry when it is known the marriage can't work- because of personality, mental health issues or control issues. There are dishonest people given position of trust. There are child molesters who continue teaching. There are incompetent doctors and therapists who continue ruining their client's lives. There are rabbis and teachers who molest women and children. There are "investment specialists" who destroy the financial welfare of communities. No one speaks up to stop these negative consequences - either because the fear of saying lashon harah overwhelms the awareness of the obligation to say helpful negative information or it is used as a pious excuse to justify avoiding unpleasant and difficult situations..


My concern is not- chas v'shalom - to deny the reality that lashon harah is terrible but to provide a corrective balance in which the reality of the Torah requirement to convey negative information is reinforced and becomes possible. Not speaking lashon harah is as important as speaking negative information when the Torah requires it. They both are Torah requirements - and they are contained in the same Torah verse (Vayikra 19:16), Do not spread spread gossip amongst your people. Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow. I am G-d. The first part is the prohibition of lashon harah. The second part is the obligation to help people even if it involves negative information.

To understand the fear, one needs to simply read the powerful introduction to the sefer Chofetz Chaim - translated in part below. It is clear that the Chofetz Chaim's goal is for people to stop talking about others. Therefore not only does he present the universally agreed upon sin of lashon harah, but he minimizes the permissibility of speaking negatively about others even when it is beneficial by placing additional conditions on speaking negative information. (This will be more fully discussed in future posts).

Additionally, while he reports the statements of Chazal without exaggeration -  one needs to understand the rabbinic style of dealing with sin. As the Rivash (171) and Rambam (Commentary to Mishna Sanhedrin Chapter 7) clearly state - the severity of sin is exaggerated by rabbis in order to get people to obey. In addition legitimate alternative lenient readings  are not presented or they are dismissed as minority views. So while this approach is typically helpful in normal situations, it causes problems when it prevents keeping the Torah obligation communicating negative information when appropriate. In short, it reinforces refraining from speaking at the expense of speaking up. More detailed discussion will be provided in future posts.

================================

Chofetz Chaim (Introduction):... However at the end of the era of the Second Temple, there was significant increase in the amount of baseless hatred and lashon harah amongst us due to our many sins. Because of this the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land as is stated in Yoma (9b) and Yerushalmi Yoma ( 1:5). Even though the gemora only mentions baseless hatred – it means also lashon harah which is a consequence of baseless hatred. Because if the gemora only meant baseless hatred - that would not have been reason for such severe punishment. We can also deduce that lashon harah was meant in addition to baseless hatred from the fact that the gemora concludes that we learn from the destruction of the Second Temple that baseless hatred is as severe as the combined punishments for idolatry, illicit sexual relations and murder. Such an equation is  explicitly stated in Arachin (15b) regarding lashon harah.[The School of R. Ishmael taught: Whoever speaks lashon harah increases his sins even up to [the degree of] the three [cardinal] sins: idolatry, incest, and the shedding of blood.]Furthermore a careful analysis of Yoma (9b) also demonstrates that lashon harah caused the destruction of the Second Temple. It first discusses the reasons for the destruction of the First Temple and then compares them to the reasons for the destruction of the Second Temple. It asks, "And didn't baseless hatred also exist in the era of the First Temple since it states that people would eat and drink together and then stab each other with their tongues?" [The gemora answers that in the First Temple it was done only by the princes but in the Second Temple it was done by all the people.] [Thus we see that the term baseless hatred is also used to describe lashon harah]. ... However the only reason for the continue exile is because of our many sins that prevent the Shechinah dwelling amongst us. When we carefully examine our ways to determine which sins are the basis for the extended exile we find there are many. However the misuse of language is by far the worst for many reasons. 1) Since it was the cause of exile in the first place as we saw from Yoma (9b) – as long as this sin isn't correct is is not possible for the Redemption to come. ...

Rabbi David Cohen of Hatzala Linked to Kickback Scheme at Met Council

NY Times  [also see Forward]  In August, the board of one of New York City’s most respected social services organizations drew widespread attention when it fired its executive director, William E. Rapfogel, because it believed he had been taking large kickbacks from its insurance broker. 

But the board of the organization, the Metropolitan New York Council on Jewish Poverty, took another action at the same time that was not widely noticed. It ended a longstanding consulting relationship with Mr. Rapfogel’s predecessor, Rabbi David Cohen, who led the organization, which is widely known as Met Council, before Mr. Rapfogel took over in 1992.  [...]

The other co-conspirator is Joseph Ross, the owner of Century Coverage, according to the two people briefed on the investigation. 

Neither Mr. Ross nor Mr. Cohen has been charged in the case. Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Alan M. Abramson, and Mr. Ross’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, declined to comment.[...]

Christian love: Buying their way into Jerusalem

Times of Israel   A few years ago, a group of several dozen elderly Russian-speaking immigrants in Jerusalem organized by Dr. Lila Glazer was looking for a place to meet. Lacking resources, Dr. Glazer turned to the municipality, who by chance, had just been approached by American evangelist Mike Evans, who happened to be looking for an opportunity to initiate a project in the holy city. 

Evans and his Jerusalem Prayer Team went to work, and after a $400,000 investment, Glazer’s group is now the proud beneficiary of the most deluxe shelter in the city. Kitted out with spacious meeting rooms, the underground shelter has a renovated bathroom, air conditioning and heat, a well-equipped kitchen, large-screen TV, wi-fi and a chair-lift. 

Earlier this week, at a hastily-erected sukka in front of the entrance to the shelter on Azza Street in Rehavia, Evans was feted by the grateful immigrants in front of a smattering of Russian Israeli and English-speaking journalists.

No one cared to bring up Evans’ agenda or his lengthy history of missionary activity. Who could blame the elderly immigrants, many of whom are Holocaust survivors, and who now have a beautiful place for their much-needed social and religious activities.  Dr. Glazer told me she wished more Christians would be made aware of their stories. [...]

Eruv Tavshilin by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

FiveTowns Jewish Times   In the Hebrew the numbers 5774 are expressed as Tof shin ayin dalet.  One could understand these letters as an abbreviation for the expression, “Tehye Shnas Dalet Eiruvin” it will be a year in which four Eruv Tavshilins will be made.”

What is an Eruv Tavshilin?

Whenever Yom Tov comes immediately before Shabbos, in other words, on a Friday – an Eruv Tavshilin must be made. An Eruv Tavshilim is a Rabbinic device that allows one to “continue preparing and cooking” for Shabbos on Yom Tov. In other words, through the Eruv Tavshilin, one actually begins the Shabbos preparations on the day before Yom Tov.  The Malachos performed on the Yom Tov for Shabbos are considered to be a continuation of these preparations. (Rema O.C. 527:1)

We learned, however, that performing Malacha on a Yom Tov for another day other than the Yom Tov itself is, in fact, a Torah prohibition.  If this is the case, then how could it be that a Rabbinical enactment allows one to get around a Biblical prohibition?

The answer is that, technically, it was permitted by the Torah to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos.[...]

Rapfogel: Former Chief of Jewish Charity arraigned

NY Times    On Tuesday, Mr. Rapfogel, dressed in a blue suit with a white shirt and no tie, was arraigned in a brief proceeding before Judge Kevin McGrath in Manhattan Criminal Court. He did not enter a plea and waived his right to a speedy trial, a move suggesting that he was or would be involved in plea negotiations. Judge McGrath released him on $100,000 bail.[...]

The charges, which the complaint said were in some measure based on investigators’ interviews with Mr. Rapfogel and the two people referred to as co-conspirators, stem from an inquiry by the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, and the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli. They began to look into Mr. Rapfogel’s stewardship of Met Council after the organization detected the improprieties and alerted state authorities. 

“It’s always sad and shocking when we discover that someone used a charity as their own personal piggy bank — but even more so when that scheme involves someone well respected in government and his community,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a news release announcing the charges. 

Mr. DiNapoli said, “The scale and duration of this scheme are breathtaking.”[...]

Lashon Harah - revisited: Daas Torah on Lashon HaRah

[See  Balancing terror of lashon harah]
Having spent much time on the issue of abuse, one of the main difficulties in dealing with abuse is the fear of lashon harah. It is right up there with the fear of mesira. In our days it is believed that the Chofetz Chaim compiled the Shulchan Aruch on lashon harah and that there is nothing more to discuss because he simply nailed down every issue and halacha. In other words, it is believed that if you want to understand the issur of lashon harah all you need to do is master the sefer Chofetz Chaim without going back to the original sources.

In fact, the Chofetz Chaim did more than simply compile halachos - he made major decision and interpretations which in fact involve significant disputes amongst poskim. Consequently there are not only legitimate alternative psakim dealing with many issues but there are even alternative definitions of what constitutes lashon harah and rechilus.

The issue of lashon harah is not simply a theoretical issue such are the study of korbonos - there are major differences in action which result if you use the alternative views that were rejected by the Chofetz Chaim.

Of course many people assume that one can not disagree with the Chofetz Chaim. When I compiled my index to the Mishna Berura and wanted to write an introduction regarding the nature of the Mishna Berura, Rav Sternbuch advised me against it. He said even though in previous years there was no [problem] disputing the Mishna Berura or even acknowledge that it wasn't entirely written by him, but  "in our times the Mishna Berura has become kodesh kedashim." However just as there was no official canonization of the Mishna Berura there was no canonization of the sefer Chofetz Chaim.

Because of my concern getting a viable balance between the concern for lashon harah with that of a functioning society, I have decided to write a Daas Torah volume on the sources and issues on Lashon HaRah.  A clear expression of the need to balance the concern for lashon harah with the needs of a viable society is expressed in the following Pischei Tshuva.

Pischei Tshuva(O.C. 156): I want to note here that while all the books of mussar are greatly concerned about the sin of lashon harah, I am greatly concerned about the opposite problem. I want to protest about the even greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking negatively when it is necessary to save someone from being harmed. For example if you saw a person waiting in ambush to kill someone or breaking into someone’s house or store at night. Is it conceivable that you would refrain from notifying the intended victim to protect himself from the assailant - because of the prohibition of speaking lashon harah?  By not saying anything you commit the unbearable sin of transgressing the prohibition of Vayikra (19:16): Do not speak lashon harah [but] do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is threatened? By not speaking up, you violate the mitzva of returning that which is lost to its owner Devarim (22:2). Now if you can understand the obvious necessity of speaking up in these cases then what is the difference between a robber breaking into someone’s house or store or seeing that his servants are secretly stealing from him or that his partner is deceiving him in their business or that another person is cheating him in commerce or that he is lending money to someone that you know doesn’t repay? How is this different from stopping a proposed marriage to someone you know is a wicked person who would be a horrible husband. Saving a person from these situations is clearly included in the command (Devarim 22:2) to return to the person himself or his money. From where do we get the mistaken idea that in the case of murder, I will speak up but that it is prohibited to say anything in other situations where someone is being harmed? The general principle is that these are matters which depend upon the speaker’s motivation. If the informant’s intent in relating these matters is entirely to cause harm that is lashon harah. However if his intent is to bring about benefit to the other person and to save him and to protect him – then it is a great mitzva. In my opinion this is the underlying intent of the Yerushalmi which the Magen Avraham brings which says that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about people who cause disputes. … It is obvious that even concerning those who cause disputes it is not permitted to speak lashon harah gratuitously about them in all matters. It is only permitted for those things directly related to the particular dispute. It is only permitted concerning that which they are trying to harm others. In such a case it is permitted to reveal degrading things about them in order to save others. … Unfortunately I have seen many times where someone witnesses another person trying to cause harm to someone – and he suppresses the information and says, “Why should I get involved in a matter which isn’t my business…However one needs to be very careful about these and similar matters. Our Sages have said – when the permissibility depends on motivation - it says, “And you should be afraid of your G‑d.”