Important Halacha Regarding Arba Minim

Five Towns Jewish Times

Recently an unofficial poll taken in Far Rockaway, New York revealed a startling and alarming fact.  Over 90% of women polled were unaware of the halacha of “Lachem.”  The Torah tells us of a requirement in the laws of Lulav and Esrog that applies on the first day of Sukkos.  The Arba Minim, the four kinds taken on Sukkos, must belong to the person who is performing the Mitzvah.  It may not be borrowed – it must be owned.  One may, of course, rely on the concept of “Matana al menas lehachzir” – a conditional gift where the recipient will eventually give back the item – but this is not akin to borrowing.  It is still considered ownership. [...]

Abuse Book - Table of Contents

Abuse book excerpt:Watering the Weeds – Changing the system

by Rabbi Micha Berger

I

When a pharmaceutical company tests a new drug, they cannot simply look at its effects on an individual.  After all, they cannot know how this particular patient would have fared without the drug and thus lack a basis for direct comparison with the results of how he fared with it.  Instead, these tests are statistical.  The researcher looks at two populations:  one that uses the new drug and one that does not – the control group.  If the population that uses the drug has fewer outbreaks or symptoms than the control group, then we know the drug works.  For example, even if outbreaks occur during the test period in as little as 10% of the control population but only among 5% of those receiving the drug treatment, we conclude that the drug is helping the entire population – even those 90% who otherwise would not show the more measurable symptoms with or without the drug.

The goals of Torah observance can be viewed in a number of ways, but the basics are generally defined as follows.  A life of observance is one of seeking closeness to the Almighty to emulate His Perfection.  Torah ennobles and refines the person who observes it. 

This means that the Torah actually makes a testable claim.  Chazal call the Torah a "sam hachaim" – an elixir of life.  Would our "drug test" protocol recommend following the Torah as we witness its results manifest among those who observe it currently, relative to those who do not?

As in the test of a new drug, we cannot really see the effect of following the Torah on an individual.  We have no idea what anyone would be like had they not been exposed to a life of Torah and mitzvos, so we cannot say how much more refined they are now as a result of being blessed with such exposure.  Instead, we could assess the effects of Torah observance using a parallel technique to that used in medicine, as summarized above.  Here too, we can compare the two groups of people who on average are similar except regarding the one factor we are testing.

Unlike the pharmaceutical company's test, there is a basic difficulty in measuring the symptoms.  Without performing a systematic study, how do we get statistics on unethical behavior, unaltered by differences in the likelihood of people in each community reporting the events?

Realize that the claim being made about the Torah is an extreme one.  The difference between living blindly and following the Truth is immense, and disparate ramifications should reflect this difference.  For our claim to be true, we must see significant, tangible differences in ethical behavior in our communities compared to others that aspire for what they believe to be their higher callings, have similar incomes, etc.  If our abuse and other crime statistics are not clearly superior to those of communities which are not Torah observant, – especially after we correct for other socio-economic factors, examine other faith communities, and account for other variables – it would be experimental evidence that what the mainstay of our community is practicing does not fit the Torah's self-description.  In truth, the difficulty in obtaining statistics may be offset by how pronounced the claimed effect should be.  The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study.

How would we fare in such a test?

 

Suicide & teshuva: Dying rather than allowing abuse

Gittin (57b): It was taught: There was an incident in which 400 boys and girls were captured for prostitution. They realized what their captives wanted and they asked, “If we drown ourselves in the sea will we get the World to Come?” The most important of them interpreted Tehilim (68:23): The L‑rd said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring again from the depths of the sea.” This means that G‑d will bring again all those who drown in the sea. When the girls heard this they all jumped into the sea. The boys drew the follow conclusions from this. They reasoned that if the girls committed suicide to avoid being forced into a normal sexual intercourse then in the case of boys shouldn’t they commit suicide to avoid unnatural sexual intercourse? They then also jumped into the sea. Concerning them Tehilim (44:23) says: For Your sake we are killed all day long, we are considered as sheep being slaughter.

Tosfos(Gittin 57b): All of them committed suicide by jumping into the sea – In contrast it says in Avoda Zara (18a): ‘Let Him who gave me my soul take it away, but no one should injure oneself.’  [Thus one should not commit suicide even to avoid sexual abuse!] The answer is that in our case concerning the 400 children they were afraid that they were going to be tortured as it says in Kesubos (33b): If they had beaten Chananiya, Mishael and Azariah they would have worship the idol. Thus they would have tortured the children but not killed them.

 

Abuse – is escape to safety a mistake?

The idea is clear and obvious. A traumatized person needs to be rescued and brought to a safe area where he can begin recovery.  For example, a soldier is suffering from shell shock. He is surrounded by death and destruction. He has finally snapped under the stress of random explosion of mortar shell and the screams of wounded companions. Would any rational person insist that he be forced to stay on the battle field with his unit?

A young boy has been abused by his teacher who has just been fired. The parents are told that it is best if their son were sent to his relatives 5000 miles away where he will be able to forget about the trauma. "Just being in the school will perpetuate the trauma", notes the social worker. "He needs a new place that has no reminders of what happened to him in order to recover."

A teenage girl has an alcoholic mother and no father. She has suffered much from her mother's incompetence as well her mother being overwhelmed 7 other children and by her many psychiatric and medical problems. It is recommended that she be placed in foster care.

The problem with the above is that removal from the traumatic environment is often itself very traumatic. It often means being stigmatized as a failure and the removal of support systems and more important a loss of identity. Studies with the Israeli army have shown that it is best to treat shell shock as an entirely normal reaction to stress. It works best if the soldier is not stigmatized by sending him to a hospital as well as not causing the loss of his identity and friends. Even forcing a hysterical soldier to take his gun and go back to his unit – is more beneficial in the long run than filling him with tranquilizers and having him escape the stress and horrors of war. Obviously there are extreme cases which need escape – but they are viewed as the exception rather than the rule.

Studies with foster family placement indicate that in most cases it is better to work with the family rather than to dismember it. Even moving to the safe environment of relatives is traumatic because the trauma is not dealt and unhealthy coping mechanisms develop. There are no friends and he learns to view himself as damaged goods – without familiar environment and resources to help with coping.

While obviously there has to be protection of the traumatized person, but it seems it is far better that treatment occur on familiar territory. The reaction of rachamim (mercy) does not work as well as din (strict law) for most people.

Medicine: Scientific control groups - the need to let some die

New York Times

Growing up in California’s rural Central Valley, the two cousins spent summers racing dirt bikes and Christmases at their grandmother’s on the coast. Endowed with a similar brash charm, they bought each other matching hardhats and sought iron-working jobs together. They shared a love for the rush that comes with hanging steel at dizzying heights, and a knack for collecting speeding ticket.
And when, last year, each learned that a lethal skin cancer called melanoma was spreading rapidly through his body, the young men found themselves with the shared chance of benefiting from a recent medical breakthrough. [...]

Suicide & repentance:Shaloh

Shaloh (Yoma: Ner Mitzva): You should know that the technique for repentance of the Rokeach and Sefer HaMidos and that of the Arizal are both legitimate (eilu v’eilu). That is because there are many levels of repentance and someone who wishes that his repentance reach to the Throne of Glory needs to utilize both approaches. If the sinner thinks that perhaps the afflictions he does for repentance might cause him to become sick or even to die – it is of no concern. It is in fact desirable to die in the course of repentance. We in fact find in Kiddushin (81b) that R’ Chiya bar Ashi tried killing himself by sitting in an oven to atone for the sin of being with his wife when he thought she was a prostitute and he eventually died from the constant fasts that he did to repent… Thus we see that a person who was outstanding in Torah and piety and did not in fact commit the sin that he had intended to do – nevertheless he brought about his death through the process of repenting and this is also Rashi’s view.

.