Sukkos & demands of modesty -

YNet reports:

Any women who may be planning to attend the traditional Simchat Beit Hashoeva festivities (water-drawing festival) in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Meah Shearim this Sukkot may want to think twice, as they may no be allowed to enter the area.

The water-drawing festival is a time-honored tradition held in the Hasidic courts of the capital for decades. The celebrations are a known crowd draw, with some 15,000 people visiting the events every night, in the past few years.

The last two years have also seen Meah Shearim's streets divided into men and women's galleries for the sake of chastity; but this year's festivities have been clouded by a demand made by the extreme groups within the neighborhood's community, such as the Sicarii, which demand women be kept out of the festival altogether.

Some of the splinter groups have even gone as far as threatening to forcibly prevent women from entering the area; gathering some 2,000 signatures to that effect and threatening to use "a foul-smelling chemical agent" to drive people away. A pashkevil (religious flyer) titled "Enough!", which was hung throughout the neighborhood over the past week, declared that "the residents of the Mea Shearim neighborhood hereby inform all the residents of the Holy Land and the visitors coming to celebrate Sukkot in the holy city of Jerusalem, that our neighborhood is not a tourist center.

"Let it be made clear that this year we will not allow tourists and visitors to stroll in our streets at all hours of the night, under any circumstances." Concerns over possible riots have led to several joint meetings between officials from the chastity squads and the Hassidic synagogues, as the matter was even brought to the attention of the Orthodox Righteous Court of Law.

The court ruled that the festivities would end each nigh, no later than 12:30 am, instead of by 2:30 am, as they did in past years.

The court further ruled that the women's gallery would be restricted to the wives and daughters of the city's various religious courts, who would require a special permit to attend. Visitors will not be allowed in the women's gallery.

Sukkos & Kiddush HaShem - shiur

As in previous years, I am organizing a shiur by Rav Treivitz during Chol HaMoed - probably on the topic of Kiddush HaShem & Sukkos

Rav Treivitz is my son's Rosh Kollel, he teaches in various programs of Neve Yerushalyaim, he is the top rebbe in Machon Shlomo, He is a posek, has a Ph.D. in Physics, is the son-in-law of Rav Nosson Kaminetsky, is a close associate of Rav Sternbuch - and he wrote the introduction to my Daas Torah. And he is also producing critical editions of Rav Soloveitchik's writings. In sum, he is very knowledgeable and very interesting.

It probably will be either on Thursday night or Sunday night in my sukkah in Har Nof

1) If interested please let me know as space is limited.

2) In addition please let me know of preference of date.

Daas Torah & Kingship - Review article

Jewish Law has an important review article by R' Yitzchak Kasdan

Observations On And Beyond Rabbi Alfred Cohen's “Daat Torah”

Rabbi Alfred Cohen's article on “Daat Torah” (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Spring 2003), posted with permission elsewhere on this site, is a welcome, extensive re-examination of the subject. In at least two not inconsequential respects, Rabbi Cohen brings full circle the public discussion about this topic that -- with respect to popular Jewish, English language periodicals and books -- first began 40 years ago with the publication of an article that appeared in The Jewish Observer. At the same time, however, as comprehensive as he is, Rabbi Cohen overlooks an important, well-grounded basis for at least one element of his understanding of “Daat Torah” that only has recently been emphasized in English publications. In these regards, and as I attempt to demonstrate in greater detail below,

(i) Rabbi Cohen provides an important gemara and Rishon source -- Bava Batra 12a as explained by the Ritva -- that has not been well publicized (and perhaps even inadvertently or otherwise been ignored) by those critical of the concept of “Daat Torah” throughout the years, but which appears was significant to the author of the seminal article on the topic that appeared in the early Jewish Observer issue, Rabbi Bernard Weinberger. Equally important, Rabbi Cohen steers the conversation back towards the original parameters of “Daat Torah” that Rabbi Weinberger attempted to set forth in his piece -- balancing, if you will, the place of “Daat Torah” in personal and/local issues versus in those with broader, national communal implications.

(ii) Yet, as wide-reaching as Rabbi Cohen's article is, Rabbi Cohen's article misses an important, well and long established foundation for “Daat Torah” that has been stressed only recently in English essays and shiurim, primarily by Rav Dovid Cohen. That is, the relationship between concepts of “Daat Torah” and malchut (kingship), which “crown” Rabbis assumed as noted in traditional and historical sources. This relationship is useful in understanding why, according to many including Rabbi (Alfred) Cohen, “Daat Torah” “must” be followed.² [...]

His'orrus II & Kelm Mussar

R' Micha Berger's comment to "His'orrus (stimulation) vs. Transformation - Kelm ..."

Kelm was all about slow and steady change.

Novhardok, OTOH, couldn't see waiting that long. This was an era where we were losing yeshiva students to Isms -- Zionism, Socialism, etc... The Alter of Novhardok opened a "basic training" system by which the student is torn down like any "maggot" coming into the Marines and built up again a stronger person.

His'orerus needn't be "fire and brimstone". It could be "you are in the 'image' of G-d, capable of more than this!" In which case, one entered Slabodka.

The problem is that without his'orerus, when does one wake up to take the first step? We already are in the pasture. And if most of us cows go back to sleep, r"l that is expected. But if the train never comes through, I can tell you as a certainty that no cow will will up her head and see something greater on the horizon.

Agada & Kabbala II - learning things beyond comprehensions

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver's comment to "Agada & Kabbala - learning things beyond comprehen...":

"Similar to this I heard in my youth from the great tzadik Rabbi Noach Levi of Brody concerning the 10 Sefiros and other issues of kabbala - all of them are merely introductions that are comparable to learning the alphabet with a child. By means of our exposure to them in this world we will merit in the Future World when the materialistic aspects have been removed from us - we will be capable of grasping and understanding their wisdom and give praise and appreciation to our G-d. It is then we will truly comprehend the profound secrets of the Torah. We will then know the truth. The ways of G-d are upright and the righteous go in them. Amen."

The Rebbeim of Chabad taught the same principle:

"Deja Vu
A chassid once asked the Tzemach Tzedek: "What is the point of exerting ourselves in the study of Chassidus, which deals with abstractions that no mortal mind can fully grasp? After all, when Mashiach comes even those who did not study Chassidus will know G-d, as it is written,[241] 'For they will all know Me.' "

The Tzemach Tzedek replied: "A person listening to a conversation conducted on the other side of a wall does not grasp it all; he only grasps its general drift. But later, when the conversation is repeated to him in all its detail, he understands everything that he had heard previously. Every moment or two he thinks, 'Aha! Now I understand all those connections and details!'

"Here, too," explained the Tzemach Tzedek, "it is true that someone who studies Chassidus grasps only part of the subject. But when Mashiach will teach it in time to come, that man will be able to look back and say, 'Aha...!'

"And not only that, but someone hearing those teachings for the second time will understand them much more deeply than someone who will then hear them for the first time. As the above-quoted verse says, 'For they will all know Me, from their smallest to their greatest' -- and it is obvious that the understanding of a young child cannot be compared to that of an adult."

Transmitted by oral tradition"

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/from-
exile-to-redemption-1/10.htm

Adultery of wife & asset division in divorce

YNet reports:

Infidelity during marriage does not constitute a "special circumstance" that would serve as good cause to deviate from an equitable division of assets following a divorce, the Israel High Court ruled on Wednesday. In doing so, it overturned a ruling by the Chief

The controversial ruling pertained to a case of a couple that wed in 1985. The husband filed for divorce 18 years later with the Beersheba District Rabbinical Court. He claimed that his wife had cheated on him and, as such, he should not be compelled to provide her with 50% of the financial assets acquired during the marriage.

The court, however, claimed that "just as infidelity does not result in the woman losing the property with which she entered the marriage, or the money she earned during the marriage, she cannot lose joint financial assets accrued during the marriage, even if her actions are the cause of its termination."

The husband appealed to the Chief Rabbinate, who ruled in his favor,stating that, "the fact that the betrayed party will, as a result of being betrayed, need to build a new home and remarry, suggests that the assets should not be divided evenly."

The woman then appealed to Israel's High Court, who overturned the Chief Rabbinate's ruling, stating that "the fact that infidelity causes the break up of a marriage does not, ipso facto, create the need to 'build a new home'."

The High Court ruling noted that the husband had not claimed that he had acquired new financial burdens pursuant to the divorce and, as such, they did not see a reason to deviate from the traditional 50-50 split of assets.[...]

Yom Kippur - stale water permitted for sick

YNet reported:

A halachic breakthrough by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, leader of Israel's Lithuanian non-Hasidic haredi Ashkenazi Jews, allows patients to drink as much "stale" water as they wish during Yom Kippur.

The innovative ruling was issued following years during which patients were instructed by rabbis to only drink small amounts of water not exceeding 9 cc and consume them once every 15 minutes.

This week, following an appeal by medical activists in the haredi sector, Rabbi Elyashiv ruled that there is no need to drink small amounts of water and that every person with a doctor's approval could consume an unlimited amount of "stale" water as far as Jewish Law is concerned.

"Stale" water is water which has lost its taste and become bitter orsour. This water is only meant to be consumed by patients and must not be drank by healthy people who are capable of fasting. This water has been examined by a pharmacist and medically approved.

The Lev Malka association was the first to take advantage of the ruling and work to implement it at synagogues. The association's chairman, Rabbi Aharon Aberman, immediately turned to a pharmacist and asked him to prepare a large amount of "stale water" containing salt or onion, which cause the water to lose its natural flavor and give it a bitter taste.

"The seemingly stale water is bitter or sour water compounded by a professional pharmacist, and will cause no medical harm. On the contrary, the water's only flaw is its taste, enabling the patients to drink unlimited amounts of it," Aberman explained.[...]

Can your Rabbi tell you how to vote?

New York Times - Stanley Fish

The story goes that when he was running for re-election to the Senate in 1954, Lyndon Johnson was opposed by a couple of non-profits that urged voters to reject him and his radical communist ideas. (And you thought things were crazy today.) In response, Johnson had new language inserted into the section of the IRS code, which defines a tax exempt entity. His addendum declared that an exempt organization “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Now, in the middle of the 2008 election, several dozen pastors are challenging the amendment by speaking out in the pulpit in favor of a candidate (usually John McCain) and by sending the IRS copies of the sermons in which they openly cross the line the law has drawn since 1954. At the same time, a bill (H.R. 2275) repealing the Johnson amendment has been introduced by Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina. The bill has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee where it awaits action.

The debate over Jones’s bill and Johnson’s amendment reveals once again how confusing and confused church-state jurisprudence is and has always been and will always be. Both sides claim that the other is violating the separation of church and state. Barry Lynn, a minister who is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argues that “We just can’t have sermons converted into political advertisements for candidates,” and he warns against using “church collection plate money on an ad telling people” to vote for one candidate rather than another.

Lynn here follows in the tradition of John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration, a tract in which Locke declares that the civil magistrate has no warrant to meddle in the affairs of the church, and churches, on their part, have no warrant to meddle in the affairs of state. The church, says Locke, tends to men’s souls; the state to men’s worldly needs. (He also says that in the event of a clash between them, the state’s interests must prevail; but that’s another essay.)

But the logic and force of Locke’s arguments depend upon his conceiving of religion as a private matter, as a relationship between one’s soul and one’s God, and therefore as a practice exercised in the church or synagogue or mosque rather than in the arena of political action. If, however, your religious beliefs take a more robust form than Locke’s and require that you labor to bring the world into conformity with God’s word and will, the Johnson amendment, or any other limitation on the free exercise of what you take to be your religious duty, will be seen as an unconstitutional interference by the state in the proper business of the church.

That’s how Erik Stanley, legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, sees it. In his reply to Lynn he insists that any law “that requires government agents to parse the words of a pastor’s sermon” in order to “determine when a pastor’s speech becomes too ‘political’” constitutes an “excessive …government entanglement with religion” and is on its face a violation of the separation of church and state. In other words, it is a violation of the separation of church and state for the state to inquire into whether a pastor is violating the separation of church and state.

This is not so odd an argument as it might first seem; for everything depends on just how religious activity is defined. If you assume, as Lynn does, a Lockean definition (religious belief is essentially private), separation means hands off in both directions. But if you assume, as Stanley does, a definition that demands corrective action when you see the world departing from godly principles, separation means hands off the church by the state and hands on the state by the church.[...]

The bottom line is that there is no rational or principled or constitutional resolution to this conflict. The resolution, if there is one, will have to be political. Either the Johnson amendment will be repealed or it won’t be. And when one or the other happens, the boundaries between church and state, at least with respect to this issue, will have been settled — for a while.

Lebanon -"Israel stole our felafel"

YNET reports:

Lebanon is planning on filing an international law suit against Israel for violating a food copyright, Fadi Abboud, president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association, told the al-Arabiya network. The Lebanese claim is that Israel markets original Lebanese food like tabouleh, kubbeh, hummus, falafel and fattoush which the Lebanese considered their trademarks prior to the establishment of the Jewish state.

Abboud explained that the fact that Israel has been marketing Lebanese delicacies under the same names and ingredients around the world has caused great losses to Lebanon, and that while, “the full extent is unknown, it is estimated at tens of millions of dollars annually.” Abboud, who prepared a memo on the subject, based his case on the, ”feta cheese precedent” that occurred six years ago. At that time, France, Denmark and Germany asserted that Greece cannot have a monopoly over the production of this type of cheese. Greece managed to prove in international institutions that it is the cheese’s “originator” and won the case. Until that point, the three prosecuting countries produced 12,000 tons of cheese a year. The court ruled that from then on, other countries could not use the name “feta”, as this cheese is “largely associated with Greece’s history and has been produced under this name for 6,000 years.”

Thus, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs decided to grant Greece the sole right to produce and market the cheese under that name. The Lebanese official claims that not only does Israel use the names of Lebanese foods but it also markets them in ready-to-eat plastic boxes for European and US consumers as if these were traditional Israeli foods. [...]

Birth oath - Be righteous and not wicked (Nida 30b)

Niddah (30b): [Soncino translation] R. Simlai delivered the following discourse: What does an embryo resemble when it is in the bowels of its mother? Folded writing tablets. Its hands rest on its two temples respectively, its two elbows on its two legs and its two heels against its buttocks. Its head lies between its knees, its mouth is closed and its navel is open, and it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks, but produces no excrements because otherwise it might kill its mother. As soon, however, as it sees the light the closed organ opens and the open one closes, for if that had not happened the embryo could not live even one single hour. A light burns above its head and it looks and sees from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, then his lamp shined above my head, and by His light I walked through darkness. And do not be astonished at this, for a person sleeping here might see a dream in Spain. And there is no time in which a man enjoys greater happiness than in those days, for it is said, O that I were as the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me; now which are the days’ that make up ‘months’ and do not make up years? The months of pregnancy of course. It is also taught all the Torah from beginning to end, for it is said, And he taught me, and said unto me: ‘Let thy heart hold fast my words, keep my commandments and live’, and it is also said, When the converse of God was upon my tent. Why the addition of ‘and it is also said’? — In case you might say that it was only the prophet who said that, come and hear ‘when the converse of God was upon my tent. As soon as it, sees the light an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all the Torah completely, as it is said, Sin coucheth at the door. It does not emerge from there before it is made to take an oath, as it is said, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear; ‘That unto Me every knee shall bow’ refers to the day of dying of which it is said All they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him; ‘Every tongue shall swear’ refers to the day of birth of which it is said, He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully. What is the nature of the oath that it is made to take? Be righteous, and be never wicked; and even if all the world tells you, You are righteous’, consider yourself wicked.

Kollel V - Response to LazerA's Response

Guest Post: Bartley Kulp's response to LazerA's Kollel IV-Response to criticisms.

I would just like to respond to LazarA's post. There are some points which I am in agreement with him but I would strongly diverge on other issues. We are both in agreement that the communities in Israel and the US have their own unique sets of circumstances and that they cannot be compared 100 percent. We both agree that the Israeli kollel paradigm is presently much more difficult to sustain than the American one. Fine, let us examine the American one.

First of all I would like to question the validity of LazarA's assertion that men who stay in kollel for five years generally do not have a large economic disadvantage to men who don't. LazarA has to be living in some parallel universe. Most hareidim who are married for five years have at least two children with a third that will be on the way in one to two or three years. Only now this couple is going to take major steps to climb the economic ladder. Am I supposed to believe that in general they are not going have a significant social-economic disadvantage compared with someone who has made an investment during that same time period towards economically bettering themselves, starting on that path before they have had children?

In the modern serviced based global economic model that exists in North America today, even non religious Jews and goyim a like are having a hard time even with their time invested education and work experience qualifications (not to mention businesses). These people do not even have the extra expenses that are shouldered by frum yidden like kashrus, tuition and in many cases having to live in more expensive neighborhoods because that is where the kehilla is. This is not to mention that secular people time there pregnancies and limit the amount of children that they have for economic reasons at their personal discretion and convenience.

Frum Jews do not have that convenient luxury. Now LazarA wants to purport that leaving kollel with a wife, two kids(the couple will probably have their third within a couple of years or so b'ezrat Hashem) and in many cases today not even having rudimentary grammar, writing, math, office computer skills or a blue collar vocation, merely involves a simple transition period of playing catch up?

Now I am not suggesting in any way that economics alone is strictly a reason on why not to learn in kollel. On the contrary, if a couple is ready to make sacrifices for Torah then they should be praised. This in of itself is a big Kiddush Hashem. Their family will be spiritually off in the long run by setting the course of its values early on in the marriage by putting Torah first above all else. So why am I rambling about economics and arguing with LazerA's assertion that learning in kollel does not generally have its significant economic ramifications? Because I do not believe in white wash and gilding the lily. It is that kind of talk that lead people to make decisions based on misguided assumptions that they will only come to learn as false when it is too late. Unless a couple have well off parents who are enthusiastic about supporting them or that the husband has some sort of Yissaschar/Zevulin arrangement, the idea of preparing for potentially hard times is in order.

Now while I am on the issue of being mussar nefesh for Torah, I would like to discuss another issue that has not yet been addressed in this discussion. While it is obviously praiseworthy to be mussar nefesh for Torah, in my opinion it is not so when it comes to be mussar other peoples nefesh for the same pursuit. What am I talking about? I am talking about the parents who in many cases who are not young and are not wealthy (this is not to mention the fact that they are might still be raising other children at home). What about the increasing number of parents who are being beleaguered by excessive financial demands in the name of marrying off their children. Granted that there is a great merit in being able to marry one's daughter to a talmud chacham. Also having one's offspring learn in kollel. For some this is a giant financial Siamese white elephant. Granted that there are a lot of parents who consider this a personal avodah. However there are a lot of parents who socially get forced into it for the benefit of their kids and the situation is analogous to being dragged by a pick up truck on a bumpy road. This has also (as it has in Israel) greatly contributed to what is called the shidduch crises. Families only marrying their sons to daughters who's families can provide an apartment and vice versa. That is already a subject well written about so I will not tarry on about it here. This seems to be the rapidly expanding trend across the American frum landscape.

This is where I agree with LazerA's comment on social engineering and personal choices. However my issue with the current model that is being increasingly presented in American Chareidi society is that much of those choices are already being maid for individuals by the society that they belong to. The truth is that the American community is following the same path as the Israeli one which has a hashgafa that I personally disagree with. Not the part about learning in kollel. The part of being more than somewhat obliged to. Also the increasingly total disregard for secular education for boys. When I say secular education I do not mean the humanities and what is called well roundedness. I mean basic skills that can later be built upon in order that these children will be able to work as something besides cashiers or moshgichim. Again we are taking away the variables for people to make personal choices.

My understanding of what rabbis like the Chazon Ish were trying to accomplish was giving young men the opportunity to extend their Torah learning and spiritual growth into their marriages. The key word being "opportunity". What has happened 50 years since then in Israel and is rapidly being deployed as the standard in the US is one of social obligation that has no regard for personal circumstance or preference.

Granted that a lot of challenges that we are socially facing today do not have a singular cause and the issues are not so simplistic. However it is obvious to anybody who has eyes that can see that we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and we cannot continue to head in this direction. There are major changes to be made and I mean major. May it be Hashem's will that this year we should be enlightened towards a proper path.