Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer הרב יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
Monday, September 29, 2025
Examining an Etrog With a Magnifying Glass
Examining an Esrog
With a Magnifying Glass
Touching also on related halachos (niddah, eruvin).
As someone wrote me after watching the clip:
There is certainly a strong mussar message there. Judge others without the magnifying glass. Don’t look for the flaws etc …
A recording for the BHP daily Halachic Whatsapp group https://chat.whatsapp.com/Gz8rrxqRcfy9rMOXRLG6GS
Thursday, September 25, 2025
Ahavas Hashem When You're Not Really Feeling It
Saw this over Yom Tov, from the Alter from Kelm zt"l's Pinkas HaKabbolos:
How to do the mitzvah of Ahavas Hashem on a level that's accessible to regular people.
A follow up on
Monday, September 22, 2025
Rischa D'Araisa Season 12 Episode 5: Reclaiming the Tzom of Gedaliah: Lessons for Our Time
Gedaliah is killed while eating with Ishmael and his men, Jan Luyken, 1704
Rischa D'Araisa Season 12 Episode 5:
Reclaiming the Tzom of Gedaliah:
Lessons for Our Time
Thursday, September 18, 2025
Rischa D'Araisa Season 12 Episode 4: אימת הדין, Desperate Directives Due to Mamdani, Mourning Charlie Kirk
Rischa D'Araisa Season 12 Episode 4:
אימת הדין
Desperate Directives Due to Mamdani
Mourning Charlie Kirk
Monday, September 15, 2025
Response to a Letter On Basic Issues in Yahadus (Judaism and Avodas Hashem)
My answers are in bold. The material is more or less self explanatory.
Shalom Harav Bechhofer Shlit''a
I have seen the profound divrei torah of the Rav on aish das and seeing the Rav's deep grasp on the fundamentals of yiddishkeit, I would like to ask a few questions that have been weighing on me for years. I have read a good amount of machshava and hashkafa but I feel that the Rav's deep grasp and way of thinking will afford him the abiity to answer these questions fully and thoroughly. I know the Rav is extremely busy and I don't know if the Rav will have time to respond, but if at any point it's possible, I would greatly appreciate the Rav's perspective.
1 the Rambam in hilchos teshuvah perek 7 halacha 6 and 7 uses extremely sharp terminology regarding what aveiros do to the the way someone is viewed by Hashem, (שנאוי) and how his subsequent mitzvos are valued. This is difficult for me to understand - it seems to be clear that one who does aveiros is hated by God.
As a colleague of mine noted to me, it is important to
note that the word שנואה
could be relative. This is clear from Bereishis 29:31:וַיַּ֤רְא ה֙' כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה
לֵאָ֔ה וַיִּפְתַּ֖ח אֶת־רַחְמָ֑הּ וְרָחֵ֖ל עֲקָרָֽה and can be construed
from other places where the term is used as well. As that colleague noted to
me, in this particular context the Rambam is trying to emphasize the
extraordinary efficacy of teshuvah, and therefore is emphasizing that no
matter how distant the sinner becomes, even to the extent that very strong
categories of revulsion might apply to him, he can completely reverse them and
be categorized in the strongest terms of approbation.
It is also interesting to consider the Rambam’s choice of
terminology here, לפני
המקום. One has to check other places where the Rambam uses this term
– which, considering the Rambam’s aversion to any corporeal description of
HKB”H is peculiar. I would suggest – again, pending research – that this term
connotes a relationship to the Shechinah (which the Rambam mentions
several times in both 6&7) – not to HKBH’s essence, and in that context the
adjectives connoting a negative relationship become more appropriate. The
Rambam believed – as becomes very clear from the writings of his son Rabbeinu
Avraham – in meditative, even mystical, connections between Man and God, and
that is affected by the relationship, which is perforce described with the
appropriate adjectives לשבר את
האוזן.
2 rabbeinu yonah in the beginning of shaarei teshuvah - when describing charatah - says that someones neshama becomes tamei through his aveiros. ( ונטמאה בגלולי יצרי ) What is the understanding of this?
In Daf Yomi Yerushalmi we are the end of the third
perek in Shakalim with the famous baraisa of Rabbi Pinchas
Ben Yair on which the Mesillas Yesharim is based – including the middah
of taharah. While the נשמה שנתת בי טהורה היא – as the Kabbalistic and Chassidic works
all say, it is the levushim, the outer layers of the Neshama that
are sullied – the metaphor is still a useful one. It is said that after Rav
Herzog zt”l had his useless meeting with the Pope ימ"ש after World War II,
he sped to the mikveh on account of the overwhelming tumah he had
felt. Now, we may not be so holy as Rav Herzog, but tumah is something
that Rabbeinu Yonah says should be sensed. It is not the same tumah as
you find in Seder Taharos, but a sensitive soul should feel sullied by aveiros.
3 How should one approach the topic of gehinnom? the
descriptions of the vilna gaon and the ramban in shaar hagemul, as well as that
of the reishis chochma - would probably send almost all people today into
depression or denial - being that ''ain tzadik ba'aretz'' - nobody is perfectly
innocent and therefore gehinnom is inevitable - as the vilna gaon writes. I've
seen seforim - and i have asked Gedolim who say ''dont focus on it - its
counterproductive'' - but i think that some people remain bothered nonetheless
- because if that's the truth and we'll have to endure that, no amount of
''don't focus on it'' will help. that's the human reality.
Every generation needs the metaphors that work for them.
In the Middle Ages, fire and brimstone worked. Witness Dante’s Inferno
(let me clarify that Christians may actually believe that the hellfires are
real and the circles of hell are something like he describes – but we do not,
notwithstanding the use of similar metaphors). Today, not so much. Rav Dessler zt”l
in MME vol. 1 explains this very well, and cites Reb Yisroel Salanter zt”l
who elaborates on how the metaphors can work for us as well. I don’t have the sefer
in front of me (I am writing in an airplane on the way to a wedding) but It
should be easy to find. As a colleague noted to me, even in the Rishonim,
we find that the Ikkarim 4:33
says the fires of gehennom are those of shame.
4 Especially for someone who is emotionally oriented, how is it realistic for God to truly be the center of our lives when according to the rishonim its clear that we cannot possibly understand anything of God's essence - and since none of his ''hanhagos'' or descriptions are actually descriptive of God himself (like it says at the end of ''pasach eliyahu v'amar'') we can't even say that he ''is'' a meitiv - it's all (external) hanhagos.
We are not Chaiteans. The followers of Rabbi Yisroel
Chait hold that ascribing emotions to HKBH is heretical. The Rambam you quoted
from Hilchos Teshuvah clearly disagrees with that premise. Not because
in atzmus there are no emotions. We can’t speak of atzmus, but we
assume there are no emotions there. But HKBH created this interface in which we
relate to Him emotionally – and He relates to us emotionally. Otherwise, we
wouldn’t say things like אהבה רבה
אהבתנו ה"א. And He certainly DOES want us to relate to his “hanhagos”
as realities – מה הוא
רחום וכו' – l’hetiv is very real.
Even more troubling is that God seems totally absent in the
world and in our lives in many ways - he's to many a vague nebulous entity, and
worst of all, HE DOESN'T TALK BACK, tefillah to me feels like a one way
discussion and i dont understand how i can have a real ''relationship''
with a unknowable, unanswering, unresponsive God. just like in human
relationships one needs -attunement responsiveness and mirroring in order to
feel REAL and together with someone, so too with the relationship with God. If
one can seriously question his existence, how real can he be to you. I
dont know what ''receptors'' one needs in order to ''feel / sense'' God. I have
read widely on Emunah, but i think for me it's really more of a psychological
issue than an intellectual question. How is a invisible, unknowable God who I
dont even know how to imagine Him (and everyone makes up what they want) who
doesn't RESPOND and who i cant interact with any of my real world
five senses meant to be real to me and someone with whom i have a
relationship''? i don't know of anyone who has relationships like that. even
the idea of hisbodedus is hard - i dont have the naivete and simple trusting
innocence that i feel one needs to really embrace the breslov path - to be
certain he is there and listening - I am too nervous and skeptical to be able
to be in that mode.
Okay, I will not advise you to follow in the way of the Bnei
Machashavah Tovah (the Piaczesner zt”l) who says if all else fails
you can rely on the Ra’avad and image a form for HKBH in your mind. I will also
not tell you to go to Uman or emulate Breslovers – even though that seems to
really work for many of my talmidim. אשריהם וטוב להם! Rather I will
respond to you as the half-Yekke half-Litvak emotional cripple that I am –
while reiterating that there are pathways that work for spiritually-open people
that do give them the experiences that you and I lack (and, we need to be
candid, that perhaps it is because we don’t try enough).
I have never experienced a direct connection with HKBH.
But I know the feeling of satisfaction that comes after learning through a sugya
with geshmack, and the feeling of upliftment that comes after a
particularly good davening. I know the sense of transcendence that can be
experienced at the pinnacle of ne’ilah. I have felt the dveykus – not
directly with HKBH! But with the mood of the music – that comes with a powerful
niggun. And there are times – not every year, and not for long – that
during a Purim Se’udah, or a Pesach Seder – and certainly when I
am in a state of flow giving a really good shiur on Shavu’os night –
that I feel the אשרינו
מה טוב חלקנו. And through all this I know – and sense – that HKBH is behind
all this, in the bechinah of הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו. And, not so
ironically, especially when I am so to speak “upset” at HKBH – I sense more
than other times, that he is there, and I don’t and won’t understand, but it’s
not given to us to understand. (That doesn’t make me feel better, but it’s not
HKBH’s job to make me feel better…!) All that being said, one of my more
spiritual colleagues would respond: “Our entire life is a conversation with Hashem.
We just can’t translate well in broken Da’as. Emunah helps fill
this gap.” He has a point. It may not
work for you and for me.
5 we must have ''ahavas hashem'' - coming off of the above i find that very difficult, God as far as I can see from the way the world and my life is, seems totally apathetic and ok with the world being a random place with no justice or sense, how can I love God when to me God means basically the sum total of my life experience (since its all from him)? not an intellectual question but a human one.
Ahavas Hashem is actually quite difficult for Misnagdim. I would leave it primarily for the Chassidic inclined among us. As I said earlier, אשריהם. The Sifrei Mussar don’t spend much time on Ahavah. Much, much more on Yirah. To the extent that you have talk of Ahavah, it is more the intellectual ahavah of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah than the emotional ahavah of Hilchos Teshuvah. יראת הרוממות is a plenty high level, and the barriers between it and Ahavas Hashem tend to blur in any event – because Yiras HaRomemus generates Simchah. If you haven’t read B’Ikvos HaYirah (the essay, not the entire book), hop to it! The Hebrew is best, but you can always read Rabbi Hillel Goldberg’s translation. https://rygb.blogspot.com/2022/09/avraham-eliyahu-kaplans-be-ikvot-ha.html Loving other people – spouse, children, parents, friends, Am Yisroel – is also a derivative of Ahavas Hashem. The Hakdamah to Sha’arei Yosher is the guidebook to relating to others, and to love HKBH’s creatures is – at least to some extent – to love HKBH.
6 i am not a ''kalte litvak'' - i need - like many today - a
judaism that speaks not to my intellect, which leaves me dry and empty, but to
ME. sad to say but sometimes i feel like when i read the modern day literature
on psychology and spirituality - the untethered soul, the way of
integrity, dan siegel, i feel like this is speaking to ME more than many
seforim - which don't seem to talk to my real daily real world actually lived
experience at all!
The adherents to the new age psychospirituality seems to get
to the END GOAL - happiness - more than frum ppl who are concerned with if the
PROCESS is TRUE.
קבל את
האמת ממי שאמרה. Man’s Search for Meaning is more powerful than most Sifrei
Mussar. So? But the end goal is not
Happiness. Happiness is a byproduct of Meaning, and that is the end goal.
That’s Viktor Frankl straight up. I speak about this at length in my monograph
on Judaism and Counseling, although more in the context of therapeutic methodology. https://www.academia.edu/8159365/Judaism_and_Counseling_part_1
BTW, a colleague recommends:
Another colleague recommends: https://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf
it's hard. i want happiness. but i am numb to ''truth'' -
its an abstract. but that's what yiddishkeit seems to be offering. the world
offers (in a spritual - just not religious way) the end goal too - so it
seems. it's not like the olden days where the ''velt'' is ''kefira'' and
''gashmiyus'' - not at all - these are brilliant people speaking to the real
human lived experience and to human feelings - and they are very much
spiritual!! (like reform - just w/o any rituals) - the challenge of the what i
call the ''new atheism'' is ''spirituality without religion'' - it's not easy
to dismiss - they are smart, speak to human emotions, and are spiritual and
sometimes more ascetic than we are. this troubles me.
Perhaps these are all ''nefesh'' human needs and not
specifically ''jewish'' neshama needs - and that's why ''chochma b'goyim
taamin'' and psychology etc. can be of great help (as rav bentzion kokis said)
- but that means that most of yiddishkeit is just leaving me dry and cold
because i am living at a ''nefesh'' level and therefore the ''neshama''
oriented torah doesn't do anything for me - that is a hard pill to
swallow. but maybe it's true. it certainly feels that way.
The thing is that the torah seems to be process oriented
meaning it is concerned with TRUTH. People's operating systems nowadays are
concerned with FEELING SOMETHING REAL. The goyim I referenced before don't care
about truth - they care about getting to an end-goal. The Dalai Lama and people
like him may not be TRUE, but I think some of them are happier than frum people
because of this reason - they look for happiness, peace feelings etc., but we
look for truth. the reality is that TRUTH and many seforim esp of rishonim is a
cold thing. People dont want the truth. They want to feel real at peace
connected etc - i dont think yiddishkeit - the way i approach it now - is
showing me a route toward those things (or even that they are valued and
understood as a human need thats more important to us than the abstract
''TRUTH'' or kirvas elokim - which we can't even begin to understand, let alone
appreciate.)
When I put this issues to a colleague, this was the
response. This from a person who was an atheist, not Jewish, and converted:
"Spirituality without
religion" is nothing more than mankind placing itself at the middle and
pinnacle of everything, and saying "Let's create something that makes
sense to us". Isn't that Migdal Bavel? "Whatever we make up,
we will take pride in and call ourselves intellectuals. Whatever fits our
personal agenda, we will believe in. Whatever is hard to understand and
requires effort, let us discard. Whatever feels good and allows us to be liked by
the nations and not stand out, that's our religion now. Let's be spiritual in a
way that feels fuzzy!"
This is atheism, just with a
Jewish name and jargon slapped on top of it. It doesn't recognize anything
beyond us. It doesn't acknowledge that human understanding is limited, and that
Hashem's isn't. It's atheist humanist wearing a Magen David necklace to feel
like they belong somewhere and that they are little bit special (but not too
special, chas veshalom).
Rabbi Soloveitchik makes this point in an essay that is
based on a talk he gave to teenagers about negi’ah. I am paraphrasing
because I don’t have the essay handy. In Judaism we don’t care much if you’re
happy. (Although Frankl would argue that true happiness is achieved by
precisely what the Rav prescribes!) We are concerned that you be a hero. And
heroism requires far more abstinence, and minimal indulgence. That is why we
have far more מצוות לא
תעשה than מצוות
עשה. New-Ageism (I think that’s more of what you meant than “New
Atheism is all about the Asei’s without the Lo Sa’aseh’s. Unlike
the Rav, I would not negate the touchy-feely altogether. 😊
It has its place, perhaps many places (לפני המקום) and I am not
enamored with the Kalte Litvaks who spend Hakofos learning on the
sidelines. But it is important to remember the all-important Gra in Mishlei,
כי מה שאם חי הוא לשבור המדה שלא שבר
עד עתה…
I would be most grateful for any thoughts on the above
issues.
With great admiration and appreciation, and humble wishes
for a ksiva vchasima tovah for the Rav and his family,
One colleague responded to the issues you raised: “Absolutely.
Welcome to the lost sheep club. But become the Jew you look for in others.
We’re out there.”
Thursday, September 11, 2025
Rischa D'araisa Season 12 Episode 3: "Torah Only" in Eretz Yisroel? The Trap of Perfectionism
Rischa D'araisa Season 12 Episode 3:
"Torah Only" in Eretz Yisroel?
The Trap of Perfectionism
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Blei Gissen and Ayin HoRa Revisited
First, see our post from some ten years ago on the pouring of lead: Blei Gissen.
https://rygb.blogspot.com/2015/01/finally-soure-for-blei-gissen.html
A person who is involved in these lead procedures explained their perspective to me (in Hebrew, I will Google translate with some light editing).
First, I will speak about Ayin HoRa in general. This is something I myself wrote many years ago:
I was asked by one of the Chicago Daf Yomi chevra to dwell a bit on the topic of Ayin ho'Ra (AR). It is now particularly timely to do so, as in yesterday's daf (BM 107b) we had the remarkable assertion that the overwhelming majority of individuals die because of AR and very few because of "regular" reasons.
Of course, the Rambam does not pasken like Gemaros based on AR, and I would suspect that a rationalistic approach would necessarily reject AR to either a complete or partial extent. I would be interested to know what RSRH had to say, if anything, on the topic. I would assume that the rationalist might accept AR as a form of kitrug in shomayim, similar to walking under a precarious wall - and, thus, it would not be a direct impact of the onlooker on the person on whom he had looked, but rather a from of triangulation: The aspersion cast by the onlooker makes an impression in the Heavens, and things that might have been overlooked then become significant and may doom an individual that was otherwise cruising "unnoticed' despite his iniquities.
The classic approach - that of Reb Tzadok, and even, surprisingly, the Malbim - is that rays emanate from your eyes when you look at something. When you look at someone (or even something: "Al tilcham es lechem ro 'ayin" - Mishlei 23:6) askance, the rays that emanate from your eyes are poisoned and that poisonous quality then inheres in the person or object upon whom or which you have looked. Reb Tzadok (Dover Tzedek 80a) says it works in a relative fashion, as the object of the gaze may be impervious to that type of venomous ray, such as was the case with Yosef ha'Tzaddik.
This perspective is in line with several Gemaros, such as the Gemara in Shabbos where Rabbi Shimon bar Yochay and his son Rabbi Elazar come out of the cave and everywhere they look is consumed, and then after the second time they exit RSBY's gaze heals where RE's afflicts; the Gemara in a couple of place (BB comes to mind) where Rabbi Yochanan looked at a wayward talmid and turned him into a pile of bones, etc. This is a direct impact that harms the subject or object of the rays that emanate from the eye of the beholder.
There are rationalistic explanations of those Gemaros, however, as well, including the Telzer Rov, RYL Bloch who says that making an individual into a pile of bones means to make him feel that his entire existence is meaningless.
Perhaps it is because the Rambam felt strongly that vision does not work in this manner that he rejected AR. Be that as it may, l'ma'aseh one can accept a spiritual dimension to a gaze even if one does not accept that vision works that way.
REE Dessler in Michtav Me'Eliyahu vol. 4 p. 5 offers another explanation:
All souls are intertwined in some way - some to a greater degree, and some to a lesser to degree - but a universal connectivity is a spiritual reality. Thus, my attitude towards your soul affects its status: If we are very closely bonded spiritually then the impact is greater, and vice versa. Still, some "grip hold" is essential: If a person is totally l'shem shomayim and other-directed; or very humble and self-effacing, the interaction between him and others is more out than in, and others who deploy AR against him will not be particularly successful.
This approach is in line with a couple of other Gemaros concerning Rabbi Yochanan (who was impervious to AR, IIRC, as a descendant of Yosef) with him causing the deaths of Rabbi Kahane (reversed) and Reish Lakish (not reversed) - while at least in the latter case the impact was not immediate (although it seems to have been direct), it seems that it was the interaction between the souls that caused the effectiveness of the AR.
Of course, "quirks" like AR bring into play basic questions of midda k'negged midda, i.e., precision in reward and punishment. They are the flip side of positive quirks like segulos. Without the balance of Olam ha'Bo (and, it seems, according to many Mekkuballim, without a counterbalance of possible gilgulim as well) they would be classic question marks of "tzaddik v'ra lo; rasha v'tov lo". These are, therefore, areas in which we cannot fully understand cause and effect, areas which HKB"H classified to Moshe Rabbeinu as "U'ponai lo yeira'u."
The person who is involved in these lead procedures wrote something similar:
The attempt to outline an intellectual path to understanding
the essence of Ayin HoRa is an interesting attempt. In other words, through
such an attempt, we try to adapt the matter of Ayin HoRa to the accepted matrices of knowledge and
explain it through them.
This can be fine, if it can enrich understanding, and give
it additional aspects, through other horizons, perhaps educational, perhaps
social and moral values, and there is certainly room to strive for this.
But the original aspect of the matter lies on deeper and
more spiritual levels.
It must be understood that Ayin HoRa can exist as part of a broader spiritual
reality, which includes, among other things, a good eye, and the strong power
of thought (the power to strive towards achieving goals, etc.).
God, in the wonderful creativity that is only His, created
us beyond the body as an instrument of influence.
Influence – “for good and for the better” (i.e., for good
and for evil).
According to Kabbalah, our eyes received a spiritual power
of influence at creation.
"Seeing eye" - this is not only in the physical
aspect of vision, but also in the spiritual aspect of influence.
Two spiritual abilities arise from this:
To see good.
To see evil.
From the little I understand and a little experience - the
eyes have the power to exert energy here or there.
A brief expansion: It is customary for us that during the Kiddush
of Shabbat night, the person reciting the Kiddush gazes into the goblet of wine
and searches within the goblet for the reflection of his face along with the
reflection of the light of the candles.
This is perhaps also a reason why the candles should be
close to the place of Kiddush. And the explanation for this gaze is that during
life and especially in the important actions of life (the milestones) - the eye
(physical) loses power and weakens. And the correction is that gaze into the Kiddush
goblet.
The simple summary of the matter is that the power to do
good or evil is found in the power of the eye's gaze, in looking and observing
and thinking about the people in our space, and this includes us. A person can
certainly bring an Ayin HoRa on himself. It seems to me that the first
expression of this is already found in the first conversation between God and
Cain: "If you do good, you will bear; and if you do not do good, you will
be the one who will open the door to sin." Here there is a choice of path,
a path of harm or a path of healing, and this of course also applies to
ourselves.
And then that person wrote about the actual lead procedure:
Regarding the lead - it is more important for me to explain.
Maybe at some later point, orally and not in writing.
Please do not treat the lead in a purely technical manner.
There is a technique, it can be learned and even a person
with limitations can perform the technique. I know here (in Israel), about
people who do the technique and do nonsense with it, perhaps ineffectively and
perhaps even harmfully.
It is like chanting a prayer without meaning anything.
And if a certain person feels that he paid $100 like you pay
at a hairdresser or a dentist - then he did not understand anything.
The lead is a tool that we received to operate with it out
of awe and out of supplications.
I am experienced with lead for more than 15 years, I think,
for me almost every use of lead is somewhat like a suicide mission. Because it
is to represent a person before God, to fight and beg for the person they are
asking for, and to understand the interpretation of what is received with the
melting.
And this is very tiring. And spiritually dirtying, because of
all the hard energy that is released from it rises through my pipeline and the
space around me.
So that's really brief.
My review article on Rabbi Adam Mintz's Building communities. A history of the eruv in America. The article is published in Journal of Modern Jewish Studies Volume 24, 2025 - Issue 2
Journal of Modern Jewish Studies
Volume 24, 2025 - Issue 2https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14725886.2025.2468231?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Building communities. A history of the eruv in America
by Adam Mintz, Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2023, 187pp., $26.95, ISBN 9798887190853
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Pages 638-640 | Published online: 24 Feb 2025
Cite this article https://doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2025.2468231
Books and articles written on the fascinating topic of eruvin, the enclosures that allow observant Jews to carry items in public areas on the Sabbath, must often grapple with multiple disciplines.
Foremost in significance and complexity are the issues of Jewish law. In contradistinction to most religions, Jewish law recognizes and authorizes the use of legal loopholes. Examples abound, such as the mechanism by which one sells one’s chametz (leavened bread and other grain products) to a non-Jew prior to the advent of the holiday of Pesach (Passover), rather than eradicating and destroying it as prescribed by the Torah (the Bible).
An eruv is another such legal loophole. It is a legal fiction that allows an area enclosed by quite porous barriers such as strings attached to the tops of poles to be considered a walled and private domain, thus circumventing the prohibition on carrying items in an unenclosed area on the Sabbath.
The open embrace of legal fictions and loopholes often strikes a person confronting their utilization in religious life as strange. Perhaps the best analogy one can give in explanation of the phenomenon is the well-known statement by Judge Learned Hand: “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes” (Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809 (2d Cir. 1934), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/809/1562063/). Jewish religious law is a legal system like any other legal system: It demands compliance, but it does not require stringency. Religious fervour can find expression in other manners and activities, such as fervent prayer, intense study or heightened charity.
Another issue involved in eruvin is sociological. Within observant Judaism, societies have defined themselves by the extent to which they were willing to allocate resources and devote efforts to the construction and maintenance of eruvin. After all, carrying objects in a public space on the Sabbath is not essential for the observance of the Sabbath. It does make the Sabbath more pleasurable to be able to do so. This is especially true, for example, for mothers with young children, who, without the benefit of an eruv, find it very difficult to leave home on the Sabbath. Yet Jewish law does not obligate women to attend a synagogue or leave home for any other purpose on the Sabbath. To what extent does a society concern itself with the enhancement of the Sabbath of parts of its constituency?
Yet another issue involved in eruvin is political. Notwithstanding the fact that the poles and strings (and, of course, the pre-existing structures such as fences and embankments) that comprise eruvin are essentially invisible to the eye not familiar with them and not deliberately seeking them, the construction of eruvin has become a political issue. This is especially true because an essential component of an eruv is a symbolic rental of the public space it encompasses from relevant civil authorities. This has led to well publicized cases surrounding issues of church and state, and not infrequent charges of antisemitic or anti-orthodox attitudes on the parts of the general population or the authorities, or both.
The great accomplishment of Adam Mintz’s thin but comprehensive survey of the history of eruvin in North America is his success in encompassing all these issues in his treatise. The convergence of all these issues in a framework that analyses them historically adds the additional discipline of the history of American and Canadian Jewry to the rich array of issues in which this volume makes a significant contribution. It is highly engaging and intriguing reading. The one (minor) critique that the author of this review found significant is the paucity of illustrations. Those that appear are limited to various maps. Perhaps in our digital age that is a less onerous omission than it once may have been, as one can search images on one’s own. Be that as it may, readers will enjoy the book and come away enriched and edified across a broad array of disciplines and spheres of interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)