Sunday, January 15, 2006

Another post from my friend, Reb Aaron Berger

BTW, yes, there really is an Aaron. We are friends since Kindegarten at HANC, and he and his family currently reside in a popular Orthodox Jewish community in Northern NJ about a half an hour's drive from Monsey...

The mesorah makes a lot of sense to me. There are people that I know are truly pious, wholesome and sincere who testified the same about their teachers and parents. I have enough to go on from knowing the likes of Rabbis Gettinger, Fendel, Wehl (rebbi in HANC) Wahrman (rebbi in HANC), Eisemann, Tzuriel to know that they truly and without any schemes or agenda hold 100% by this stuff. Their holding by it is clear evidence that their forbears held by it. They speak of their teachers as having been on a higher and more intense madrega. These teachers include the likes of the Chazon Ish, R Aharon Kotler, Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rav Kook and the Ponovezher Rav.

Now you don't have to believe that these teachers were "perfect" to believe that they were great human beings and noble bearers of the mesorah. As an aside, no matter what taanos one has against R Soloveitchik's hashkafos, it is hard not to derive chizuk in emuna from him (in a way that I cannot from the heimishers) By that I mean, here is a man who had nothing at all do to with all the phoney baloney heimishe shtick of today (or yesterday) and yet, there was nothing in his life that drove him the way limud hatorah did (I witnessed this personally). why?? he wasn't after a rich father in law from boro park. he also didn't have to make his living with this stuff. nor vos, he actually believed in this stuff!. He is also known to have been of impeccable ethical standards and quite a baal chesed. Why?? He actually believed in this stuff. For me this is huge, pointing to the fact that this yiddishkeit thing was very real for him. Ki hem chayenu!

These people believed in this stuff with such a reality. While we have no way of measuring the sincerity level of goyish religious leaders, it is hard to find a consistent pattern or mesorah of non jewish or non frum leaders with a record of tzidkus such as we find by our own. I have no doubt in my mind of the purity of spirit of R' Chatzfkel Levenshtein, the Chofetz Chaim, R Elchonon Wassermann, or the Satmar Rav. I am in awe and esteem, of the way they lived their lives, of their purity, their holiness and their sincerity. All this is based on a combination of stuff I have heard and read (many sources, cross checked and verified). Tiny example: Rabbi Sholom Gold knew the Satmar Rav and told me incredible things about his tzidkus . This is "mesiach lefi tumo" as lauding the SR does not serve R Gold's agenda at all. Similarly, the non frum yiddish author Chaim Grade wrote amazing stuff about the depth of mind and sensitivity of spirit the Chazon Ish. I have such an emunas chachomim in these men and everything they represented. I learned shoulder to shoulder with yungerleit in the Mir with nothing at all driving them other than yedias toras hashem. (of course there were also a cast of characters who passed their days smoking and going in and out of the beis medrash with nonsense. but so what? the r'ayah is not from them!) In the same beis medrash sat R Chaim Shmuelevitz's sons (great "guys") and R' Beinish Finkel (RCS's brother in law). R Beinish Z"TL was a tzadik nistar, who, it was found out after his petirah, did amazing chasodim for poshuteh yiden. These guys are the real thing. And they all were in awe and esteem of R Chaim Shmulevitz, who in turn was in esteem of R' Leizer Yudel Finkel, son of the Alter (rebbe of e.g. Rabbi Ruderman, whom I felt I could tell was the real thing). He was also a mekurav of Rav Kook and the Gerer Rebbe in Yerushalayim, and was the father of much of the litvishe derech in mussar and hashkafa. To me, this network of shleimim is so incredibly tight and impenetrable. Also, the beliefs, traditions and attitudes are so deep and tightly held from a group so diverse that it is clear they come from a place many generations back that in turn must have been very pious and intense.

The point of all of the above is that there is a world of frum, pious, amazing yiden out there who are holding fast to the mesorah in a very real way. These people are not morons. They are a fair mix including highly intelligent people who live this thing in a real and beautiful way. I believe that we lose out by not really seeing this in our own lives. We live in a world where yiddishkeit has much more to do with how fancy the bar mitzvah is, how big the brim is, etc. Most of even the positive stuff we see, compared to what I described above, is highly watered down. We are exposed to organizational "leaders" whose role in yiddishkeit is mostly around operational policy, not actual leading by example; i.e. practicing the stuff itself in a way that can be a model for us. In Mir yeshiva, there was no such thing as rebbeim finding reasons to run all over the place doing stuff "more important" than learning. They learned all day because they actually believed in it and couldn't imagine doing anything else. This is a very simple model of leadership. (it is hard to make a case for the more convoluted, more prevalent model we find). I have no doubt that Isaac Stern has a passion for violin. He shows us his passion by playing.

There is a real world of real people who practice this stuff for real. I saw it in my grandfather, in my teachers it existed in our leaders, and it still is alive and well among sincere bnei torah and (what is probably a most underrated group) the vast "middle class" of sincere regular yiden. This beautiful world of beautiful values held by pure people who try their best, and sometimes fail but often don't, is something I yearn to connect to. The value system itself attracts me, and its being based on a long tradition of pure souls who practiced it, makes it all the more compelling.

I don't think this is about sentimentality and nostalgia. Sure there are sentimental feeling about stuff you love. Baseball fans have nostalgia about old games. But they only value these nostalgic feeling because of the underlying love they actually have for the game. The case I tried to make above is about the innate beauty of our values, much in the same way that a passion for art can be justified because of its innate beauty.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Learning from the Animals — Eruvin 100b

Learning from the Animals — Eruvin 100b
אמר רב חייא מאי יא]:דכתיב מלפנו מבהמות ארץ ומעוף השמים יחכמנו [איוב לה:... אמר רבי יוחנן אלמלי לא ניתנה תורה לישראל למדנו צניעות מחתול וגזל מנמלה ועריות מיונה ודרך ארץ מתרנגול

Had we not received the Torah we would have been able to learn various middos (character traits) from other sources. This Gemara gives four examples of animals whose traits and actions we could have learned just by observing them.
Hashem gave animals middos so that we would be able to learn from them (see Rashi here). All middos that we find in animals we can find in ourselves, as well. Hashem put these middos into them so that we should learn to utilize them properly (Mussar Chochmo, Mishlei 6:6). The Maharal explains that animals do not actually deliberately and consciously act, out of their personal wisdom. Rather, these middos are part of their nature. Animals act a certain way, but not because they understand what they are doing; their nature is to act this way. The ant is neither diligent in her work, nor abstinent from theft because possesses wisdom or the fear of Heaven. Rather, this is her nature.
What exactly is the purpose of this engrained nature?
The purpose is to teach us derech eretz — how we should act. Hashem teaches us derech eretz through the animals and birds. This is one of the reasons why they were created (ee Etz Yosef ad loc.). Neither the ant nor the dove avoided theft because its forbidden. Rather, they do so in order for us to learn to act like them.

Spitting - Eruvin 99a

Spitting Eruvin 99a

תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף צט/א
אמר ריש לקיש כיח בפני רבו חייב מיתה שנאמר כל משנאי אהבו מות אל תקרי למשנאי אלא למשניאי והא מינס אניס כיח ורק קאמרינן:

From Beis Yechezkel p. 183:

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 151:7) permits spitting in a Shul (if he feels compelled to do so involuntarily). It is a widespread custom among Chasidim to spit during Aleynu LiShabei'ach when they recite the words SheHeim Mishtachavim LiHevel VaRik (the source of the custom is the Taz [Yoreh De'ah 179:5]). However, the Arizal was very careful not to spit in a Shul, because of the dictum of Kavod Beis HaKenesses (Sha'ar HaKavanos fol. 4), and the Mishnah Berurah (151:24) warns that one should never spit in front of another person who may be disgusted. This, writes the Mishnah Berurah, is not a Middas Chassidus but a true prohibition (see Chagigah 5), so the gains of "public spitters" are outweighed by their losses.

Moreover, the applicability of the Shulchan Aruch's leniency to today's times is not at all clear. The Sha'ar HaTziyun (151:15) writes that wealthy people that do not allow spitting in their homes are not allowed to spit in their Shuls. Clearly, most people today can be classified as "wealthy" in this regard — viz. that they do not spit on their own floors — and would therefore be forbidden to do so in Shul as well. Furthermore, it should go without saying that smokers may not toss their discarded cigarette stubs on a Shul floor.

Covering Seforim and Turning Them Upside-Down — Eruvin 98a

Covering Seforim and Turning Them Upside-Down — Eruvin 98a


תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף צח/א
חוץ לארבע הופכו על הכתב

רש"י עירובין דף צח/א
להפוך - יריעת קלף על פניה להגין עליה שלא יעלה אבק על האותיות:

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 297:1), on the basis of our Gemara, rules that a scribe who has written a scroll for a Sefer Torah and must now leave it to dry should not turn it upside down — even if he is doing so to protect it from dust — because this is degrading the scroll. Rather, he should leave the scroll right-side up and cover it with a cloth.

The Shach (loc. cit.) writes that the Bach in the name of the Yerushalmi (Megillah) maintains that a person should never leave a room leaving a book uncovered — and not just a Sefer Torah, but also other Seforim. The Shach himself writes that this is evident from our Gemara, independently of the Yerushalmi. He continues to write that it is "known" that there is an angel called SHeD — Shin-Daled, short for SHomer Dapim — that causes anyone who leaves an open Sefer to forget his learning.

The Bigdei Shesh suggests that the question of whether there is an obligation to treat Seforim other than those that contain passages from Tanach depends on the interpretation of the Yerushalmi here, Eruvin 10:3 (60b). The Yerushalmi here says: ר' יוסי אומר בשם ר' יוחנן לא סוף דבר ספר אלא אפילו פסוקיא — R' Yose in the name of R' Yochanan said: Not only a Sefer, but even Pesukya. Some authorities (such as Korban HaEdah, Pnei Moshe and Mashbi'ach) understand Pesukya to refer to selections of pesukim, as opposed to entire Sifrei Kodesh. Other authorities (such as Gilyonei HaShas and Sha'are Toras Eretz Yisroel) understand Pesukya to refer to a belt.

According to the former authorities, it would seem that the Yerushalmi is limiting the permissibility to roll up the spooled-out scroll back to scrolls that contains sections of Tanach — implying that any Sefer of lesser sanctity need not be treated as respectfully.

However, according to the latter authorities, the Yerushalmi even permits one to roll back a spooled-out belt — implying that certainly anything of greater sanctity — and certainly Seforim can be rolled up out of respect.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Borrowing Tefillin — Eruvin 97a

Borrowing Tefillin — Eruvin 97a


תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף צז/א
אחד חדשות ואחד ישנות דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אוסר בחדשות ומתיר בישנות אלמא מר סבר טרח איניש ומר סבר לא טרח איניש:... וליענבינהו מיענב אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת עניבה פסולה בתפילין אביי אמר רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר עניבה קשירה מעלייתא היא טעמא דעניבה קשירה מעלייתא היא הא לאו הכי עניב להו והאמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב קשר של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני הוא

The Avnei Nezer (Orach Chaim 183:5) writes, that since there emerges from our Gemara the law that the knot of tefillin must be a permanent knot — kesher shel kayama — (see Tosafos here d.h. Amar Rav Chisda; and to Menachos 35b d.h. MeShe'as Hanachah), there is a problem that may frequently arise in borrowing tefillin from another person: Often the person who borrows the tefillin must change their size in order that they should fit, and he therefore has to undo the knot and re-tie it to size. Then, however, when the owner receives the tefillin back, he will necessarily re-tie the knot to his size. If so, frequently the knot that the borrower tied in the tefillin does not last for twenty-four hours – the criterion for a permanent knot.

Why do we not conduct ourselves according to this stringency of the Avnei Nezer? R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvos Minchas Shlomo, Tinyana 1:3) writes that the reason is because it is reasonable to distinguish between a knot that is made with the deliberate intent to undo it (such as is the case according to Rabbeinu Eliyahu, who holds that each day when you take off your tefillin you must undo the knot, and tie it anew the next day — see Tosafos ibid.); and a case in which as far as you (the borrower) are concerned, the knot can remain in place forever,