060) Kappores - With or Without a live chicken?

There is much controversy around the issue of using live chickens for the performance of Kappores [1]. I have always opted for the traditional way of performing kappores with a rooster, explaining to ‘detractors’ that there is no significant difference between kappores and normal shchita (kosher slaughtering), in that a shochet (slaughterer) is anyway present at the ceremony and performs a normal regulation shchita afterwards. So if you eat chicken, you may as well do kappores.

But the kappores ceremony does raise a number of practical challenges. The fact is that in reality there is often the possibility that chickens will suffer before and during the process of the ceremony. Sometimes the chickens are held for hours or even days in tightly packed cages where they wait without food or water. Furthermore, the people performing the rite are not always schooled in the correct manner in which to hold a chicken, and can cause pain if not break bones of the chicken while rotating it around the head.

Let’s take a look at some classical views regarding this issue:

THE FIRST CITING OF KAPPORES:

The first mention of the practice of kappores is by Natronai ben Hilai, a Gaon in the academy of Sura, Babylonia at around 850 C.E., who says that although it is the practice of Babylonian and Persian Jews, it is of non -Jewish origin.

RABBI YOSEF KARO:

The original version of  the Shulchan Aruch before censorship.

According to Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, “We should stop this custom, because (as the Mishna Berurah[2] explains) it resembles the ways of the Emorim (darkei haEmori - who practiced magic, superstition and witchcraft).”[3]  

This rather outspoken view, against what Rabbi Karo also calls a ‘foolish custom’, is significant because he was a major halachic codifier.

The interesting thing is that although his statements against kappores appeared in the first 18 printings of his work, somehow in the 18^th century they got censored and omitted (and to a large extent are still omitted in some modern day publications).[4]

The Ramban[5] also opposed the custom of kappores stating it was of non-Jewish origin and that there can be no ‘vicarious sacrifice’ outside of the Temple in Jerusalem. He called those who performed the rite ‘idol-worshippers’.

RAMO:

In stark contrast to the Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Ramo (representing the Ashkenazi community) mentions that the custom is in fact very old and has roots going back to the Geonim.[6] He says that historically all Ashkenazi countries upheld this custom as well as, surprisingly, even the Sefardic countries (who seemed to ignore Rabbi Yosef Karo who wrote primarily for Sefardic communities). Therefore, he maintains that we should not change this custom, as it is well rooted deep within our past.

The Mishna Berura[7]  explains away the objection that the custom may be similar to ‘black magic’, by saying that the ‘transposing of sin’ is not necessarily a foreign concept to Judaism, as some Rishonim equate it to the offering of a sacrifice (for an inadvertent sin in Temple times), where the sin is also said to be ‘transposed’ or ‘exchanged’.  

The Hebrew word gever can mean both man and rooster; hence a rooster may substitute for a man.

CHAYE ADAM:

The Chaye Adam acknowledges the fact that the custom of Kappores is deeply rooted within our tradition, but suggests that it has assumed a status of importance that it never had before. He says “It has become ingrained in the hearts of the masses that all of the atonement of Yom Kippur depends upon it. It is almost as if Kappores and eating matzah are of equal importance. The masses think that without a rooster they will not attain atonement on Yom Kippur.”[8]

The Chaye Adam continues to say that because the chickens push against each other in large numbers (as would happen in a kappores ceremony which is usually performed in large gatherings requiring large numbers of chickens), and the slaughters are usually overburdened and tired with ‘grimaced faces’, and chances are the knives are not checked for sharpness as often as they should – there is a reasonable possibility that people would be eating non kosher (neveilah) chicken. Then he says “If people would listen to me...it is better for them to swing money around their heads. This was indeed the custom of earlier generations.”[9]

RABBI CHAIM DAVID HALEVI:

Rabbi Chaim David HaLevi[10] adds a further dimension to the discussion by introducing the concern for cruelty to animals (tzar ba’alei chaim).[11] He writes “And why, particularly on the eve of the holy day do we need to be cruel to animals...and slaughter them without any mercy, at a time when we stand to request life for ourselves from the living G-d.”

CONCLUSION:

No one can argue the fact that the use of live chickens for kappores is a very well established custom. It is also well supported by our mystical tradition. Therefore those who follow that custom certainly have precedent upon which to rely. 

I was happy to read in a local advertisement for kappores, “Please make every effort to handle your chicken in the most careful and sensitive way as to avoid harming or hurting the chicken.” The kappores in our community is taking place under the guidance of a civic animal protection organisation.

At the same time those who wish to use money in lieu of chickens also have very good (historical and ethical) precedent.

While it is true that the ‘cruelty to animals’ principle can be overridden when it comes to a ‘vital issue’ concerning the community; And while it is also true that a well established custom like kappores may be indeed be considered a ‘vital issue’;  - There is, however, the halachik permissibility to use money instead of chickens and still perform kappores appropriately. This means that the use of chickens may no longer be considered a ‘vital issue’.[12]

Thus there is a strong case for the use of money as a substitute for (and maybe even a preferential way to perform) kaporres, as opposed to using live chickens.

I’m still going to do kappores this year the old fashioned way, with a rooster, the way I have always done it in the past. But I am richer knowing that some say it is rooted in paganism, and is a silly custom which should not be perpetuated, and may have involved a degree of censorship by interested parties, and may even be idolatry, and may if I am not careful cause hurt to an animal, and it may not be right to ‘slaughter without mercy’ on the day before we ask for life– at least I have that knowledge and information clearly in my head and am under no illusions.

This state of tension between knowledge and belief is, according to the Kotzker Rebbe, the truest form of spiritual experience.

At least with regard to kappores I might just be a 'rational mystic'.

---

[1] Kappores (or atonement) is a pre-Yom Kippur custom of ‘swinging’ a chicken around one’s head, whereby the chickens are said to symbolically take on the sins of the individual performing the rite. The chickens are then kosher slaughtered and either eaten or given away to the needy.

[2] Orach Chaim 605,1.

[3] Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, 605,1 (in the name of the Rambam and Rashba).

[4] See Kotzk Blog 53) Hey, Teacher Leave the Text Alone (UPDATE).

[5] Nachmanides 1194 – 1270.

[6] The period of the Geonim immediately followed on from the Talmidic era, and preceded that of the Rishonim.

[7] Orach Chaim 605,1.

[8] Chaye Adam klal 144,4 and brought in Mishna Berura 605,2 and Kaf HaChaim 11.

[9] As the Magen Avraham 81,2 writes in the name of Rashi.

[10] 1924 – 1998. He served as the Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. His Aseh Lecha Rav is a collection of responsa. (As an aside, Rabbi Chaim David HaLevi was the first rabbi to issue a prohibition against smoking).

[11] Shut Aseh Lecha Rav vol 3, p.67.

[12] I thank my friend Ori S. for drawing my attention to this argument, which he saw

 in the writing of one of his teachers.

059) Secular Education - A Great Divide?

The first published translation of a classical science text into the holy language .
(Vilna 1780)

Many would be surprised to discover that there is a kaleidoscope of opinion regarding whether or not a Jew may undergo a secular education. For someone born into western civilization, it seems hard to imagine that this basic ‘right’ is even up for discussion. For others it is equally surprising that anyone would even want to study anything other than the Torah.

Although there are many sources that forbid secular studies, there are just as many that take a  very different view. The ensuing debate is rather colourful and most enlightening, highlighting a ‘great divide’ within the Orthodox community.

RAMO:

According to the Ramo, it is forbidden to engage in a fixed programme of secular studies. However, he says that the occasional study of secular wisdom would be permitted.[1] Some have suggested that the reason for this ruling is not bittul Torah (wasting time that could otherwise have been spent on Torah study), but rather bizayon haTorah (bringing disgrace to the superior value of Torah by ‘displacing’ it with something secular).

RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN OF LIADI:

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of the Lubavitch movement writes “The impurity of science is greater than the impurity of idle speech ...Thus it is forbidden, unless one employs this as a useful instrument (such as a means of earning a livelihood).”[2]

RABBI NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:

I am aware of a teaching of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov that I am fond of quoting (although I forget where I saw it). It says something to the effect that the passionate pursuit of anything neutral, that is not expressly forbidden by the Torah, may be counted as Torah study as both have the same result, namely, keeping one away from sin. Yet, nonetheless, he was against secular education, intimating that faith and rationalism cannot go hand in hand without one yielding to the other.

RABBI ELCHANAN WASSERMAN:

Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman writes “If you must sit in a school with non-Jews and befriend them, it is forbidden...If you do not have to befriend them and you do not study heresy, and you study in order to make a living, then is permitted and is a mitzvah.”[3]

RABBI ELAZAR SHACH:

According to the late Chareidi leader, Rabbi Elazar Shach[4], all forms of secular education, even at high school level, are expressly forbidden. He singled out the study of history and psychology specifically, as absolute ‘heresy’. Furthermore, studying a trade was only permitted when one’s livelihood was under immediate threat. He said that if anyone who had undergone a secular education, and still achieved success in Torah study, it was ‘maaseh satan’(a result of satanic forces).[5]

RABBI MOSHE FEINSTEIN:

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein said in an address to his students that in America one does not need a college degree to make a living and that anyway we should be content living with less if necessary.[6] On the other hand, a young man once asked the pragmatic Rabbi Feinstein if he could go to college, and he was told that if his parents insist that he attends, he may indeed attend.[7]

THE VILNA GAON:

Not so well known is the view of the Vilna Gaon, who actually encouraged secular studies, especially by our talmidei chachamin or scholars. He felt that secular knowledge would, on the contrary, broaden the scholar’s knowledge of Torah, create a kidush haShem among non-Jews who would come to respect the prowess of the Torah scholar, and also serve to prevent religious Jews from wandering off the path (since they would already have had some sanctioned exposure to the secular world).[8]

The Vilna Gaon translated books on geometry into Hebrew, such as his Sefer Uklidos (Book of Euclid), and was consulted on matters of astronomy and mathematics by both Jewish and non-Jewish scholars.

In 1778, Rabbi Baruch Schick of Shklov, one his closest students, wrote “I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the ‘other wisdoms’, correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah.”[9]

Rabbi Hillel of Shklov commented that the Vilna Gaon had ‘...delved considerably into secular studies in order to master the Torah, make a kidush haShem in the eyes of the non-Jews, and to bring the redemption nearer!”[10]

RABBI SHIMSHON REFAEL HIRSCH:

Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch[11] and Rabbi Azriel Hildershimer, with their Torah Im Derech Eretz philosophy, established schools in Germany in the mid 1800’s which provided both Torah and secular education, and laid the foundations for the establishment of the Orthodox movement.

This was vehemently opposed by the Chareidi movement, established in 1865, which forbid secular education outright[12].

RABBI YOSEF SOLOVEITCHIK:

In 1946, the Torah Umaddah movement was formed by Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik and others affiliated to Yeshiva University.[13] This movement (which became the originator of Centrist Orthodoxy) actually sees benefit in secular studies for their own sake and as an end in itself. Rabbi Soloveitchik strove to create a system of ‘synthesis’ between the best Torah scholarship, and the best secular scholarship in western civilization. He said “A person who is secure cannot be an extremist.”[14]As Rabbi Norman Lamm writes “Torah...and science... together offer us a more over-arching and truer vision than either one set alone.”[15]

RELIGIOUS ZIONISTS:

It’s interesting to see that while Religious Zionists generally concur with the Torah Umaddah philosophy, they maintain that secular studies are valuable only insofar  as they benefit the State of Israel, but not for their own sake. Thus they would encourage the study of architecture as opposed to, say, the study of music.

THE PENINEI HALACHA:

The Peninei Halacha explains that in Talmudic times, the basic learning curriculum was completed by the age of twenty, after which the student would get married and then leave the world of full time study and start to work in order to support his family. During the ‘work’ phase, he would of course make time to continue and further his Torah studies, part time.[16]

This may come as surprise to many who today grow up in some factions of contemporary Torah society that have created a ‘new’ model of full time Torah Study and no work. The full time Kollel system for the masses has no real basis in the historical Torah world.

The Peninei Halacha continues by suggesting that the Talmudic model should still be followed today. Namely, that up to the age of about twenty, the student should be involved in developing the fundamentals or ‘yesodei haTorah’, after which he must participate in the ‘yishuvo shel olam’ by working, or studying for a profession and making some contribution to society whilst at the same time returning to, and maintaining an ongoing regimen of Torah study.

CONCLUSION:

The debate around the value and permissibility of secular education is today, essentially between Chareidim and those to their left. However, the deliberation takes on very different dimensions when one looks at the statistics.

Contrary to popular perception, the Chareidim in Israel and America now number about two thirds of the general religious Orthodox community. And they are growing much faster than any other segment of the population. Also, the non-Chassidic Chareidim have now outnumbered the Chassidim.

While it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the issue of Chareidism apropos Centrist Judaism, these numbers are hugely significant. Since Chareidim are generally opposed to secular education and since they generally believe in full time Torah study without the option of a profession (or even work) - the voices in favour of a more balanced approach to the issue, are simply being drowned out.

When sheer force of numbers, solely, determines the outcome of a debate, there no longer is a debate.

 

All indications are that the majority of the next generation of religious Jews will predominately be unschooled in secular matters. 

---

[1] Ramo 246,4. This is based on a Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin.

[2] See Tanya, Likutei Amarim, 8.

[3] See Kovetz Shiurim by Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, 2,47.

[4] 1899-2001.

[5] See Michtavim Umaamarim vol. 1

[6] This speech is published under Vaad LeHaromas Keren haTorah, New York, 1978.

[7] See New Rulings From Rav Moshe Feinstein, by Rabbi Yair Hoffman.

[8] See Peninei Halacha Likutim 1, p. 29.

[9] From the introduction to Sefer Uklidos.

[10] See Kol Hator 5,2.

[11] 1808 – 1888.

[12] See Kotzk Blog 41) A Short History of Chareidim.

[13] The phrase ‘Torah Umaddah’, however, is said to have originated with Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz (1690 – 1764), although it may have had a different connotation then.

[14] See A Reader’s Companion to Ish Ha-Halacha, Introduction.

[15] Norman Lamm, Torah Umaddah, p. 236.

[16] See Peninei Halacha, Likutim 1, p. 4.

058) Please Don't Hide My Judaism From Me

One of the reasons why I love the study of Halacha so much is because it takes me to places I would not ordinarily have dreamed of going to. A case in point is women and tzitzit. Everyone knows that women do not wear a talit or tzitzit, yet the sources do have some counterintuitive - and what many may consider to be rather controversial - things to day about that.

PART A  -  WOMEN TYING THE KNOTS OF THE TZITZIT?

THE VIEW OF TOSEFOT:

The Talmud[1] starts by asking; “How do we know that non-Jews do not have an obligation to make tzitzit?  It answers by quoting the verse; “Speak to Bnei Yisrael (i.e. the Jews) and let them make tzitzit.” From this we learn that only Jews have the obligation to make tzitzit, and not non-Jews.

The commentator Tosefot is quick to point out that by implication, since Jewish women are also part of Bnei Yisrael, they too may be included the commandment of tziztit,[2] and therefore may be permitted to make their own[3].

THE VIEW OF RABBENU TAM:

In another section of the Talmud[4], although not specifically speaking about tzitzit, there is a discussion as to who may write the parchment scrolls of a Sefer Torah, tefillin and mezuzah. The gemora concludes that only individuals who have an obligation to wear tefillin (i.e. men), may be permitted to write the scrolls that go into them. This is deduced from the close occurrence of the terms ‘ukeshartem’(bind them) , and ‘uketavtam’(write them), implying that only those who ‘bind’ may ‘write’. By extension the same would apply to Torah and mezuzah scrolls, which may similarly only be written by men.[5]

Rabbenu Tam uses this gemora as his proof source, and even though it does not refer specifically to tzitzit, he extrapolates that women may not tie them, because in his view they have no obligation to wear tzitzit. For the same reason, women would be excluded from tying a lulav, as they similarly have no obligation to fulfil that mitzvah.

Thus Rabbenu Tam derives the principal that only those who are obligated in the actual mitzvah itself, can do the preparation for the same mitzvah[6].

Tosefot, however, rejects Rabbenu Tam on the simple grounds that his proof text only talks about Torah, tefillin ,and mezuzah, but NOT tzitzit. Hence, in his view, there is no justification for his extrapolation, and women may indeed tie and wear tzitzit. 

THE VIEW OF THE HAGAOT MAIMANIOT:

The Rambam is surprisingly silent on the issue of women tying tzitzit. It is only in the Hagaot Maimaniot, that women are expressly precluded from making tzitzit, based on his view that women are not included in the technical term Bnei Yisrael, (i.e. the sons of Israel). He does exhibit some magnanimity however, in that he refers to some contrary views, which do permit women to participate in the mitzvah:

The Ri and Rabbenu Yehudah said that women may wear tzitzit (as only non-Jews were excluded from the mitzvah.

Also, apparently, Rabbenu Yehudah taught his wife how to tie tzitzit.

And in the Troyes there was a case where a woman professionally tied tzizit (but Rabbenu Tam, as per his abovementioned view, declared them to be invalid).

THE VIEW OF THE SHULCHAN ARUCH:

The Shulchan Aruch is very clear on this issue; “A woman may tie the knots on the tzitzit.”[7] (It holds that the contentious term ‘Bnei Yisrael’ excludes only non-Jews but not women from this mitzvah.)

THE VIEW OF THE RAMO:

Commenting on the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo is quick to add a precaution, ‘ve yesh machmirin’, that ‘some are strict’ and do not afford women this opportunity. It’s interesting to see that he does not ban women from tzitzit completely, he just strongly advises against them participating in the mitzvah.  He further suggests that this should be the practice ‘lechatchilah’, in the first instance, but would agree that post facto the tzitzit made by a woman would be permitted.

THE VIEW OF THE MISHNA BERURAH:

Reiterating the Ramo, the Mishna Berurah says that in the first instance we should discourage women from making tzitzit, but that post facto the tzitzit would be acceptable.

PART B – WOMEN WEARING A TALLIT OR TZIZIT?

THE TALMUDIC VIEWS:

According to the gemora; “All are obligated in the mitzvah of tzizit, including ...women”.[8] Rabbi Shimon challenges this liberal view, and precludes women from wearing tzitzit because of the general principle that restricts women from any positive time-bound commandments.

Amazingly though, a view does exist in a primary Talmudic text, not just permitting but obligating women to wear tzizit.

Another gemora says; “Michal, the daughter of Saul, wore tefillin, and even though women may technically be excluded from positive time-bound mitzvot, they may nevertheless say a blessing over their (voluntary) performance of such commandments.”[9]

This text is significant because it introduces to us the concept of women choosing to perform certain mitzvot which usually are the exclusive domain of men.

THE VIEW OF THE RAMBAM:

The Rambam writes that; “Women are exempt (note, not prohibited) from tzitzit. And if they do wear tzitzit, they wrap themselves in it without reciting a bracha.”[10]

Amazingly, no less an authority than the Rambam, says that while in his view there is no legal obligation for women to wear tzitzit, should they choose to do so they may, except that no blessing is recited.

THE VIEW OF TOSEFOT:

Tosefot says; “Women may say a bracha over positive time-bound mitzvot, such as tzitzit.”[11] This view comes as no surprise as we saw earlier on that he maintains that women can tie the knots on the tzitzit as well.

THE VIEW OF THE CHAYEI ADAM:

The Chayei Adam writes; “If women want to wear tzitzit and recite a blessing over it, they may (as they do for lulav and sukkah, which are also positive time-bound mitzvot).

THE VIEW OF RABBI MOSHE FEINSTEIN:

Rabbi Feinstein writes that; “According to the ruling of Tosefot, women may say a bracha for tzitzit as they do for lulav and shofar.”[12]

Significantly, notwithstanding all the legal to and fro, it is both refreshing and surprising to see that in keeping with halachik integrity, a modern day authority rules that women may wear tzitzit and even recite a blessing there over.

HISTORIC PRACTICES:

During Medieval times, the Jewish women of Spain, Egypt and Southern France had a custom to wear talleisim, and apparently the only issue was as to whether or not they should recite a blessing over it.

In more recent times, Rebbetzin Chava, the first wife of the Satmar Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum, apparently wore tzitzit. This is recorded by the Chevra Kadisha who buried her, and the story appeared in the Satmar Yiddish newspaper, Der Blatt, under the headline: ‘Tzitzis ...bei Noshim’ (Women and ...Tzitzit).

CONCLUSION:

While I hold no brief for women around the world to adorn themselves with prayer shawls, and while I do not believe the issue should be used as a public demonstration to further ideological agendas - I firmly do believe that halachik Judaism has an amazing spectrum of multi-facetedness.

Personally, I find the concept of women wearing a talit rather foreign and I certainly would not feel comfortable were this practice to become widespread. But I am amazed to see the openness of thought in our traditional and contemporary sources and I’m glad they are there.

As an unabashed religious centrist, at a time when influences from the extreme right are painting a singular carefully choreographed picture only, and when the extreme left appear to have crossed the line entirely, I passionately believe that now more than ever before, we need creative rabbinical leadership to honestly hone and practice their craft.

The extreme right wing has been described as being the ‘largest and fastest growing segment of observant Jewry in Israel’[13]. With time, numbers and the cunning use of censorship[14], they will have succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of many, into believing that their approach is, not just the only way, but the way Judaism always has been. They may win the numbers game, but in so doing will have excluded so many others who, historically, have always had a place in, and even were architects of, the halachik process. 

The extreme left wing is fighting what they too consider to be a noble battle, but you cannot fight the right by stepping out of the ring. By so doing they have inadvertently created an ideological vacuum within the halachik world.

For these reasons, I hope we are able to preserve what always has been an inclusive and honest halachik response, making full use of generations of wisdom, precedent and empathy.  

This post is just one example highlighting how textual integrity exposes us to the historical debate and reminds us of the unimaginable room for varying views amongst our halachik practitioners. 

Long may this continue...and please don’t hide my Judaism from me.

---

[1] Menachot 42a.

[2] Tosfot says; “Mashma, ha isha kesheira.”

[3] While, other commentators, however, understand the expression ‘Bnei Yisrael’ (lit. Sons of Israel) to refer only to the men folk, the view of Tosefot is nevertheless significant.

[4] Gittin 45b.

[5] See Kotzk Blog 51, Women Tefillin and Cars.

[6] “Aino belevisha, aino beasiya.”

[7] Orach Chaim 14,1; “Isha kesheira la’asotan”.

[8] Menachot 43a.

[9] Eruvin 76a.

[10] Hilchot Tzitzit 3,9.

[11] Tosefot to Rosh HaShana 33a.

[12] Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4,49.

[13] See Rabbi Harry Maryless in “The Conversion Mess”, Emes V-Emunah.

[14] See Kotzk Blog 49 and 53.

057) So You Don't Care What Non-Jews Think?

WEARING A TALIS IN THE STREET

Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz[1] is quite outspoken regarding what he calls the ‘new custom’ of donning a talis while walking to and from shul on shabbos.

He begins by drawing our attention to the Shulchan Aruch which says that (during a weekday) one should only put on the talis when arriving at shul. The Ramo seems to disagree, by saying that since the current practice is to put on the talis before the tefillin, one may therefore walk to shul while wearing a talis. The Magen Avraham, however, points out that the Ramo is actually not arguing with the Shulchan Aruch, because “in a place where gentiles frequent the streets all (including the Ramo) agree, that the talis should only be put on when reaching the courtyard of the shul[2].”

He reminds us that both the Ramo and the Magen Avraham were living in Poland which generally has a cold climate, and suggests that in hotter counties the practice of wearing a talis in the street would certainly cause us to look ‘foolish’. And as the Seforno says “one should not engage in activity that might cause the gentiles to regard us as fools, for this too is a chillul HaShem.[3]”

A WILD PURIM

He quotes the Chidah[4], who upon witnessing a rather wild Purim celebration in Amsterdam, rebuked his fellow Jews for behaving “as if the city belonged to them” and for “taking too many liberties as if they were the rulers of the land”[5].

Rabbi Schwarz goes on to say that “We in the city of Brooklyn show a similar disregard, by parading through the streets wrapped in woollen talis, or by dancing in the streets all night...or by any other behaviour of this nature.”[6] There have even been instances where non-Jews have been forced to sell their houses and to move out of certain neighbourhoods because of the behaviour of some Jews.

After firsthand experience of the Holocaust and the brutality Eastern European anti-Semitism, he passionately pleads for us Jews to obey the laws of the counties in which we peacefully reside, even calling for us to show solidarity with the general community by displaying the national flag on patriotic holidays. He urges us to be upstanding citizens maintaining civil respect, and never behaving conceitedly, nor with disdain to our neighbours.

CRITICISMS 

I have come across a number of rather harsh criticisms of Rabbi Schwarz for his views about the public wearing of a talis and other such issues.

Some suggest that Jewish shabbos dress is equally incongruous in a modern city anyway, so what difference does a woollen talis make? Without nailing my colours to the pole, the first response to this criticism would have to be that the issue has nothing to do with him. He merely agreed with the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Magen Avraham, Seforno and Chida. Furthermore, as one of my Rosh Yeshivas[7] once explained, we have no imperative to make a public display out of something not absolutely mandated by our law.

Others suggest that he is being cowardly by trying to keep Jews hidden from society. And anyway, Jews need to be proud. The response to this would have to be that he clearly never suggested that we cower away.  There is a profound difference between being proud, and being loud and proud. Every culture on earth should be afforded the opportunity to be proud. But loud and proud smacks of arrogance and superiority, traits not usually appreciated by others belonging to a different group. One needs to remember that a society is a composite of numerous peoples. Each has an equal right for self expression. But when one’s rights impinge on another’s, a line has been crossed.

MINYAN ON A PLANE

In a similar vein, Rabbi Hershel Schachter[8] has this to say about people who daven on an airplane in such a way as to disturb those around them:

“...regarding davening with a minyan...it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other(s) ...to hear him over the airplane noise, and wake up all the passengers around him...When Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their daverning, the non-observant passengers still remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment.”[9]

Chareidim protesting against sitting next to women on a plane.

Davening Shacharit with permission in the galley

According to halacha, a traveller is even permitted to recite the amidah while being seated. And according to many leading rabbis[10] we certainly should not be disturbing other passengers on a flight.

DISCUSSION

I don’t believe this issue is necessarily only about a talis and praying on a plane. It’s symptomatic of a far greater existential question. We Jews have a mitzvah of kiddush HaShem, plus an injunction not to allow others to views us as being abnormal. We are supposed to be able to keep our traditions while simultaneously function within normative society.  And certainly we should never be derisive towards non-Jews.

In one of the most powerful and daring pieces of writing I have ever come across by a Halachist, Rabbi Schwarz urges us not to minimise the moral gentile. He bravely writes:

“Consider the following:  A large city like New York, whose population includes members of almost every nationality on earth – people of different faiths, different views, and even different appearances – has nevertheless managed through its own wisdom to institute order and unity among all its inhabitants, with equal rights for each individual, a single school system for all its children, and a single court system that is accepted by all. Yet we...are incapable of setting up one Beis Din (religious court) for the entire community, and one cheder for all the children, and are as divided as if we were a nation of seventy nationalities.”

He writes about the progress and development the non-Jewish world has seen, as it moved from slavery to modern day civil rights, and says: “The gentiles of today certainly have no reason to be ashamed when their conduct is compared to that of their parents and grandparents. ..The (gentiles) have destroyed the ghettos, while we are erecting new ghettos. Each group and faction builds a ghetto for itself that completely isolates its members from other observant Jews who inhabit a different ghetto.[11]”

Rabbi Schwarz poignantly points out that gentiles don’t care if we buy a beautiful etrog, or if we have high quality tefillin, but they do notice when we are not truthful in our business dealings and when we behave contrary to societal norms which they seem quite able to generally abide by. Never mind gentiles, but even immoral people are still able to walk in a street normally and sit respectfully in a plane. He says “Therefore it is important that we take notice of any desirable qualities or conduct amongst the gentiles, and take them to heart.”

And if someone says that they don’t care what gentiles think, they have to be reminded that the mitzvah of kidush HaShem is specifically dependent upon both, what non-religious Jews, and upon what gentiles think. This mitzvah has to do with their perception, not ours! All we do is create their impression.

CONCLUSION

The truth is that there is a way to wear a talis in the street, there is a way to daven on a plane, and there is a way to dance all night on Purim. But it has to be respectful of those others who don’t care to join us. If it involves dancing in the street, it has to be legal and endorsed by the authorities. If it involves a minyan on a plane, it has to be with permission from the cabin crew, and in an area that does not disturb other passengers.

So many of us manage to wear talleisim and daven every single day of our lives, no matter where we are, without ever having to inconvenience any other human being.

Why is it, then, that so many others never seem to give a moment’s thought as to how others perceive them? 

---

[1] See previous post, Kotzk Blog 55.

[2] Orach Chaim 554,17.

[3] Seforno to Devarim 4,6.

[4] Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai (1724-1806).

[5] See Ma’agal Tov.

[6] Eyes To See, published by Urim, p 288.

[7] Rabbi Azriel Goldfein ztl.

[8] Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshiva University.

[9] See theyeshivaworld.com – davening on a plane.

[10] Rabbi Shlomo Wahrman, She’erit Yosef vol7, siman 3.

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Halichot Shlomo, p75.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim vol 4, siman 20.

Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef and Rabbi Shmuel Wosner.

[11] Eyes To See, by Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz, published by Urim 2004, p249-261.

056) The Nonexistent Memorial...

I draw once more from the writings of Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz[1] whose compelling arguments are difficult to ignore. He believes that the post-war generation of Jews (particularly the religious communities) have never done enough to acknowledge the Holocaust. Sadly, the less religious communities are more respectful at commemorating the Shoa than their religious counterparts, who in many instances seem to ignore it completely.

He contrasts this ‘callous and cruel silence’, with historical (halachik) reactions to earlier tragedies, and wonders why an event which suffered far more deaths than any previous catastrophe, has been so discounted.

After the Chmielnitsky massacres of 1648-49, known as Gezeiros Tach veTat, the great commentator on the Shulchan Aruch , the Shach, composed Selichos to be recited on the twentieth of Sivan, a day chosen as an annual fast day commemorating that event. The Shach writes that the number of Jews killed was around 100 000, and referred to it as the ‘Third Destruction’, following that of the First and Second Temples. 

The Taz[2] also endorses this fast and mentions that it was observed by all the Jewish population of Poland, because most families were affected by the massacres. 

One hundred and thirty years later, the Pri Megadim[3] writes that the fast was still being observed, and taken even more seriously than all the other fast days of the year.

Yet the Holocaust, which saw sixty times more that number, has been largely ignored by our religious leaders.

As is commonly understood, the halachic justification for this inaction is simply that there is no person in our times great enough to ‘innovate’ a new practice. 

This is amazing. 

Take a look at the list of things, in the last few decades, that have been commented on, banned, or restricted in some way by our leadership. We have had people ‘great enough’ to tell us what to do with television, the internet, and smart phones. We have input on appliances and time switches on Shabbos. We know how to kosher a microwave. At least three ‘gedolim’[4] have told us that women are not permitted to drive cars. 

Yet no one is ‘great enough’ to apply their minds to the issue of halachically commemorating the most terrible death tragedy in our history!

There is in fact a source substantiating the belief that no one is ‘great enough’ to introduce a new ‘innovation’ such as a new fast day. It is the Mateh Levi, a commentator on Kinot for Tisha BeAv, who draws our attention to the persecutions perpetuated by the Crusaders in 1096. He explains that the reason why the Crusaders are remembered on the already established fast of Tisha BeAv, although their attacks technically took place over Shavuot, is because we lack the authority to ‘add an extra holiday’.  

Rabbi Schwarz’s response to this is quite simply “Can the comments of one who annotates prayer hymns ...supersede...the Shulchan Aruch, Magen Avraham,the Taz and the Shach, who enacted precisely such an extra day of mourning...for the persecutions of 1648?”[5]

The Radbaz[6], writing about someone who never shed a tear on the passing of a loved one, says that this “is indicative of hardheartedness, and an evil quality of the soul. It is a trait of cruelty...” Rabbi Schwarz asks “how much cruelty does one reveal” when we fail to remember millions of people who were brutalised?

Basing himself on the Rosh[7], he says that if any congregation agrees to undertake a fast, it becomes as binding as any other ta’anit tzibur (public fast). In other words, halachically, a fast does not require ‘great people’ to determine its veracity.  All it needs is acceptance by a community. And by community is meant any group of ten or more men, even if they are unlearned! 

Such a fast day is considered binding to the extent that they say Aneinu and read Veyechal, as they would on any of the other fast days.

If this is the case, why have more people not even suggested a discussion about the establishment of an annual day of fasting (or even something else, like halachically endorsing some form of symbolism) to reaffirm our humanity, in the aftermath of the ‘Fourth Destruction’, where the degree and magnitude of our suffering was unimaginably greater than we have ever experienced before?

---

[1] See Kotzk Blog 55 for a description of Rabbi Schwarz. See EYES TO SEE – Recovering Ethical Torah Principles Lost In The Holocaust,by Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz, published by Urim, 2004.

[2] 566, 103.

[3] Mishbetzot Zahav 566,3.

[4] See Update to Kotzk Blog 42.

[5] Rabbi Schwarz actually refers to the ‘no one is great enough today’ theory, as “nonsense’.

[6] Vol.3, 585.

[7] Ta’anit ch.1, siman 20.