Not blogging on Pesach

As many of you may have figured out, I am not blogging on Pesach. I am too busy spending time with my family and enjoying the Yom Tov. I will resume on Sunday May 1.

What kind of American English do you speak?

I thought this was kind of cute What Kind of American English Do You Speak? Here are my results.

Your Linguistic Profile:

60% General American English

35% Yankee

5% Dixie

0% Midwestern

0% Upper Midwestern

A great way to listen to Shiurim in your car

These days, there is a wealth of shiurim available for free, online, in mp3 format. For those of us who drive a lot (like me) it would be great to be able to download these shiruim and listen to them in the car. However, most car stereos these days come with a CD player/radio that does not play mp3's (and many won't even play burned CD R/W's).

After doing a bit of research I found a great solution. Because the IPod became so popular a whole slew of gadgets have sprung up around it. One of them is the Belkin Tunecast (note: you can get it cheaper online at other places like Amazon). This is an ingenious gadget that you plug in to the earphones jack of your mp3 player and it broadcasts whatever the mp3 player is playing using a low power FM transmitter to your car radio. You find an unused FM station and you set it to broadcast on that frequency, you tune your car radio to that frequency and walla, you hear the shiur coming out of your radio. I tried it this morning on my way to work and it worked great. You just need to find an unused FM frequency which in Israel was not difficult (In NYC it might be more difficult) . It will work with any mp3 player, cd player, laptop etc. as it just plugs into the earphones jack. It comes with a power cord that plugs into the lighter so you don't even need to worry about batteries, all for about $30.

A very relevant interpretation of the רשע in the Haggada

The Beis Halevi explains the רשע's question as follows. He says that the רשע is asking why do we need to do the mitzvos nowadays. Who wants to bring an animal sacrifice in 2005? The רשע understands why the Jews in Egypt brought it, but we have grown up, who needs all these anachronistic miztvos? The answer given is "בעבור זה עשה ה לי בצאתי ממצרים". The Beis Halevi asks this is strange answer? I would have expected something like, because hashem took us out of Egypt we do these mitzvos. He explains this as follows. We see from many sources that the Torah preceded the creation of the world. We think in terms of cause and effect. Because we left Egypt we have Pesach and all the mitzvos. However, this is incorrect. The mitzvos existed before the world was created. The events unfolded the way they did because they had to, so that the mitzvos in the torah would make sense. Based on this we understand the answer, "בעבור זה" because of this, the Torah, עשה ה לי, Hashem made the events of יציאת מצרים happen. This answers the רשע, that the mitzvos preceded the events and are not anachronistic at all. The Mitzvos are not based on the events, rather the events are based on the mitzvos, and therefore the mitzvos are timeless.

Shaving on חול המועד

I. Introduction
The Mishna in Moed katan says that a person is not allowed to take a haircut/shave on Chol hamoed. The reason given is so that a person should not come into Yom Tov looking bad. R' Tam holds that of you took a haircut on Erev Yom Tov you can take one on Chol Hamoed, this opinion is not accepted.

II. Nowadays, can someone who shaves everyday shave on חול המועד
There are 3 opinions:
1. It is permitted if needed
2. You are חייב to shave
3. It is prohibited to shave

R' Moshe (אגרות משה או"ח חלק א סימן קס"ג) holds that it is permitted if needed. He says that times have changed, many/most people shave everyday and therefore it is permitted to shave on חול המועד. Even if a person shaved on ערב יום טוב he needs to shave again on חול המועד and everyone knows this. Because there is no way out it is permitted (see the teshuva for all his reasoning).

RYBS takes R' Moshe's position to it's logical conclusion, since you are allowed to shave you are חייב to shave because of כבוד יום טוב of the last day.

Others (see for example shmiras shabbos k'hilchasa volume 2 chapter 53) hold that chazal made a gezera not to cut hair on חול המועד and therefore it applies in any and all cases and the fact that now people shave everyday is irrelevant, just like the prohibition of taking medicine applies on shabbos nowadays even though no one grinds their own medicine.

When I was in R' Willig's shiur as a freshman in YU, this question came up and he answered as follows. he said that the minhag is for yeshiva boys not to shave and he sees no reason to change that. What about כבוד יום טוב? He quoted a line from the Chasam Sofer "ניוולו זהו כבודו" meaning that coming into the last day of יום טוב unshaven is considered כבוד יום טוב because that is the practice. כבוד is a very subjective thing and depends on the time and place. If the minhag is not to shave then that is כבוד.

It comes out that if you hold like the Rav it really depends on where you live. If you live in a place where almost no one shaves (like I do in Israel), then even according to the Rav you could say that you shouldn't shave, it is not כבוד to stand out and be different then everyone else. If you live in a place where everyone shaves then the reverse applies, you wouldn't say ניוולו זהו כבודו and therefore you would be חייב to shave. If you live in a mixed community it would seem that both sevaras apply.

As always ask your Rav what to do.

Being יוצא על המחיה from someone else II

I should have been more careful with what I wrote about this yesterday. The שו"ע in סימן רי"ג brings down this din, that you should not be יוצא על המחיה from someone else. However, the Mishna Berura there comments that nowadays since people are מזלזל in these berachos we can be סומך on one person being מוציא everyone. The Mishna Berura then says that לכתחילה each person should say it word for word.

R' Shachter quotes the Rav in his sefer פניני הרב (page 58), that the Rav was in YU once for Shabbos and saw this being done (one person being מוציא everyone) and was not happy with this and protested.

I remembered the halacha from the Rav and therefore wrote what I wrote yesterday.

Being יוצא על המחיה from someone else

This is a prevalent minhag in camps and other places. After eating mezonos, one person gets up and says על המחיה and everyone else is יוצא by listening and answering אמן.

The problem is that this is against the din. We see in todays daf (Berachos 45) that שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה לחלק, two people who ate together should split up and each one bench for themselves. We see from the gemara and the rishonim that whenever there is no zimun then each person should bench for themselves and not be יוצא from someone else. Since there is no zimun by על המחיה it is the equivalent of שנים שאכלו כאחת even if it is 100 people and מצוה לחלק, that every person should say the beracha himself.

The best thing to do is have 1 person say על המחיה and have in mind to be מוציא all of those who don't know how to say על המחיה and anyone who has a safek (maybe he didn't eat a shiur), and everyone else should say על המחיה word for word with the person so that they make their own beracha.

Are you satisfied with your job?

According to the gemara (yesterdays daf Berachos 43b) you should be. The gemara states the following:

מלמד שכל אחד ואחד יפה לו הקב"ה אומנתו בפניו

Explains Rashi
ואפילו בורסקי נאה לו אמנותו בעיניו ועשה הקב"ה כן שלא יחסר מהעולם אומנות

The gemara states that hashem created every person with a job in mind, and as Rashi explains even a בורסקי who deals with smelly carcasses all day should get satisfaction from his job because hashem made him that way so that there would be people to do every kind of job.

You see from the gemara that a person should work at a job that he likes and gets satisfaction from. This doesn't mean that a person should be defined by their job, but it does mean that a person should not hate/dislike their job. You see from the gemara that it is not 1 size fits all but that every person is different and therefore every person needs to find the right job for himself.

Mezonos Pizza?

Lately I have seen in a number of pizza stores a sign stating that the bracha on the pizza is mezonos. I would like to explain the issues involved.

I. Background
The gemara in Berachas (32a), which we just learned in Daf Hayomi states that you make a mezonos on פת הבאה בכסנין, however if you are קובע סעודה you make המוציא. What is פת הבאה בכסנין? There is a 3 way dispute in the rishonim. It is either, dough filled with honey or fruit, dough made with honey or fruit juice, or a very thin dough. All 3 opinions are brought down in שו"ע. There is a big dispute in the acharonim whether these opinions disagree lehalacha. Some say that they are just explaining the gemara but in principle they al agree that the gemara is telling you a principle that any bread that is not used as the principle food but rather is used as a desert or something like that is not bread and you make mezonos. Others argue that is these things specifically and only these things and therefore any thing that doesn't meet the specific criteria above is considered bread.

II. Pizza
Pizza today is eaten as the main food of a meal and you are certainly קובע סעודה on it. Therefore, even if the dough technically meets the requirements of פת הבאה בכסנין it doesn't matter you still need to say hamotzi and bench. I don't see how you can say that someone who eats a meal of 2 or 3 slices of pizza doesn't have to bench and therefore these signs would seem to be misleading.

III. Other issues
How do you measure if you are קובע סעודה? Some poskim hold that the shiur of שביעה to be mechayev in benching min hatorah is not just the bread but the whole meal counts as well. Based on this some want to say that if you eat a whole meal and then at the end you have a piece of cake you need to bench because it is all counted and it is like you were קובע סעודה on the cake. In fact R' Moshe seems to hold this way (Orach Chayim chelek 3 siman 32). This is a tremendous chumra nowadays because many times we don't wash and then eat cake at the end of the meal. The Chazon Ish (Sima 34 sif katan 5) argues.

In short, eating cake is very problematic, it is not clear what beracha you need to make.

The delegitimization of opposing views

R' J.J. Shachter has an article about history which illustrates how the Charedi world delegitimizes any viewpoint that it doesn't currently agree with. The quotes below are taken from R' J.J. Schachter's article Facing the Truths of History

"In its 24 Teves 5754 issue, the English edition of the Yated Ne’eman
published a brief biography of Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler by one
of his most devoted disciples
...
During his childhood years, Rabbi Dessler
was taught at home and, wrote the author of this article, “true to the
principles of his rebbe, R’ Simcha Zissel, the boy’s father included
general studies in the curriculum. Among these were some classics of
world literature in Russian translation. One of them (so Rabbi Dessler
told me) was Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The reason for this choice is not far
to seek.”
...
Three weeks later, in its 16 Shvat 5754 issue, the Yated pub-
lished a letter to the editor which was extremely critical of that newspaper’s
decision to publish this information. Expressing his “amazement
and outrage,” the correspondent noted the enormous responsibility
which rests upon the editorial staff of the Yated to “maintain
a constant vigilance over every sentence and phrase that it publishes,
in order to ensure that emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim
shall be strengthened by that phrase.” Since, he continued, “you will
surely admit that the references to ‘some classics of world literature in
Russian translation,’ etc. ‘including Uncle Tom’s Cabin,’ will not
strengthen emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim in any one of your
readers,” a grievous error was committed by their having been published."
Then, in conclusion, the author of the letter wrote: “One of the
great features which distinguish the world of Bnei Torah from the
other sections of Orthodox Jewry, is the readiness on our part to be
‘modeh al ha’emess,’ to admit to the truth when we have made an
error, because ‘emess’—the truth, the seal of the Almighty—is our
greatest pride and possession. It should, therefore, be admitted, without
hesitation, that the publication of the aforementioned chapter was
an error, and special care should be taken to insure that such errors
shall not be repeated in the future.”2 In this final argument, the author
of this letter invoked truth as requiring the editors of the Yated to
honestly acknowledge that they had made a mistake."

R' J.J. Schacter then makes the following comment which I believe is right on and is at the heart of the Slifkin controversy as well. Suddenly we are now deciding that the Gedolim of yesteryear's opinions cannot be accepted. Their opinions have suddenly become delegitimized.

"What is problematic here, however, is that it was not R. Reuven
Dov himself, and certainly not “little Elia Laizer,” who decided that
the young boy should study “classics of world literature in Russian
translation.” Rather, by exposing his son to “general studies,” writes
the author of the article, R. Reuven Dov was simply being “true to
the principles of his rebbe, R. Simcha Zissel.” R. Simh. ah Zissel is the
one who wanted him to engage in these studies. Surely this great
gadol and talmid of R. Yisrael Salanter would never have done anything
other than to strengthen “emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim”
in young yeshiva boys, and yet he obviously felt that such studies
were appropriate. On what authority, then, does the author of this
letter disagree with R. Simh. ah Zissel and maintain that such studies
indeed “will not strengthen emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim?” It
would have been more appropriate for the author of the letter to
have acknowledged that while R. Simh. ah Zissel had one opinion,
times have changed and, therefore, “you will surely admit that the
references to ‘some classics of world literature . . .’ will no longer
strengthen emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim. . . .”

This is what happened in the Slifkin affair as well. R' Slifkin did not make any thing up, he has many sources for the approach he takes. Suddenly, his sources are no longer legitimate because they contradict the in vogue thinking.

Haaretz printed an idiotic article about Har Habayit and Halacha

Religious law has been breached on the Mount

This is the author's conclusion
"The breach of the rabbinical decision that forbids entry to the Temple Mount demonstrates that the strict religious law - regarding which we have always been told that not even a single comma in it can be changed - can in fact be updated in accordance with the changing political circumstances."

This is absolutely ridiculous. The writer completely misunderstands what is going on and the halachic process. Application of halacha is based on facts, when the facts change the application of the halacha changes. As RHS said, until now we applied Sif alef, now that the facts changed we need to apply Sif Beis. This is exactly what happened here.

The original prohibition was as the writer states because the Rabbis were not sure what was permissible and what was not and therefore the Rabbis said you can't go up. Since then (in the 38 years since) much research has been done to map out the Temple Mount. Based on this the Rabbis have delineated areas that are clearly permitted.

This is not the halacha changing but the facts and the corresponding application of the halacha changing. When the facts were not known the Rabbis prohibited, now that the facts have been clarified the application of the halacha changes accordingly and therefore you are permitted to go up.

The reasons for the research may be political/idealogical. In other words, in 1967 R' Zvi Yehuda probably thought that Moshiach was around the corner and therefore there was no need to deal with this. Now that everyone has realized that the process is a slow one (it doesn't look like we are any closer to Moshiach then we were in 1966), the need/want to allow people to go up has become much greater and therefore the Rabbanim researched the subject and looked into it. This is perfectly fine, and is not changing the halacha.

I implore everyone to respond to this article in Haaretz by posting comments and writing letters.

Thanks! Over 1000 hits in about a month

I started this blog a little over a month ago and I didn't really know what to expect. I am very gratified that in a little over a month it has already passed the 1000 hit mark. Thanks to everyone who is reading, I hope you continue to enjoy my posts.

A fascinating psak in Berachos 38

The gemara in Berachos 38 states that berachos have to be said in the past tense. the gemara then asks what should the language of the beracha on bread be. The gemara says that everyone agrees that מוציא is past tense, the gemara has a dispute about המוציא, one opinion says it is also past tense and 1 opinion says it is not. The gemara (and this is our practice) paskens המוציא, why? So that the beracha should tell us exactly this point, that המוציא is past tense.

We see an amazing thing here. Even though by saying מוציא we would be יוצא any ספק, the gemara thought that it was more important to say המוציא and teach us something. We learn a very important thing here. Sometimes, it is more important to do something that is under dispute but you hold is permitted then to be מחמיר and be be יוצא any ספק, instead you need to do what you think is permitted to specifically show people that this is the halacha. This is why for example, some Rabanim specifically drink regular milk in the US and not "chalav yisrael" to show that they hold like R' Moshe that regular milk is perfectly ok.

The lesson from here is that we shouldn't always run to be מחמיר and be be יוצא any ספק, sometimes it is more important to show what the halacha really is. The big question is when do we say this and when do we say that you should be מחמיר, for the answer to that you need to ask your Rav.

Non literal interpretation of aggadata

The gemara in Bava Basra 73-74 has some bizarre stories about Rabba bar Bar Chanah. The Gra understood these as parables teaching us important lessons about the yetzer hara. R' Aharon Feldman has a whole book on this The Juggler and the King. Here is 1 story:
Said Rabba barBar Channah: Once I saw a frog that was as big as the city of Hegronia. And how big is the city of Hegronia? Sixty houses. A serperent came and swallowed the frog and then a raven came and swallowed the serpent. It flew up and sat on a tree. Consider how strong that tree was! Said Rav pappa Bar Shmuel: "Had I not been there myself I would never have believed it (Bava Basra 73b).

To understand these stories literally is quite difficult and in fact many (Rashba, Ritva, Maharshal, Maharsha, Gra) understand that these are not to be taken literally. I wonder what the Slifkin banners think about this?

Eating Gebruchts on Pesach

Todays daf (Berachos 38b) states explicitly that you can eat gebruchts on Pesach. The gemara says "יוצאים ברקיק השרוי" says Rashi "במים ידי אכילת מצה של מצוה". You see clearly that there is no problem eating matza that was soaked in water.

The police have closed הר הבית to Jews on Sunday

The group Revava was planning on having 10000 Jews go up to the הר הבית on this Sunday R' Chodesh Nisan, see here. The police have decided to close הר הבית to Jews on that day because they are afraid that the Arabs will riot and that this is a provocative act. This is democracy? This is freedom of religion? Take away the Jews rights because the Arabs may riot? Where are all the left wing human rights organizations? The government is taking away peoples freedom of religion.

Israel today is a dictatorship of the left. Anything goes to further their aims (destruction of the Jewish character of the state and establishment of a Palestinian state). The same people who said that they would blow up bridges if the government tried to transfer Arabs are in the forefront of the disengagement which is transferring Jews from their land. Sharon could be the biggest criminal (e.g. the various bribery and fund raising shenanigans), he can act in anti-democratic ways, he can ignore the referendum in his party, etc. it doesn't matter because he is fulfilling the dream of the left, kicking Jews out of their homes in Gaza.

Clarification/Explanation of R' Shachters view on the Godol Hador

I would like to clarify/explain R' Shachter's remarks about the godol hador because I think people have misunderstood what he meant.

RHS was defining Godol Hador in a pure halachic sense. This is part of the gadlus of RHS (following in the footsteps of the Rav), the ability to take things that are seemingly not halachic and to show that it really is a halachic concept and to explain the system of how it works. For more on this see the first piece in Nefesh Harav. RHS said that based on Tosafos Berachos 31b we see that there is such a halachic concept of godol hador. RHS understood that it is based on the well known halacha of rebbe muvhak and that is how it works. Today the term has been borrowed and is not used in it's pure halachic sense.

There hasn't been a halachic godol hador for well over a thousand years, probably not since the time of R' Akiva. The Rambam was certainly one of the greatest poskim ever and yet even in his lifetime many (if not most) of world jewry did not follow many of his psakim. It has been like this throughout the galus. Every community/country has had it's Gedolim/Poskim who they followed. There hasn't been 1 posek who everyone followed. How many people paskened like the Gra when he was alive? A very very small minority. R' Chaim Ozer represented the Lithuanian/Poland yeshiva world. He didn't represent the Hasidim, they followed their Rebbeim, he didn't represent the Hungarians they had their poskim. As RHS said this is the way it has always been.

Based on the above, it is clear that R' Elyashiv is not the godol hador in the halachic sense, he is the posek for the Lithuanian/Ashkenazi community in Israel and is a tremendous Gadol B'Torah. That however, does not make him "the Godol Hador" in a halachic sense.

I think it is safe to say that there won't be a godol hador in the halachic sense until Moshiach comes, there are too many different approaches to halacha now. You have the chassidish approach, the sefardim, and even among the misnagdim you have those that follow the Mishna Berura's approach (see Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik's article Rupture and reconstruction) and those who follow the Gra/Brisker approach. One posek cannot encompass all of this.

What comes out of all this is that a person needs to have a Rav/Rebbe who is qualified to have an opinion and follow that persons psakim. The fact that there are other poskim who disagree shouldn't bother you. Every posek needs to take things into account, if R' Elyashiv disagrees with their opinion they need to think maybe they are wrong, but if they think things through and believe that they are right then they are obligated to state their opinion and follow it.

Who is the Posek Hador?

Is R' Elyashiv the posek hador? RHS said he thinks not. The reason is very simple. Even in the Haredi world in Israel R' Elyashiv is not accepted by all. The Hassidim listen to their rebbes, the sefardim to R' Ovadya etc. For example MK Litzman accepted a position in the government even after R' Elyashiv had said not to because the Gerrer Rebbe told him to accept it. Sefardim hold from R' Ovadya Yosef and listen to him even when R' Elyashiv (or R' Shach) disagree. In Bnei Brak, R' Nissim Karelitz is 1 of the main poskim. There recently was a dispute about who should be a Rosh Yeshiva in Ponevezh, R' Elyashiv said 1 thing and R' Nissim Karelitz and others disagreed. We see from all this that there is no 1 person whose authority is accepted by all of the religious world.

Therefore just because R' Elyashiv says something doesn't mean the YU/MO world has to listen, he is not their Rebbe/Rav. YU has poskim who can pasken any question and they are the ones who need to be asked by people in that community.

This is not to take away from the kavod or gadlus of R' Elyashiv, it is just that there is no 1 godol hador/posek hador today.

R' Hershel Shachter on halacha changing and Daas Torah II

The main focus of the shiur on halacha changing was that if the facts change the halacha changes in response. As RHS put it, sif alef used to apply, now that the facts changed sif bet applies. He brought numerous examples (the din of b'chor, yoledes l'shiva, washing the baby with warm water after the mila, etc.) The facts may change for a number of reasons, either nature changed, or science has provided us with new/different facts. When he talked about blood tests he explained the gemara that the blood comes from the mother as an aggadic statement (which we don't really understand) having no halachic significance. He seemed to take the approach of reinterpreting the problematic gemaras. The gemara with the fish with worms growing inside is reinterpreted to mean that the fish swallowed microscopic eggs. Chazal did not know this, they thought that the worms grew inside the fish, the fact that we now know that the fish are swallowing microscopic eggs doesn't change the din.

R' Hershel Shachter on halacha changing and Daas Torah

R' Shachter has a very interesting shiur on how halacha changes here. He clearly states that we need to believe in science. He also has a shiur on Daas Torah here. He starts off the shiur by saying that Hashem wants diversity of ideas, this is why there were 12 shevatim, they were supposed to provide 12 different approaches to Torah. This is the polar opposite of today's UO society where there is only 1 opinion allowed.

If you don't have time to listen to the whole shiur on Daas Torah listen to the last 3 minutes where he talks about the situation today. Basically he says that he doesn't think that R' Elyashiv and others related to the Agudah are considered to be the Gedolei Hador representing the whole nation. They are certainly big talmidei chachamim and gedolei torah but they are not "the Gedolei Hador" representing the nation and therefore there is no chiyuv on any individual to listen to them unless they are that person's rebbe. You need to listen to your Rebbe/Rav.