tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-202393602024-03-13T22:53:47.534-04:00Eclectic Jewish ThoughtsAfter years of reading and commenting, I want to share some of my thoughts about Jewish life and law.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-78830948075078342572021-10-23T20:48:00.000-04:002021-10-23T20:48:04.102-04:00A Lot about Lot<p>Lot is a curious figure in the book of Genesis. He is heavily associated with Avram/Avraham, who founded the Jewish people and is considered a master of chesed and of hospitality. His nephew Lot was associated with him for many years and was heavily influenced by him. And in much of Lot’s behavior we see a shadow of Avraham’s standards – superficially trying to emulate him but getting the details so horribly wrong. Lot is a cautionary tale that imitating the behavior of a righteous person without understanding their underlying motivations is a path likely to lead one astray. </p><p>Let’s start with the beginning of this week’s parsha. Avraham Avinu is sitting in the door of his tent, which is the threshold between his private space and the public space which he strives to influence. He sees three people passing by. They are actually angels, but either he only perceives them as men or chooses to act as if that was the case. He runs to meet them and bows down to the earth. He invites them in and offers them a small meal, which they accept immediately. Then he goes and actually orders a lavish feast for them.
Hashem decides to inform Avraham of the impending destruction of Sedom. Famously, Avraham tries to save the entire city (actually all 5 cities of the plain) for the sake of the righteous who might dwell there. He does not make any special plea for Lot. Hashem and the messengers leave Avraham without Avraham knowing whether he has succeeded or not. </p><p>Lot is sitting in the gate of the city of Sedom, the threshold between the insular unwelcoming city of Sedom and the outside world it exploits. He sees two angels appear. Notice that the messengers appear to Avraham as men, but to Lot as angels. Do the angels think Lot needs more of a reason to extend hospitality than Avraham would? Rashi claims Avraham was so used to angels appearing to him that to him they were like men, whereas to Lot in Sedom any guest is a rariety, and presumed to be important, In any event, Lot rises up to meet them, and then falls down on his face to the Earth, just as Avraham did. Lot asks them to come to his house and stay for the night, offering even more hospitality than Avraham did. The angels initially refuse, and Lot continues to press the invitation until they accept. It is easy to draw the conclusion that Avraham was offering genuine hospitality to the men, while Lot was eager to bring powerful messengers/angels to his house and perhaps put them into his debt. This is supported midrashically by the fact that Avraham did give them a lavish feast, whereas the meal Lot offered was so meager that he had to ask his neighbors for salt. So it seems Lot understood the basic idea of inviting guests, but tended to do so solely for his advantage. <br /></p><p>
Lot gives another example of not understanding what Avraham’s principles are all about when he shows his hospitality to his powerful visitor by offering his own daughters to appease angry mob that would otherwise have abused his guests. Is this horrific offer a case of him putting his duties to his guests above his responsibility to his daughters? Is he concerned with his own survival, and offering his daughters because he misunderstood how Avraham behaved in Egypt with regard to Sarah? Once again an apparent attempt to mimic Avraham is shown to have Lot’s self interest as the primary motivator.
</p><p>
The angels then inform Lot about the forthcoming destruction of Sedom. Lot tries to bring his whole family along to flee the city, but is unable to get them to cooperate. He keeps stalling the angels until at the end they literally drag him, his wife, and his two daughters out of the city before it is destroyed. They tell him that all the cities of the plain will be destroyed and tell him to to flee to ‘the mountain.’ Instead, he bargains with them, asking that then nearby small city of Zoar be preserved and he be allowed to flee there. His request is granted. Lot and his daughters flee to Zoar, but after the other cities are destroyed they proceed on to the mountain, and it appears that Zoar itself is then destroyed. Unlike Avraham, who bargained to save the lives of the people of Sedom, Lot again is interested in the survival of himself and his family.
</p><p>
Lot’s journey after Sedom reflects the initial arc of the story of Abraham. Back at the end of Noach, Terach takes both Avram and Lot out of Ur, intending to go to Canaan. Some commentators think that is was also a divine command, But in the event, they stop at Haran, and is from there that many years later Avraham and Lot complete the journey. They do, they enter the land, and Avraham is told that his descendants will not fully inhabit it until the land vomits forth its current inhabitants due to their (mostly sexual) immorality.
</p><p>
Lot receives a divine command to flee Sedom and go to ‘the Mountain’. He initially only travels partway, as far as Zoar. But after a very short interval he leaves Zoar and completes the journey to ‘the Mountain.’ But instead of living a life of virtue among the inhabitants, he and his daughters are the only ones there, and they jointly participate in the kind of immorality that will eventually lead to the Caaninite’s destruction.
</p><p>
</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-79374426634196765612019-01-13T12:49:00.001-05:002019-01-13T12:58:10.370-05:00Bo knows tribalismAfter shul yesterday someone asked how we can reconcile two statements<br />
<br />
1 The midrashic claim(*) that the Jews were redeemed from Egypt because they kept their language, their clothing, and their names<br />
2 The assertion of the Zohar(?) Jews were at the 49th level of Tumah and had to be redeemed immediately because they if the reached the 50th level of tumah they could never be redeemed.<P><br />
I suggested the following. The language, clothes, and names meant that the Jews still had their common tribal identity. They recognized one another as being part of their group, and that others were outside the tribe. The 49th level of tumah indicated that the Jews had nevertheless assimilated bad middot from the surrounding culture, as shown in the example of the Jews who betrayed Moses to Pharaoh after the killed the Egyptian, as well as the character flaws caused by slavery and oppression that came out in the desert. <br />
<br />
Basically, the Jews remembered who they were, but not what they were supposed to be about. That is why they had to be redeemed from Egypt, isolated in the desert, and retrained in what being a Jew was supposed to be about.<br />
<br />
<br />
(*) There actually is no Midrash that says all of this in one place. See the excellent article by Rabbi Elli Fischer https://tinyurl.com/ybqzxnzy for details.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-75813856292875779462018-09-12T19:10:00.001-04:002018-09-12T19:10:50.008-04:00Tzom Gedaliah - the fast of excessTzom Gedaliah is observed on the third of Tishrei, immediately after Rosh Hashana. The RMLBY suggests that the fast is a tikun (a repair) for excess. After the Babylonians conquered the kingdom of Judah and destroyed the first Temple, they appointed Gedaliah, a Jew, as the governor of Judah. At that time the Babylonians did not exile masses of the people, although many of the priesthood and the nobility were moved to Bavel. Gedaliah ruled well, and many Jews who had fled the advancing armies of Bavel returned. Despite the lenient treatment of Judah, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, of the royal family of Judah was angry that Gedaliah was co-operating with the Babylonians. Out of excessive zealotry and patriotism, he assassinated Gedaliah. The Babylonians appointed a new, Babylonian governor, exiled many more people, and left the land desolate.
Gedaliah too displayed excess. He was warned in advance of the assassination attempt. Because there was no direct evidence, he decided it was lashon hara. Since we are forbidden to believe or act upon lashon hara, he took no special precautions when the assassins came, which undoubtedly facilitated his murder.
It is possible for us to take Rosh Hashanah to excess as well. The most frequent form of excess is lavish meals where the focus is on the pleasures of eating. It is good to feast on Rosh Hashanah, but we should use the feast to remind us of the bounty that Hashem gives us, the skills of those who composed the recipies, and the labor of those who cooked and served the meal. Another possible form of excess on Rosh Hashanah is to pay too much attention to the symbolic aspects (don't eat food with nuts, various foods served as signs for a good year, etc.) while not focusing on the actual point of the day - Hashem's kingship and our own need to look into ourselves and find ways to improve ourselves.
Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-10489905017503973272014-02-16T17:32:00.001-05:002014-02-16T21:42:58.216-05:00Are rabbis scientists or statesmen?The Orthodox world has seen a number of disputes lately about a variety of issues - most but not all of them related to the role of women. One of the issues not directly related, but highly relevant to the outcome of these question is who gets to make decisions on halachic topics, and to some extent who even gets to have their voices listened to.
<P>
Rabbi Marc Angel, in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9655240126/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=9655240126&linkCode=as2&tag=lennhoff-20">The Search Committee: A Novel</a> has a dialog between a traditional charedi rabbi and his supporters and a more Modern rabbi and his, when both are being interviewed for the role of Rosh Yeshiva of a fictional version of BMG. After the winner is chosen, the two candidates get to make final statements to the board. The charedi rabbi informs the board it was invalid from the start, the questions such as the selection of a Rosh Yeshiva are properly decided by traditional torah scholars. The role of lay people is to act as fundraisers only. They are not even entitled to offer advice. The charedi rabbi's final words were "You have no voice." The modern rabbi takes the opposite tack, saying that the lay members of the community are important stakeholders in the community and have an actual responsibility to speak up and offer guidance. His final words are "You have a voice."
<P>
Recently Rabbi Hershel Schachter published a missive that could have been written by that charedi rabbi. A Rabbi who was the principal of a school made a halachic decision for the members of that school. The decision was publicized and caused much controversy. Rabbi Schachter stated that the rabbi simply did not have the necessary stature to make halachic decisions for his own school community. Properly the rabbi should have contacted a greater authority (such as Rabbi Schachter himself) and abided by whatever that greater rabbi decided.
<P>
When I discuss this issue with my charedi friends, I often get told that questioning a great rabbi's decision is like questioning the decision of a great doctor or a great physicist. Why should any deference be paid to the opinions of someone with a college level knowledge of quantum mechanics in the face of the opinion of some Nobel prize winning physicist? Sometimes this gets into an interesting discussion of the role of the patient versus his doctor with respect to health care. Many people today will argue with their doctors regarding choice of treatment. The decision of whether to undergo chemotherapy for advanced cancer, where the treatments may only purchase an additional couple of months of pain filled life is surely not the sole purview of the doctor. (In addition to the patient's rabbi, I also think the patient has a voice.)
<P>
What I've come to realize is that some people see rabbis primarily as scientists or lawyers, who study the universe around them or the legal codes and come up with definitive definitions of the way things are or should be. But other people view them as statesmen(*), who are major players in drafting the way our society functions, but whose specialized knowledge is not so great as to make the opinion of the average person affected by their decisions irrelevant. A third view is that rabbis are members of the community who have influence based on their individual prestige, but that the community as the whole is the ultimate decisor. That may be true for practical purposes - no matter how influential the rabbi, views of his that are not adopted don't have force - at least not until they are adopted, sometime generations later. But that isn't how the system is supposed to work in most cases according to O understandings.
<P>
Do other people find this distinction more useful than the Daas Torah vs. local rabbinic authority dichotomy? Am I completely off base? Is there a third perspective?
<P>
<P>
(*) Originally I wrote politicians here, as I did in the title. But politician is a term that currently carries negative connotations. I think statesmen carries the connotations I want of expertise without inarguable authority. Political scientists might also do.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-46424074883351975102013-11-02T22:25:00.000-04:002013-11-02T23:28:45.286-04:00Cooking for the GenerationsFor parshat Toldot I traditionally make some kind of lentil dish, preferably using red lentils. This year I made Coconut Lentil soup. The curry powder made the soup turn green, but it was still delicious. Some other notes:<P>
1) The soup was really thick - like a pottage or a thick pea soup rather than a broth.<BR>
2) I made it somewhat differently because of Shabbat - I made the main part Thursday night and then mixed in the coconut and 'milk' before heating it again for Shabbat.<BR>
3) Soy milk or even regular milk could be substituted for the coconut drink. I think actual coconut milk would be both too strong and too thick.<BR>
<P>
NGREDIENTS:<BR>
1 1/2 cups red lentils<BR>
2 1/2 cups water<BR>
1/2 red onion, finely chopped<BR>
1 clove garlic, finely chopped<BR>
1/2 inch piece fresh ginger root, finely
chopped<BR>
1/2 cup fresh shredded coconut<BR>
3/4 cup milk or milk substitute (I used Silk Coconut Milk)<BR>
1 tablespoon curry powder<RB>
1 teaspoon ground black pepper<BR>
<P>DIRECTIONS:<BR>
1. Place the lentils and water in a medium saucepan over medium heat, and bring to a boil. Stir in onion, garlic, and ginger. Cover, reduce heat, and simmer 30 minutes, or until lentils are tender.<BR>
2. Place the coconut and milk in a blender, and blend until smooth and thick. Stir into the lentil mixture. Season with curry and pepper. Continue cooking 10 to 15 minutes.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-7907680765776093682013-04-21T15:37:00.000-04:002013-05-13T08:38:17.625-04:00Truth is too good for mere humansDivre Rmlby<sup><a href="#fn1" id="href1">1</a></sup>:
<P>
While the seal of Hashem is truth, the seal of rabbanus(rabbinical authority) is sheker(lies). It comes in many forms. The sheker b'ahava(lies made out of love) of Aaron HaKohen, who lied to make peace between men and of Hillel, who said one dances before an ugly bride singing praises of her beauty. The Sheker B'Yira (lies based on awe/respect) of the Chatam Sofer, who said to preserve a rabbinic law it was permissible to say it was a biblical law, and of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who did just that with his rulings on Mechitza<sup><a href="#fn2" id="href2">2</a></sup>. The sheker b'tzimtzum (lies of hiding, removal, omission) of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, who said that when writing a psak where one rules based on kavod habriyot(human dignity), one should give a different reason, even a poor one, because the principle of kavod habriyot is so easily misused.
<P>
<sup id="fn1">1. Reb Moshe Leib Ben Yaakov<a href="#ref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">↩</a></sup>
<P>
<sup id="fn2">2. This point is argued - there is no reported statement from RMF saying he was doing this.<a href="#ref2" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.">↩</a></sup>Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-85843721701014945862012-08-03T14:00:00.002-04:002012-08-03T17:12:44.612-04:00Emunat ChachamimCurrently, one of my favorite blogs is <a href="http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com">Out of the Orthodox box</a>. Ruchi Koval, the owner of the blog is a kiruv professional and an excellent one. She has created a site for interested non-observant Jews to learn about Orthodox Jews and their lives. A light but firm touch on moderation (all comments are previewed) keeps the conversation remarkably civil and informative.<P>
As a traditionally observant Jew with a considerably different background and take on Orthodoxy than Ruchi, I often comment and try to provide other perspectives. I really appreciate the way Ruchi and the other posters (hi, sbw!) make me have to think seriously to clarify my perspectives.<P>
One issue which seems to come up repeatedly is our attitudes towards the rabbis, both contemporary and classic. Ruchi asked me to explain my approach. Since this turned out to be a long post, I decided to post it on my blog and link it from hers. This post should be considered to be a work in progress - I retain the right to change it (at least in the comments) based on any feedback I get. With that out of the way:<P>
Emunat Chachim - (trust in the sages). I view this principle as the reason Orthodox Jews more closely resemble Catholics than Protestants in their view of how to interpret scripture. Emunat Chachim is the idea that we trust the mesorah (transmitted tradition, mediated through the rabbis of the past) to tell us what the halacha and the Bible really mean, rather than personally reading the text and interpreting it. Thus. although the text of the Torah says we start counting the Omer on the day after Shabbat on Pesach, we start counting the day after the first day of Pesach itself, since the mesorah says that Shabbat in this case refers to the holiday itself. Similarly, we don't cook a kid in its mother's milk, despite the fact that the Hebrew letters without vowels present in the Torah text could also be read to be the word 'fat' rather than 'milk'.<P>
In the Talmud, there is a story of how someone came to the Tanna Hillel and asked to be converted with the condition the convert would follow the written law, but not the oral law. Hillel started teaching him the first day by teaching him the aleph bet (Hebrew letters). The next day the student returned and Hillel began teaching him the aleph bet again, but this time he called the letters by different names. The student protested, and Hillel said "You have to rely on me even to know the letters, in the same way you have to rely on me about the Oral law.” I think we are all in the same place as that convert.<P>
To me, emunat Chachim does not mean that Chazal were correct about everything they wrote in the Talmud that is not a matter of halacha . The sun does not pass through the dome of the sky at night before going either under the Earth or over the dome and passing back through the next day. The liver is not the seat of intellect. Snake do not habitually inject poison into open beverage containers at night. However, despite the fact that their understanding of the laws of nature was wrong in places, I completely accept their rulings as to at what time Shabbat begins and ends.<P>
For contemporary rabbis the principal of emunat chachim is more limited. Rabbis contradict one another all the time, and there is no universally accepted court of last appeal. (I'm not sure if the following example falls more appropriately under emunat chachamim or daat torah.) <P>
Imagine a local rabbi who knows me well. He is familiar with how I call myself 'mystically tone deaf'. He is aware of my aversion to Kabbalah and my opposition to segulot. Over the years we have discussed numerous halachic questions and I have accepted his guidance. We've discussed theological and philosophical questions as well, although he has never told me what I must believe. So I go to this rabbi and say “I'm having marital problems. I'm fighting with my wife all the time. What can I do to improve matters?” He asks questions, tells a few parables, and offers some suggestions. The last suggestion is “Pay careful attention when you fold your tallit after davening. Be sure to do so neatly.” In spite of the fact I think this is crazy, I would follow that suggestion, at least for a while.
<P>On the other hand imagine the great anav (humble person) and ohavei yisrael (lover of Jews) the Fictionaler Rebbe said 'Any Jew who desires marital harmony should fold his tallis with especial care and kavanah.' Frankly, I'd probably say to myself 'Thanks Fictionaler, you're humble and loveable(*).' and ignore the whole thing. Even though he is far 'greater' than my local rabbi, he doesn't know me, I don't believe in segulot, and emunat chachamim does not require me to obey his instructions when I haven't asked him a question.
<P>(*) This sort of light hearted reaction can be characterized as 'bizayon talmedei chachamim ' being disrespectful to Torah scholars. It can be considered a sin in its own right. I'm not yet at the point where I feel yirat (respect/fear/awe) talmedi chachamim requires me to turn off my sense of humor, even though I am a Yekke.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-60600377374358987052012-07-14T23:00:00.002-04:002012-07-14T23:00:59.995-04:00Posting on PinchasI was considering this morning the question of why Pinchas was specifically awarded entry into the kahuna (priesthood) for his action in killing Zimri and Cozbi. One thought that occurred to me was that while Hashem approved of his actions, there was concern that zealotry would become a habit. So he was placed in a position where that desire could be either sublimated or restrained. If he was to become fond of blood and violence, as a Cohen he would be slaughtering animals for the Mishkan (Tabernacle). If he wanted to inspire other people with his zealotry, as Cohen for war his responsibility was to speak to the army and assure them Hashem was with them. Also, as a Cohen he was forbidden contact with the dead. This might have been for his protection (against flashbacks, or other PTSD issues) or alternatively it might have been to serve as an additional reason for him to refrain from murder in the future. (I know that sounds ridiculous, to be willing to murder someone and refrain because it would make you ritually impure, but that strikes me as the sort of detail that has undue weight in the eyes of a fanatic.)Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-54772745145912489222011-08-01T13:12:00.007-04:002011-08-01T17:26:39.063-04:00Pluralism and its limits in early JudaismThis past weekend was the <a href="http://www.synagoguecouncil.org/">Synagogue Council of Massachusetts</a> annual Unity Shabbaton. One of the scholars-in-residence talked about his idea that many of the discussions in Mishna Eduyyot are trying to deal with the aftermath of zealotry on the Jewish community of the second century. Eduyyot consists entirely of rulings on a wide variety of topics where the source of those rulings is 'thus and so directly learned the tradition from Great Rabbi X'. Some historians think it was the first part of the Mishna written down.<br /><br />The Mishna whose interpretation I found problematic (In Eduyyot 4:8) discusses how Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai had a number of differences of opinion which impacted personal status and ritual purity. These differences were consequential. It mean that there were people who Beit Hillel thought could marry a Cohen, or even marry a regular Jew, who Beit Shammai thought were ineligible and vice versa. The dispute also extended to whether certain utensils were ritually pure or not. Widespread disagreement on this could have theoretically meant that members of Beit Hillel could not have eaten in the houses of followers of Beit Shammai and vice versa.<br /><br />However, the Mishna concludes "And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai." (and similarly reagarding utensils).<br /><br />When I learned this, what I was taught it meant was that if a member of Beit Hillel wanted to marry a daughter of Beit Shammai, he might be told "Although Beit Shammai holds that this woman is fit to marry, by the rules of Beit Hillel she is not." and vice versa. The teacher told me this was the view of the medieval rabbi Ovadiah Mibartenura.<br /><br />The teacher's view, which I have previously seen ascribed to Judith Hauptman (Masoret Magazine v7n3), is that this meant that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai each accepted the other's definition. Thus if my daughter is acceptable for marriage according to Beit Hillel, a man from Beit Shammai would be willing to marry her.<br /><br />I have a very hard time accepting this interpretation. There are two ways to look at it, and for each I will provide a source for refuting it. One interpretation is that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai each said "Well, we'll accept the other's ruling." This obviously doesn't work. Now the man from Beit Shammai would say "I will marry you since you are acceptable according to Beit Hillel, but the daughter of Beit Hillel would say 'but I must refuse because I am forbidden to you according to the rules of Beit Shammai." This provides no gain in what is actually permitted and has the further problem that each person think their own decision is the wrong one. This scenario makes me think of the saying in Pirke Avot "One who says - What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine - this is an ignorant man."<br /><br />The other interpretation is that if either Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai ruled that a woman was fit for marriage then both groups accepted the ruling. But in the Talmud (Chullin 43b - 44a) the Gemara quotes a Beraisa that states, "One who follows the lenient rulings of Beis Shamai and the lenient rulings of Beis Hillel is a Rasha. One who follows the stringent rulings of Beis Shamai and the stringent rulings of Beis Hillel -- of him the verse says, 'The fool walks in darkness' (Koheles 2:14). Rather, one must follow either Beis Shamai consistently, both his lenient and stringent rulings, or Beis Hillel consistently, both his lenient and stringent rulings."<br /><br />This conflict has consequences in the present as well. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews will not accept the validity of the overwhelming majority of conversion conducted under Conservative Jewish auspices. I know people who reason as follows "I follow the halacha as understood by the Conservative movement. By these rules my conversion is valid and I am a Jew. Therefore, when I enter an Orthodox synagogue I can simply tell them I am Jewish, and be counted towards the minyan, lead services if asked, etc." To me, the Mishna in Eduyyot should cause these people to say "Even though I am a Jew according to my rabbis, I am not according to yours and therefore you should not count me towards the minyan."<br /><br />UPDATE: Rabbi Hauptman's article can be found on the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3jggw3c">Internet Archive</a><br /><br />UPDATE 2: Reading other people's commentary on the article, Meredith Warshaw brings out the point that while a member of Beit Hillel would not marry a woman of Beit Shammai who was prohibited according to BH's understanding, he would marry a woman of Beit Shammai who had no obvious defect. This isn't inevitable - one could imagine someone saying 'Perhaps 4 generations ago this woman's ancestor was a mamzer according to me, but not according to Beit Shammai. How can I take the risk?'Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-82970611187721413552011-04-27T13:25:00.002-04:002011-04-27T13:28:20.536-04:00Selling BliotBliot were described by the person who taught me the laws of kashrut as 'massless particle of taste that nevertheless have volume'. When (for example) you heat milk in a pot, even after you pour the milk out and wash the pot some bliot of milk remain,<br /><br />I get into an argument each year with my rabbi when I cross off the line about selling the bliot in my pots. The argument point and counterpoint goes:<br /><br />P) I couldn't deliver the bliot to him even if he wanted them.<br />C) If he wanted the bliot, he could just boil some water in the pot and he'd get some. If he kashered the pot and somehow kept all the water involved he'd get all of them.<br /><br />P) Nobody wants the bliot anyway - it isn't anything useful.<br />C) A manufacturer can package something you want and something you don't want together and your choices are to buy both or neither - you don't get to split the products up.<br /><br />P) Schmutz is not chametz, and bliot are even less than schmutz.<br />C) Jews love to be machmir on pesach - it is the custom to be stringent where possible.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-14261629485950028812011-02-16T11:10:00.003-05:002011-02-16T11:16:41.759-05:00The way it sadly is todayI think this is a good introduction to the <a href="http://crazyjewishconvert.blogspot.com/2011/02/monster-that-orthodox-conversion-has.html#comment-form">conversion crisis</a> as it applies to O Jews. The damage this is causing and will continue to cause is terrible - and absolutely unnecessary. Notice how often conversions are now being nullified because of the beit din rather than because of the convert. Sincerity is no defense.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-45271651963489589722011-02-09T16:36:00.003-05:002011-02-09T16:54:56.696-05:00After cardiac death, what? Part 2Part 1 (summary of some non-brain stem death positions) to follow.<br /><br />So let's assume for the moment we get agreement on the idea that Orthodox Jews may not donate organs prior to cardiac death but are permitted to receive organs that were harvested after brain stem death. Where do we go from there? <br /><br />I would suggest there would be two negative consequences to concern ourselves with. <br /><br />Firstly, Orthodox Jews would be in a position where with regards to transplants they would largely be takers and not givers. We are supposed to be a light unto the nations and a generous people. Without violating halacha, we need to consider how we can live up to those goals. <br /><br />Secondly, there will be a backlash from many people who will not understand the halachic principles that drove us to this point. We need to be able to provide concrete, relevant examples of Jewish generosity to others in order to counter these perceptions.<br /><br />I'd suggest that the Orthodox Jewish leaders might want to encourage the following:<br /><OL><br /><LI>Orthodox Jews should be routinely donate blood several times per year.<br /><LI>Orthodox Jews should strive to be registered as potential donors for transplants that can be done by a live donor, for example kidney transplants.<br /><LI>Orthodox Jews should routinely register to donate organs which can be harvested after cardiac death e.g, corneas.<br /><LI>Orthodox Jewish philanthropists and medical researchers who are looking for areas in which to do their work should consider supporting research into alternatives to transplants as the technology to support them becomes practical - artificial organs, cloned organs, etc.<br /></OL>Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-14773876087837753192011-01-25T08:13:00.004-05:002011-01-25T08:16:01.268-05:00On Moral UntenabilityOnce a man came to Hillel and asked him "Teach me the whole Torah while standing on one foot."<br /><br />Hillel replied "That which is hateful to yourself, arrange to be done to others by an agent for a group of people that includes you. All the rest is commentary, now go and study."Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-71122075818582710492010-03-10T21:49:00.002-05:002010-03-10T21:51:58.877-05:00New class in HIghland ParkOne of the things I love about living in Highland Park is the wide range of educational opportunities available. This came across my desk today. I'm editting out the contact info, but if anyone is interested contact me for details.<br /><br />A chabura is in formation to learn the laws of baking matza. The plan is to learn the halachos in depth over the course of the next year and to begin planning, purchasing the oven and necessary equipment, and preparing to bake matzos mitzva next year (in yerushalayim; and if mashiach hasn't come, then in HP). If you would like to participate in the chabura, please reply to [name elided]. As we already have several shiurim on Shabbos, a weeknight or Sunday time may be required. I anticipate that the chabura or individuals will also need take a few field trips for those who have not yet participated first hand in matza baking.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-81232225312159697752010-03-01T08:18:00.002-05:002010-03-01T08:30:26.675-05:00Purim PartiesI went to 3 purim parties yesterday. You can take it as given there were wonderful divrei torah, excellent food, and enthusiastic singing. I wanted to focus on a couple of 'Only in HP' vignettes ..<br /><OL><br /><LI> Going to the house of a white haired rabbi and feeling the floor literally flex with the vigor of the dancing, with the rabbi keeping up with the teenage yeshivah bochrim every step of the way.<br /><LI>Finishing up at a seudah, when one of the guests mentioned that they were from Jackson Heights, someone asked "Isn't that where Patty Duke lived?". This resulted in half a dozen people singing the Patty Duke theme in 4 part harmony until it was confirmed Patty and Cathy lived in Brooklyn Heights, not Jackson Heights.<br /><LI>Someone giving a dvar torah citing as a source a time when Spock erased Kirk's memory of his love affair with Edith Keeler in <I>City on the Edge of Forever</i> to be followed instantly by a correction from someone else that first cited Reuven Malter's correction of Rav Saunder's gematria in <I>The Chosen</I>, followed by the fact that Spock erased Kirk's memory of Kirk's affair with Rayna in <I>Requiem for Methuselah</I> <br /><LI>Leaving the MO party to get to the chassidic seudah to discover one of the local chassids playing the 'Beverly Hillbillies' theme on the banjo as the Rav commented it was a lively tune.<br /><LI>Someone reciting a dvar torah written by someone else by giving the introduction "Here I am as a man of 50 years, yet I did not understand a simple gemara about Purim until Rabbi Norman Lamm explained it ..."<br /></OL>Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-44556871918808263472010-01-14T14:32:00.004-05:002010-01-14T14:51:00.475-05:00Authority and Responsibility<a href="http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2005/rtwe_lshaimShomayim.html">Rav Meir Twersky</a> posts:<br /><Blockquote><br />One final example, also drawn from contemporary ideological discussion and debate. Many “hot-button” issues are currently being debated in the public square. Some of these are women’s issues – role of women, aliyas, and so on. There are many other issues as well – for instance, the boundaries of legitimate tolerance and openness. Many people are very opinionated in such matters, passionately advocating a particular point of view. Some go beyond advocacy and introduce change and innovation. And, of course, ostensibly everything is said and done l’sheim shomayim. But is the advocacy truly l’sheim shomayim? Or, perhaps is it self-serving, remaking halachah in our image in concert with our predilections?<br /><br />Consistency test: do we maintain the same professional standards for the resolution of halachic issues that we insist upon in other contexts? For instance, in complex medical affairs we seek – as we should – the best, most expert medical care and guidance. If need be, we travel the world to seek out an expert. For a laymen or even an undistinguished doctor to make decisions or even advocate in complex medical issues would be reckless. We would not allow it. How many of us – laymen and rabbonim alike – are entitled to even express an opinion, much less advocate, in complex halachic matters? If, lack of qualifications notwithstanding, we persist in advocating on halachic matters, are we truly doing so l’sheim shomayim? The consistency test, honestly administered and uncensored, can be very revealing.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Comment: I know I used to try to think this way as I became observant. Part of that process has been to reduce the weight I give my own opinions, learning, and feeling and to raise the weight I give to the halachic experts, which always means the Rav I have chosen to guide me as opposed to the abstract opinions of the gedolim. I am dithering regarding the question of whether I truly forfeit my responsibility for my decisions just because I choose to give the authority for making them to someone else, or if I remain responsible. I'd be interested in comments on this question.<br /><br />As far as the consistency issue goes, just as I do not accept any doctor's opinion, however august he might be, as the final voice in decisions involving my health I don't accept that the 'gedolim' can make my moral choices for me. I give them great deference - in fact I let their opinion override my own more often than not, but the final opinion and final responsibility regarding my moral and medical choices is mine. Furthermore in this internet age the patient has a chance to become a lot more educated than in the past, and so can be more of a partner with his doctor in making medical decisions rather than the target of those decisions.<br /><br />How does Rabbi Twersky deal with uncertainty among his experts? If two doctors have different opinions which does he choose? If he has the choice of having a hand amputated and using a prosthetic, or keeping the non-functional hand attached does he have his expert doctor make that choice for him?Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-77435776678924446642010-01-05T22:52:00.003-05:002010-01-08T16:14:33.640-05:00Top that chumrah!In class tonight we played an impromptu round of Top that Chumrah. For the last several weeks I've been bringing in objects to the Hilchot Shabbat class to illustrate questions and/or solutions we had come up with for several different questions about cooking food on Shabbat.<br /><br />Tonight I brought in a black knitted scarf to return to one of the class members. Naturally everyone wanted to know what sort of bishul (cooking) b'shabbat question I had that I could illustrate with a knitted scarf.<br /><br />I explained that in his comments on siman 318 of Orach Chayim the Magen Avraham says that as a penalty for intentionally illegally cooking on Shabbat (Bishul Shabbat b'issur b'mazid) the pot in which the food was cooked is considered treif until it is kashered by libun gamur (high intensity heat, most commonly a blowtorch or the self clean cycle of an oven.)<br /><br />I pointed out that if this scarf were wet and was draped over a radiator on Shabbat, it would technically be a violation of the laws of cooking on Shabbat. I asked if this meant that if that happened, would it mean I could no longer drape the wet scarf over the radiator even on a weekday, since it would involve cooking something treif.<br /><br />One classmate piped up and said that the scarf wasn't the pot, the scarf was the food(*). The radiator was the pot, and therefore the radiator would have to be kashered. Another person said even the radiator wasn't really the pot, the real pot was the main unit of the boiler, and thus the hot water tank would have to be kashered. I mentioned that in my house we don't have a separate hot water heater - we have a coil that runs through our oil furnace. It was immediately suggested that I would have to use a blowtorch to kasher the oil furnace. One person said he'd really like to see that, but after due consideration agreed that he would be better off having a camera in the basement and watching remotely.<br /><br />(*) Under that interpretation the scarf cannot be used by any Jew ever again, although one may sell it or give it to a non-Jew.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-4620755002859589172009-12-29T16:11:00.002-05:002009-12-29T16:13:46.477-05:00Sweet 16 Cholent RecipeThe following recipe was modified from the original, which was posted at <a href="http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/culture/too-much-time-on-your-hands-cholent-cookoff-2009/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mixedmultitudes+(Mixed+Multitudes)&utm_content=Google+Reader">Mixed Multitudes</a>. We tried it last Shabbat and it was delicious! <br /><br />Modified sweet 16 cholent recipe (with quantities and certainty added for Yekkies) :<br />Sauce:<br /><br />1 bottle Tomato Sauce (I used Barilla Marinara)<br />1 small can Tomato Paste<br />5 heaping tsp garlic<br />1 package Goodman's Kosher Onion Soup Mix<br />1/4 cup maple syrup<br />brown sugar to taste<br />1/2 tsp nutmeg<br /><br />Cholent:<br />1 lb bone in stew meat<br />1 large vidalia onion<br />1 can Goya Kidney beans with liquid<br />1 can Goya White Beans with liquid<br />1 bag barley (8 oz?)<br />1 white potatoes, sliced in rounds, unpeeled<br />2 yellow potato, sliced in rounds, unpeeled<br />1 sweet potato, sliced in rounds unpeeled<br /><br />The sauce is what makes this cholent unique. Mix ingredient above together and simmer for a while on medium low heat. The red sauce and onion soup is the secret to this cholent.<br /><br />In a 12" circular baking pot<br />Dice onions - enough to cover the bottom of the pot.<br /><br />Then layer in a mixture of beans and barley.<br /><br />Next, put a layer of stew meat.<br /><br />We places a layer of the sauce in at this point.<br /><br />The next layer was a mix of 2/3rds sweet and 1/3rd regular Yukon Gold/Idaho potatoes (just enough to cover the meat). We did not peel the potatoes. They were cut about 1 centimeter thick.<br /><br />Another layer of sauce.<br /><br />If there is space, put in another layer of beans, then meat, then potatoes…<br /><br />I put the sweet potato rounds on the circumference of the pot. <br /><br />Then another layer of the sauce. Add water if needed.<br /><br />Cook in 350 degree oven for 3 -4 hours, then just before Shabbat add water if needed and keep warm until Shabbos lunch.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-51180079194595786922009-12-14T12:13:00.003-05:002009-12-14T12:16:55.364-05:00Fun halachic fact of the dayAccording to the Magen Avraham(*), there is a way to be mechallel shabbat (in violation of the laws of Shabbat) on a Wednesday (or any other weekday), but you can prevent the problem in advance with libun (heating something red-hot).<br /><br /><br />(*) As interpreted by me according to my personal metasystem for such things.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-61815580968045087552009-12-03T09:20:00.004-05:002009-12-03T09:25:49.981-05:00A brief comment on the history of machloketRabbi Pruzansky of Teaneck posted an essay on his blog which included the following:<br /><I><br />A “machloket,” I assume, was not always perceived the way it is today. Abaye and Rava (yeah, yeah, no one is Abaye and Rava here) did not engender the support of partisan factions in their several thousand areas of conflict. (Typical conversation on the Babylonian blogs in the 4th century CE: “Supporters of Rava: ‘Have you heard? Our master Rava says that when a married woman is accused of infidelity by only one witness, and does not deny it, the one witness is still not believed. But Abaya says that the solitary witness is believed! [Kiddushin 66a] He must be anti-woman, that troglodyte!’” Typical ? Somehow, I don’t think so.)<br /><br />The hostile reaction here was so visceral that I could only conclude that, contrary to traditional halachic methodology, people are emotionally vested in a certain outcome. Like the rabid sports fan who supports his favorite team and wants them to win at all costs – even if they cheat, even if the umpire or referee blows a call [“a win is a win”] – one group of polemicists wants its side to win. They have little interest in halachic process, but rather a passionate desire for a particular result.<br /></I><br />I submitted a comment, which apparently he chose not to publish, so I'm putting it out here:<br /><br />The schools of Hillel and Shammai represent both extremes in partisanship. One the one hand, although they disagreed about kashrut and mazerut they ate in each others' homes and married one another(*). <br /><br /> On the other hand, the Yerushalmi lists the 18 halachot passed by Beit Shammai after they used force (including murder!) against Beit Hillel to create a majority. (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).<br /><br />So I would say that passion in the pursuit of Torah is not a new thing. Indeed it goes back even to the days of the second Beit Hamkidash, as related in the story of why a lottery was instituted for determining who would change the ashes on the altar.<br /><br />(*) Personally I assume this to mean that the 2 schools practiced full disclosure with one another - "Although I believe this woman is fit to marry, by your understanding of halacha she is a mamzeret" and so forth. I wonder if this approach can at least provide a breathing space with respect to the current conversion controversy.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-73125629012484430632009-11-23T15:14:00.005-05:002009-11-23T15:24:45.269-05:00RCA draws a line in the sand - but why hereWell, the RCA has decided it stands for something - it requires members <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y9rr54j">not to be meschists</a>. I wasn't aware of a flood of chabadnik rabbis overwhelming the RCA. The new RCA loyalty oath includes the following:<br /><br /><Blockquote><br />"In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach ben David will begin his Messianic mission only to experience death, burial and resurrection before completing it." <br /></Blockquote><br /><br /> I'd rather see the RCA require the following:<br /><br /><Blockquote>In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not a place in Judaism for the belief that belief in a world older than 6000 years is kefira</Blockquote><br /><br /><Blockquote>In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that only glatt meat is kosher for Ashkenazim</Blockquote><br /><br /><Blockquote>In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that long standing conversions can be retroactively nullified</Blockquote><br /><br />What vertebrae would you add to the RCA's backbone? Reply in the commentsLarry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-14791101454199606262009-11-23T15:04:00.000-05:002009-11-23T15:05:19.317-05:00Rambam and meOne of my few original contributions to the laws of the Jewish internet<br />were The Rambam syllogisms:<br /><br />Rambam 1:<br />Rambam was a genius but he lived a long time ago.<br />I live today, and I believe X.<br />Therefore if Rambam were alive today he would believe X.<br /><br />Rambam 2:<br />Rambam was a genius, and so his works are correspondingly difficult to<br />understand<br />I believe X.<br />Therefore if we study Rambam's works, we can see that he believed X.<br /><br />Personally, I believe that if Rambam were alive today, he'd probably say<br />"get me out of this tomb!". And then he'd be upset at all the bare faced<br />women on the women's side of the mechitza at the tomb site.<br /><br />Of course, when people say if Rambam were alive today they generally mean<br />'if Rambam was born 50 years ago' rather than 'if when Rambam allegedly<br />died 800 years ago he was actually brought through time and no is saying<br />what he thinks about the state of today's Judaism'. I'm not very<br />interested in either Rambam - what the former thinks is unknowable and what<br />the latter thinks is irrelevant as he does not qualify as 'the judge that<br />is in our generation'.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-27159402270234501382009-11-18T15:01:00.001-05:002009-11-18T15:02:26.549-05:00Shameless link forwarding<a href="http://rabbicreditor.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-did-chicken-cross-road.html">Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?</a> (Jewish version).Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-47419464035088939482009-11-11T14:27:00.002-05:002009-11-11T14:35:40.177-05:00Nightmare 3In a post on Curious Jew's blog, we were discussing the validity of platonic relationships.<br />Someone asked:<br /><I>As far as having female friends — is the advantage of their friendship really greater than the danger of inappropriate (in this context) feelings appearing between us? </I><br />and I replied<br /><I><br />As a 50+ year old man who BT'd in his 40s, I will unequivocally answer that based on the experiences of my life the advantages of platonic friendship with women overwhelmingly outweigh the dangers of inappropriate feelings for me.<br /></I><br />A third party responded:<br /><I><br />Based on what concept in Judaism do you give this answer?<br /></I><br /><br />I was dumbfounded. I talk about the fact that you can and should see everything through the lens of halacha, but the idea that one should simply completely disregard one's life experience unless you can show that halacha supports what you have actually lived seems insane to me.<br /><br />After a few minutes I answered (in two posts)<br />Chaim Bachem. Or Darchei Noam, if you prefer.<br /><br />I'm sure the commenter will find this answer completely inappropriate because he thinks it misuses the concepts I brought up.Larry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239360.post-80659334505096192262009-10-26T23:48:00.003-04:002009-10-26T23:54:17.390-04:00Study too hard and your mind starts to wander(Sung to Maria from <a href='http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/maria.html'>West Side Story</a><br /><br />The laws of a pot placed before Shabbat<br />Shehiya<br />Fully cooked is ok, partially is not<br />Sheihya<br /><br />Shehiya - Shehiya Sheiyah Shehiya<br /><br />Sheiya!<br />I've learned all the laws of Shehiya<br />And suddenly I've found <br />how a cholent can be browned <br />indeed<br />Shehiya<br />If its raw then its OK staying<br />Fully cooked and its ok remaining<br /><br />Shehiya<br />I'll never stop learning shehiyaLarry Lennhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com0