Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 2
Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 2
Marc B. Shapiro
Continued from here
1. R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin has a different perspective than what we have seen so far.[1] He rejects the notion that “waiting” for the Messiah means that one must believe that he can come at any second, for the Sages already said that the Messiah will not come at certain times. He writes:[2]
ובעיקר הענין הרביתי בראיות מן הגמרא שחז”ל לא ציפו שהמשיח יבוא בכל עת
Contrary to the Brisker Rav (whom he mentions by name), R. Henkin writes: “There is nothing in the Rambam requiring one to believe that the Messiah is ready to come at any moment.”[3] He claims that the Rambam’s real point is that one should not be at ease with the Messiah not having arrived, but rather one should be upset that he hasn’t yet come. A similar argument was made by R. Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg.[4] Unlike R. Shulzinger (see the previous post), R. Henkin does not find a problem with those who mentioned dates for the redemption (and this includes a few important figures[5]), since he suggests that the dates were never intended to be absolutely certain.
Yet R. Henkin adds that it is clear that the sages who gave dates for the Messiah—even if their suggested dates were not certain— did not have אמונה שלמה that the Messiah would come before the dates they predicted, and they obviously are not to be regarded as heretics. He sees this point as contradictory to the Brisker Rav’s claim (as it is usually understood) that one must hope for and await the Messiah’s arrival every day. R. Henkin’s explanation is certainly not in contradiction to the Rambam’s Principle. If the sages who gave dates for the Messiah did not deny that they could be wrong, and that the Messiah could come at any time, then they were not contradicting the Rambam’s Principle. The only thing they were contradicting is the version of the Principle in the siddur which adds the words באמונה שלמה. Yet these words not appear in the Rambam’s formulation.
R. Henkin adds that it is strange that the Brisker Rav would declare that anyone who does not have his understanding of the Twelfth Principle is a heretic, when his understanding is not explicitly found in the Torah, the Talmud, or the rishonim.[6]
ואפילו לדברי הגרי”ז שצריך להאמין שהנה ממש היום הזה הוא בא וכו’ עכ”ל, מן התימה על האי גאון וצדיק ז”ל להחזיק מי שאינו מאמין כן ככופר כיון שהדבר אינו מבואר לא במקרא ולא בחז”ל ולא בראשונים.
R. Henkin concludes that it is enough to believe that the Messiah will come even if you assume that he will not come today or tomorrow. He also cites his grandfather, R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, that “to wait for the coming of the Messiah” does not mean that you think he is ready to come at any instant.[7]
קושטא דמילתא המאמין באמונה שלמה בביאת המשיח ומחכה לו ומתאווה לבואו קדוש ייאמר לו אף על פי שסובר שלפי מאמרי חז”ל לא יבוא היום או מחר, וכן אמר מו”ז הגה”צ זצלה”ה שלחכות לביאת המשיח אין פירושו שעומד לבוא בכל רגע וכן עמא דבר.
In support of R. Henkin, we can cite R. Yohanan ben Torta, who when R. Akiva declared that Bar Kokhba was the Messiah, responded as follows: “Akiva, grass will be growing out of your cheeks and the Messiah will still not have come.”[8] As R. Meir Mazuz notes, R. Yohanan ben Torta believed in the concept of the Messiah, but he did not see any chance that the redemption would come in his generation.[9] In other words, he was not “actively waiting” for the Messiah.
R. Menachem Kasher has another approach. He understands Maimonides’ words that one must wait for the Messiah in a negative sense, namely, that if one despairs of the Messiah’s arrival he is in violation of Maimonides’ words, but not that there is a continuous obligation to wait for the Messiah’s arrival.[10] R. Yisrael Weinman also questions the Brisker Rav’s understanding (although he is not certain the Brisker Rav really said it), since according to some rishonim the Messiah cannot come on Shabbat and Yom Tov. He therefore assumes that it is enough to wait for the Messiah to arrive whenever he is able to come.[11]
R. Yaakov Nissan Rosenthal explains that the siddur’s version of Maimonides’ principle,
עם כל זה אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא
does not mean that you must believe and expect every day that today is the day the Messiah will come. Rather, the meaning of בכל יום is that every day you must believe in the coming of the Messiah and await his arrival, whenever that will be.[12] He offered an example to illustrate this point: A man’s daughter married and moved to the Diaspora. The father waits every day for his daughter to return to Israel, but on every day he does not expect that all of a sudden he will hear a knock at his door and his daughter is standing there.[13]
אין המאמין מחכה דוקא שלפתע פתאום יבוא האדון אל היכלו באופן ניסי ושיודיעו לו שהיום בא המשיח, אך הוא כן מחכה בכל יום לביאת המשיח
Significantly, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed with R. Rosenthal and didn’t even think this was a hiddush, but rather the simple meaning of the words אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא. R. Rosenthal then tells about how he was at a meeting with R. Shlomo Zalman and other rabbis, and he presented his understanding. A few of the hasidic rebbes present started screaming that what he said was wrong and in contradiction to one of the Principles of Faith. R. Shlomo Zalman didn’t say a word. After the meeting R. Rosenthal asked R. Shlomo Zalman why he didn’t defend him from the attacks of the hasidic rebbes. R. Shlomo Zalman replied that you shouldn’t start up with Hasidim
עם חסידים לא צריך להתחיל
R. Rosenthal couldn’t recall if the following witticism was said to him by R. Shlomo Zalman or someone else later told it to him: In the Amidah we say: על הצדיקים ועל החסידים. We see that the word צדיקים goes before חסידים
כי לא “מתחילים” עם חסידים
It is noteworthy that according to the Vilna Gaon’s understanding, if the Messiah does not come in a “hastened” fashion (see Sanhedrin 98a), it certainly seems that no one would be able to hope for the Messiah to arrive in Tishrei. The reason I say this is because of how the Vilna Gaon describes the terrifying things that will happen if the Messiah arrives in its “due time,” and this is in Tishrei.[14]
אם חלילה לא יזכו ותהיה “בעתה” ואז אם היתה הגאולה בתשרי לא היה להם תקומה ח”ו ולא היו נשארים חלילה אלא אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה מפני שמדת הדין שולט בתשרי
Also of interest is the report of how R. Jacob Kamenetsky told someone that the Messiah would not be arriving soon. A certain man had been convinced by people in Chabad that the Rebbe would soon reveal himself as the Messiah, and this had led him to start observing Shabbat. However, R. Kamenetsky thought that it was important to uproot the man’s belief that the Messiah would soon be here, as he worried about the negative consequences to the man’s Judaism when the Messiah did not arrive as he had been expecting.[15]
אל תאמין להם. משיח, לצערנו, עדיין אינו עומד לבוא . . . [רי”ק הסביר לתלמידיו] מה שהשיגו אנשי חב”ד הוא הישג מדומה, שיצא שכרו בהפסדו. בעתיד הקרוב, כשיראה יהודי זה שההבטחה לא נתמלאה והמשיח לא הגיע, יתחיל שוב לחלל את השבת. יתרה מכך, עד עכשיו הוא האמין בתמימות מוחלטת בביאת המשיח, ואם יתאכזב, יפסיד את אחד היסודות החשובים ביהדות – האמונה בביאת המשיח.
Based on this, I think we can say that R. Kamenetsky did not expect the Messiah to arrive in the near future.
Some Jewish traditions speak of a great war that will occur before the coming of the Messiah, and even of the death of Messiah ben Joseph in this war.[16] Other traditions see this great war as occurring after the coming of the Messiah. R. Hayyim Soloveitchik is reported to have said that if the messianic era will bring even one Jewish death, then he doesn’t want it, and if we had a choice in the matter the halakhah would require us to reject the Messiah in such a circumstance. I wonder, therefore, if R. Hayyim was really able to look forward to the messianic era, knowing that its arrival would bring the possibility of Jewish death.
Here is how R. Hayyim is quoted by R. Dov Katz.[17]
מספרים בשמו של ר חיים סולובייצ’יק מבריסק, הגאון של הדור הקודם, שבימי המלחמה כשנפלו כל כך הרבה חללים בחזית המלחמה וסבלו כל כך הרבה, אמרו לו פעם בשיחה, שלוא היתה לכל הפחות מביאה המלחמה הזו את הגאולה, כי אז היה אולי כדאי הדבר. גער בהם ר’ חיים ואמר להם: “תדחינה מאות גאולות ואל תפול נפש אחת מישראל, כי אם היתה באה שאלה לפנינו שאם על ידי קרבן של אדם אחד יבא המשיח, בודאי שהיינו פוסקים שלא יבוא המשיח ולא תמות נפש אחת, כי הלא פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה, ואף המשיח והגאולה בכלל.”
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this report. It is very much in line with what we know about R. Hayyim’s views both about the value of human life, and also about the downplaying of messianism. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik stated: “To R. Chaim, a good chidush in Torah and Kodshim – if I may say so, perhaps I shouldn’t say it – was more important than the whole beis ha-mikdash, in his intuitive weighing.”[18] R. Soloveitchik had some hesitations about what he said, because he knew it would be shocking to people, but he said it anyway. R. David Holzer, in his note on this sentence, writes: “Obviously, the Rav is speaking derech guzma, just to express the concept.” Even if the Rav is exaggerating his point is clear, namely, that Torah study is much more important than what will take place in the future Temple.
I think the Rav’s point is that an Ish Halakhah is simply not interested in the messianic era in any practical way. He believes it will come (and thus fulfills Maimonides’ requirement), but he doesn’t focus on it, for he has everything he needs in a non-messianic world, namely, the study of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvot. As for the study of Torah, as the Rav said, creating a chiddush about the laws of sacrifices is more important than the sacrifices themselves, because at the end of the day Torah study is the focus of our lives, not sacrifices which we have been without the last two thousand years.
Even though I said that I have no reason to doubt what is reported in the name of R. Hayyim, and this report is also cited by R. Ovadiah Yosef,[19] I must note that R. Eliyahu Zini completely rejects the reported statement which he sees as absolute nonsense.[20]
טענות אלו דברי תימא גדולים הן. הלא הן סותרות כל מלחמה יזומה, אף כל מלחמת מצוה, וכ”ש מלחמת רשות! ואם נקבל אותן, נצטרך לגזור אומר, שגם כבוש הארץ בזמן יהושע איסור גמור היה, ושהיה עדיף להשאר במדבר כדי לחסוך בחיי יהודים רבים. ואסור להאמין שגדול בישראל אמר דבר כזה, שהרי טענות מרגלים יש כאן, מסוג “ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מידות”. ואם נאמץ אותן, עלינו לומר שהיה אף אסור לצאת ממצרים, כי יציאת מצרים הביאה למות דור שלם, ולכן היה עדיף לדחות אפילו גאולת מצרים!
לכן אסור להאמין לעדות זו. וגדול כר’ חיים מבריסק לא יאמר דברי הבל כאלו ויש כאן הוצאת דיבה על גאון זה, ובפרט שעדות זו מוכחשת ממה שכתב במפורש ר’ חיים עצמו [שלפי ר’ חיים אין דין פיקוח נפש חל בשעת מלחמה], והבאנו אותה כבר פעמיים לעיל
I don’t believe that R. Zini’s words, which come from a right-wing religious Zionist perspective, create any difficulty in believing that which R. Hayyim is quoted as saying, namely, given the choice between a Messiah which will require the loss of human life or no Messiah, that he would prefers the latter. What about R. Zini’s point that according to what is reported in R. Hayyim’s name, that human life stands above all, that the concept of milhemet mitzvah makes no sense? I think the answer is clear, namely, that R. Hayyim obviously acknowledged that in a halakhically valid war, and certainly in a war commanded by God (such as to conquer the Land of Israel), human life will be lost and we cannot have “conscientious objection.” (It is, however, hard to imagine how R. Hayyim would have been able to support a milhemet reshut.)
Yet there is no halakhic imperative to bring the Messiah, and if given a choice between the Messiah with loss of life or no Messiah, R. Hayyim would forego the Messiah. Given the choice between a Jewish state that will require the loss of life—even a state that functions according to halakhah—or no state, R. Hayyim would forego the state. This was one of the two reasons for the anti-Zionism of R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, namely, that the actions of the Zionists endangered Jewish life. His other reason was that he believed that the Zionists would persecute religious Jews in a Zionist controlled state.
To be continued
Excursus
The old question is why did rabbis give dates for the Messiah’s arrival when the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b, states: “Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end (i.e., the Messiah’s arrival).” Maimonides actually mentions a family tradition as to when prophecy will be renewed, and this will precede the messianic era. See Iggerot ha-Rambam, ed. Sheilat, vol. 1, pp. 152-153.
On the second day of the Ten Days of Penitence, one of the selihot we read (Tohelet Yisrael) states:
חשבון אחר חשבון עמך יפתור
“Thy people interpret reckoning after reckoning.” This refers to predicted dates of the Messiah’s arrival. R. Zev Wolf Leiter sees this as a proof that there is no prohibition in offering dates for the Messiah as long as one does not lose faith in the messianic principle if the projected date comes without the Messiah’s arrival. See his Kevod Melakhim, Hilkhot Melakhim 12:2, found here and on Otzar haChochma.
In agreement with R. Leiter’s perspective, R. Menasheh Grossberg, Shevet Menasheh, no. 46, also suggests that there is no problem in giving dates of the Messiah’s arrival, and what the Talmud is criticizing is those who, if the Messiah does not come on the predicted arrival date, would then deny the principle of messianic redemption. His proof for this interpretation is the passage that comes directly after what I quoted above from Sanhedrin 97b: “For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come.” Thus, we see that the Talmud itself explains the reason for the curse of those who predict the Messiah’s arrival, and it is because if the Messiah does not arrive at the predicted date it will lead to heresy in that people will completely deny the principle of the Messiah. R. Grossberg goes so far as to write:
הנה הראשונים שהיו כמלאכים או כבני אדם מאמינים באמונה שלמה להם ראוי לחשוב בקצין ולחקור באמונה
R. Joseph Kafih states that the reason why sages gave dates for the Messiah’s arrival, or in Maimonides’ case the renewal of prophecy, was only in order to strengthen the people, that they not despair of redemption. In other words, the sages themselves did not take the dates seriously, as the point of publicizing this information was for an entirely different purpose. In R. Kafih’s words:
לא פעל רבינו כפי ההלכה לכתחילה, אלא בכדי לעודד את העם
See Teshuvot ha-Rav Yosef Kafih le-Talmido Tamir Ratzon (Kiryat Ono, 2018), p. 389.
This is the very same reason Maimonides gives for R. Saadiah’s messianic calculations. Maimonides writes as follows in his Letter to Yemen (Abraham Halkin and David Hartman, Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides [Philadelphia, 1985]), p. 116):
As for Rabbi Saadiah’s calculations, there are extenuating circumstances for them though he knew they were disallowed. For the Jews of his time were perplexed and misguided. The divine religion might have disappeared had he not encouraged the pusillanimous, and diffused, disseminated, and propagated by word of mouth and the pen a knowledge of its underlying principles. He believed, in all earnestness, that by means of the messianic calculations he would inspire the masses with hope to the Truth. Verily all his deeds were for the sake of heaven. Consequently, in view of the probity of his motives, which we have disclosed, one must not decry him for his messianic computations.
R. Meir Leibush Malbim also provided dates for the messianic era. He believed that the initial stage of the Redemption would be between 1868 and 1913. The Temple would be rebuilt in 1925, sacrifices would begin to be offered in 1928, and the resurrection of the dead would take place in 2203. See Noah Rosenbloom, Ha-Malbim (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 159-160.
R. Judah Leib Maimon reports that his father asked the Malbim how he could offer such dates in opposition to the talmudic statement against this. He replied that the proscription against offering dates was only in the early years after the destruction of the Temple, when the path until the end was still long. However, as we are now close to the end of the Exile it is permitted to give dates. See Maimon, Le-Ma’an Tziyon le Ehesheh (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 19. The same answer in the name of the Malbim is found in R. Yissachar Dov Teichtal, Em ha-Banim Semehah (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 150-151. In both sources, in order to offer a parable explaining his point, the Malbim tells the story of a father and son taking a long journey. At the beginning of the journey, when the son asks if they almost there, the father is annoyed with him. However, after much time on the road, when the father asks the coachman the same question, he explains to his son that now that they have journeyed far the question is appropriate. It is the same with the exile, the Malbim explains. At the beginning, it was improper to offer predictions of its end. However, now that we are almost near the end, it is OK to do so. (In the version of the story told by Maimon, the young son is none other than the Malbim himself, and the answer comes from his father.)
R. Jacob Isaac Horowitz, the Chozeh of Lublin, is quoted as saying that those who, based on hints in the Torah, predicted dates for the Messiah’s arrival were really just offering a strong suggestion to God that it is time for Him to redeem the Jews. This is just like a son does not explicitly tell his father that he is doing something wrong, but instead shows him the Torah source so his father can draw the proper conclusion.
כי עפ”י הלכה באם בן רואה לאב שאינו עושה חלילה כיאות אז משום כיבוד אב לא יוכל לומר לו שאינו עושה כשורה רק החיוב להראות לו הדין בתורה ופוסקים ולומר לו אבא כך כתוב בתורה (עיין יור”ד סימן ר”מ סעיף י”א מש”ס קידושין דף ל”ב) וכיון שאנו רוצים לחות דעתינו לאבינו שבשמים שירחם על בניו ויגאל אותנו בקרוב וכי אין מן היושר כביכול שיסבלו עוד עול גלות לכן צדיק הדורות מחדשים איזה קץ משיח ועושים על זה רמז באיזה פסוק בתנ”ך איך שבשנה זו יבוא משיח צדקינו והוא להראות לאבינו הבורא ית”ש אבא כך כתוב בתורה היינו דבאותו מקום בתוה”ק כתוב שבשנה זו יבוא משיח בב”א
See R. Moshe Menahem Mendel Walden, Or ha-Niflaot, p. 12a, included in Ohel ha-Rabbi (Petrokov, 1913); Mendel Piekarz, Ha-Hanhagah ha-Hasidit (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 190.
******************
2. In the last post I mentioned Elliot Wolfson’s argument that the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s secret teaching is that there will be no physical redeemer, but the messianic redemption is able to occur within each person. A number of people were surprised to hear about this, as there is, I believe, literally not one person in Chabad who accepts this argument. While I do not believe that Wolfson is correct, it is important to note that one does find in Hasidic thought the concept of inner redemption.[21] Although this is not intended to replace the ultimate physical redemption, these Hasidic teachings do turn passages in the Talmud on their head. For instance, R. Meir of Apta asks why we need to pray for redemption if God has promised that he will redeem us. He quotes the Chozeh of Lublin who said that the Talmud, Megillah 16a, mentions that if you repeat a teaching in the name of someone else, you “bring redemption to the world.” The Chozeh points out that this is difficult, as every page of the Talmud has someone repeating a teaching in the name of someone else, and yet the redemption still has not come. The Chozeh replies that the redemption being spoken about is a personal redemption, that one is delivered from his difficult circumstances. Similarly, when we pray for redemption, it is a prayer for personal redemption.[22]
דהנה השי”ת הבטיח לנו לפדותינו ולגאלינו מהגלות המר, ולכאורה יפלא מה צורך להתפלל על הגאולה, ההוא אמר ולא יעשה. אך ששמעתי [!] מרבינו הקדוש מוהרי”י זצללה”ה מלובלין על הגמרא כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם, והתמיה נשגבה, כי בגמרא מצינו ממש בכל דף שאומר התנא דבר בשם חבירו או בשם רבו, ומדוע עוד לא נושענו מהגלות. ותירץ, כי הבאת הגאולה הוא גאולה פרטית לאיש ישראל ממצוקותיו, כאשר אמרנו, ותקם בעוד לילה שבהגלות יוושעו ישראל ויקומו בהרחבה והרוחה, וע”ז אנו מתפללים, וזה בכלל גאולה
3. In recent months there have been a number of discussions about epidemics in Jewish history and how the rabbis responded. No one has yet cited what the great R. Elijah Klatzkin wrote.[23] You can see this in R. Klatzkin’s Miluim le-Sefer Devar Halakhah (Lublin 1923), pp. 126-128. For some reason, the copy of this book on Otzar haChochma is missing the second half of the book. However, the complete work is available on hebrewbooks.org here.
R. Klatzkin prints an open letter he wrote in 1916 to his community in Lublin, when they were suffering a typhus epidemic. It originally was published in Yiddish and Polish. He obviously thought it was important that his message should be preserved for posterity, and over a hundred years later what he says unfortunately remains relevant to us.
R. Klatzkin tells the community that he has to write to them, rather than speak to them, as due to the danger they can no longer gather together in the synagogue. He mentions that although the government established rules to keep people healthy, nevertheless there are many who are ignoring the laws. (To this I would add, the more things change the more they stay the same.)
R. Klatzkin stresses that the various government rules are also required according to the Torah, and one who violates the rules, which bring danger to him and his neighbors, “his sin is too great to bear.” R. Klatzkin expresses wonder that he needs to warn people about these matters, which relate to their health and the health of their families. What he observed over a hundred years ago has of course repeated itself in our time, when for incomprehensible reasons entire communities simply ignored basic health guidelines which allowed the virus to spread very quickly, leaving a terrible toll.
R. Klatzkin states that he wouldn’t need to warn people to watch over their money, so how is it that people treat their health with less concern than their money? He then turns to the issue of hillul ha-shem, and we see that in his day it was also the case that there were Jews who created a hillul ha-shem in how they responded to the crisis. R. Klatzkin notes that even repentance, Yom Kippur, and personal suffering do not atone for hillul ha-shem.[24] “If we would behave in accordance with the Torah, then we would be a light unto the nations and would sanctify the name of heaven and the honor of the holy Torah.” In R. Klatzkin’s day, one of the reasons for the spread of the epidemic was the unsanitary conditions that the poor lived in, and he concludes his letter by appealing to the wealthy to support the poor so they can improve their living conditions.
In his open letter R. Klatzkin states that he spoke about the issue of hillul ha-shem and kiddush ha-shem in his book אמ”ש. This refers to his responsa Imrei Shefer which appeared in 1896, and he has in mind no. 92 in this book. In this responsum he makes a number of noteworthy points. To begin with, R. Klatzkin makes very clear that when it comes to halakhah there is a great distinction between real idolaters and the nations among whom Jews currently live. He cites the Meiri to back up this position and the entire lengthy responsum is in support of this point.
ורבים טועים ומתעין עצמם לחשוב שכל מה שמבואר בספרים להחמיר בטעות ואונאת אינו יהודי הוא רק מפני איבה ובאמת לא כן הדבר והוא איסור גמור . . . ומזה מבואר דכל מקום שכתוב בטור ושו”ע עכו”ם היינו בדיוק עובדי כוכבים ממש ואינו מדבר כלל מהאומות שבזמנינו המאמינים בהשגחה ושכר ועונש וכמו שמפורש במאירי
This shows that he really means what he says, unlike other works that include a comment at the beginning of the book saying that any time non-Jews are referred to it means idolaters who live in places like India and China. Comments like this were never taken seriously. In fact, the very existence of these comments was said by R. Moshe Feinstein to be a proof, contrary to R. Solomon Luria, that one is allowed to alter Torah teachings in the face of danger.[25]
R. Klatzkin begins his responsum by calling attention to a passage in R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:25, where Albo states that one is not allowed to charge interest to a ger toshav. The problem is that this contradicts an explicit Mishnah, Bava Metzia 5:6, as well as the talmudic explanation of this Mishnah, Bava Metzia 71a.[26] R. Klatzkin offers an original explanation that when the Talmud says that you can charge a ger toshav interest this refers to one who is wealthy, but if a ger toshav is poor, and he needs the money to survive, then he is not to be charged interest. Also significant is R. Klatzkin’s point that in this matter, and similar things, contemporary non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws fall into the category of ger toshav. He assumes that Christians are not to be regarded as idolaters, so they too fall into this category.
R. Klatzkin discusses R. Moses Isserles’ responsum in which he tries to find some justification for the practice in Moravia to drink non-Jewish wine.[27] R. Klatzkin suggests that this leniency arose due to theological reasons, because most of the inhabitants of Moravia were followers of Jan Hus (i.e., Hussites) who rejected many Catholic practices, including the veneration of images. In other words, they were distant from any “idolatrous” practices, and thus there was a reason in people’s minds why the prohibition on non-Jewish wine should not apply to them.
R. Klatzkin also takes up the issue of darkhei shalom. He cites the Talmud and Maimonides that when it comes to non-Jews – even idolaters – the Sages said to bury their dead, visit their sick, and support their poor because of darkhei shalom. After mentioning this, Maimonides also quotes Psalms 145:9: “The Lord is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works,” and Proverbs 3:17: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”[28] R. Klatzkin derives from this that the expression מפני דרכי שלום does not mean that Jews behave a certain way to avoid non-Jewish enmity. Rather, it means that by Jews acquiring the trait of mercy for all people, there will be peace on Israel. He cites the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 7:9, which states:
מפני מה מערבין בחצרות מפני דרכי שלום
In this passage it is obvious that darkhei shalom means something positive, to create neighborliness. R. Klatzkin claims that this is exactly what the expression means when dealing with non-Jews, He states that when Jews extend themselves for non-Jews in the ways mentioned by the Talmud, there will be real peace – in a positive sense – between Jews and non-Jews.[29]
ומוכח מזה דמ”ש מפני דרכי שלום, אין הכוונה שלא ינטרו שנאה לישראל, אלא דקאמר שעי”ז שידבקו ישראל במדת החמלה ורחמים על כל יציר נוצר, יהיה שלום לישראל . . . הרי דפירוש מפני דרכי שלום, היינו שעי”ז אוהבין זא”ז ונעשה ביניהם שלום אמת, וה”נ הפירוש שיהא שלום אמת עם העמים, כאשר ידבקו ללכת בדרכי ה’ המרחם על כל מעשיו
******************
3. In my last post I had a quiz with two questions. A number of people got one of the questions correct, but only a few individuals got them both correct. I won’t mention any names because one of those who answered correctly asked to remain anonymous.
The first question was: Where in Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does he say that a certain individual knew all of Shas?
In Beitzah 24b s.v. ולערב, Rashi writes about R. Kalonymus ben Shabbetai of Rome who had journeyed from Rome to Worms:[30]
גם עתה בא אלי מכתב מגרמיי”ש שבא לשם אדם גדול זקן ויושב בישיבה מן רומא ושמו ר’ קלונימוס ובקי בכל הש”ס
I took this question from R. Shlomo Schneider, author of the responsa volume Divrei Shlomo. In a work that has not yet been published he has a number of “quiz questions,” and in future posts I will cite more of them.
In terms of “knowing Shas,” it is noteworthy that today we hear about different great rabbis who have completed Shas twenty or thirty times, or even more than this. Yet in earlier days we see that the achievements of great rabbis are described in much more limited fashion. R. Joseph Karo’s maggid said to him that he would finish Shas three times, and that was thought to be a great blessing.[31] This was not just the prediction of the maggid, as R. David Conforte quotes the grandson of R. Karo that when his grandfather was on his deathbed he, too, said that he merited to complete the Talmud three times.[32] R. Karo also testified as to how rare it was in his day for anyone to complete the Talmud:[33]
בדורות אלו לא ימצא מי שלמד כל התלמוד כי אם אחד מעיר
Of course, it must be noted that when R. Karo speaks of completing the Talmud he is not referring to daf yomi style, but rather an in-depth study of every page.
Just like with have seen with R. Karo, in a letter to R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, the author of Shitah Mekubetzet, R. Moses Galante of Safed (1620-1689) writes that he has finished the Talmud three times.[34]
In describing the unique greatness of his teacher, R. Nissim of Gerona, R. Isaac ben Sheshet states that he was expert in three sedarim of the Talmud. Today, saying this about a leading sage would not be viewed as a compliment, as what about the other three sedarim, is he not also an expert in them? But this is what the Rivash writes.[35]
ה’ צב-אות הותיר לנו שריד דַבָּר אחד לדור הוא מורנו הרב הגדול רבינו נסים נ”ר היה כאחד מהם לדעת טוב טעם ודת בקי בשלשה סדרים ודמו לי’ כמאן דמנחי בכיסתיה ודעתו רחבה מני ים ושכלו זך וישר אין ערוך אליו בכל חכמי ישראל
For the other quiz question, I asked about the letters שב that are found after the first and second set of shofar blasts. What is this about?
I was going to discuss this matter and present various sources. However, Moshe Babad alerted me to the existence of a comprehensive article that recently appeared on this very topic, and thus there is no need for me to go into any detail. The article is by R. Yehudah Aryeh Markson and appears in the journal Etz Hayyim 30 (Elul 5778), pp. 408-437 (it is not yet on Otzar haChochma). The title of the article is
שב בני שב – לגלגוליו של מנהג קדמון שנשתכח
R. Markson begins by noting that he, like everyone else, simply paid no mind to the word שב that appears together with tekiat ha-shofar. It was only after he was asked what the meaning of שב is that he investigated the matter. This led him to uncovering the story of what used to be a widespread minhag that for some reason simply disappeared and was almost entirely forgotten from Jewish communal memory (with the exception of a few “pure” German minyanim, such as KAJ in Washington Heights).
R. Markson mentions various explanations that have been offered for שב including the incorrect suggestion that it is one of the holy names that you need to have in mind before shofar blowing. Another incorrect explanation was offered by R. Simhah Bunim of Peshischa that שב is an abbreviation for שוטה בלאז – “Idiot, blow.” In other words, blow the shofar without any special kavvanot and just have in mind to fulfill the mitzvah. (I am sure that R. Simhah Bunim didn’t really think that this is the meaning of שב but was only offering a “midrashic” understanding. This is probably also the case with those who explain the letters to mean שוואנץ בלאז.) A third incorrect explanation is that שב is related to תשובה and is directed to the people to urge them to do teshuvah. A fourth incorrect explanation mentioned by R. Markson is that שב should be read שֵב, as in שב ועל תעשה, and the meaning is that the person who blows the shofar should cease his blowing and wait a bit before resuming the next set of shofar blasts. According to this explanation, the reason for waiting is to give him time for silent prayer or to separate the different groups of shofar blasts. R. Markson records other incorrect explanations as well.
The fourth explanation mentioned in the previous paragraph is closest to the truth, which, as R. Markson shows, has its origin in medieval Ashkenazic minhag where it is first mentioned by Maharil. The word שב should indeed be read שֵב, and it means “sit”. The one calling out the shofar sounds was telling the blower to sit down between the series of blasts. R. Markson, p. 426 n. 71, refers to Maharil as ‘אבי ומייסד מנהג אמירת ה’שב. However, I don’t know on what basis one can say this, as opposed to assuming that Maharil is simply recording a minhag that was already practiced in his day. After all, as R. Markson notes, R. Meir of Rothenburg records the practice of the shofar blower to sit between the series of blasts, though there is no mention of the shofar blower being told שב.
Why is the person blowing the shofar told to sit? R. Markson presents a variety of explanations such as to show that the three groups of shofar blasts are separate from each other, to show that these blasts are the tekiot di-meyushav, to give the shofar blower a chance to focus on teshuvah or just to rest, or to confuse the Satan.
*************
The Seforim Chatter podcasts are fascinating shows conducted by a skilled interviewer. I think Seforim Blog readers will especially enjoy the show focused on Dan Rabinowitz’s book on the Strashun Library. See here.
On December 24, 2020, 9pm Eastern Time, I will be giving a Zoom class on the topic: “Christmas Eve: Is it a Time for Torah Study?” Those interested can sign up here. Those who are interested in my continuing series of classes can sign up at Torah in Motion here, and you can also download my previous classes on the website. The current series is being placed on YouTube here.
Coming soon:
Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 3
Fighting Over the Rav’s Legacy in the Algemeiner
Response to Criticism, part 4
*************
Notes
[1] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, pp. 181ff.
[2] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 42.
[3] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 182.
[4] See R. Yohanan Meir Bechhofer, Even Shetiyah (Ramat Beit Shemesh, 2005), p. 98:
ומו”ר זצ”ל חידש כי המלה “חכה”, אין פירושה להמתין, אלא ר”ל לקוות וליחל לבואו. ומה שבא רבינו לומר כאן הוא שכל יהודי חייב להרגיש בחסרון של העדר המשיח, ולקוות וליחל לבואו ולא להתיאש ממנו אף אם יתמהמה, ולא שאנו צריכים להיות ודאים שהוא יבוא בשעה הקרובה
[5] See Excursus.
[6] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 182.
[7] Benei Vanim, vol. 3, p. 184.
[8] Yerushalmi, Ta’anit 4:5 (24a).
[9] Bayit Ne’eman, no. 222 (18 Av 5780), p. 2.
[10] Ha-Tekufah ha-Gedolah, p. 380.
[11] Mishnat Yisrael, p. 416. He concludes that if the Brisker Rav really said that which is attributed to him, then he retracts what he wrote.
[12] See, similarly, R. Mordechai Peterfreund, “Nusah Yud Gimmel Ikkarim va-‘Ani Ma’amin,’” Yeshurun 22 (2010), p. 711 (called to my attention by Nochum Shmaryohu Zajac).
[13] R. Nahum Stepansky, Ve-Aleihu Lo Yibol, vol. 3, pp. 369-370.
[14] Even Shelemah (Jerusalem, 2013) p. 177 (ch. 11). Many vocalize this as Even Shlomo, and I have also done so in the past. However, based on what the editor, R. Samuel Maltzan, writes in the introduction, it is clear that Even Shelemah is correct.
וקראתי שם הספר הזה אבן שלמה על שם ענינו כי הוא אבן שלמה וצדק לפלס בו דרכי העבודה, וגם ע”ש מרן הגר”א ז”ל אשר ממעינות חכמתו שאבתי בששון הדברים הקדושים האלה וכמ”ש בהקדמה לספר פאת השולחן בשם מרן הגר”א ז”ל כי שמו מרומז בתורה בפ’ כי תצא בתיבות אבן שלמה שהוא ראשי תיבות אליהו בן שלמה, וכמו שאל”ף הוא פל”א ונעלם כך תורתו נסתרת ונעלמת, ולכן שמו בהעלם בראשי תיבות.
This is also how the words are transliterated in Russian on the title page of the first edition (Vilna, 1873).
[15] Shlomo Lorincz, Bi-Mehitzatam (Jerusalem, 2008), vol. 2, p. 588.
[16] R. Judah Leib Landesberg, Hikrei Lev (Satmar, 1905), vol. 1, p. 67, suggests that the entire tradition of Messiah ben Joseph has been misunderstood, and that it really refers to Bar Kokhba. After his defeat, due to fear of the Romans the Sages did not wish to mention him by name. So instead they referred to Bar Kokhba as משיח בן יוסף, which should be understood as “Messiah of the son of Joseph,” and “son of Joseph” refers to R. Akiva, whose father’s name was Joseph. After mentioning this provocative idea, R. Landesberg immediately says that it should be retracted. But this is obviously done so as to prevent him from being attacked for his new idea, since if he really wanted it to be retracted, he would not have published it in the first place.
ויש מן החכמים כמו ר”י בן תורתא היה מקוראי תגר על בר כוכבא עד שאמר לר”ע: עקיבא! יעלה עשבים בלחייך ועדיין משיח לא יבא! אולם ר”ע לא שת לבו ולא השגיח לדבריהם, ובכל עוז עמד למשען לו וקרא עליו: דין הוא מלכא משיחא! ואחרי כי זה ב”כ עלה והצליח שנתיים ימים על במות ההצלחה, רק בהשתדלות ר’ עקיבא “בן יוסף”, נקרא אח”כ בפי חז”ל בשפה הנעלמה, כי יראו באמת לישא שמו על שפתיו מפחד הרומיים – משיח בן יוסף, ר”ל: משיח של “בן יוסף” יען רק ר’ עקיבא בן יוסף גדלוהו ורוממוהו והכתירוהו בכתר משיח – אמנם רק השערה בעלמא הוא התלוי’ בשערה ובדמיון. ועל כגון דא הנני אומר: אל תגעו במשיחי וחלילה לפרש נגד המסורה הטהורה שקודם ביאת המשיח צדקנו יתראה לפניו בהדר גאונו משיח בן יוסף.
[17] Divrei Hagut u-Reut (Jerusalem, 1979), vol. 1, p. 170.
[18] The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 174-175.
[19] Masa Ovadiah, p. 340.
[20] Eretz Hemdatenu, p. 131.
[21] See e.g., Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971), pp. 176-202. Regarding hasidic thinkers, Mendel Piekarz, Ha-Hanhagah ha-Hasidit, p. 320, calls attention to the interesting view of R. Shalom Perlow of the Koidanov hasidic dynasty. R. Perlow states that things are better now than they will be in the messianic era, because at present we have free will. Thus, we can perform mitzvot in the proper way, which will not be possible in the messianic era. He also states that the delay in the redemption is to lessen the birth pangs of the Messiah. In other words, it is good for the messianic era to be delayed. This delay also has spiritual benefits for those souls that need a tikun. There appears to be some real ambivalence here about the messianic era, and R. Perlow was not interested in “Moshiach now”. See his Shem Aharon (Warsaw, 1910; bound with R. Pinhas of Koretz, Midrash Pinhas he-Hadash), pp. 5-6:
[22] Or la-Shamayim (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 214 (parashat Be-Hukotai).
[23] I also haven’t seen anyone refer to R. Isaac ben Todros (fourteenth century), who wrote a work
Be’er Lahai dealing with a plague in Avignon. This was published in Jubelschrift zum Neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz (Berlin, 1884), pp. 91-126 (Hebrew section).What we are witnessing in parts of the Orthodox Jewish world today is the greatest desecration of God’s name — chillul Hashem — I have witnessed in my lifetime. Asked by friends outside our community to explain the actions of some within it, I have been at a complete loss. For some reason that I cannot fathom, parts of the Orthodox community today act as if the principle of pikuach nefesh no longer applies and disregard the government regulations enacted to protect their own lives and those of their neighbors.
For R. Mayer’s Twersky’s recent comments about Covid-19 and hillul ha-shem, see here.
[25] See Changing the Immutable, p. 42.
[26] See also Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Malveh ve-Loveh 5:1.
[27] See Changing the Immutable, pp. 81-82.
[28] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 10:12.
[29] The same idea is famously expressed by R. Isser Yehudah Unterman, Shevet mi-Yehudah, vol. 3, no. 70.
[30] See Avraham Grossman, Hakhmei Ashkenaz ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 348ff.
[31] Maggid Meisharim (Petah Tikvah, 2000), p. 182 (parashat Va-Yakhel).
[32] Kore ha-Dorot (Modi’in Ilit, 2008), p. 128 (ch. 3).
[33] Avkat Rokhel, no. 202.
[34] Mikavtzi’el 37 (2011), p. 546. This is how the name of the journal is to be transliterated, and this is also how the Ben Ish Hai’s book מקבציאל is to be pronounced. Yet when the word appears in the Bible, 2 Sam. 23:20, it is written מקבצאל with a shewa under the צ, not a hirik. See the discussion here.
[35] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rivash, no. 375.
76 thoughts on “Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 2”
Thanks for another great post. One point is I see no reason to jump to the above conclusion regarding R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky’s view regarding when Moshiach will come. He could believe he could come at any time, and at the same time realizes he may not. If a Ba’al Teshuva returned to Judaism solely because he felt the Moshiach was about to reveal himself, there’s a not unlikely risk of this person dropping everything if Moshiach doesn’t come…that’s a concern everyone would share, even those who feel Moshiach can come at any time.
He did believe that in theory Moshiach could come at any time, but in reality he did not think that this was going to happen in the near future.
משיח, לצערנו, עדיין אינו עומד לבוא
Oops. I missed that part. Thanks!
עיקר חסר מן הס(י)פ(ו)ר, though. Did R’ Kamenetsky himself work, or have his talmidim do so, on convincing the fellow to keep Shabbos independently of whether Moshiach was soon to arrive, or was it enough to just “uproot the man’s belief that the Messiah would soon be here” and leave it at that? I would hope and expect that the first alternative was what happened, but one would think that this would be an important detail to include in the story.
Presumably, we would say that the Rivash means that the Ran wasn’t “expert” in the other three sedarim at the level of the Ran’s customary expertise; certainly by our standards (or even of that of the Acharonim) we would consider him “expert” in all the sedarim. The same basic idea applies to Bava Metzia 114b, where Rabbah bar Avuha confesses to not studying even the four sedarim properly (and, kal vachomer, the six).
However, this doesn’t seem to apply to the number of times finishing Shas. That seems to be an objective standard.
I wrote: “Of course, it must be noted that when R. Karo speaks of completing the Talmud he is not referring to daf yomi style, but rather an in-depth study of every page.”
Maybe he completed (i.e., read through) Shas multiple times, but in his mind he only really completed it three times as he only did it be-iyun three times. Or maybe he did some masechtos many times, but he only did other masechtos (e.g., Uktzin and Negaim) three times. If you do Nezikin and Moed and other masechtos be-iyun fifteen times, but Temurah and Tamid be-iyun only three times, then you can’t say you have completed Shas more than three times.
Yeah, sorry, I meant to highlight that line you wrote. I would be surprised to hear that the BY finished even the most obscure parts of Shas only three times. It seems more plausible that he meant that he only did it “well” three times (although that doesn’t seem like the pashtus of what he means, does it?).
WADR to Rav Soloveitchik, but Chazal say מיום שחרב וכו. After the churban our appreciation of the actual avoda is lessened, while our focus is the theoretical learning. But that is a temporary “bug” in the system, not the way it should be.
Maybe מיום שחרב means a permanent change.
So why bother with the theoretical learning? That would be the first thing to go if that was the case.
The story of the Rebbe Reb Bunim is told that שוטה בלאז was his response to someone who claimed he prepared all the kavanos besides that one of שב.
I, for one, am deeply troubled by Rabbi Genack’s characterization (fn. 24) of the behavior of some in the Orthodox community’s apparent disregard for the rules of pikuach nefesh as the greatest chillul Hashem of his lifetime. Bandying about pikuach nefesh claims in this context is cheap and insulting. The community in question is well known for its dedication to hatzalas nefashos as well as for its commitment to halacha. It is either sheer ignorance or rank politicking to suggest that this community’s careful risk/reward calculation in favor of practicing their distinct form of religious cultural behavior flies in the face of pikuach nefesh. As Rabbi Genack surely knows, pikuach nefesh is a halakhic concern and as such it should be guided by sensible analysis of the facts and not by shrill emotions fueled by media-hyped hysteria. The chillul Hashem trope is likewise completely off the mark. The real chillul Hashem lies in the bandwagon-ing with other Jews who castigate their fellows for not dancing the Mah Yafis, rather then defending them loudly and proudly for living according to the dictates of their conscience, faith and, yes, the ideals of American liberty and freedom. Such defenses have been offered by some courageous writers, see the articles linked below, but sadly, if predictably, many Modern Orthodox demagogues would prefer to shake their pompoms for the band of secular public opinion.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/religion-science-coronavirus
https://www.aier.org/article/what-the-hasidim-tell-us-about-being-americans/
Also, if pikuach nefesh is the overriding concern, then does that make the efforts to preserve Judaism in the Soviet Union a “great chillul Hashem”? After all, the all-knowing government then too decided that such goings-on were hazardous, and indeed not a few Jews lost their lives as a result.
Are you really saying that the rules not to gather, the mask mandate, represent the same oppression of religion as that in the Soviet Union?
In the Soviet Union, the law “allowed” the teaching of a few children at a time too. Yet we see how well that worked out.
What a load of hogwash. There is not a single, conceivable cheshbon for ignoring mask-wearing. It does not interfere with any religious practices whatsoever. And yet, as many can attest many so called ultra-orthodox enclaves totally neglect wearing masks.
In fact, many so called ultra-orthodox ignore covid-19 to the point of making gratuitously large weddings, simchos, etc. while taking zero precautions…The religious convictions excuse would be laughably transparent if it weren’t so dangerous. For shame.
“Not a single, conceivable cheshbon”? Tell that to the governors and mayors and “health officials” and so forth who stated that at Black Li(v)es Matter protests, mask-wearing wasn’t necessary.
Wow, just wow. Our halachic-centric machmirim, who wouldn’t eat a piece of lettuce that hasn’t been properly thrice washed because efsher maybe there is a ch’shash issur somewhere that we didn’t notice, and maybe there is a daas yochid somewhere who thinks we have to, are taking heterim (on sakana matters – sakanta chamira m’issura!) from the BLM protestors??? Sheker v’chazav.
Wow, just wow. Having such “emunas chachamim” in the words of people who have demonstrated themselves to neither be chachamim nor to have any ne’emanus.
Stipulate that the science behind mask wearing is uncertain. Irrelevant, since we are required to take action that has a tzad to save lives. Ask the average doctor in Lakewood if people should be wearing masks. Since most (all?) say yes, we are required to be machmir on the safek pikuach nefesh. This is aleph beis. If you think we have to have “emunas chachamim” to be required to take such a step, you are not fit for this conversation (or this blog, frankly).
Stop driving, then. That has a tzad to save lives; do you realize how many people are killed in car crashes? Those, unlike the efficacy of masks, are unquestionable. Also keep in mind the pollution they create and its (also unquestionable) effects on people’s health.
If your local electric plant is anything other than hydroelectric, too, then I guess your electrical usage will have to go too, because of the pollution it creates and its tzad to harm people’s health. (Actually, maybe even if it is hydroelectric, there’s the danger of people getting electrocuted by the power lines.) So I guess we won’t be seeing any further posts from you, then.
As for “the average doctor in Lakewood,” I don’t live there and have no idea what they’re saying. There are other places in the world too, you know, and their doctors have other opinions.
Meir,I would stick to the argument that to claim its a “chilull hashem that there are Jews ignoring govt decrees meant to protect us” is a statement breathtaking in it’s delusion .One can certainly argue what constitutes ספק נפשות from an objective medical point of view but to bring in the worthless( if not evil )opinions of politicians and public perception is this regard is not ראוי למי שאמרו
Yosef, I agree, and you’re right that I should have focused on that. Really, one has to wonder how members of our people, who have undergone several thousand years’ worth of “decrees meant to protect us,” can believe that this latest one is somehow different…
You continue to lose the thread of the conversation. I bring up mask wearing because the downside is negligible/nonexistent and makes no difference to how a person lives his life. It’s annoying – that’s it. Giving up cars, electricity, are a completely different category which requires turning people’s lives upside down. We can source all of the Acharonim’s discussions
as to why we are permitted to conduct our lives in ways that are potentially dangerous (going overseas on ships, picking fruit from dangerous heights etc.), but that is irrelevant to the discussion here, since there is no cost. Aside from the Mr. Smiths of the world (see “another reader” above) – who believe that mask wearing is dangerous – there is no justification for not taking the simple, easy step which *may* save lives.
The average doctor in Lakewood is extremely relevant to the conduct of the yeshivaleit in Lakewood, which I brought up above.
You are correct about one thing though: you probably won’t see any more posts from me, because your “reasoning” zigs and zags in a way that is not worth engagement.
To “Reader”, who claims mask wearing is negligible and not a big deal – if it’s so “negligible”, people wouldn’t have to be forced into wearing it by threats of fines.
How is that relevant? Maybe they are also wrong? Maybe they think that the protests are so important as to override the sanctity of life. We are Yidden, we have another yardstick. Making large weddings or tishn is not as important to us as helping other people and protecting their lives and health.
Bringing politics into a discussion of human wellbeing is a sign of a warped sense of values, and is of itself a chillul hashem.
Aha. So then, what determines that those protests are important enough for that purpose, but that weddings and other Jewish gatherings are not? Once those “health authorities” start bringing in such non-health-related factors, then they’re no longer “health authorities,” they’re politicians like any other. And as politicians, we have the right to point out that indeed their politics have no business being given any credence in this regard, much less it being a “chillul Hashem” to defy them.
You are talking as though there was a person who had a choice whether to attend a protest or a wedding. That is not the case.
Mass weddings are known to be covid spreaders, as is the consensus of the medical community. There is no religious reason, according to Judaism (perhaps another religion might think differently, but I am not a member of another religion), to hold mass weddings. We can hold much smaller ones, and we will be just as religious.
If we ignore the rules of covid for frivolous reasons such as weddings, tish, rallies and other non-Torah events, we are announcing that Yidden’s lives are not that important to us, which is a chillul Hashem, as well as wrong in and of its own.
And protests are known to be Covid spreaders too. But the “health authorities” have determined that there’s nothing to worry about with those. That being the case, if you’re going to argue that we need to listen to the “health authorities,” then fine, we’re listening to their own words and actions. And those tell us that the distinctions they’re making – protests fine, weddings not – are pure politics, not grounded in any kind of logic or concern for actual health, hence not something that we as frum Jews should grant any respect to.
That’s because they think for themselves, instead of just accepting the mainstream opinion. I’m not condoning their behavior, but you have to admit that it hasn’t been proven that masks are effective. It’s only a theory.
Every single medical intervention in the middle ages was just a “theory” (and maybe in the modern age as well!) and probably completely mistaken. And yet, we are mechalel Shabbos to transport a patient to these “theoreticians” on Shabbos (or vice versa) to do whatever they can. So your point isn’t relevant to the halachah.
Of course there is evidence that it’s the wearing of masks present a danger https://pdmj.org/
So throwing around empty claims about pikuach nefesh and sakanah to smear chasidim and Lakewood is just more of the mass hysteria that has spread globally.
Try some independent and critical thinking instead of making data-less and vacuous claims.
I figured we’d reach the nutty “masks are acktually dangerous” part of the conversation. I’ll trust the guys on whose advise we are required to be mechalel Shabbos (as is the unanimously accepted halachah) rather than your conspiracy mongering.
Everyone is encouraged to follow the ridiculous link given by another “reader” above. The vast majority of Lakewood consults real doctors about medical issues, not neuropaths, chiropractors, or “masters in public health.” To pretend that all of a sudden they consider the latter more reliable than the former only in this specific instance is really bad apologetics.
Of course dismissing evidence as “non mainstream media” and “conspiracy theories” does not constitute evidence. We have many many historical cases of mass hysteria so we know these mass delusions based on zero evidence happen.
You totally missed my point. Let’s make it easier for you to get: many thousands of Lakewooders go to Dr. S.’s practice (probably the largest in Lakewood). R”l, at times, he recommends potentially dangerous therapeutics, for serious conditions. Furthermore, he requires vaccinations. Certainly from the perspective of natural (faith) healers, one shouldn’t use chemotherapies, antibiotics, insulin, vaxxes and all that junk pushed by big pharma. And yet hundreds/thousands of yeshivaleit follow his advice implicitly, without researching on the internet. If they have a sick child r”l they will call or even drive to his house on Shabbos for his guidance. For some reason in this case, where leis mann d’palig the supposed risk is far less than from the usual big pharma toxins, they ignore him. Clearly this is hypocritical.
My quarrel is not with someone like you who doesn’t believe in modern medicine. At least you’re being consistent.
If you think the evidence for masks is in any way comparable to the evidence supporting the polio vaccine or a doctor’s prescription for an antibiotic you are very very misinformed. It is very reasonable for the Lakewood family to distinguish between the two. There is NO evidence that mask use as practiced in the real world helps against Corona. Try to focus on the evidence and not claims of authority.
You missed again. I was comparing the supposed *dangers* of masks with the supposed dangers of vaxxes not their respective efficacies! If you cannot comprehend a simple blog comment, I highly doubt your ability to evaluate scientific papers.
ברח מן הדוב ופגע בארי
Those who ignore the mask wearing mandates, suggestions, or laws, have not done rigorous research to establish that belief. They claim to have done so, but in all cases that I have seen, they started blindly believing ‘non-mainstream media’ instead of ‘mainstream media’. They somehow think that blindly following one opinion is intellectually superior to blindly following a different opinion, and accuse the ‘others’ of being blind followers.
Problem is there is NO real world evidence in favor of masks. And lots of real world evidence showing that they don’t work AND that they are potentially dangerous. One side just says the self proclaimed “experts” say we should wear masks or some ridiculous models with absurd starting assumptions saying that masks could work. The other points to decades of research showing masks don’t work and current data trends showing masks aren’t effective. They are also able to point to evidence that masks are dangerous and can lead to negative health outcomes. This dialogue just proves that the pro mask side is hysteria based. There has been no response to the evidence and research showing bacterial growth in masks, decreased oxygen intake, etc.
The logic y’all are using to support the widespread and constant use of masks would lead to the abandonment of Judaism (more “experts” are against it rather than for it). Luckily the Lakewood family is willing to use reason in distinguishing between proven effective medicine and ineffective/dangerous social experiments.
Would you favor surgeons cease wearing masks in surgery? They wear them every day, and often for many hours at a time. What is the difference?
Additionally all the studies done on surgeons wearing masks shows that they are of little value . And surgeons wear masks in ways totally not comparable to the constant and omnipresent mask wearing that the sheepels abide by. This post has links to a lot of the research (the extreme language used can be safely put to the side while reading the studies linked to) http://12160.info/m/blogpost?id=2649739:BlogPost:2035264
How did Lakewood become the operating word?
Why are they the yardstick?
I hope it’s not in bad taste to point this out, but reading the fears expressed over the great tragedies that would accompany the coming of the messiah, I couldn’t avoid thinking that (so far, poo poo poo) actual tragedies related to the actual return to Israel, while not at all insignificant, are barely anything compared to the real tragedies that occurred in R’ Hayyim’s backyard, and unrelated to mashiach.
Thank you HaRav Shapiro.
I have long wondered what made R’ Yochanan Ben Torta so certain that Bar Kochba was not Moshiach, and more generally, that Moshiach had not come.
Perhaps the answer is because, as the Satmar Rebbe wrote about almost to exhaustion, the post-churban Geula can only come about through Teshuva. Reb Yochanan Ben Torta is the author of another famous opinion: In the Tosefta (Menachos ch. 13) and Gemara (Yoma 9b) he is the one who explains which sins led to the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash in the first place. Therefore, he was well versed in what needed to be fixed. He obviously saw that Teshuva had not been done and therefore was certain Moshiach had not come.
As a side note, it remains one of the great mysteries why the Talmud Bavli doesn’t discuss the story of Bar Kochba whereas the Yerushalmi (Taanis) and Medrash Rabbah (Eichah) do. There is a very interesting passage in the Talmud (Gittin) that describes a warrior very similar to Bar Kochba but with a different name, “Bar Deromah”. The Ridvaz seems to have geld the Bavli disagreed with the Yerushalmi’s version of the story….a very difficult theory to accept.
Best wishes for a Happy Chanukah
Look at Sanhedrin 93b
of course – but there it white washes the entire saga – which exactly why the Radvaz suggests the Bavli disagreed with the Yerushalmi’s tradition about what really happened. I thought you’d point out to a better passage, the cryptic Gemara in Sanhedrin 97b which, if you look at Rashi and Maharsha you will find the single place the Bavli alludes to Rabbi Akiva believing Bar Kochba was Moshiach…
Maybe because only about sixty years earlier a much wider revolt, with much more support, against a weaker Roman Empire, came to a disastrous end.
Re: “R. Joseph Kafih states that the reason why sages gave dates for the Messiah’s arrival, or in Maimonides’ case the renewal of prophecy, was only in order to strengthen the people, that they not despair of redemption. In other words, the sages themselves did not take the dates seriously, as the point of publicizing this information was for an entirely different purpose. In R. Kafih’s words:
לא פעל רבינו כפי ההלכה לכתחילה, אלא בכדי לעודד את העם”
I would like to draw your attention to a similar idea with perhaps broader application found in the Zohar in מדרש הנעלם parshas toldos (dfus Vilna .קלו) regarding the seuda latzadikim leasid lavo.
After R’ Yehoshua is brought as concurring with the idea that it is not a physical seuda that is being alluded to rather a spiritual one, the Zohar writes “עוד אמר רבי יהושע האי מהימנותא שאמרו רבנן לרובא דעלמא דזמינין אינון בהאי סעודתא דלויתן וההוא תורא …קרא אשכחו ודרשו … כה”ג חמו רבנן דגלותא איתמשח אסתכמו על קראי דאורייתא ואמרו דזמינין למיכל ולמחדי בסעודתא רבה דזמין קודשא בריך הוא למעבד להו ועל דא רובא דעלמא סבלו גלותא בגין ההוא סעודתא.”
Interestingly, later in the same parsha (:קלט) the מדרש נעלם gives a date for techiyas hameisim, “ר”א בן ערך הוה יתיב והוה קא מצטער בנפשוי טפי
אבל אנא חמי אורכה יתרא על אינון דיירי עפרא דבאלף שתיתאי לזמן ארבע מאות ותמניא שנין מניה יהיו קיימים כל דיירי עפרא בקיומיהון…” though in light of all of the above it’s intentions may be suspicious.
Thanks. I actually refer to this text in my article on the Rambam and Necessary Beliefs.
Great post!
One point:
From his words, it seems clear that R’ Meir Apta זצ”ל is not referring to “inner גאולה”, but rather to a redemption that will ease the suffering of Jews before the final Redemption.
Regarding the ספר העקרים who seemingly contradicts the Mishnah, I would like to post the answer that I wrote addressing this problem:
שו”ר במס’ גרים פ”ג ה”ב “ואין מלוין אותם ולא לוין ממנו ברבית”, ופי’ הגרח”ק שליט”א שם דברייתא זו חולקת על המשנה בב”מ וס”ל דאיסור רבית נוהג גם בגר תושב כפשטי’ דקרא, וכמו שתמה רבי באמת בגמ’ (ודלא כהנחלת יעקב שרצה להגיה בדברי הברייתא). ולפ”ז אפ”ל דהעקרים פסק כברייתא זו נגד משנתנו, משום דקאי כפשטי’ דקרא וכקושיית רבי, ועדיין צע”ק.
Regarding the Rivash’s praise of the Ran, see מעשה איש חלק ד ע’ עז in the name of the Chazon Ish זצ”ל.
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51557&st=&pgnum=77&hilite=
Thanks for the interesting mareh makom! However, I would note that the Bach (shu”t, chadashos, siman 36) cites the Rivash’s praise of the Ran that “he knew three sedarim by heart….”
You say “A third incorrect explanation is that שב is related to תשובה and is directed to the people to urge them to do teshuvah. ”
I had thought of something remotely similar. As it is important to realise that the first tekiah of the second group is not part of the last tekiha of the first group, One announces Shuv. (see mishna berurah )So every one should know we are starting the second set.
Although this is an extremely forced explanation and obviously incorrect
This is a different Chaim to the one above (me).
Your link to the Sefer of Reb Eliyahu Kletzkin was incorrect.
Here is the correct one https://hebrewbooks.org/22174
Page 129
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22174&st=&pgnum=129&hilite=
thanks. I will fix it
The comments about Covid (especially from a rabbi whose partisan political identity is well known) are inappropriate. Not interested in debating it, suffice to say its a matter over which hundreds of millions of people, states, and countries, have wildly different opinions (all of which, of course, are based on fact if they coincide with our own, but upon lies if they don’t.) There is nothing – not one thing – about it that everyone or even most people agree upon. So unless one is looking to pick a fight, it shouldn’t be brought up.
Rest of the article is excellent, as always.
In Agnon’s Yamim Noraim (at least via the English translation), he translates “shav” as “rest” = “take a break”. Maybe it was originally designed for teshuva and/or separating between the different shitot of what a t’ruah is.
The issue at hand regarding social distancing, masks, closing down Shuls, making much smaller chassunos has become skewed with politics and that dirty word ‘hashkafos’. We have forgotten the simple logic with which we are blessed.
People are being asked to do something for the public good. We are being asked to wear masks and keep apart, so that other people do not get sick. Those other people are our friends, uncles, Rabbonim, our children’s principals and neighbors. If they were irreligious teens from Florida who shot a park ranger, we would be all over the place, with עסקנים מעסקנים שונים available to arrange that people’s schedules turn over on their heads for the infinitesimally small chance of saving his life. If they were bochurim who smuggled narcotics into Japan, no price would be too much to save them from their fate.
Yet, here we are looking for heteirim, for ways out and other people to blame. Why aren’t we just as worried now about other people’s lives? Why are we even looking for studies that say masks don’t work? How did we decide that we will only follow those studies that say that social distancing doesn’t or didn’t work, ignoring the others? Why are we not willing to invest at least as much effort into the chance of protecting others through making chassunos like Sheva Brachos’ as we were into freeing one single Rubashkin? Even if there is only a chance that this will save lives, is that chance less than the chance we could have saved the life of Grossman when we did all kinds of things for him? Doesn’t the importance of a Yid’s life tell us we should err on the side of caution?
What happened to בין אדם לחבירו?
When the outside world is more careful about בין אדם לחבירו than us, that is a חילול השם. We can preach about liberty and BLM and left wing hedonism till the cows come home, the bottom line is that as a community we looked for a way out of helping others instead of doing our utmost to save the lives of our own friends and neighbors.
This post lacks all logic. Locking down society, masking everyone everywhere, preventing people from gathering with friends and family, sopping children from socializing, and on and on and on has unbearable costs that people of your sort (ie hypochondriacs who don’t care about the costs imposed on others) immorally and unhalakhically ignore.
So nu, Litvack, why then do you suppose these self-same Martin Grossman petitioners, Rubashkin liberators, Bochurim in Japan extricators, and in general, chesed and hatzolah lovers, display such disregard for the health and well-being of your uncles and friends?
Your question is itself the answer to your question.
Let’s look at this at the micro level: How many years would you be willing to subject yourself to wear a mask around others in order to extend your own life for one year?
Perfectly put
B”H.
Great post as usual.
I have many comments, but I need time to put pen to paper.
Just two small comments.
1. I know this is kind of obvious, but one shoul point out, when discussing how much Shas Rav Yosef Karo learned and how many times, it is always good to note, that this is the same Mechaber of the Kesef Mishna and Bais Yosef.
Just food for thought.
2. I don’t want to wade at the “current” moment into the discussion of Chilul Hashem, nor do I chas Vesholom Minimize for one tiny second the importance of the matters of Pikuach nefesh (and I take this personally, as I am someone who has seen way too many people whom I hold dear (including Family members) fall this past year).
I just want to point out, that it seems to me, that Reb Chaim’s official position on this matter, seems to always be quoted in a certain way, but I wonder if Reb Chaim himself was really so uniform or monolithic in this regard.
In Shulamit Meiselman’s book, “the Soloveitchik Heritage” on page 81, she describes a story, where Reb CHaim almost caused the death of his young grandson Rav Yosef Dov, because he wanted to stop him from receiving a certain medication in the chance that the medicine contained non Kosher ingredients.
It was basically Rebitzin Pesha who stood her ground, that saved the little child’s life.
I wonder how this fits with the official story line of Reb CHaim’s position.
I can send anyone a picture of the book.
—
This is for now, maybe I will have time another time, to write more.
“because he wanted to stop him from receiving a certain medication in the chance that the medicine contained non Kosher ingredients.”
Sorry, it was not a chance, according to the story, at that time the medication did come from non Kosher sources.
R Avraham ben harambam writes in hamaspik “כי מוטל עלינו… שנאמין בגאולה הנכספת” “אך אם יבטח כל אחד מאתנו כי יקום הדבר ויהיה בימי חייו… יהיה בטחונו כפי המעלה הראשונה והשניה כי אפשר שיקום… ואפשר שלא יקום מפני חטאיו” I think its clear that he didn’t feel that his father required a belief that Mashiach will come today, rather Moshiach will come, hopefully today”
From Rabbi Dr. Gary Schreiber, who grew up in Cincinnati:
They did this in the yekke shul in which I grew up
After each set the Korea gave a light clop and said “Shev,” indicating that the seder was completed properly, i.e. all the kolos were kdin, and the Baal tokeiah could rest and catch his breath
The Mashiach Ben Yosef = Bar Kochba theory is provocative, as you write, but it is hard to square with the passage in Sukkah 52a where the MBY concept appears.
I was hoping you could elaborate a bit on R. Shlomo Schneider, whom you mention in this post. I have his SH”ut and a sefer on chumash and his breadth of knowledge is quite amazing, yet, I was not able to find much about him.
Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1935 until his death in 1946
Rav Amiel was not shy about ‘bucking the trend’, whether it was criticizing Agudah Rabbis’ anti-intellectual attitudes or taking an extreme individualist line in a Zionist community where collectivism and conformity was the norm.
While many Rabbis are extremely cagey about consulting, let alone quoting, non-Orthodox sources, Rav Amiel had no such compunctions. When he quoted Kant, he called him by name. The same goes for the scholars of Wissenschaft des Judentums or outright secular thinkers like Ehad Ha’am.
What’s most fascinating about Rav Amiel is that he can’t really be pegged – especially as a religious Zionist. It’s true that he was affiliated with Mizrahi for many years & that he supported the Mizrahi program of giving religious Jews secular education (he established Yishuv, after all)
Nevertheless, his attitude towards the Zionist program was pretty reserved, and grew more so over time. He had no patience for the attempt to create a secularized Jewish culture, and he saw little to no value in the establishment of a secular state (i.e. one not governed by Torah). Indeed, one gets the impression that he saw little need for a state at all, and preferred some kind of cultural autonomy. As opposed to Rav Kook, who saw much value in the works of Secular Zionism, Rav Amiel was barely able to be melamed zechut. The most he was willing to do was praise their building up of the physical infrastructure of the country. He spent about as much time being melamed zechut for Communists and Christians as he did Zionists.
THEN there’s the matter of his pacifism. Rav Amiel was a life-long principled pacifist.
he made frequent comparisons between war (no matter what kind) and murder. His position on Jewish self-defense was no less strident; although he acknowledged the existence of halachic “war” categories such as “milchemet mitzvah”, he insisted that Jews during the Arab Revolt conduct themselves according to the incredibly strict rules of “rodef”. He even paraphrased the Rambam along the lines that ‘even if there’s a one in a thousand chance’ that a captive Arab is innocent, he should be spared, unrealistic though it is in actual warfare.
The sad thing is that today Rav Amiel is barely known. It’s a shame
I am told that in the first יהי רצון in the סדר תקיעות the ישוע שר הפנים is likely an alienism inserted by Christian editors.