Author: Ari Shvat

Not the same as ‘born out of wedlock’ — the actual definition is narrower and more specific than assumed.

Q. Is a “mamzer” a bastard, and why isn’t he allowed to marry a regular Jew? How could a mamzer exist when there was a death penalty, for if the parents are killed, he wouldn’t be born?

A “mamzer” is one born from an illicit relationship so severe that marriage would not even “take effect”, even if they tried to get married. For example, conception from an incestuous relationship (like brother-sister), or a married woman with another man (if she hasn’t received a kosher divorce from her husband) would be a mamzer. In such a case, the parents are believed regarding the child’s situation, but they can’t be punished on self-testimony. Accordingly, the child is born and the parents, not put to death. Alternatively, another case could be if witnesses against the parents would only come forth after the child is born. On the other hand, the term “bastard” in English is used regarding a child born out of wedlock, but such a child is not (!) considered a mamzer, because that man and woman could marry each other. It’s forbidden for any couple to have intimate relations before marriage, nevertheless, a child conceived then is not a mamzer. One explanation of the severity of the punishment is that often, the fire of desire may blind a person to think that he doesn’t care about his eventual punishment. Nevertheless, if there’s 1 thing that may deter them, it’s concern for their children, for one usually cares about them even more than for himself.

Avraham himself objected — the text is explicit that this was G-d’s decision, not his.

Q. How could Abraham dismiss Hagar and Yishmael in such a way?

Your question is on G-d, not on Abraham- for it was Abr. who did not (!) want to chase away Hagar and Yishmael (Gen. 21, “and it was very (!) bad in the eyes of Abr.”), but G-d nevertheless told him to do so, as He explains there explicitly, so that it should be clear to all (and forever!) that Isaac, and not Yishmael, is the sole continuation of the Chosen Nation. Additionally, although the Torah is usually very concise when it comes to giving insignificant details, G-d does (!) feel it significant to write explicitly that Abr. himself (not through his servants) made sure to give them food and water (see there), and apparently she was heading back to her father’s family (as was the custom for divorced women). The Torah infers that their provisions were enough, but the problem is that they got lost and wandered [21, 14-15, the Hebrew word “vateta”, is translated in the classic translations and commentaries (Unkolos and Targ. Yonatan, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, etc.): “and got lost”] and only consequently of their getting lost, they ran out of water. This is also clear from the use of this root, in other places that it’s always “to leave the path” (Psalms 119, 110; Ezek, 14, 11), or in our context, to get lost. It should also be pointed out that Hagar knew her way back to Egypt (see Gen. 16, 6 and on), but somehow here, she got lost.

The Ramban disagrees with Rashi on this, and has a complex approach — a working test for telling which is which.

Q. Are we meant to take midrashim literally?

The field of midrash is very complex and includes several different types. Interestingly, the Ramban sometimes disagrees strongly with the Ibn Ezra for veering from the midrash of our sages, yet it’s not infrequent for him to do the same, differing with certain midrashim cited by Rashi! The answer to this apparent contradiction is that some, probably most, midrashim are not factual traditions but rather educational vehicles for teaching us philosophic or spiritual idea/s, or how to act properly, while others apparently do come to fill-in ancient traditions. Some possible identification signs for the first category (non-factual) may include midrashim where there are different contradicting opinions, or those many midrashim which “frame” our forefathers as doing sins they clearly didn’t do or exaggerating light offenses into serious ones, to serve as a “springboard” framework to educate others. Similarly, midrashim which seem esoteric would usually fall into this category. On the other hand, midrashim which don’t have an educational message, but are rather fact-filling traditions, like the names of Avraham’s or Shimshon’s respective mothers, may be meant factually. Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to tell whether a certain midrash is meant to be taken literally or not. In short, all midrashim are true (in terms of their message), yet not all are historically factual, and the best thing to do is to study them with a specialist who is experienced in the field and constantly search for the deeper meaning.

In a Jewish State, Rav Z.Y. Kook called it ‘G-dly politics’ — not a materialistic distraction.

Q. Should Jews go into politics?

Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook would often say that politics in the context of a Jewish State is “G-dly Politics”. The welfare of each and every Jew, the Israeli national security and health, even the national budget, are all halachic, G-dly and idealistic issues, and surely not “materialistic distractions”. R. Yisrael Salanter is quoted as saying that “my fellow-Jew’s materialism is my spirituality!”, for being caring and altruistic is to be G-dly, and how much more so on a national level. This type of national and military politics is exactly what preoccupied our spiritual heroes who we are meant to emulate (!) as the ideal Jews, like Moshe and Joshua, Kings David and Solomon, etc. These halachot, of how to run a moral and G-dly economy, army, and politics are detailed extensively in the Rambam (Hil. M’lachim), and present one of the major challenges of modern poskim. This is a central ideological reason why G-d created Israel as a nation, with a land, language, economy and army, and not just a religion. On the other hand, if you’re asking regarding the involvement of Jews in non-Jewish politics in their countries of exile, Jews are not meant to be living there, and are generally better off keeping a low profile. “A light for the nations”, (“L’Or Goyim”, see Isaiah 42 and 49)- is always (!) in the context of being a unique nation in the Land of Israel, for other nations to emulate. Thank G-d we live in a time when this is once again, possible and from now on, the norm, which we should focus on constantly improving on all the aforementioned accounts.

No hard data exists — but a theory for why an all-or-nothing reaction happens, and why it not only need not but should not.

Q. Am I mistaken or do most of the Ba’alei Tshuva belong to the less-Zionist element?

As far as I know, there has yet to be a comprehensive survey, nevertheless, there are definitely some “repentants” who so regret their previous lifestyle, that they go to the opposite extreme, and give up even the positive Zionist, nationalist or modern aspect. For some, especially the younger element, the complex message of religious-Zionism, that tries to take the best of all worlds, and believe that modernism, Zionism and the State of Israel, and Tzahal don’t at all contradict religion. To the contrary, the students of Rav Kook and organizations like Rosh Yehudi strongly believe that the same G-d who gave us the Torah, still runs history and over the past century, has gathered the exiles, revived the Holy Land, the Holy Language, the Holy army and Jewish State. In fact, Rav Kook wrote that anyone who deals with “teshuva” today, but ignores the modern prophetic return of the gathering of the exiles, is unfortunately ignoring & neglecting his strongest proof that the G-d of Israel is alive, runs the world and is currently fulfilling His ancient prophecies.

G-d is the One who also revealed to us modernity, computers, medicine, etc. and all of these are gifts which are meant to be used for advancing Torah, goodness, idealism, health, fertility, education etc. and not chalila “void of G-d” nor “tests of the Satan”! It’s clearly easier to understand simple black-and -white messages, but our world is complex. It’s also easier to deride and criticize all who disagree with “me”, but the Torah is positive-minded, and believes that we should all take the positive ideology and aspect of truth from every movement, because G-d wants us to cooperate with all Jews and all truths (one of His 13 traits). Additionally, there are a considerable number of Jews in different stages of the process of Tshuva, without leaving their jobs or communities, whose introspection is “invisible” but is nevertheless, taking place.

Three explanations for an old custom, and why it’s often better left unmentioned to a non-religious family.

Q. Is it true that for a stranger to say kaddish without a fee has no benefit for the soul?

There obviously is benefit for the soul when every kaddish is said, even without pay. What you heard is probably based upon the Beit Yosef (Y.D. 403) where it seems that for one who isn’t a relative, it is preferred that he be paid. The following explanations are suggested: a. There is that much more merit for the mitzvah of the deceased when he or his family have personally influenced or induced a mitzvah, even through pay. That way it can clearly be considered that they have a part in the mitzvah.

b. The “kaddish-sayer” will feel more of an obligation and will be that much more conscientious in saying it properly and with the proper concentration (kavana).

c. It is usually a relatively poor person who supports himself through such an “occupation”, and therefore, one adds the mitzvah and merit of charity.

In any event, it’s always better, if there are sons, for them to say the kaddish.

In addition, if the family isn’t religious, and they may not understand the aforementioned explanations, and may even resent the fee. This may cause a chilul Hashem (disgracing G-d’s Name) and accordingly, it’s better not to ask for a fee, for a chilul Hashem is one of the most severe transgressions, and surely disturbs the honor of the deceased.

A working list of how great rabbis actually did it — by sound, by meaning, or by their father’s name.

Q. How Do You Choose an Hebraicized Last Name?

Our rabbis teach us that there’s a certain amount of Divine spirit which rests upon parents when choosing a name for their child, and it would obviously be improper for me to withhold that great honor from you. All I can do is suggest examples of great rabbis and how they Hebraicized their family names. You’ll see that some translated the meaning, some kept a similar sound, others totally changed the name to express and declare their ideals, while others went by their father’s name (as was done in the Tanach and throughout the generations). The most common is to find a translation and declaration of ideology which also sounds somewhat similar to the original (possibly for reasons of family or convenience/regularity). Nevertheless, all of the options are open.

The following list can give you some idea how they chose: The Chatam Sofer: Schreiber became Sofer (= “scribe”, translation), R. Israelite became Yisraeli (transl. and ideology), R. Menkin became Neria (ideal), R. Shlichter became Yashar (ideal), R. Green became Yarok or Yarkoni (transl.), R. Goronchik became Goren (sound+ideal), R. Citrone became Kitruni (sound), R. Menashe Klein became HaKatan (transl.+ideal), Rav Kook temporarily became Shur (= “see”, transl.+ideal), R. Grodner became Gershuni (after his father, Gershon), R. Meir Berlin became Bar-Ilan (sound, plus after his father, the Netziv who was a great “tree” of Torah), R. Webber became Shzuri (transl.), R. Hershinson became Ra’anan (= “fresh”, ideal), R. Kretchmer became Ushpizai (= “host” or “inn-keeper”, trans.), R. Benesovsky became Bina (sound+ideal), R. Yehuda Klein became Amital (ideal), and R. Langenauer became Aviner (ideal+sound).

A mishna sounds like it closes the door on repentance — a closer read says it’s still ajar.

Q. Is there really no way to fix an unforgivable sin?

It’s true that the mishna teaches that whoever premeditates and says: I’ll sin and then do tshuva (return/repentence), I’ll sin and then do tshuva, successful tshuva is not granted to him”. But commentaries point out, that’s referring to someone who, as a matter of habit, says so (that’s why it’s repeated there twice). But if one does this on one occasion, and then truly regrets it, the tshuva is simple: just sincerely apologize & don’t do it again. In addition, the Chassidic masters like Rav Kook and the Netivot Shalom explain that it’s written elsewhere that the gates of return are always open (Hil. Tshuva 3). Accordingly, even in a case where it’s written that there’s no tshuva, that’s just part of the challenge- for if one does tshuva even after he’s told that he can’t, that’s the greatest proof that his regret is sincere and not just out of fear of punishment! Additionally, note that here, it’s not written that tshuva is impossible or it’s unforgivable, but literally, “successful tshuva is not granted to him”. He doesn’t receive the Heavenly help that ba’alei tshuva usually get, but it’s entirely up to him, and if he truly returns, then it’s accepted. The word “cheit” often mistranslated: “sin”- really means you ‘missed” (e.g. Kings i, 1, 21). If you sincerely regret, and “fill-in” that which is missing, then the mistake is totally erased. Hashem is our loving Father, and even His punishments are totally out of love- to deter us or others from doing wrong.

The Chatam Sofer did it, and so did many of Rav Kook’s students on making aliya.

Q. Should I Hebraicize My Last Name?

There are those, especially Holocaust survivors, who (or their parents) prefer not to break the chain of the family name. On the other hand, last names are a relatively recent development (several generations, not a long family tradition). Many family-names received from the gentiles aren’t particularly complimentary, often they meaninglessly tell how one ancestor coincidentally earned his money, or embarrassingly just perpetuate one of the temporary cities of exile. Many great rabbis prefer the Hebraicized version of their family names, including the Chatam Sofer (not Schreiber), R. Menashe HaKatan (not Klein), and especially many of the students of Rav Kook Hebraicized upon making aliya. The importance is obvious: just as one should go by their Hebrew first name, he should also prefer a deep and meaningful Hebrew last name. Our name reflects our identity, and accordingly, when Jews moved to America, many consciously spoke English and Anglicized their first and sometimes also, last name, in order to assimilate and be identified as American, and “not too Jewish”. How much more so should one want to do identify as more Israeli, Jewish, and Hebrew as possible (especially if you’re NOT making aliya, and risking assimilation!). Our fathers in Egypt were praised that they didn’t assimilate, and kept their Hebrew names (Vayikra Rabba 32). One who makes aliya deserves the valuable z’chut to be the one to ideologically decide and declare what will be your family’s name forever. As opposed to emigrating to just another temporary exile- by coming home to Israel, you are returning to the family’s original and also final destination and eternal G-dly language, name and identity!

The Torah’s default assumption is a Jew living among Jews in Israel — exile was never the baseline.

Q. Why are the laws of slander (lashon hara), returning lost objects and most of the moral commandments (“l’chavero”), obligatory only towards Jews?

In general, the Torah addresses our natural normative situation where the Jew lives in the State of Israel in the Land of Israel. Accordingly, the mitzvot are geared towards your Jewish brother, because he is the one who is meant to be around us and preoccupy us. True, we were temporarily punished and sent into exile to live among gentiles for almost 2,000 years, but that’s not the way it used to be, not the way it should be, and not the way it will be from now on, since our return to Israel. In addition, it’s logical that the special super-high standard of morality reserved for brothers [e.g. not to even talk good thinks about a person if someone might add bad things; being obligated to pick up every lost item, advertise it, and actively search until one finds the owner, etc.] is very difficult to observe towards total strangers, and the Torah wants to make sure that the mitzvot are real, practical and do-able, not strained or artificial. Nevertheless undoubtedly, after getting used to a special super-high standard of morality towards brothers, inevitably, one’s moral sensitivity and awareness will surely be higher towards the gentiles, as well- much higher than that which is accepted even in their moral circles and standards. For example, the news recently reported enthusiastically how an orthodox Jew returned a huge amount of money which he found in a desk bought from a gentile.