Category: Q&A

Various Halachic, kabbalistic, and educational reasons harmonize.

Q. Why Don’t Women Lay Tefillin?

Women aren’t allowed to lay Tefilin for several reasons: One must be careful to be 100% pure in body and thought while wearing them. Accordingly, even men, though obligated in Tefilin, only don them for the minimal amount of time, and immediately remove them, so as not to accidentally transgress prohibitions. Accordingly, women who aren’t obligated to wear them, shouldn’t take that chance (Rama, Or.Ch. 38). The Olat Tamid adds that keeping one’s body pure is particularly difficult when a woman is menstruating. The Maharam Shick (15) adds that being that Tefilin are worn for the minimum necessary time, as women are exempt, if a woman does lay Tefilin, even privately, it may be Yuhara (religious arrogance, seeming to declare, I can totally concentrate on pure thoughts).  The Targum Yonatan (Dv. 22,5) and others add that it transgresses the prohibition of wearing men’s attire. The kabbalists add that after learning the deeper ideas of Tefilin, one would see no need for women to wear them (Kaf HaChaim).

In addition, one can’t ignore the social and religious context, a woman declares by doing so, clearly defying Jewish tradition, and identifying with the slippery slope of reform. The “positive” direction of Israeli education in the Ulpanot and youth movements, has proven itself much more successful than the orthodox-feminist movement in America. Rather than instilling feelings of inferiority, attempting to copy men, Israeli girls are very proud of their feminine role, stressing altruistic volunteering, national service (absorbing olim, helping handicapped, underprivileged, building new settlements etc.), learning Torah in Midrashot geared for them, and being the backbone of the Jewish family, responsible for building today’s society as well as tomorrow’s. In short, the Israeli educational approach is that idealistic feminism, to be proud of one’s womanhood, is much more true, proud and appealing than apologetically trying to emulate men.

Whether one understands or not just defines whether it’s a Chok or a Mishpat, but in any event the mitzvah must be observed.

Q. How does the Torah relate to male homosexuality?

Interestingly, the Torah usually doesn’t identify whether a mitzvah is a Chok (Godly decree that we can’t understand) or a Mishpat (one which we can), for Rav Kook explains, if one learns ta’amei hamitzvot (the mitzvah benefits), for him the Chok turns into a Mishpat. Conversely, regarding the topic of homosexuality, although almost always considered a logical Mishpat, in the western world today for some it has turned into a Chok, which we must observe anyway, but today some may say they don’t understand why.

Nevertheless, we will attempt to show the benefits of this obligation, as well (but as above, it really doesn’t make a difference, for we must observe it anyway). There are many drives in man, all of which must be directed, controlled and used for good. The mussar literature teaches that one can learn to control even such strong and “natural” drives such as selfishness, violence, and anger, and in the army we are trained even to overcome our instinct to survive and charge (not hide from) the enemy fire for the sake of our nation. That’s what free-will, or life in general, is about. The Torah is the Manufacturer’s handbook to guide man how to get the most out of our lives, by defining objectively, and eternally what is the positive, as opposed to the negative, use of each drive, and not to constantly change values based upon temporary and contemporary fads.

In every place mentioned, the Torah sees male homosexuality as a ‘to’eva” (Vayikra 18, 22; 20, 13; Dvarim 22, 5), an abomination, or a disgusting use of a beautiful and loving drive, so it obviously can’t be considered a possible Torah life-style. Just as if a person would have a sexual attraction to his sister, he is meant to overcome it and direct that drive or urge towards a positive, creative and constructive venue, to aid developing an eternal, meaningful and loving family life.

Accordingly, sexual attraction is a beautiful drive, meant to be used positively to build a family, establish continuation of the generations and the world, and help provide meaningful companionship with the other gender, who’s difference is meant to complete and help us, providing and teaching us in that which we lack.

What’s “new” today, is that western society, belittles the previously unanimously understood importance of family and long-term pleasure, preferring career, money, and short-term pleasure, often sees sex as a major selfish indulgence and short-term pleasure to use and exploit the other, rather than to contribute to a loving and giving, altruistic eternal relationship. Inevitably many people are confused when it comes to how to beneficially use the G-dly sex drive. This is compounded by many who are shy or have been disappointed in their relationships with the other gender (something which always was, and always will be), and see this as an easier option, to choose a partner who is “like me”, rather than to invest the time and the effort to build relationships with the complimentary “other”. Just as many may find sexual satisfaction with themselves or a sister, but know full well that they are missing something more natural and deep, so too someone who feels homosexual tendencies should overcome and seek help to enable and find that deeper relationship. We shouldn’t hate, but feel sorry for all those aforementioned unfortunate situations (just like for one who doesn’t control other urges), and perhaps help direct them towards experienced specialists in the field, who have succeeded in helping such people to a great extent.

I guess you’re right that you can see all of the aforementioned sexually frustrated, as a kind of challenge for them and for their friends and family as well, to come and help them out. The benefit is indescribably wonderful and valuable. But as above, one who may have difficulty seeing the benefits of this mitzva prohibition, for him, it’s not a Mishpat, but simply a Chok, which must be fulfilled, even if he doesn’t understand it and has personal difficulty with it.

The halachic status doesn’t hinge on what she knew — and the fallout reaches grandchildren.

Q. If a woman had intimate relations with a non-Jew, and then marries a Cohen without divulging, does her husband’s or children’s status as Cohanim change?

I sympathize with your predicament. Unfortunately, there’s no difference whether the women knew of the prohibition or not when she had relations with the non-Jew (often “ignorance is no excuse before the law”), and the marriage to a Kohen is forbidden. If she doesn’t tell him, the husband constantly transgresses a commandment, whether wittingly or not [Nevertheless, it should be noted that R. Moshe Feinstein writes that already in the previous generation in America where Torah observance was usually lax, that Kohen’s mother may also have had relations with a gentile, and accordingly, the husband isn’t a Kohen, and need not divorce his wife]. Regarding status, although the husband remains a Cohen (if he is sure of his own status), their children are not Cohanim but carry the embarrassing status of “Chalalim” (“secularized/unholy”), and are even allowed to enter cemeteries, lose all of the special privileges of Cohanim, including the many gifts and honors involved, do not receive the first aliya to the Torah, cannot say the priestly blessing, etc. Your daughters and even your sons’ daughters would also be forbidden to marry kohanim. In other words, it would clearly be an embarrassment and unfortunate mishap to the family for future generations, and therefore should definitely be prevented. I strongly suggest you do yourself and your future children a favor and marry a regular Jew, for even if you may choose to try and hide the facts, experience shows that very often (especially in our global world) the truth is eventually revealed, and is extremely unfortunate for all (!) involved. May you have the courage and integrity to take the path of honesty and openness, rather than feeling guilty forever in keeping a secret from your closest partner. May this also serve as a message demonstrating the severity of a daughter of Israel having relations with any non-Jew.

A real range of opinions, and a practical answer for a convert who wants to sit on a Beit Din.

Q. Can a convert to Judaism serve as a dayan (judge) on a Beit Din (or Beis Din, Rabbinical Court)?

There are many different opinions regarding your question, all of them cited by R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer vol. 19, ch. 47). Many (including the Rama and Aruch HaShulchan) say that it’s okay if his father was Jewish, which, incidentally is very often the case among many converts today (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 7, 1). The Rashbatz cites that Shmaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the Sanhedrin were converts to Judaism, and accordingly, it would be allowed. Regarding the Rambam (Sanhedrin ch. 2) who says that it is prohibited, some explain that if they are the greatest scholars available, than it is allowed. Many (e.g. the Knesset HaGedola, Aruch HaShulchan, etc.) say that if the parties involved accept him as a dayan (which is almost always the case), than there’s no problem, but the Nodah B’Yehuda, disagrees. On the other hand, R. Y. Eibshitz (Urim v’Tumim, 80, 1) posits that it’s enough that the local leaders appoint and accept him (even if most of the community objects!). If you are asking practically for a particular ger (convert) who wants very much to be a dayan, you can tell him that if he invests sufficient time and effort into his learning, there are more than enough places and situations where he can serve as a dayan on a Beit Din!

Yes — but the Rav redirects us to what really mattered to him.

Q. Did Rav Kook have a beard before he was married? Payos (long earlocks)?

Although every detail in Torah is important, the customs which you are referring to are clearly not major points nor even mitzvot in the Torah, nor in Rav Kook’s outlook on the world. I suggest spending more time on his beautiful, original and spiritually-awesome philosophy and understanding of Torah, life, morality & spirituality, which are much more basic and central to his (and to every rabbi’s!) Judaism, rather than his external garb.

Nevertheless, Rav Kook does discuss the importance of a beard and payot (Otzrot HaRe’iya, p. 717-719) explaining the benefit in having a special, national “look” which identifies us as the Nation of Israel, even regarding our physical hair grooming. People tend to find beauty and love among those who fit their national appearance, for example, Japanese usually see beauty in the way they themselves look, so it adds to that all-important love of Israel.

Together with the importance and beauty of individuality, Rav Kook stresses that National Unity and pride are also important. Especially Israel, Hashem’s Chosen Nation, should patriotically stand out, identify and be identified, with our unique role. Additionally (ibid, 912), he writes that one is definitely permitted to shave (without a razor-blade), yet it is commendable not to do so, for the aforementioned reason of national pride. Accordingly, Rav Kook himself probably grew a beard even before his wedding, following the aforementioned ideas and midat chassidut (although there are no known photos before age 23, when he was already married and serving in the rabbinate), and yes, Rav Kook grew payos. But more important is we find in the pictures of the yeshiva students already in Rav Kook’s time, almost none dressed as the way Rav Kook was raised and dressed, but contrarily were well-groomed in the modern fashion, the vast majority without beards and almost none with visible payos. This is in line with what the Rav himself writes that it’s important that yeshiva boys dress modernly in a way that is seen as relevant to the generation at-large, “the living movement of the [chalutzim/pioneers], with [their] joy of life and bravery, intellectual  broadness, and national pride… cannot bear the hunched-back.. sadness.. which transmit sadness, dislike for [the world].. the [old-fashion] eastern clothing when mixed with poverty awakens disgust for those used to [modern] dress”(Igrot HaReiya 146). Similarly none of the students of Rav Zvi Yehuda, his loyal son and successor, grew payos while in his yeshiva, for Merkaz HaRav Kook students, who were afterwards the Religious-Zionist rabbinic leaders, were taught to always focus on the internal spiritual growth and not external trappings which can often even mislead and distract from the essence [Rav Zvi Yehuda was very careful of the laws of “Yuhara”, not doing public acts which may express one’s piety in a locale where that action is not generally accepted unless referring to mitzvot (not customs), e.g. he often mentioned the obligation not to hide one’s tzitzit.]   In short, regarding a “look” which doesn’t have a halachic basis, Rav Kook believed his yeshiva boys and bnei Torah should dress in a way conducive to bringing the masses to love the Torah and see it as a living modern and relevant ideal, which differs from place to place.

Everyone agrees it’s a milchemet mitzvah — the live debate is only about timing.

Q. Do Zionist halachic authorities agree to draft yeshiva boys from their Torah study?

The sources are clear that serving in in the IDF, as any war of self-defense, is a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war, Rambam, hil. M’lachim 5, 1)). It’s also undisputed that as such, everyone, including yeshiva boys, must participate (ibid 7, 4, explicit in Mishna Sota 8, 7). The only question is when and for how long? R. Zvi Yehuda Kook would give a subjective answer to each yeshiva boy who asked. In general, the army undoubtedly needs the yeshiva boys, but is willing to defer their draft to do the hesder program (deferring for about 1.5 years, and then serving 1.5 instead of 3 yrs.) or what’s called “hesder Merkaz” (serving a half a year while learning 9.5 years). The army gains because the Torah a boy has learned in one of the Zionist yeshivot motivates, and he’ll be a better soldier. As far as I know, when R. Avraham Shapira headed Merkaz HaRav after RZY Kook, he continued with the aforementioned arrangement, and I know many boys who learned there, and they all served Tzahal enthusiastically. R. Mordechai Eliahu felt that as long as a boy is learning strong, he should stay in yeshiva, and do the army upon leaving, which eventually just about everybody does in the Zionist yeshivot. Most Zionist roshei yeshivot agree more with the first opinion. It’s also clear from the Tanach and the Rambam that that’s what was done in the past and is seen as the original authentic Torah ideal, before being warped by the exile. How much more so during war, where over the last 3 years, when the same reservist soldiers (many of whom also prefer to learn Torah) have already been called 7 (!) times already, for hundreds of days away from their families, the great mitzvah & obligation to fight and defend Am Yisrael & eretz Yisrael, should be shared by all yeshiva boys as well. These sources also clearly obligate Haredi yeshiva boys as well as yeshiva boys (and how much more so YU students and young working men) abroad, as well.

Maybe the Torah stays vague not only to protect his honor, but because the sin was what he didn’t do.

Q. If Moshe Rabbenu’s sin wasn’t spelled out in the Torah out of respect, it seems to be counterproductive, because in the process, the commentaries compile 13 different suggestions to explain his sin?!

If we compare Moshe’s reaction in Bamidbar 20 (where he is punished) to a similar story in Shmot (17), we see there that when the people complained about G-d because of their thirst, Moshe immediately castigated them, as opposed to this week’s parsha, where he and Aharon run away and just fall on their face. Our rabbis feel that one who’s in a leadership position to rebuke and doesn’t, it’s as if he himself transgressed that very sin (Rama Y.D. 334, 48). Accordingly, the Torah accuses Moshe and Aharon for “lack of belief” and “rebellion”, because that was the sin of Israel which Moshe & Aharon didn’t stop, in addition to “not sanctifying G-d’s Name before Israel” (= bringing others to believe, see Tanchuma, Tazria 9). Accordingly, we understand why Aharon was also punished (for although he didn’t strike the rock, nor call the people “rebels” or most of the other sin suggestions), for he also didn’t rebuke the people, and why Yehoshua replaced them to lead Israel into the Land (because he and Calev excelled, in the Sin of the Spies, precisely in rebuking the masses). If so, the reason Moshe’s wrongdoing isn’t explicit, isn’t necessarily out of respect for him, rather because it’s not that he did anything wrong, but it’s what he didn’t (!) do- that he, and Aharon, didn’t rebuke Israel for their complaining, rebellion and lack of faith.

The Torah is deliberately vague here — which the Rav reads as itself being the answer.

Q. How long were the days in creation? It’s important to stress that the Torah is not a history book, nor a science manual, and therefore when such information is purposely vague, that’s the real answer.

We don’t really care how long the days were. If a certain generation has reason to think that the theory of evolution is true and that each day of creation maybe took millions of years, we can fit that into the Torah and should reap the spiritual benefits of that theory in that respective generation, but if science ever claims that it can conclusively prove otherwise, Rav Kook says we’ll be able to fit that into the text, as well. The Talmud teaches us that the real meaning of the story of creation can only be taught to individual and select learned adult students (Chagiga 11b), which infers that it’s clearly not simple and literal.

The term “yom”, throughout the Tanach refers either to the 24 hour unit (called in the Talmud (Brachot 3a) and in modern Hebrew: y’mama, from the same root as “yom”), or sometimes just to the daylight half (as opposed to the night), as is clear from both usages of the term in the fifth verse in the Torah: “And G-d called the light: ‘day’ (yom!) and the darkness: ‘night’, and it was evening, and it was morning, (together=) one “day” (yom!). In short, you always must look at the context. Accordingly, in the creation, it may be otherwise, for the sun and moon were only created on the 4th day, so obviously it’s may be understood differently.

Rav Kook’s answer to this classic quote (often attributed to Emerson): only G-d ever reaches ‘destination.’

Q. “Life is a journey, not a destination”- is that a Jewish thought?

Judaism has been around for 3,700 years and is not obligated to any quote attributed to Emerson, although we definitely “accept the truth from whoever will say it”. In fact, a relatively comparable idea is worded nicely by Rav Kook: that nobody except G-d ever achieves perfection (what may be called: destination), but the “strive for perfection” (or: the journey), being intent on constant improvement, is as perfect as man can get. That doesn’t mean not to set goals here and now, but to the contrary, to continuously set and attempt to achieve and fulfill one’s goal, and then set another one… There’s importance in each tree (journey), which together comprise the forest (one’s destiny). Living an idealistic and G-dly life of Torah and mitzvot (=clearly defined individual G-dly actions and goals) is meant to bring happiness and fulfillment, and even to approach the “destination” of G-dliness in this (!) world. That’s why the Torah doesn’t talk a lot about the world-to-come, because we are meant to focus on improving ourselves and this world, in our lifetime. The challenges in life are meant to fortify us, and help us realize our potential. Choosing good, not bad, is that free will and idealistic discipline that differentiates man from animal. This is what Rav Soloveichik calls: to destine one’s fate. Accordingly, challenges (or “journeys”) are life itself! On the other hand, there is also a clear and defined destination: “G-dliness”, and the closer we are to it, the better.

From hand-washing rules for the sick to why greeting a friend is off-limits, even by phone.

Q. Lesser-Known Laws of Tisha B’Av?

If one is sick on the fast of Tish’a B’Av, one need not spread out his eating and drinking into small amounts like on Yom Kippur, but eats simple and nourishing food (nothing lavish, nor candy). If he wishes to eat bread, he must wash his hands as usual (including after the meal, if you usually do so), even though washing is one of the 5 prohibitions- that’s only pleasure-washing, not for religious purposes, which is allowed. In that case, Ashkenazim say “Nachem” (a special prayer inserted in Mincha, see http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=6010 where I discussed the different opinions of the modern wording after the liberation of Jerusalem in the 6 Day War) in benching after the meal at the end of the 3rd blessing, although many Sfaradim don’t. One doesn’t greet his friend on Tish’a B’Av with “Shalom”, “Good Morning” or “Hello” (even on the phone), as a sign of mourning. We sit only on low chairs or the floor from night until midday. One isn’t allowed to learn Torah, because it brings spiritual happiness, except for the sad books like Eicha, the cheerless chapters of Jeremiah, midrashim and Talmud passages about the destruction of the Temple, the laws of mourning, and ethical teachings (mussar) that brings introspection and improvement, which is the most important aspect of the fast. Similarly, one should give charity; many give the equivalent of how much they saved on food that day. May G-d grant us the complete redemption so that Tish’a B’Av will turn into a holiday, quickly in our lifetime!