Category: Q&A

With many Muslim neighbors and co-workers, what should one keep in mind day to day?

Q. There are many Muslims in my neighborhood and at my workplace. Please guide me on what things I should avoid while dealing with the Muslims and how to manage my affairs with them?

I don’t know where you live, nor the Islamic population there. But in general, if they are not fanatic, you have no reason to worry, but for your sake, I would be wary not to say anything against Moslems or Islam. You can’t change their religion or their mind, so for peaceful relations, I would stay away from discussing religion or politics with them. Their religion is generally not very tolerant nor democratic minded, and still have this idea that all should be convinced or forced to convert to Islam, so I would avoid debating them which may just create animosity. I would add that this is just another reason to make Aliya to Israel, where we have the “home-court advantage”, and Jews obviously feel much more at home!

Five reasons, from the Maharal’s own complaint to a reaction against Zionism’s embrace of the text.

Q. How is it that most of the world loves the Tanach, but it is neglected in orthodox Jewish circles where I’d think it should be studied the most?

Unfortunately, we find already in previous generations, great rabbis like the Maharal and Gra, bemoan the fact that there was a general neglect of the study of Tanach, Jewish philosophy, mussar, kabbala, etc. throughout the generations, and 5 major reasons have been suggested:  A. The Chovot HaL’vavot (intro. p. 34) laments already 1,000 years ago, that status is acquired in the yeshiva world as a result of Talmud study, because of its complexity. B. The Mesilat Yesharim (intro. p. 4) adds that other topics are considered too easy. C. Rav Moshe Shternbuch of the Eidah HaCharedit (Resp. Teshuvot v’Hanhagot ii, 457) fears that the study of Tanach and surely philosophy, awaken questions which they fear may misguide the young, and rather than address the questions, they prefer to avoid them. D. Many topics in Tanach, like national, military, social and economic issues, were not considered relevant in the exile, and the haredi-world in general is still living a galut-like lifestyle. E. Some see it as a reaction against Zionism and “enlightenment”, which stress the importance of Tanach, Hebrew and living in Israel, so the haredim spitefully (and unfortunately) left these essential topics of Judaism. Rav Kook writes that today, the unfortunate rebellion of many people who have left Torah practice, is G-d’s way of “forcing” us to rediscover these most appealing aspects of Torah (as done in the yeshivot for Ba’alei Teshuva), in order to “compete”, answer their questions, help them to return, and help us return to the complete and natural Torah.

Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, the Vilna Gaon, and a Chafetz Chaim who tried making aliya at 86.

Q. Is Aliya an Halachic Obligation?

Yes, our rabbis teach us that living in Israel is not only a halacha, but is “equated with all of the other mitzvot combined” (Sifre, Dvarim 12; Tosefta Avoda Zara 5, 2)! It is cited in the classic works of halacha, for example: the Rambam (Mlachim 5, 12, “A person should always live in the Land of Israel”), the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 75, 3, “even in a city which is mostly gentiles”, as opposed to living in “a city in chutz laAretz which is mostly Jewish”; and Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Brura, Orach Chaim, 248, 4). There are so many sources, I’ll suffice to quote the Pitchei Tshuva (Even HaEzer 75, 6) who’s job is to summarize: “The Ramban learns out the mitzvah from במדבר לג, נג, “והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה”, and it is a mitzvah equated with the rest of the mitzvot combined… all time periods are equal to fulfill this mitzvah (even if there’s no Beit haMikdash), and this is clear from all of the poskim, rishonim and achronim“. The Sdei Chemed (v, p. 11), also known as a “summarizer”, says almost the same, word for word. The obligation is cited by the Vilna Gaon, the Chatam Sofer, R. Ya’akov Emdin, the Avnei Nezer, the Chazon Ish and tens of others, and some, like Rashi (Yvamot 64a) goes so far as to say that living in chutz laAretz is a sin. The Chafetz Chaim even attempted making aliya at the age of 86! The Or HaChaim HaKadosh (end of parshat Netzavim) says that not only is aliya an halacha, but it is more than a mitzvah, for it “includes all of the Torah”.

In addition, as we explained many times and from many different vantage points why it’s so important, for example:

it enables all of the other mitzvot (quantity)

mitzvot in chutz laAretz are just practice (quality)

there is a living and loving eternal bond between Israel and our Land, like a man and his wife.

It doubles our Judaism, from being just a religion to being also a religion and also a nation.

It enables us to reveal G-dliness and holiness in every aspect of life, where our fruit is holy, as are our rocks, army, language, days of the week, hikes, bus-drivers, etc. etc.

I can just add the words of the Gerrer Rebbe, that today, the only one of the ten tests of Avraham Avinu that remains to help us measure our dedication to G-d is: “לך לך מארצך ממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראיך”, “leave your country, your homeland and your father’s home to go to [the Promised Land]. Anyone who sees doing the will of Hashem, and being with and building the nation of Israel as important factors in life, will undoubtedly make aliya. How much more so when Am Yisrael is at war and needs all healthy boys that can fight. Those who don’t are usually proclaiming that money, convenience and other factors are more important on his/her priority list (the Maggid of the Shulchan Aruch).

Jerusalem is no longer ‘destroyed and desolate’ — three different answers.

Q. Since the liberation of Jerusalem in the Six Day War in 1967/תשכ”ז, shouldn’t we make some changes updating the “Nachem” prayer on Tish’a B’Av to be more relevant?

We know how important it is to speak honestly, and how much more so during prayer to G-d. In fact, one who is not fasting cannot say “the day of our fast”. Similarly we must pray honestly, for the situation of Jerusalem, is no longer “destroyed… deserted without her sons… desolate without inhabitants… swallowed by legions, conquered by idolators…”. There are three legitimate approaches among the poskim: Rav Shlomo Goren, as chief rabbi, reworded the Nachem bracha (see Google) based upon alternative rabbinical versions that are presently more accurate, praying for the Temple, spiritual revival, and those aspects of redemption we have yet to merit, despite the many prophecies we’ve already seen fulfilled.

A second approach, that of Rav Ovadia Yosef, former chief rabbi, opines not to make changes in the wording, but to concentrate on the unfortunate “spiritual” situation in Jerusalem, which, despite housing more yeshivot than any time in history, is far from ideal.

A third approach, that of Rav Chaim David HaLevy former chief rabbi of Tel-Aviv (and R. Aharon Lichtenstein), is to simply add the word “shehayta…” (“which was”… destroyed etc.). On the other hand, this turns the bracha from one of request to one of thanks, something which is worthy, but “thanks” is the third section of the prayer, while Nachem is still situated in the second section, of request. Because of this difficulty, as well as the literal inaccuracy of the second opinion, I personally recite Rav Goren’s version of Nachem.

Let’s pray for complete redemption!

A calendar quirk changes some rules for this particular Tisha B’Av.

Q. What’s different when Tisha b’Av falls on Shabbat?

When Tish’a B’Av falls on Shabbat, there is no “meal of mourning” preceding the fast this year, but we must not forget to finish the afternoon meal before sunset. Nevertheless, the prohibition of wearing leather shoes only begins at nightfall, with the exit of Shabbat. Being that we can’t make regular havdala on Sat. night, we just make the blessing on the havdala torch, and the shortened “baruch hamvdil” WITHOUT G-d’s Name. Only after Tish’a B’Av, on Sun. night, do we make the blessing on wine (preferably, grape juice), skipping the introductory verses, and say the actual hamavdil blessing with G-d’s Name.

Although most years, the “9 days” prohibitions continue until the afternoon of the 10th of Av, this year, because we fast on the 10th of Av, shaving, laundry and bathing are allowed already that night, and just meat and wine aren’t enjoyed until Mon. morning.

Speaking from the heart matters most — but there are also many reasons for doing it in our eternal national language which is also G-d’s!

Q. Why Pray in Hebrew?

Speaking from the heart is of utmost importance, for our connection with G-d should be without intermediaries, like a child speaking to his Father. Nonetheless, if one can understand and speak to Him in His Holy Language, especially if you can truly identify from your heart with the holiest of the wordings of the most choice age-old prayers ever written by the greatest prophets and sages who “knew” G-d as much as man can, you gain that much more connection with Him. Hebrew has such deep kabbalistic meanings in every letter and root, that G-d actually created the world with the Hebrew language (the verb used in creation is “and He said“, i.e. in Hebrew). Not only is Hebrew the way G-d speaks to his prophets, but it’s also the way they speak with Him. Additionally, if the French are so proud of their language, how much more so should the Chosen People be proud of our “Holy Tongue” which He granted to us. Recently, the problem of the Reform with their far-reaching changes which render Judaism unrecognizable is another reason why format-alterations are problematic. Also, there’s a special power when an entire nation prays together, requesting as-one basic prayer, in all prayer-houses in all places. In addition, Rav Kook explains that, among other goals, the unified prayer is meant to educate us what we should want, or “want to want” out of life. The Amida is worded in plural because it’s for all of Israel, and most of our requests in the Shmoneh-Esreh are not individual but for the  nation which makes sense to say in our national language. In short, for all of these reasons, it’s best to pray in Hebrew, but add your personal prayers in each blessing of the requests in your own personal words.

The Rambam’s four-part test for when the Torah deters especially forcefully, and why all four apply here.

Q. Pornographic Internet — What’s the Problem?

Internet has extremely exacerbated the problem of pornography, and has even ruined marriages. The Rambam (Guide 3, 41) explains that the Torah threatens the most serious of heavenly punishments where there is a special need to “internally” deter for 4 possible reasons, all (!) of which ironically apply regarding pornographic internet. The (a) seriousness of “lo taturu acharei l’vavchem v’acharei eineichem”, is recited twice a day in Kri’at Shma, because sexual day-dreaming is an all-encompassing problem which can significantly distract from concentrating on life. The (b) frequency is well-known to anyone who has the problem. The (c) accessibility that porn today is only a couple clicks away, and the fact that it can and is done easily in private,(d) without requiring daring, would all explain why Judaism deals so severely with the obligation to “watch one’s eyes”. The Rambam explicitly lists someone who watches porn as one of the 24 cases where t’shuva (repentance) is particularly difficult because many mistakenly excuse themselves saying, “I haven’t done a forbidden action- I’m just looking”, without realizing that “looking” (as opposed to “seeing”) is a seriously forbidden action in unto itself.

Pornography artificially distracts from investing the effort to build a healthy, normal relationship with a real, live woman, answering to her needs, and working towards the intimate mutual love and satisfaction of marriage. Viewing women as sex objects is the opposite of having a true “soul-mate”. Altruistic love for a real woman, and cheap pornographic lust for an unfamiliar female body, are diametrically opposed!

The Rambam’s own criteria for mashiach, and why spiritual greatness and miracles aren’t among them.

Q. Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe the Mashiach?

The Rambam (M’lachim 11, 3; Ta’aniot 5, 3) cites as the precedent of what the mashiach (messiah) is going to be like, when R. Akiva and all of the great rabbis of his generation proclaimed Bar Kochva as mashiach, because of his military rebellion against the Romans about 52 years after the destruction of the Second Temple. The mashiach is not expected to do supernatural miracles but to be a nationalist, political and military leader who succeeds in ousting foreign rule from the Land of Israel (Rambam, Teshuva 8, 7 and 9, 2; Mishna Brura 561, 2), and Bar Kochva for a short period fulfilled that criterion, until he was killed and his rebellion suppressed. With all of the extraordinary miracles the rebbe or any other leading rabbi in Jewish history did, the Rambam (11, 3) explicitly writes that is not the criterion. He may have been able to be a candidate for the Rabbi Akiva-like figure who guides the mashiach, but not the mashiach himself, for he didn’t serve in the Israeli army, wasn’t prime minister or any kind of nationalist or military leader, didn’t gather the exiles to make aliya, nor build the Beit HaMikdash. The Rambam also stresses that when Bar Kochva died without fulfilling the task, that proved that he wasn’t mashiach. We are clearly in the process of redemption, since the founding of the State of Israel, the flourishing of the Land of Israel and the ingathering of the exiles, but the mashiach is supposed to come at the end of the process.

M’lachim 11, 3 ; Rambam, Tshuva 9, 2 ; Sanhedrin 98a.

Megilla 17b.

Our forefathers in Egypt weren’t observant, but they used their names — and that alone merited redemption.

Q. Does it make a difference that I go by my English name?

Our forefathers in Egypt were not religiously observant, they were even paganists. Nevertheless, they merited redemption because at least they didn’t assimilate, and kept their national identity, by speaking Hebrew and using their Hebrew names (Vayikra Rabba 32). The Maharsham and others learn from here that it’s an obligation to use your Hebrew name, although, R. Moshe Feinstein holds that it’s a virtue, but is not a sin to use a gentile name. Just as many Jews anglicized their names when they came to America, and similarly slaveholders gave their slaves English names to signify their “new” identity, how much more so, anyone who is proud of their Jewishness should identify with their Hebrew name, taking pride in being a member of the Chosen People (Maharam Schick, Y.D. 169).

In addition, many English names actually come from other religions like nicknames for Christian holidays (Natalie), saints (Peter, Paul, Andrew, Mark, Tom, Robert, Amanda, Ashley, Barbara), and some, after pagan gods (Jennifer), and accordingly, are prohibited by all opinions. The world was created by G-d “with” Hebrew (“and He SAID…”) and according to kabbala, every person’s Hebrew name has a significant meaning, and that it is your soul’s only “real” name. A Yiddish name is not considered Hebrew but is termed la’az (a foreign language), and if you don’t have a Hebrew name, you can and should choose one for yourself for reasons of both religious and national pride.

The Satmar reading of a Talmudic legend, and the roughly dozen mainstream sources that contradict it.

Q. Is it true that the Talmud in Ketubot 111b prohibits declaring a Jewish State between the destruction of the Second Temple and the coming of the Mashiach, or is that just an extrapolation by the Satmar and Neturei Karta?

Shalom. The legend (aggadita) there is not halachic, but a story with a moral, and you are correct that it is an extrapolation of the Satmar and Neturei Karta. It says there that upon going into exile we “promised” not to rebel against the gentile nations, and not to “rise up on the wall,” and the gentiles swore that they wouldn’t oppress us too much. Rashi explains that not to “rise up on the wall” means we promised not to rise up as one and take the Land of Israel by force before its time. The Satmar Rebbe considers this an anti-Zionist source, but there are many reasons why almost all rabbis disagree with him. R. Aviner compiled a comprehensive booklet on the topic (reprinted in his Sha’elot Shlomo), including some 13 answers why all mainstream poskim, from the rishonim through the Shulchan Aruch and until today, contradict the Satmar. For example:

Not only is that gemara not cited by the halachic authorities, but to the contrary, they bring that it’s a mitzvah to make aliya and conquer the Land of Israel in all generations (Pitchei Tshuva, Even HaEzer 75, 6), and so says the famed Avnei Nezer. The Rambam (Hil. Mlachim 11, 2), who brings the Bar Kochba rebellion supported by R. Akiva and his many students as the prototype for the rise of mashiach, clearly feels the oaths are not halachic — they rebelled against the Romans and tried taking the Land by force. Another proof: the gemara in Yoma 9b contradicts that agadita, saying that we must “rise up as a wall,” and that we were even punished for not doing so in the time of Ezra, in building the Second Temple. If that’s not enough, see Shir HaShirim Rabba 8, 9 (3), where R. Zeira, the author of the “three oaths” passage in Ketubot, explicitly changes his mind and adopts the contradicting opinion from Yoma!

Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (the Meshech Chochma, author of the Or Same’ach), in his letter to the Keren Hayesod, simply dismisses the oaths as aggada, and stresses that especially after the Balfour Declaration in 1917, ratified internationally at San Remo, where the nations of the world officially recognized the right of the Jews to establish a national homeland in the biblical Land of Israel, “it removes all ‘fear’ of those oaths.” Rashi’s own reading — not to take the Land by force — no longer applies once the nations gave permission. Rashi also stresses that it’s only an issue if the Jews come all at once, but in reality we have been coming gradually over the last century, and the process is still underway.

R. Shlomo Kluger explains that if the gentiles don’t observe their oath, we are exempt from ours — and nobody who learned about the Holocaust can take the gentiles’ oath seriously. The Vilna Gaon explains that not to “rise up on the wall” means we swore not to rebuild the walls of Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash, and it has nothing to do with declaring a state. Rav Soloveichik, in his famous article Kol Dodi Dofek — an extensive dismissal of the Satmar reading — explains that G-d is clearly calling us back to the Land of Israel, and that’s how we know it’s no longer “before its time.” The Holocaust and assimilation forced us back to Israel, including many anti-Zionists who had no choice but to make aliya and then fight in self-defense against the invading Arab armies. We clearly aren’t allowed to let ourselves be killed, as pikuach nefesh (saving lives) overrides everything. Statistically, within 6 years (in 2032/תשצ”ב), most Jews in the world will once again be living in Israel for the first time in almost 3,000 years. Already 70% of Orthodox Jews live here, and the Torah center and gedolei hador all live here. It’s already clear: the Jewish future is in Israel. Midrash Tanchuma (Shoftim 10) tells us that once we return for the third time, with 600,000 Jews (Yalkut Shimoni, Hoshea 518), there will not be another exile — and there are more than ten times that number here today.

Rav Ya’akov Moshe Charlap (Mimaynei HaYeshua, p. 245), a top student of Rav Kook, explains that the point of that aggada was to stress that the national revival of Israel is an international event of universal, not just national, importance — so we prefer the return to be in cooperation with the other nations, as it was under Koresh of Persia when the Second Beit HaMikdash was built. That’s what the Balfour Declaration and the United Nations decision were about.

Whenever I’m asked about the Satmar Rebbe and Neturei Karta’s opinion, I ask the questioner: on what other issues do you hold like them? Do you daven only in a shul with a mechitza to the ceiling, as the Satmar holds? Do you even know their opinion on any other issue? The answer is always no — which proves the questioner isn’t really interested in the Satmar’s opinion, but is looking for an excuse not to make aliya.

With Love of Israel, Rav Ari Shvat