Showing posts with label halakha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label halakha. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Modesty and the "Women Problem"


The news has been filled with stories about the status of women in Israeli society:
Women relegated to the back of the bus, women eliminated from public street posters, 8 year-old girls attacked due to their "lack of modesty." We are witnessing a growing situation in which religious groups have succeeded in marginalizing women within the public space or excluding them from it, as women are viewed as a temptation, a sexual distraction.

I am a religiously observant person, a Rabbi, and yet I deem this interpretation as a distortion and falsification of Judaism's idea of modesty. I have spent some time recently trying to articulate where the problem lies; after all, I too subscribe to values of modesty. Let me attempt to explain it as I see it.

Some years ago, a Rabbi friend told me the following story. A congregant had approached him and asked to speak to him about a situation that was on his mind. The Rabbi asked him what the problem was:

"Well Rabbi," He said, "Yesterday, I attended Sheva Berachot."

"Mazal Tov!" responded the Rabbi. "What is the problem?"

"Well, the kalla got up to give a Devar Torah" the congregant said uneasily.

""Wonderful!" responded the Rabbi.

"Well," said the man, "She was very attractive and it was inappropriate."

The Rabbi engaged him in discussion on the topic, with the congregant frustrated by his inability to express what he found as the point of his discomfort.  At a certain point, he blurted out: "A women is just, quite simply, an object of immodesty!"

When men perceive women as a sexual object, I believe that however much they hide women away, they will still be aroused by something that reminds them of the sexual. And because these men are fighting to repress their sexual urges and to somehow eliminate them, they see women everywhere, they identify sexual stimulation in the slightest reminder of a woman. They push women further and further into the background to be continually frustrated that they feel continued sexual attraction. I recall reading a book in which an Islamic woman who wears a Burka, remarked that the men could identify which women had an attractive figure and would make sexual comments to women, even as they were covered from head to toe!

So here is the point. The Haredi community is terrified that sexuality will lead its men to sin. It responds by subjecting its women to increasingly stringent standards of dress, and removing them from the public space. But despite the fact that they require women to recede, the problem endures.

Now – this entire perspective is highly un-Jewish. How so?

First, modesty in the public arena is not to achieved by suppressing women; it is not women who are to pay the price. In most places that the Shulkhan Arukh addresses modesty, the man is instructed to restrict his gaze and not to look at a woman in an inappropriately sexual manner. But it doesn't say that a woman is required to button up in order to prevent or "protect" the man. Men are expected to take care of their sexual drives and to control their eyes and minds.

I think that something else should be said about the Jewish sexual ethic. Judaism has a host of laws regarding social interaction between the sexes. A man and a woman (who are unmarried) are not to be in a closed room alone (Yichud). They are not supposed to flirt or engage in affectionate physical contact (negia). A man should not look at women to gain some erotic pleasure (Histaklut assura and hirhur). Now, these laws are there precisely because men and women interact in the public arena, and because sexual attraction does exist between men and women. Hence, in order to facilitate a non-sexualized public space, these are regulations that seek to eliminate sexual opportunity and a sexually provocative environment. But this is precisely the point: These laws allow the genders to interact. They do not restrict the mixing of the genders!

It is certainly true that contemporary Western society has created a highly sexualized, provocative, flirtatious and even promiscuous public environment. Jewish tradition should have strong critique of modern society in this regard, and any Halakhically sensitive Jew would do well to guide his life, family and home, in an alternative direction. Possibly this overt sexualization is what sends our Orthodox world into retreat. After all, when the wider society is so audacious, traditional Judaism with its emphasis upon modesty, fidelity and marriage may justifiably attempt to protect itself. And yet, the overemphasis upon laws of modesty and gender separation become absurd.  In an almost absurd and perverse reversal, it thrusts sexual attraction into the centre stage; so much so that it appears at times as if these God fearing people have sex on their mind every second of the day, as if they may succumb to illicit desire at any given moment!

Judaism is fully aware of the wild nature of sexual attraction. And yet Jewish Law has created a mechanism to keep the public space sexually neutral. If people are dressed modestly, if they don't engage in physical contact or allow themselves to be alone in private, then Halakha says that this is the standard that will ensure a holy public space.

After that, any man who has a problem must take care of his problem on his own.

Rabbi Moses Feinstein- the great American posek of the 20th Century – ruled that a Jew may travel the subway at rush hour even if he or she is pressed against the opposite sex. His assumption was that people who were crushed together in the train, would have preferred a more spacious environment, and hence there was no intent to engage in physical contact; the entire situation being against their personal desire and that a normal person would not be subject to sexual arousal. He did warn that if a particular individual was sexually aroused by the situation, they should take care of their "problem" by travelling at non-crowded times.

Similarly here. Women can be on street posters, the buses should be mixed. At the same time, I certainly would like to see people dressing in non-provocative clothing. But even with the street as it is, the street or bus cannot be worse than a crowded subway carriage. A normal person can control their eyes and minds. Women should not pay the price here.

This can be done. Let us hope that we can build God-fearing communities, that are respectful to all genders, that exclude no group or individual, that are seen as exemplars of kindness and respect, that engage with society and sanctify God's name.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Etrog Upside Down


How do you make the bracha on the Lulav and Etrog? I remember being taught that one should invert the Etrog to an upside down position when saying the bracha. Why? We don't hold our Kiddush cup upside down? What is the source of this practice?


THE MITZVA OF TAKING. NOT SHAKING!

First a few comments about the precise definition of the mitzva of Lulav.

A widespread misconception about the mitzva of Arba Minim is that we perform the mitzva by SHAKING the Lulav and Etrog. This is not true. The Torah states (Vayikra 23:40) “On the first day of sukkot, you shall TAKE the fruit of the beautiful tree and a palm branch .... and rejoice before the Lord your God”. The mitzva is simply to take the Lulav (and not to shake it). By the very act of PICKING UP the Lulav and Etrog, I have already performed the mitzva.

(NB - Taking it to shul in a container does not constitute the mitzva, since it must be performed ‘bederech kavod’; in a dignified way (O.CH 651:6) and having the Arba Minim in a box is not a dignified taking).


BRACHA FOLLOWED DIRECTLY BY THE MITZVA

This definition of the mitzva provides a serious halachik difficulty as regards the recitation of the bracha on the Lulav.

There is a general principle of Brachot: A bracha must directly precede the action that it is being recited for, in the most immediate manner (Sukka 39a). This is the rule of “oveir le’assiatan”- that the bracha must be recited at the moment of performance of the mitzva or act concerned. An example would be a bracha for food. We hold the food in our hand and make the bracha and then immediately take our first taste of the food. The action should follow on smoothly from the bracha.

How does this work with Arba Minim? If I say the bracha without holding the Arba Minim, I will not be able to follow the brach with immediate performance of the mitzva. It frequently takes a while to get organised with the Lulav and Etrog. By the time we put down our machzor from the bracha and pick up the Lulav and Etrog from their respective boxes, we have already seperated the bracha from the mitzva by a significant pause!

Even if we can cut down the time, the ROSH brings the example of tefillin. When putting on tefillin, we make a bracha when they are already on our arm but before firmly tightening them. We do not make the bracha while they are still in the bag. A bracha must be recited at the moment one is primed for action!

How do we apply this principle regarding our Lulav and Etrog?



SOLUTIONS

How do we have the Lulav and Etrog in our hands, ready to do the mitzva without fulfilling the mitzva? A number of solutions are presented in the Rishonim (medieval halachists).

1. Inverted: The ROSH gives the most famous suggestion. One cannot perform the mitzva of Arba Minim unless each species are held upright. He suggests that we take our Lulav and and then pick up the Etrog upside down. In this way, I am ready to perform the mitzva but I have not yet fulfilled it. I make the bracha and turn the Etrog around to an upright position and I have now performed the mitzva!

In this situation one must PICK UP the Etrog in an already inverted position. It doesn’t help to invert the Etrog after I have already handled it normally because I will already have been holding the entire Arba Minim upright before the bracha!

2. Intent:
A further option suggested by the ROSH is to expressedly have intention NOT to fulfill the mitzva until after the bracha. The Aruch Hashulchan rejects this as regular practice because those who are looking on , not knowing the intention of the person concerned, will follow the actions of the person and miss saying the bracha before the act of the mitzva. In addition, people don’t remember all the details of Arba Minim from year to year. They will remember what they DID but not necessarily the accompanyimg THOUGHT!

3. Hold the Lulav ONLY for the bracha: The THIRD OPTION suggested is to pick up the Lulav leaving the Etrog in it’s box, make the bracha and then immediately take the Etrog into one’s hand.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (651:5) takes options 1 and 3 as recommended.




“ One should make the blessing of “al netilat Lulav” and “shehechiyanu” before
picking up the Etrog in order to recite the blessing in conjunction to the
performance of the mitzva.


Alternatively , one should invert the Etrog until one has made the blessing”


QUESTION:

If one picks up the Lulav and Etrog in the normal way and forgot about all these restrictions, is a person still allowed to say the bracha? The answer is Yes.


Why?

The Mishna Berura(#36) states that despite the fact that one fulfills the mitzva without having shaken the Lulav, the shaking of the Arba Minim represents a higher dimension of the basic performance of the mitzva. It is on this added dimension that one is allowed to make a bracha if one picked up the Arba Minim without using the methods above. One should simply make the bracha before shaking the Lulav and Etrog.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Lighting at a Chanukah Party - With a Bracha?

This week, I spent some time researching an interesting Chanukah question. It is a question that I have had for some time. I received the question - via Facebook – from a student of mine that read something like this:

"I want to try to organise a Chanukah party in my university this Thursday, but no one will be sleeping there … but the thing that's worrying me, is can we light if no one will be sleeping there? Otherwise, I really don't know if my fellow campus Jews will have any form of candle lighting over Chanukah... once again any suggestions??"

This question is a common one, especially in Israel where there are lots of office Channukah parties. Many religious people don't quite know how to act. In the office they say to them:

"You're religious, why don't you light for us?"

And they, nervous about Bracha Levatalla (making a non-mandated blessing, and hence uttering God's name without sanction) pass on the honour to someone less religious.

So, what does a person do?

THE PROBLEM

Let me highlight the problem. The Talmud states that Chanukah lights be lit in the home – נר איש וביתו – and that ideally they be lit at the portal of the home[1]. If one lives in an apartment, they should be lit in the window facing the street. In times of danger – anti-Semitism in the streets – the Channukiah may be lit indoors. It is quite clear that the home is the arena for lighting. Moreover the Talmud specifies that a guest – a person in transit who lacks a fixed abode - must find a technique of enjoining the household. It would appear as clear that there is no Chanukah lighting in the absence of a home[2].

In order to relate to our problem we have to find a model of Chanukah lighting that transpires OUTSIDE the home.

LIGHTING AT SHUL

The poskim (Religious legal experts) look towards the Minhag (custom) of lighting Chanukah lights at Shul (The synagogue.) In every shul, between Mincha and Maariv, Chanukah candles are lit with all the berachot. Now, the Halakhic literature is puzzled by this Custom because it post-dates the Talmud. What is the basis of this custom?

Various reasons are suggested:
· That there were times in which the synagogue was used as a place for wayfaring Jews to stay. Hence this WAS a "home" of sorts for some Jews.
· That the Custom was instituted during times of oppression when Jews were forced to abandon the public street oriented lighting, and lit indoors. Seeking an outlet for a public lighting, communities began to light indoors.
· Independently of any historic circumstances, the Beit Halevi stresses the two advantages of this approach: 1) The Pirsumei Nisa – publicity of the Chanukah miracle; and 2) To educate the public about the appropriate blessing and lighting of the Chanukah lights.

The Shulchan Aruch[3] tells us to light at shul WITH brachot but that an individual does NOT fulfill his mitzvah there and must light on his return home!

In our given situation of a Student Chanukah party, what factor applies? Generally, students are not sleeping in the University building, but although if they are – if the party takes place at one of the dorms - then there is NO problem! Regarding the argument that there is NO public lighting, in today's world many Jews DO light in public places. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that lighting at Chanukah parties educates and adds a focus of the Chanukah miracle to a gathering that would otherwise be secular in nature.


MODERN POSKIM

The modern Authorities are divided on the issue. Some say that the Custom of lighting at shul is SPECIFICALLY at a synagogue which constitutes a "Mikdash Me'at" (a mini Temple) and resembles the ancient Chanukah miracle (of the Menorah in the Temple.) Others say that we have to look primarily at the potential for spreading the miracle and wherever this can be fulfilled.

Many heavy-weight poskim (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Wosner, Rav Yitzchak Weiss, Tzitz Eliezer) all say that at a Chanukah party , brachot may NOT be recited. On the other hand, many poskim like Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Rabbis of Chabad-Lubavich, and many Religious Zionist authorities (Rav Rosenthal, Rav Melamed, Rav Sherlo) ALLOW brachot to be recited with an audience that is not religious and who will not otherwise light candles.

(Of course this is contingent on the party being held in the evening after sunset!)

And of course, here is an educational dilemma. Are we educating more by demonstrating Chanukah lighting? Or possibly we should be stressing that the Mitzva is connected to the home?

(Of course there is a deep message in connecting the Mitzva of candle lighting to our homes. We are somehow stating that the true resilience of Judaism against Hellenism is in the Jewish home. What gives a Jewish person the wherewithal to resists the culture that surrounds him and to continue with pride, his Jewish practices? It is the Jewish education that he carries from his family, from his being raised in a home filled with Jewish enthusiasm, practice, knowledge and joy.)

In the end, I told the student concerned that if she could be pretty certain that various participants of the party would not otherwise be lighting, then she should happily light at the Chanukah party with brachot.

Afterwards, I thought that maybe there is another basis to allow the brachot here. In an educational setting, like an explanatory minyan, one is allowed to pronounce God's name in order to TEACH a bracha. To an audience which one is educating as to the elementary practice of Chanukah lighting, one may be allowed to light purely on the basis of the Mitzva of Chincuh and our responsibility to teach other Jews about their traditions.

[1] תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף כא עמוד ב
תנו רבנן: מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו... תנו רבנן: נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה על פתח ביתו מבחוץ. אם היה דר בעלייה - מניחה בחלון הסמוכה לרשות הרבים. ובשעת הסכנה - מניחה על שלחנו, ודיו.
[2] By home, we usually define the place that one is sleeping and eating.

[3] . שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תרעא סעיף ז
ובבה"כ מניחו (מ) בכותל דרום ((מא) או בדרום המנורה, (מב) ומסדרן ט ממזרח (מג) למערב) (ת"ה סי' ק"ד ב"י), (מד)
... ומדליקין [י] ומברכין (בבית הכנסת) משום פרסומי ניסא. הגה: ואין אדם יוצא בנרות של בהכ"נ, (מה) וצריך לחזור ולהדליק [יא] בביתו (ריב"ש סימן קי"א)

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Nahem: Should Our Prayers Match Reality?

Every year, as we finish Mincha of Tisha BeAv here in Alon Shevut, the same conversation takes place in various corners of the shul. The conversation is about the appropriate text of Nahem. This year, Rav Medan and Rav Yoel bin Nun were debating at the front, there were a few discussions off to the side.

What is the issues? (Hirhurim posted on this here and here.)

In short, the problem is that in today's reality, the prayer is untrue! It talks of Jerusalem as a city which is in a state of "mourning, destruction, disgrace, and desolation: mourning for the loss of her children; destroyed of its palaces; disgraced of its honour, and desolate with out inhabitants." ( I will not even enter into the end of the prayer that sides with Rashi that the future Temple will be built in fire whatever that means.)

Here two issues may be raised.
1. Jerusalem has more Jews today than ever before. This is simply a lie.
2. With our Zionist sensibilities, we do not feel that Jerusalem is in disgrace. How do we deal with this?

As regards (1.) Rav Lichtenstein related to this and said that he cannot lie in Tefilla. If I recall correctly, he simply omits the phrases מבלי בניה and מאין יושב and indeed this has been my adjustment ever since. This assumes that with the absence of Jewish Law and a God designated government, with Har Habayit still in foreign hands, and in that sense a total disgrace and lack of honour to God's name, the phrases of בזויה, שוממה, חרבה, אבלה can all relate to that, but as regards the return of Am Yisrael, that should be omitted from the prayer.

But as regards point (2.) I do not agree. I recall some years ago that I spent some time with a very impressive frum Israeli academic. He was (and is) for me a true model of Torah Umadda, a person of impeccable integrity, love of Am Yisrael, work-ethic, spirituality, humanity etc. He belonged to a group of people who, in the wake of the Six Day War, stopped fasting on 17 Tammuz. After all, 17 Tammuz commemorates the loss of the city. Now, we had the city in our hands. Of course, this group continued to observe the 9 days and Tisha BeAv as they relate to the loss of the Mikdash.

I was quite taken by the argument and began to become increasingly sensitive to the dissonance between our prayers and our current reality. sometimes the disparity is quite startling, and we daven as if we were still incarcerated in the doldrums of Christian Europe. At times our prayers seem simply a rejection of God's kindness , a failure to acknowledge the miracles (of ingathering, of Kibbutz Galuyot..restoration to our land, of Jewish safety and dignity, of Jewish governance) that God has performed in our own days. I couldn't take things as far as annulling a Taanit Tzibbur. But I decided to take matters into my own hands, and to "adjust" or omit certain phrases in the Monday and Thursday Tachanun. Phrases such as :
ישב נא אפך וחמתך מעירך ירושלים הר קדשך ... ירושלים וחרפה לכל סביבותנו
or how about this line?
פקח עיניך וראה שממותנו והעיר אשר נקרא שמך עליה
and I said to myself... Jerusalem has never seen such honour for the Jewish people! In 2000 years we haven't had the zechut to be here. Now God brings us back and we still recite these lines? And I put pencil lines around these phrases and stopped saying them.

And then, the Oslo accords began, and people began to discuss giving up on the Old City, and Har Habayit, and suddenly Jerusalem seemed far less secure. Incredibly, the Jerusalem which had seemed so rock steady appeared far more fragile and vulnerable. I decided that maybe I should have more modesty and that our tefillot should reflect the fact that we are existing somewhere on that line BETWEEN Galut and Geula, however, until that Geula arrives, it is an open game. (And maybe afterwards too. Who knows?)

And so, when I think of Jerusalem as a city in disgrace I do think about Har Habayit and the fact that we do not have a Mikdash, but I also think about the other ways in which Jerusalem falls short of our Religious standards, whether it is corruption and scandal, or the way in which foreign workers live in sub-standard conditions, or people who are not given their rights, or simply the embarrassment of the way our government works at times, or all different public demonstrations - from Left and Right - that seem to undermine the notion of what Jerusalem and Judaism stand for. And hovering over Jerusalem all the time is that it is ours, but it always feels like there is an axe in the air threatening to divide the city. sometimes, I feel like we are on borrowed time.

These , of course are my thoughts on 9 Av. The more optimistic and hopeful sentiments are reserved for Yom Yerushalayim and Yom Haatzmaut!

Visiting Har Habayit . Take 3!

After posting about visiting Har Habayit last week, my student Zeev Schramm has been giving me a hard time in the comments section. Yashar Koach. That is what students should do their teacher. Keeps us on our toes.

Having said that, I saw two articles today that bear quite dirsctly on this topic. See this in Jpost in which Rabbi David Golinkin, a Conservative Rabbi and leading Conservative Halakhic authority, advises people to visit Har Habayit. (Just to be clear, I am not quoting him because I am advocating Conservative psak! His sources and conclusions are shared by many leading Orthodox poskim too.) Here is a quote:

WITHOUT entering into detailed measurements, it is permissible to enter the area south of the Mughrabi Gate and near the Aksa Mosque and the area north of the raised platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock.

On the other hand, one should not enter that raised platform at all. On the west, one should stay close to the Western Wall, and on the east, one should stay close to the eastern wall.

Finally, there is an urgent practical reason for Jews to enter the Temple Mount area today. In 1967, the Israeli government gave the Muslim Wakf control of the Temple Mount. Since then the Wakf has made a concerted effort to obliterate the remnants of Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount.

... The Wakf was able to get away with this plunder because Jews do not visit the Temple Mount, and they don't visit the Temple Mount because of the strict rabbinic rulings cited above.

This last paragraph receives a strong echo from Nadav Shragai in today's Haaretz. again, I quote from the article:


For the past 40 years, right-wing and religious organizations have been mourning the absence of the Temple Mount from our national and religious life in addition to the Temple's destruction.

In what has become a ritual, they lament the destruction of the antiquities on the mount and complain about the impotence of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the humiliating entrance conditions and turning empty areas on the mount into Muslim prayer sites.

These groups say there is a vacuum as far as sovereignty, government, law and order on Temple Mount are concerned. They say they are frustrated again and again by the authorities' lies and broken promises.

They are usually right. The only problem is that the politicians, archaeologists or even the police were not the first to give up Temple Mount. The rabbis were the ones to do so, as early as 1967. Even a decade later, when Menachem Begin wanted to change the status quo on Temple Mount to enable Jews to pray there, the rabbis would not allow it. They threatened him with boycotts and coalition crises.

When Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun complained to Begin on the goings on at Temple Mount, Begin sent him away angrily, saying "go to your rabbis."


If YOU have been to Har Habayit and wish to add anything, or if you feel strongly on this one then please add your comment below!