מי שטרח בערב שבת: הגיגים לאלול

'מי שטרח בערב שבת, יאכל בשבת.

מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

(עבודה זרה דף ג ע"א).

           

             בתקופה שלפני חגי תשרי, כולם עסוקים בהכנות מהכנות שונות. משנים את הרגלי הקימה (לסליחות). קונים בגדים חדשים ומאכלי החג. מזמינים ארבעה מינים בהקפדה מיוחדת על בליטות ותיומות ובונים סוכות למהדרין. אולם, עם כל ההכנות החיוניות האלו עדין טמונה בהן סכנת הכניסה לחגים במצב של חוסר מוכנות. אפילו על יהודי או יהודייה כזה, שומר תורה ומצוות, מרחפת תמיהת חז"ל: 'מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

האמנם?

בשיעוריו ובדברי ההתעוררות שלו, הדגיש מו"ר מרן הגרי"ד הלוי סולובייצ'יק זצ"ל שהתורה הקפידה להקדים תקופת הכנה לפני כל חג ומועד. 'שואלים ודורשין בהלכות הפסח ל' יום' (פסחים דף ו ע"א).

ימי ספירת העומר הם הכנה לחג השבועות ולמתן תורה. 'בין המצרים' שבין י"ז בתמוז לט' באב מרגילים את האדם לאבל על חרבן הבית ע"י תהליך אבלות הפוך (מהנהגות י"ב חודש למנהגי שלושים לאבלות שבעה ר"ל). חודש אלול נועד להכין את האדם מישראל להמלכת הקב"ה בעולמו בראש השנה, למעמד הנורא והנשגב של יום הכיפורים ולשמחה של מצווה 'לפני ד' בחג הסוכות. הכנות אלו, הוא קבע בנחרצות, הן חובה מוחלטת.[1]  

            כשהרב דיבר על הכנות, הוא לא התכוון רק לבישולים ולקניות. הוא התכוון ל'עבודה שבלב' של האדם מישראל. לכל חג ומועד, וק"ו לחגי תשרי, יש תכנים מיוחדים וחוויות מיוחדות. ההלכה דורשת לא רק את קיום מצוות החג. התורה דורשת שהיהודי יצוק למצוות רגש והבנה, עבודת הלב ועבודת המוח. יותר מדי אנשים תועים אחרי החיצוני שביהדות, אחרי הפורמלי והמכומת שבה, ומפספסים את העיקר: עבודת ה' והרגשת קרבה אליו.

            הדרך הטובה ביותר לקיים את מצוות ההכנה, כך לימדנו הרב זצ"ל, היא ללמוד תוך גיוס הלב לתובנות השכל. לכן, בחודש שלפני הימים הנוראים הוא הקפיד ללמד, גם בבוסטון וגם בישיבה, את פיוטי המחזור, על הסדר. יצירות אלו אינן פשוטות בכלל. אולם, טמונים עולמות נשגבים של שאר רוח שיעשירו

את אמירתם בשעת מעשה. ובעבור מי שקשה לו לימוד הפיוטים, הרי אפשר להתרכז בגופי התפילות במחזור, הכתובים בעברית צחה. בצורה דומה, יש ללמוד את ספרי המוסר המסורתיים, או אפילו את דיני החגים- בתנאי שיעמוד לא רק על הדין היבש אלא על בתוכן החי והפועם שיש בתוך אותו דין ובלב כל סעיף ברמב"ם ובשלחן ערוך.

אולם, מי שלא יקדיש את הזמן לכך ולא יכין את לבבו ומוחו לחגי תשרי; מי שינסה בשעת מעשה לחטוף משהו מאיזה עלון פ"ש וסבור שכך יוכל להתפלל בכוונה ולעמוד לפני קונו כמו שצריך, עליו יהיה אפשר לתהות: 'מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

יה"ר שנזכה לכתיבה וחתימה טובה, לשנה טובה ומבורכת.

לעי"נ ידי"נ הרב דוד יעקב הלוי אפלבאום הי"ד ביום השנה ה-9 להירצחו

---

[1]  יש להעיר שה"ה לגבי ערב שבת וערב יו"ט, וק"ו ערב יו"כ. הרב האמין שאלה מהווים מרכיב מובנה עקרוני של החגים עצמם. מן המיותר לומר, שבפועל, ערבי חג קיימים רק בארץ ישראל.

כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא (ב)

פאשקוויל חדש שעליו אני סומך את שתי ידי

כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא

Consistoria Disassembla Est: תפורק הרבנות

לא קל לי לכתוב את הדברים האלה. בכלל לא קל. שנים הייתי משוכנע שלמרות מגרעותיה עדיף שלמדינת ישראל תהיה רבנות ממוסדת. הייתי משוכנע שבנושאים המעצבים את אופיה היהודי של החברה היהודית בארץ עדיף שיהיה סטנדרד בסיסי ומשותף. במיוחד בנושאים רגישים כמו גיור  ואישות, עניינים שמרקם החברה כולה תלוי בהם, חשוב שיהיה מוסד אחראי שיבטיח שיתנהלו כהלכה (תרתי משמע). אני עדיין מאמין שאין מקום לא לגיור שלא כהלכה ולא לגיטין שלא כהלכה בארץ ישראל (או בכל מקום אחר, אבל זה כבר דיון נפרד). אולם, אחרי שעות רבות של מחשבה, אחרי שחוסר הממלכתיות השתלט על כמעט כל חלקה של הממסד הרבני בארץ, אחרי זוועות ביטול הגיורים שהרב דרוקמן שליט"א וביטולי גיטין בעשרות ובמאות (מהלכים שאין להם אח ורע בתולדות תורתנו הקדושה מאז ניתנה), אחרי שכל הממסד הפך ללא יותר מפרה חולבת וכדור פוליטי ואין סיכוי לערוך לה רפורמה... 

ומה יבוא במקום הרבנות? מה יבטיח את בסטנדרט ההלכתי הבסיסי והחיוני שישמור על לכידות החברה ? ברוב התחומים, אני סבור שהפרטה מבוקרת תקדם את חזון התורה. תחרות, כפי שטוען פרופ' פטר ברגר, תאלץ את נציגי התורה להתייחס בכבוד ובכובד ראש לבריות וגם יביא לידי פעילות איכותית. זה יכול יפה לעבוד בכשרות כפי שזה עובד בעריכת חופות נוסח צוה"ר. זה כבר עובד מצויין בדיני תורה בבתי הדין השונים לממונות הקיימים בארץ (דוגמת בית הדין של ארץ חמדה). אותו דבר נכון לגבי גיטין וגם לגיור. יש כבר את מערך הגיור במשרד רוה"מ והגיור הצה"לי. אינני טוען שצריך לפתוח את השוק לגמרי בנושאים רגישים כאלה הדורשים מומחיות ורגישות. אולם שבירת המונופול והקמת עוד גורמים המתעסקים בנושאים אלה ישפר את המצב בלי 

ספק. יותר גרוע מהמצב הנוכחי אולי יכול להיות, אבל מי רוצה להגיע לזה?

לשם שמם הטוב של גדולי התורה ששירתו ברבנות בעבר, ובראשם הראי"ה קוק זצ"ל,; למען קידום התורה והבאת יהודי ארץ ישראל לאהבת ה' ואהבת התורה, צריך להחליף דיסקט ולוותר על חזון הרבנות הראשית. הרב סולובייצי'ק זצ"ל צדק. רבנות במתכונת זו לא מסוגלת להיות חופשית ולא לקדש שם שמים.. 

On Haredim, the Army and the Torah

    
    I have avoided writing about the Plesner Report, and the general call for Haredim to serve in the Army and enter the work force. I thought there was little more for me to add. I think I was wrong.
         Herewith, then, are my thoughts.


           לולא תורתך שעשועי, אז אבדתי בעוניי. I believe profoundly in the importance, centrality and supremacy of Torah Study for all Jews. Here, too, I have spent my life trying to learn and disseminate Torah in every way I could, especially through those media that were somewhat more unusual, and for which I am apparently uniquely suited. Here, too, I have tried to instill my children with an uncompromising commitment to תלמוד תורה and to serving as sources for תלמוד תורה in the many and varied venues in which they live and operate. The Jewish People's existence is predicated upon Torah knowledge and Torah observance. Our license to occupy Eretz Yisrael is conditioned upon these two, as well.
       I believe that everyone should serve their country (whether in the Army or in National Service). That is how I have lived my life and that is how I have raised my family. I was too old to be drafted, so I spent ten years as a uniformed volunteer in the Israel Police (מתמי"ד). My wife volunteered at the local פינה חמה for soldiers. All of my children have either served in the Army or in שירות לאומי. Giving to the nation is an essential part of Judaism. Not serving is selfish and actively hurtful. 
       I believe that the Torah demands that people work for a living to support their families. Indeed, I believe that the Torah aligns with the position of R. Tam, as cited in מחזור ויטרי (no. 425 and a few other places). On the משנה in Avot that טוב תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ, R. Tam says:

עם דרך ארץ. שעוסק בתורה פרק. ופרק בדרך ארץ. בפרגמטיא. ושאר שכר. ויש תימה דאלמא דרך ארץ עיקר. דהכי נמי דייקי' בכתובות פרק האשה כי האי גוונא דיקא נמי דקתני יחלקו יורשי הבעל עם יורשי האב. הכא נמי מדתלי תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ. אלמא דרך ארץ עיקר. מיהו יש לדחות ששניהן שוין. מדקתני אבתר הכי שיגיעת 

שניהן כו'. וכדתנן לקמן אם אין תורה אין דרך ארץ. כו'   

The passage assumes that, prima facie, earning a living is of greater import than Talmud Torah. The actual conclusion is that they are of equal worth. 

      I believe, that qualitative Talmud Torah emerges more from those who appreciate the limitations of Time. The person who knows that he has only a certain amount of Time for study will make that Time count. He will have the ability to discipline himself to concentrate and analyze, to enrich himself spiritually and make that Time infuse itself throughout his day. Concentrated study, intense involvement, also prompts greater insight and חידוש. It's not a coincidence that great Haredi Rashe Yeshiva have admitted that RIETS graduates have a better track record for ongoing learning, i.e. outside of the Bet Midrash, than their graduates. 

      In addition, I believe that the present Haredi regime wherein everyone must learn and noone can work is at odds, not only with R. Tam, but with Hazal. I refer to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4, 5):

 לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ...להגיד גדולתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד וכולן דומין זה לזה ומלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו

      
       Not everyone is meant to be a גדול בתורה, though each Jew has his unique mission. To force those not qualified, by social and religious pressure, into such a procrustean bed (to be supported by others) is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, it is a fact that the price that is exacted from the Yeshiva community itself is horrific. The poverty, malnutrition, physical and mental abuse, divorce, and abandonment of religion that are daily occurrences are, to a significant degree, a result of this policy. [Let me just add that, at its height, there were never more than 300 students in Volozhin. The graduates of Volozhin revolutionized and electrified Talmud Study and Halakhic decision-making. They provided the leadership of the יישוב in Eretz Yisrael. The same can't be said, בעוו"ה, of the products of the present system.]  

      Nevertheless, despite sharp ideological and halakhic differences with the Haredi World, I acknowledge that we have much in common. We both grew out of the same religious world, have many of the same heroes, learn by the same method, learn with the same שטים and are inspired by the same stories and memories. As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein שליט"א is wont to comment, the Modern Orthodox World has much to learn in the realm of religious intensity, חסד, and אמונה תמימה from the Haredi Community. As our sector seeks spirituality, it is finding its sustenance in Ger and Breslav, Izbitz and Mussar. We are all, hopefully, devoted to עבודת השם in its broadest sense.

     So, I support the measured efforts of the Plesner Commission. I believe it is best for both the Haredi community, and the Israeli polity, for Haredi Men to serve in the Army or שירות לאומי (with appropriate conditions for their observance) and then to be able to work to support their families. Those who are promising תלמידי חכמים, should receive the same type of consideration as academic stars do in the Army. 

     I am convinced that this process, if respectfully undertaken,  will allow Haredim to join the Dati sector of society in exposing the broader community to Torah and Mitzvot. The potential קידוש השם is so massive that I dare not dream of where it might lead.

     I am convinced that instilling Haredi men and women with the tools to cope with the world will strengthen their adherence to the values of Haredi Orthodoxy, as evidenced by the so-called 'New Haredim' led by Haim Zicherman and others. In addition, as the religious population grows, the Haredim will be forced to take responsibility for a larger share of running the country. There will be no one else upon whom to rely.

      I believe that we are at a critical moment in Jewish History, and in the history of the State of Israel. I believe that there is a broad population, both Haredi and non-Haredi, that is open to the kind of gradualist program offered by the Plesner Commission. 

I pray to הקב"ה that the radical secular anti-semitic, anti religionists and the Haredi rejectionists do not make unholy common cause to prevent its implementation. 

American Olim in Israel: The Challenge (Part 3)

                In considering the way that American Olim, especially rabbis and educators, should impact on Israeli society, I find myself thinking a lot about Peter Berger. Prima facie, one might wonder what an Austrian, Liberal, Lutheran sociologist of religion has to do with deepening the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Upon further reflection, the connection will become both clear and compelling.

            Berger, the author of some of the most seminal works in Sociology and the Sociology of Religion, has the distinction of being one of the few scholars I know who were willing to admit they erred. Berger, earlier in his career, was of the opinion that religion and religious faith were in decline; that a wave of triumphal secularism would sweep over Western Society. The upsurge in religious affiliation, spiritual searching and various forms of Fundamentalism (which is not always a negative thing) led him to admit that he’d been wrong and that the world was actually in a process of desecularization. In the past few years, he’s dedicated himself to gauging the character and long-term implications of this intensification of religion and spiritual quest; this longing for God.

            This brings us to Berger’s relevance for Israeli Judaism. On more than one occasion, Berger has argued that the success of religion in the present era (I eschew the term post-modern) is tied to a free market model. In other words, coercive religious affiliation and obedience simply don’t work in a society that is predicated upon radical free choice and initiative. Thus, if people thirst for faith, if they search for God, it is up to religion to make itself accessible and attractive to the searchers. (Berger is a fan of Rational Choice Theory in Microeconomics.) Coercion, established bureaucracies and time-worn slogans will not attract sensitive, God hungry searchers. On the contrary, these will drive them away.

            I believe that Berger is essentially correct, though I am not necessarily happy with this state of affairs. Judaism is not a commodity that can be marketed  and then donned and doffed like an article of clothing. Its point of departure is that it makes demands of man, whether he likes it or not. Of course, man possesses freedom of choice, and he may decide not to respond to God’s demands. However, he remains a commanded being, whether he obeys or not (and, we believe, will pay whatever consequences for his refusal God will deem appropriate). [Rav Yehuda Amital זצ"ל addressed this precise point in a memorable serious of talks, בין התחברות למחוייבות.] 

            Nevertheless, the cultural atmosphere that presently characterizes Israeli Jewry (and to an even greater extent, that of North America and Europe) militates against a priori religious demands, especially if these are not framed in terms that are, at least, reasonable or comprehensible to their putative audience.

             In other words, the Torah has to be cast and presented in terms that will command the respect, assent (and, hopefully, consent) of other Jews. This insight is not mine. Over 900 years ago, Maimonides pointed out that the Torah itself demands it.

            Consider. In the Book of Deuteronomy (4, 6), the Torah declares: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן אֵת כָּל הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם חָכָם וְנָבוֹן הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה: ‘Safeguard and keep [these rules], since this is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations. They will hear all these rules and say, 'This great nation is certainly a wise and understanding people.' On two occasions (Guide III, 31 and מבוא לפרק חלק, ד"ה הכת הראשונה) Rambam points out that the Divine wisdom that inheres to the Torah must be expressed in terms that will lead any intelligent person, not only Jews, to be moved and amazed thereby. This does not in any way justify misrepresenting the Torah, ח"ו, or of doing violence to its integrity by subordinating it to an external (and possibly alien) system of values.

            It does mean that we believe that the Torah can, and must be made accessible in such a way that thoughtful, cultured people will see its beauty, its sophistication and the fact that it provides the spiritual succor that they seek. It means that the Torah has nothing to fear from other cultures, and can hold its own in defending its integrity in the lists of cultural encounter and confrontation. The obverse of this conviction is that we can address the challenges that post-modern society and culture pose to us, and instill that capacity in the Orthodox community. In an Internet age, we can no longer allow ourselves the luxury of thinking that Orthodoxy can shut itself off from the world and be safe. If we do not address the world head on, those who seek Torah will be lost and those whose lack of sophistication renders them incapable of dealing with doubt and questions; who innocently accept everything in writing on the internet as true, these too will be lost. [See the Introduction Rambam’s Letter on Astrology.]

           All of this brings me back to the unique contribution that American Olim, generally, and Rabbis (in particular), can contribute to deepen the relationship of Israel’s Jews to God, to Torah, to Mitzvot, to Jewish Historical Experience.

          Briefly stated, and I have asserted this more than once, the representatives of Judaism in Israel lack the tools to achieve either of the above goals. Far too many, barely have a High School education. This, far too often, stunts their ability to teach, to pasken, to debate, and to pastor. Ironically, lack of a sophisticated awareness of the nuances of contemporary culture (and of the Western cultural heritage) also prevents them from critically engaging the latter, which not infrequently leads them to surrender to values that do not jibe with Jewish tradition. And if this is true of rabbis, consider what the lack of such tools means for the average Jew.

         It is precisely these skills, this background, this nuanced ability and inner conviction which the Rav זצ"ל demanded of his students and his students’ students. These are abilities and talents that even the most yeshivish YU musmakh possesses. Happily, Eretz Yisrael is blessed with a greater population of such potential leaders (some rabbinic and most laypersons). They have a God given mission to integrate into Israeli society, to take responsibility to create a voice for Torah vis-à-vis both the broader community and the Orthodox community. These Olim, men and women, have the capacity to elicit the response: ‘וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם חָכָם וְנָבוֹן הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה.’

        They do not have the luxury of not heeding this call of destiny.

             

American Olim in Israel: The Challenge (Part 2)

[While reading this plaint about the extremism that is increasingly characteristic of Religious Zionist Psak Halakha, I was reminded of two Gedolim stories that exemplify a different mode of rabbinic leadership, one that is more in line with the sensitivities that American Olim (especially RIETS and Skokie graduates) bring with them; one that takes responsibility for the needs and abilities of the broader community, while staying uncompromisingly within the four cubits of Halakhah. The first story, about the דבר אברהם (left), I heard from an eyewitness. The second, involving מו"ר Rav Gedaliah Felder זצ"ל, I was personally involved in.]


1. The pre-war Jewish community of Kovno (Kaunas, today) Lithuania was divided into different components, divided by the Neris River. On the one side was the general community, which was made up of every type of contemporary Jewish religious and cultural population. Indeed, the community was a bit notorious for a lackadaisical form of religiosity. On the other side of the Williampol bridge, was the famous Slabodka Yeshiva, a flagship of the Mussar Movement. As might be expected, relations between the two sectors were often tense. There was a saying attributed to the Alter of Slabodka, R. Nosson Zvi Finkel זצ"ל, that the bridge from Kovno to Slabodko only went one way.
         Coping with the myriad of challenges, modernization and secularization in Kovna was its illustrious rabbi, R. Avraham Dov-Bear Kahana-Shapira זצוק"ל, author of the classic collection of responsa and Talmudic essays דבר אברהם, and known more popularly as the 'Kovner Rov.'. One central concern of his was the alienation of young Kovner Jews from the synagogue. Thus, when the administration of the Choral Synagogue came to him with an intriguing approach to the problem, he jumped at it.
        The idea was to have the synagogue's cantor, the internationally renowned tenor Misha Alexandrovich, offer public concerts that would feature classical חזנות alongside renditions of serene Italian bel canto compositions. The hope was that this type of cultural evening would draw modernizing youg Jewish men and women to the synagogue, where they would socialize and (perhaps) find mates. 
       The first concert was a smashing success and more were planned. Everyone was thrilled, except for the heads of the Slabodka Yeshiva. They turned angrily to the Kovner Rov and demanded that he intervene to stop the concerts. They were indecent, the Rashe Yeshiva objected. The led to fraternization between men and women, and in the synagogue. Worse still, they might corrupt yeshiva students.


      The Kover Rav listened quietly, and then firmly rejected the Yeshiva's objection. 'You are responsible only for your yeshiva,' he asserted. 'I am responsible for the spiritual welfare of all of the Jews of Kovno.' The concerts, he declared, would continue. 


2. When I was a young Rav, over thirty years ago, I served in a small shul in Long Island City, Queens (which closed its doors a few years ago). The community was made up of older retirees, whose devotion to their shul remains an inspiration to me. They were not all observant, indeed very few were actually Orthodox. However, they maintained a daily minyan, Shabbat and Holiday schedules and an active Men's Club and Sisterhood. They were, as I said, overwhelmingly Golden Agers and not in the best of health or strength.
        That proved to be a challenge when it came to carrying (much less raising) the Torah during services. All of the available scrolls were either unfit or way too heavy for any of the members to carry. All, that is but one, which was quite light. The problem was that it was written in Sephardic Script (כתב וועליש) whereas all but one of the members were Ashkenazic. When I mentioned the situation to some of my fellow Kollel-leit and to some of the Rashe Yeshiva at YU, they told me that one may under no circumstances use a Sephardic Torah in an Ashkenazic minyan. 
       Knowing that the shul had no money to spare to repair the unfit scrolls (much less buy a new Sefer Torah), I called my teacher and (other) רב המסמיך, R. Gedaliah Felder זצ"ל in Toronto. Rabbi Felder was a פוסק of tremendous power and fortitude, whose encyclopedic knowledge of all of Rabbinic Literature was nothing less than stunning (as borne out by his magnum opus, יסודי ישורון). He was, also, a synagogue Rav his entire life and literally lived among his fellow Jews.
     I called Rav Felder with my question. He did not hesitate for a moment.  There is no reason not to use the lighter, Sephardic Torah Scroll (because we hold like the responsum attributed to Maimonides that one may read in public from a sefer pasul: הל' תפילין פ""י ה"א בכסף משנה). I will, though, never forget the impassioned words with which he prefaced his פסק: 'You can't impose standards on בעלי בית in a Shul as if you were in a yeshiva!' he exclaimed.


It's time that we stopped ourselves being railroaded by מחמירים who, in the end, drive people away from Torah. It's time we developed the kind of גבורה and stand up to halakhic ruffians (who are welcome to be strict on themselves). If the Torah allows something, and the מסורה of פסק confirms it, we cannot roll our eyes and delegitimize those who follow the Torah's dictates. This is precisely the type of community sensitive approach to פסק הלכה that American trained תלמידי חכמים imbibed from their teachers. The שלחן ערוך is a סם החיים, not a strait-jacket.

American Olim in Israel: The Challenge (Part I)

[This week, I had the privilege of chairing the Orthodox Forum in Israel, sponsored by Yeshiva University and its Center for the Jewish Future. As you can see from the list of attendees, the two days of deliberations attracted a wonderful, representative group from across the spectrum of the Religious Zionist (and, potentially, Modern Orthodox) community. The Forum ended with a reception in honor of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, who created the original forum in New York, and who was instrumental in its re-establishment in Israel. As he noted to me, last week: 'It doesn't matter what happens in New York or London. The future will be decided here in Israel.'
     This last session was dedicated to the question of the impact of American Orthodox Olim, especially YU graduates, in Israel. Rabbi Ari Berman spoke about different aspects of the tensions that underlie American Orthodox relationships with Israel. My response was as follows.]


          A fabled French adage states that 'Plus ca change, plus ca reste le meme chose.' The more things change, the more they stay the same. The best indication as to the type of abiding contribution that American Modern Orthodoxy can make to Israeli religious life, generally, can be found in the story of another Oleh, who lived over two millennia ago. His name was Hillel, and he made Aliyah from Babylonia.


        The Talmud (Pesahim 66a) recounts:
         Our Rabbis taught: This halakhah (whether the Paschal Sacrifice may be offered on    Shabbat) was forgotten by the Bene Bathyra. On one occasion the fourteenth [of Nisan] fell on the Sabbath, [and] they forgot and ...did not know whether the Passover overrides the
Sabbath or not. Said they, ‘Is there any man who knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ They were told, ‘There is a certain man who has come up from Babylonia, Hillel the Babylonian by name, who served the two greatest men of the time, and he knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not. 
        They summoned him [and] said to him, ‘Do you know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ ‘Have we then [only] one Passover during the year which overrides the Sabbath?’ replied he to them, ‘Surely we have many more than two hundred Passovers during the year which override the Sabbath! Said they to him, ‘How do you know it?’ He answered them, ‘In its appointed time’ is stated in connection with the Passover, and ‘In its appointed time’ is stated in connection with the Tamid; just as ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in connection with the Tamid overrides the Sabbath, so ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in
connection with the Passover overrides the Sabbath. Moreover, it follows a minori, if the tamid, [the omission of] which is not punished by kareth, overrides the Sabbath, then the Passover,[neglect of] which is punished by kareth, is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath! 
       They immediately set him at their head and appointed him Nasi [Patriarch] over them....


        The Tosefta (Pesahim 4:13-14; cf. Yerushalmi, Pes. 6:1, 33a ) adds a crucial detail. The elders, it states, did not accept Hillel's logical and interpretive arguments. It was only when he declared that he had it on the authority of his teachers that the Paschal Sacrifice over rides Shabbat, that the community both accepted his opinion and appointed him as Nasi.
        The story, in both versions, is striking. How was it that no one knew what to do when Erev Pesach fell on Shabbat? After all, while relatively rare, such a circumstance is not all that unusual. In addition, the circumstances that led to Hillel's appointment as Nasi are a bit baffling. He was presented as someone who had studied under 'the two greatest men of the time,' Shemaiah and Abtalion. It was, therefore, assumed that he knew 'whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not.' Yet, Hillel didn't say one way or another. Instead, he reasoned the point out using hermeneutical rules (מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן). According to the Bavli, that was enough to get him appointed Nasi. According to the Tosefta, though, he needed to provethat he had really received traditions from Shemaiah and Avtalion. Only then was he acceptable. Either way, though, he (and, perhaps, his audience) needed to be bowled over by his interpretive virtuosity, his creative Talmudic analysis, in order to fill the role of Nasi. Apparently, then, there was a clear tension between what the people expected of him, and what he gave them: Authoritative, unilateral Psak based on tradition vs. independent analysis of the sugya.
         Not everyone, moreover, was happy with Hillel's resort to Lomdus. The Tosefta recounts that the Bene Bathyra rejected his various arguments and only accepted that based on authority. In the modern era, two very different thinkers agreed. One was Professor Yitzhak Baer and the other was R. David ha-Kohen, better known as the Nazir.These two contemporaries, who lived very different lives in Jerusalem, both thought that Hillel had dramatically altered Judaism. They both argued that Halakhah should be intuitive and based upon authority. They objected to the introduction of reason and logical argument and interpretation into the process of פסק הלכה. They thought it sullied the Torah. [Baer set forth his ideas in the Introduction to A History of the Jews in Christian Spain. The Nazir laid out his opinions in קול הנבואה.]
        Over time, the use of analysis and creative interpretation became more typical, first of Babylonia and then of the Diaspora. Certainly, a comparison of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi leaves you with that impression. Yet, even if that conclusion is not totally accurate, it is true that contemporary halakhic discourse in Eretz Yisrael tends to be more authoritarian and less creative than in the Diaspora. There is a distinctive lack of engagement with the complexities of life, or with the full spectrum of ideas and opinions that normative, Shulhan Arukh Judaism offers its devotees. 
         It seems to me, that it is this type of responsible, creative approach to Torah learning and Halakha; an approach which is especially cultivated among those raised in the tradition of the Rav זצ"ל, that American Olim can bring to Israeli Judaism. We were raised and trained to understand and appreciate the complexities of life. We were imbued with the conviction that the Torah can deal with every challenge and that an heroic encounter between reality and the Massorah of the Oral Law will resolve almost any challenge and draw more and more people to Torah, instead of alienating them.
       The Bene Bathyra, who came from the border country between Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael (Nisibis, to be exact) knew that this was precisely what Judaism required at the end of the first century CE. That's why they sponsored Hillel (or accepted him). That's what Eretz Yisrael Judaism requires today. And it is that sophistication and creativity that American Olim can, and must provide. 

Rav Soloveitchik on Matan Torah

In anticipation of Shavuot, I gave a shiur at my favorite women's one year program, Midreshet Zviya for the Arts. The shiur focused on the Rav זצ"ל's interpretation of key verses at the beginning of פרשת מתן תורה.
The entire talk is available here. 
חג מתן תורה שמח ושבת שלום!!!