Yes. More.

MORE... Pirkei Avot MORE. MORE COMMENTARY. MORE WISDOM. MORE SAYINGS. MORE SECHEL. SECHEL?

Nu. What’s ‘Sechel? Here is another word for us to consider before we go in into the details of this weeks’ discussion of the Pirkei Avot. Sechel [שכל] Shin- kaf-Lamed. This word is variously translated into English as: “intellect” or “concept” (depending, usually, upon the text content), but it is a conceptual idea that is conveyed. It really includes various degrees of the grasping of anidea - the knowledge and the insight included in the text. It is used frequently in Hebrew writings related to Torah itself is a ‘spiritual’part of mans’ being. Sechel think of it in this way; it is and is, in some manner, spirit or soul). And we our “conceptualizing” So, if we continue with this etherial idea, let us go to the next part of the Pirkei Avot.

שכל

#3

Antignos, leader of Socho, received the tradition from Shimon HaTzaddik. He used to say: “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward; instead be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward. And let the awe of Heaven be upon you.”

The question comes to mind about working not to receive a reward when the Torah, itself, is filled with statements like- If you do this (mitzvah), you will receive that, etc. See the “SHEMA” second ⁋ where we read that if we write them upon the doorposts... our days may be multiplied. et. al.

So to resolve this conflict we read that l’maán means something like in consequence thereof/whereof and the English should be understood as: Good things flow from G-d and that we should not serve G-d just to receive the good!

Next, we have that word awe. Awe. Not: Fear; as we sometimes read, where we should live in “Fear of G-d - or Fear of Heaven”. That confuses a lot of people. Better we should use the word “awe”. As the kids might say; “Awesome, Dude!” Even so, when we hear HASHEM we should be “in fear” - Awestruck! So Antignos says that although we love G-d, we should not think that we are “close friends”, or NBF in the parlance of Facebook advocators. You just ain’t on the same plane!

Torah in the manner that and an intangible that is not is.... non-physical, if you can something that man acquires related to our nefish (our acquire this “intellect” and through the study of Torah.

#4

Yose ben Yore, leader of Tz’redah, and Yose ben Yochanan, leader of Jerusalem, received (Torah) from them. Yose ben Yore says: “Let your house be a meeting place for sages; and sit in the dust of their feet; and drink in their words thirstily.” He is telling us that our own home should be a place of wisdom - it should be a storehouse of sechel.

...and sit in the dust of their feet. Soooo- unless you are a scholar of equal status, unless they are your peers, you should subordinate yourself to them. If you are thirsty, in need of or wanting drink, you can consider yourself in the same status when you are in the person sitting before a sage. Then drink the sechel gratefully.

#5

Our other friend here was Yose ben Yochanan, the leader of Jerusalem, who said: “Let you house be open wide; treat the poor as members of you household; and do not converse excessively with a woman. [remember Nancy referring to this is our earlier study group?] They said this even about one’s own wife; surely it applies to another’s wife. Consequently, the Sages said: Anyone who converses excessively with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects Torah study, and will eventually inherit Gehinnom.” Wow. That should have an “!” after it.

(of course this does not - specifically - mention ‘maidens’ or young unmarried women. Just deal with that in caution...)

By opening your home to make neighbors welcome you bring merit to you household. When you invite the poor they become part of the household and can be supported with honor (and with dignity). This you can also accomplish in a figurative manner as well as a littoral one. Take note, the premise of the law regarding little conversation with women has to do with orienting yourself toward G-d. Your whole life. Toward G-d. Not toward yourself. [guess that means: cut out the TV, the sitting in the Tavern with other men, drinking, cursing, playing games of pool or darts, and some of the other hedonistic aspects of macho-hood] Talking with women is being self-centered. Excessively means: without a “need”. ALL idle talk results in the loss of time spent in Torah study and, because men are (easily) distracted by women, he would find it difficult to return to Torah study after being involved in a lengthy conversation with any woman

(guess that answers the question of talking to maidens...).

This is, I think a proper place to stop this week’s discussion.

v’Shalom!

"Please sir, may I have More?"

MORE?

Hey! We’ve only begun...

Last week, after a rather long and circuitous path, we began to look at the Pirkei Avot (Avos) and arrived, only, at the state of the Men of the Great Assembly [hereafter: MGA]. But let’s review the way that Torah got to the MGA.

Remember; Moshie received the Torah... transmitted to to Yehoshua... (transmitted) to the elders... (transmitted) to the Prophets... (they) transmitted to the MGA. The [the MGA] determined that it was time to write it down and that the generations that would follow would receive it. Why, the question is, the difference between receiving and transmitting is mentioned?
As the Maharal of Prague says; a teacher transmits everything that he knows but the student only receives that which he is capable of receiving. Therefore, Moshie could only receive what he, as a man, could comprehend of the Divine ‘presentation’. That he could then transmit this as would Yehoshua, et. al. Later the MGA were concerned that so much would be lost, that they developed the “Written Torah”.

This now is when they made the statement(s) to be patient in judgment, to have many students and to make a fence for Torah. Those three statements addressed: chachmah, or ‘factual’ knowledge; binah, or understanding the implications behind the knowledge; and daat, or discerning. And the MGA related this to their statments in the following manner:

Chachmah [the factual knowledge] was addressed to the Judges as this was the Mishpatim the Law(s) of Torah. And the Judges were asked to be patient and understanding in their judgments.

Binah [the understanding of what was involved in the knowledge] was addressed to the students, the Scholars, and was to develop and fortify the knowledge.

And, finally, Daat [the discerning] was addressed toward making the Fence around Torah - for the benefit of the rest of the Jews, the Lay People, who were not involved in Law & Study. These were the folk who had the various questions like why not to the boiling of the flesh of an animal in milk - where the rabbis then forbid us to boil any kind of meat (animal or fowl) in milk.
Thus you see that the MGA address these items to fortify the three areas, or categories, of Torah: Mishpatim, chukim, and mitzvot. Be deliberate in judgment addresses and supports mishpatim through fairness and integrity. Develop many disciples would strengthen the general body of Torah through study and discussion. And Make a Fence around Torah would protect chukim, or the laws that are difficult to put into a logical presentation (forbidden marriages, for example).

So what can appear to us today to be somewhat ‘silly’ in some respects, can be easily understood when we observe the zeitgeist and the problems confronting the MGA at the time of the Second Century CE. These additional rabbinic restrictions were meant to make the ‘law’ more consistent and thereby make life easier and it would be easier to remember and apply to the (our) daily life.

MISHNAH NUMBER THREE
The world depends on three things:

...On Torah study, on the service [of G-d], and on kind deeds.

The Maharal tells us in relationship to this statement that a person relates to the world in three dimensions. Those interactions are: a) with oneself; b) with G-d; & c) with other people. Further that we maintain these relationships through Torah study; the Service (avodah) of G-d and through kind deeds. All of which together are the means for us to acquire a ‘goodness’ in the relationship. Is it, I ask, possible for a person to have a goodness in a relationship with himself, G-d or others and be Agnostic? Muslim? Christian? Buddhist? Non-observant Jew? Anyway.... [p17]

The MGA are - in Pirkei Avot - teaching Mussar. They are not addressing the legal implications of Torah. They are not concerned with the minutiæ of the law. They are concerned with providing “practical” advice. Yes, as Jack mentioned in class, the MGA were “ordering” the students on how to act, study, live... but in the overall picture,

they were ‘teaching’ Mussar. [The Hebrew term Mussar or Musar, is from the book of Proverbs 1:2 meaning instruction, discipline, or conduct. The term was used by the Musar movement to refer to efforts to further ethical and spiritual discipline. The Musar Movement (as something else) made significant contributions to Jewish ethics. In furthering the later movement of Musar we find Rabbi Israel Salanter in seeking to encourage the study of Musar literature, Salanter had three works of Musar literature republished in Vilna: Mesillat Yesharim by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh by Solomon ibn Gabirol, and Chesbon Ha-Nefesh by Menachem Mendel Lefin. At some future time we will look at Rabbi Salanter and his book Ohr Yisrael and also at the Mesillat Yesharim.]

The Three Things that the MGA spoke of, is, in another way, referring to the Three Pillars of Judaism as personified in the forefathers Abraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov for they were the foundation of Israel, of Judaism and, indeed, all of Monotheism. They show us the three aspects of Torah, of Service and of Kindness. Kind Deeds being the trait we attribute to Father Avraham. Service (to G-d, especially) we see in the acceptance of Yitzchak who approached the sacrificial altar. And Torah relates to Yaakov as Moshie commanded to us the Torah as the inheritance of the Congregation of Yaakov – Israel.

Yes; MORE to follow.

Who gave the rabbis the right...

Who gave the Rabbis the right...?

...and to do what?

But first...

A little housekeeping:

Last week (in our final discussion) we talked about ‘understanding’ what Torah says. I mentioned that Torah remains the same (unchangeable) and that each year, as we read it, we are different - different needs, desires, understandings. This was questioned as; do you (meaning me) really believe this? The “Ultra Orthodox” believe in the literal Bible and that it does not change. Most, however, were of the opinion that this is not a true statement about the Ultra Orthodox and their reading of Torah.

As I do not believe in “coincidence”; I came across the following in my reading just yesterday. Marcel Proust, as quoted in a book on Wabi-Sabi, shows its relationship to our discussion mentioned above. He said, “The voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.”



It is a little out of season, as traditionally read; but we are now going to look at Pirkei Avot. Who gave the Rabbis the right... is the question that I want to ask first. But even before that I got a little side-tracked.

Pirkei Avot is usually ‘translated’ as The Wisdom of our Fathers, or Saying of our Fathers. Not quite. “Pirkei” (פרקי) is probably closer to “verses” but that still is not quite the proper understanding. Pei-resh-koof has the meanings of disconnecting... taking apart or the cognitive meanings of separate & develop. Where is this leading?

Well. Where do we find Pirkei Avot? Meaning where is it when it is not in a stand-alone book? It is found in Mishnah. [Mishnah (משנה) is from the root shin-nun-heh, meaning study, review, repetition, and...‘secondary”]. As in: “Secondary only to Tanach”!

Mishnah is the first Redaction of Oral Torah and, as such, is the first major work of Rabbinic Literature. [A redaction is a form of Editing, or Combining, and Redactors also add their own comments and commentary. You might see where this is leading. The Mishnah, developed late in the 2nd Century CE precedes the Babylonian Talmud and influenced the rabbis format with the commentaries placed around the main text of Talmud.

The Mishnah has six main ‘volumes’ divided further into ‘Tractates’. These Tractates deal with each and every aspect of Jewish Law - Halakah. And it was the “Men of the Great Assembly” in the land of Israel, who wrote the Mishnah. Interesting to us is the fact that while most Tractates deal with things like holidays, Temple service, civil law, marriage, etc.; it is the Pirkei Avot alone which deals only with Ethics and not laws!


The Mishnah Tractate, Pirkei Avot, begins with: “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly(MGA). The, the MGA, said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah”

Finally we are getting on to it.

But first I have a different question for you. Why is it that now, in the 2nd Century CE, did the rabbis think that Oral Torah must be put into written form or it would be forgotten? The Talmud (coming later, remember) tells us that the persecution of the Jews (what’s new there?) and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral tradition would be forgotten. This is a tradition which has continued (AT LEAST) from 536 BCE to 70CE, or over six hundred years and, probably much longer (it is nearly 1500 years after Sinai!). I do not know the answer to that, and it is unlikely that any scholars have looked at why this particular time was the proper time to consider writing this all down.

Now, let’s go back and consider the original question: Who gave the rabbis the right.... to write down the Oral Torah... to Redact Torah (as it were)... to make commentary on Torah... or to Edit Torah. Part of the answer, it would be argued is in the statement by the Men of the Great Assembly; Moses receive Torah, transmitted it to Joshua... etc. But this -is exactly where Pirkei Avot, the last Tractate, begins.

But first: (drum roll) another question. Why is this paragraph place here in Pirkei Avot, which occurs at the end of the six divisions of the Mishnah, and not at the beginning? Presumably this paragraph was to give support to the rabbis contention that Torah had to be Redacted and the oral tradition put into the written word.

One suggestion was that the beginning ‘volumes’ of the Mishnah considered the fine points of Jewish Law and that was something that Jews everywhere accepted and did not ‘need’ justification. Pirkei Avot, on the other hand, considered and taught moral directives. When someone offers you such advice, why would you take it? Unless it came as a Moral Imperative which can be traced back to Moses on the Mountain [face-to-face (so to speak) with G-d].

So. Pirkei Avot is really “good advice”, rather inexact in nature, even though the statements deal with morality and proper behavior; they needed the additional credentials which come this paragraph.

With these credentials in hand, the Men of the Great Assembly make this statement; “They said three things, Be deliberate in Judgment, develop many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah.” To answer one of the earlier questions, may be that, the Great Assembly saw that the current state of persecution and exile had impacted on the Jewish scholarship. It was the fabric of the Jewish ‘nation’ which was being damaged as intellectual studies and pursuits of understanding Torah were in decline. They then felt that it was the time to take steps to ensure that sechel (intellect) would be preserved and our great history, laws, and teachings would endure.

p10~15 Maharal of Prague’s Pirkei Avot based on his Derech Chaim

...to be continued

...and I don't mean 'Tony'

“A tiger can jump out of the forest at any moment.”

Vayikra [ויקר] “And He called...”

With this pasuk, this is where small children have traditionally begun to learn Torah. We are told that that is because they associate themselves with the diminutive alef at the end of the word.

[You probably note that there is 'no' alef above - this is simply written w/o vowels here]

And, we may well ask, why is the alef written small [take a look at your Chumash if you do not have a Torah Scroll handy]? Rashi says that it is written that way because without the letter alef the word would be read as: vayikar, and that means that a Divine vision came to him (Moshie)without preparation; whereas the word vayikra would imply that this was an expression of Divine endearment. HaShem was calling to Moses and inviting him into His immediate presence with dignity.

“A tiger can jump out of the forest at any moment.”

__Søren Kierkegård

Now we know that Moshie was the most humble of men but we are perplexed by his resistance at writing the Torah in a manner which would (seem to) imply that he was boasting and the HaShem had extended a great honor to him personally. After all, he must have reasoned, he was simply just another man. But he was instructed to write the Torah exactly as it was dictated to him, so me made a compromise; he wrote the alef smaller than the rest of the word.

Moshie was showing that he was humble. He probably well knew that there would never be a prophet like him. He probably well knew that G-d did love him greatly. He probably well knew that he had achieved a spiritual level that was - and would be - unequaled by any other human. But that did not make him vain. Or arrogant. He knew that any status that man achieves should be recognized but should not be something that makes him “turn his head”.


There are two men that continue to teach us this lesson. One is quite well known in our time. The other has been obscured through time but is very important in teaching us also. Both achieved much in their lifetimes and speak to us across time and space.

The second man [his name is spelt variously as: Zusia; Zusya; Zuzya; etc.] was a man who always spoke of himself in the third person; a man with an equally well-known brother, Rabbi Elimelech of Lizensk. Rabbi Zuzya (of Onipol) was a man who sometimes appeared as a fool and dunce. Rabbi Zusia once said, “If I could arrange that I be Abraham and that Abraham be Zuzya, I would not do so. For what would G-d gain thereby? There would still be only one Abraham and one Zuzya.” He was a humble man.

The second story is about Rabbi Israel Meir HaCohen - otherwise better known as the Chafetz Chaim. We all know of his teaching on Lashan Hara, gossip, slander or evil talk - and this gives us a pretty good insight into his own practices: Once on a train returning from a trip, he met a man and fell into conversation. The Chafetz Chaim asked where the man was going and the man replied that he was going to see the great tzaddik, the Chafetz Chaim!

The Chafetz Chaim said; “Why do you call him a tzaddik? What is so special about him that you refer to him that way? He is just a person like any other.”

With that the man replied, “How dare you speak with such insolence.” And he proceeded to slap him across the sage’s face!

Later when he was finally introduced to the Chafetz Chaim the embarrassed man asked for forgiveness for his rudness but the Chafetz Chaim replied, “There is no need to apologize, after all it was my honor that you were defending.” Thus we learn, as Moshie knew years earlier: you must not speak badly of any person, even of yourself.

Sometimes I find that if takes a tiger jumping out of the forest to awaken me to something like a small alef in a word to get my attention. Someone once said that another person was so engrossed in what they were doing that when they sat down they could just as well be sitting on an elephant. Perhaps it is human nature that we must overcome in order to become aware to something more important. Sometimes it is G-d who causes the tiger to jump out of the forest, at just the correct moment, to get our attention. In the meantime... be aware of the gifts that He has bestowed on you. But don’t let it turn your head.

Adar... Adar... Adar Alef... Adar Beit... Which... When...

This week we have an interesting question, and Responsum to and from the The Schechter Institutes and, should you be interested, you can find them at schechter@ehlconsulting.com where you will find many other interesting topics discussed, including commentaries or the Psalms which I would promote.

קהילה
בים שלום

שבת תורה מחקץ קבוצה


Kheelah (Congregation) Beth Shalom
Shabbos Torah Mekhkar Kvootzah
[Shabbos Torah Study Group]


Pekudei 5771
29 Adar I
5 March 2011


Which Adar?

When a person passed away in Adar, when is the yahrzeit observed in a leap year?
By Rabbi David Golinkin

Responsum:

I) A Brief Introduction to the Jewish Calendar

T he secular calendar-
is a solar calendar which has 365 days, while the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar which has 353-355 days. In order to prevent the Jewish holidays from revolving around the year as in the Muslim calendar, Jews add a second Adar every few years. It is worth noting that the Jewish calendar bears many features in common with the Babylonian calendar, including the names of some of the Hebrew months and the 19 year cycle (see below). In the Babylonian calendar, they used to add a second Elul OR a second Adar. The Talmud states in Rosh Hashanah 32a that "since the days of Ezra we have never found Elul to be intercalated". This may mean that we only add Adar II and not Elul II.(1) In ancient times, the intercalation of the year was determined by the Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael. In the year 358 c.e., Hillel II instituted a fixed calendar in which Adar II was added in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 of the 19 year cycle.

II) A Brief Introduction to Yahrzeits and the Mourner's Kaddish

There is a vast literature about the history of the kaddish.(2) Originally, young boys mourning their fathers would lead the services on the anniversary of their deaths. In the 11th century, the halakhic authorities of France began to mention a custom in which orphans recited the final kaddish after Aleinu, apparently instead of leading other parts of the service which they were not able to do. In time, this became the mourner's kaddish for all mourners during the first 11-12 months after death and on the yahrzeit. The other feature of the yahrzeit is that the children would fast on that day. Our topic was widely discussed by Ashkenazic authorities because the yahrzeit was observed with fasting and kaddish in their countries and therefore they had to figure out what to do in a leap year when there are two Adars.

III) Four Approaches to Observing an Adar Yahrzeit in a Leap Year

Most halakhic authorities agree that if a person dies in Adar I, then one observes the yahrzeit in Adar in a regular year and in Adar I in a leap year. Similarly, if a person dies in Adar II, one observes the yahrzeit in Adar in a regular year and in Adar II in a leap year. The thorny question is what to do when a person dies in Adar. When should the relatives observe the yahrzeit in a leap year - in Adar I or Adar II or both? In other words, in a leap year, which Adar is the "real" Adar? It is evident from the words of Rabbi Ya'akov Molin (d. 1427) - "our rabbis in Austria, some say Adar I and some say Adar II" - that this question was debated in the 14th century or earlier. We shall present the reasoning behind four different opinions, followed in each case by an annotated list of rabbis who hold that opinion.

A) Observe the Yahrzeit in Adar I

1. According to tradition, Moshe Rabbeinu was born and died on 7 Adar (Kiddushin 38a = Megillah 13a; Halakhot Gedolot, ed. Venice-Warsaw, fol. 40a; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 580:2) and this yahrzeit was widely observed, especially by hevrot kadishot (burial societies). Since it appears from Kiddushin 38a that Moshe Rabbeinu died in Adar and since the current custom in a leap year is to observe his yahrzeit in Adar I, this is what we should do for all yahrzeits.
2. In Nedarim 8:5 = Bavli Nedarim 63a Rabbi Judah says that a person who vows to do something "in Adar" does it in Adar I and, according to the Rosh (ibid.), the halakhah follows Rabbi Judah Therefore, kaddish should also be recited in Adar I.
3. In Bavli Megillah 6b we are told that all the mitzvot of Purim must be observed in Adar II in order to juxtapose the redemption of Purim with the redemption of Pesah and that is the halakhah. However, other observances not mentioned there should be observed in Adar I because of the principal of "ein ma'avirin al hamitzvah", we do not pass over a mitzvah. Therefore, yahrzeits should be observed in Adar I.
4. In shetarot (legal documents) "Adar" in a leap year refers to Adar I according to the Tur and Shulhan Arukh (OH 427) following Rabbi Judah above and Tosefta Megillah 1:6, ed. Lieberman, p. 345.
5. Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 220:8 says in the first sentence that a person who takes a vow "until Rosh Hodesh Adar" means in a leap year "until Rosh Hodesh Adar I".
6. Rabbi Yosef Karo says in Yoreh Deah 228:48 and Hoshen Mishpat 73:9 that a person who takes an oath to repay a loan "on Rosh Hodesh Adar", in a leap year has to repay him on "Rosh Hodesh Adar I".

A list of rabbis who hold this opinion:

Rabbi Ya'akov Mollin (1360-1427), Responsa Maharil, ed. Satz, Jerusalem, 1980, No. 31:3, pp. 23-23, which is quoted in full by Rabbi Yosef ben Moshe, Leket Yosher, Yoreh Deah, Berlin, 1904, pp. 98-99 and in brief in Minhagei Maharil, ed. Shpitzer, Jerusalem, 1989, p. 270; and Responsa Maharil, ibid., No. 104-105:3, pp. 200, 202, which is quoted in Leket Yosher, p. 99.

Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein (1390-1460), Terumat Hadeshen, No. 294.

Rabbi Yisrael Bruna (1400-1480), Responsa Mahari Bruna, Stettin, 1860, No. 193 (but cf. his contradictory responsum listed below).

Rabbi Yehudah Mintz (1408-1508), Responsa Mahari Mintz, No. 9.

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (1525-1572), Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 427 that in shetarot (legal documents), Adar I in a leap year is called "Adar"; Orah Hayyim 568:7 ("and this is the custom") and Yoreh Deah 402:12 on our topic.

Rabbi Mordechai Yaffe (1535-1612), Levush Hahur 568:7 and especially 685:1.

Rabbi Moshe Matt (1551-1606), Mateh Moshe, parag. 766.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748-1820), Hokhmat Adam 171:11.

Rabbi Rafael Aharon ben Shimon (1848-1928), Nehar Mitzrayim, Alexandria, 1908, p. 163.

Rabbi Ya'akov Hayyim Sofer (1870-1939), Kaf Hahayyim to Orah Hayyim 568, parag. 76: the Ashkenazim should follow Rabbi Moshe Isserles. This is quoted approvingly in the name of aharonim by Rabbi Amram Aburbia, Netivei Am, second edition, Petah Tikvah, 1969, p. 251.

Rabbi Yehiel Michel Tukechinsky (1872-1955), Gesher Hahayyim 32:10, p. 345: "most observe the yahrzeit in Adar I".


B) Observe the Yahrzeit in Adar II

1. It seems that according to Maimonides (Hilkhot Nedarim 10:6), the Mishnah quoted above (Nedarim 8:5 = Bavli Nedarim 63a) follows Rabbi Meir, i.e. that a person who vows to do something "in Adar" in a leap year means "in Adar II". This opinion is quoted by Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 220:8 in the second sentence.
2. In Megillah 6b, we are told that all the mitzvot of Purim must be observed in Adar II and that is the halakhah. Therefore, yahrzeits should also be observed in Adar II.
3. Re. Moshe's yahrzeit mentioned above, it should be observed in Adar II according to Rabbi Yaakov Emden, She'eilat Yaabetz, Vol. I, No. 117 in the name of his father the Hakham Tzvi; so too all yahrzeits.
4. According to the Yerushalmi (Ketubot 1:2 at end; Nedarim 6:8 at end; Sanhedrin 1:2 at end), when the earthly Bet Din decides to intercalate the year and add Adar II, God agrees with that ruling. Therefore, the yahrzeit should be observed in Adar II.

A list of rabbis who hold this opinion:

Rabbi Zalman Cohen, the questioner in Responsa Maharil 104-105:3, p. 200.

Rabbi Yisrael Bruna (1400-1480), Responsa Mahari Bruna, Stettin, 1860, No. 192 (which contradicts his other responsum listed above).

Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 568:7.

Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510-1573), in his commentary to Tur Yoreh Deah 402, quoted by the Bah ibid. at the end of the paragraph: "there are those who disagree and say... Adar II".

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (1525-1572), Shulhan Arukh Hayyim 55:10 regarding a Bar Mitzvah.

Rabbi Abraham Gombiner (1637-1683), Magen Avraham to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 586, subparag. 5: local Purims to commemorate a local miracle in Adar should be observed in Adar II.

Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839), Responsa Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim, No. 163 (and cf. ibid., No. 14) re kaddish; for other issues, he rules Adar I or Adar II or both!

Rabbi Samuel Ehrenfeld (1835-1883), Responsa Hattan Sofer, No. 99, parag. 7 and also in Hattan Sofer on Orah Hayyim, Shaar Birkhot Hashahar, 19:7-10 agrees with his grandfather Rabbi Moshe Sofer re. kaddish.

Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921), Responsa Melamed L'ho'il, Part I, No. 113.

Rabbi Ya'akov Hayyim Sofer (1870-1939), Kaf Hahayyim to Orah Hayyim 568, parag. 76: the sefaradim should follow Rabbi Yosef Karo. This is quoted approvingly in the name of aharonim by Rabbi Amram Aburbia, Netivei Am, second edition, Petah Tikvah, 1969, p. 251.

Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (1915-2006), Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Vol. 22, No. 39 agrees with Rabbi Moshe Sofer.

Rabbi Gavriel Goldman, Mei'olam V'ad Olam, third edition, Jerusalem, 2010, p. 208: this is the custom of Oriental and Yemenite Jews.

C) Observe the Yahrzeit in Both Adars

Since there is a doubt, many Jews observe an Adar yahrzeit in both Adars.

A list of rabbis who hold or quote this opinion:

Rabbi Yaakov Weil (d. ca. 1456), Responsa Rabbi Ya'akov Weil, Dinim V'halakhot at the end, No. 5 (but the text seems to be corrupt).

Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510-1573), in his commentary to Tur Yoreh Deah 402, quoted by the Bah ibid. at the end of the paragraph: "and they are accustomed to fast in both Adars".

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (1525-1572), Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 568:7 quoting "some are strict" and Yoreh Deah 402:12 quoting "some disagree".

Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748-1820), Hokhmat Adam 171:11 quoting "some are strict".

Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921), Responsa Melamed L'ho'il, part I, No. 113 says to fast in Adar II "except for a person who is able and wants to fast twice, in Adar I and II".

Rabbi Shalom Shachna Chernik, Hayyim Uvracha L'mishmeret Shalom, Part II, Warsaw-Bilgorei, 1928-1930, pp. 42-43, parag. 21: the custom now is to do both.

Rabbi Yehiel Michel Tukechinsky (1872-1955), Gesher Hahayyim 32:10, p. 345: "some are strict... to fast in both Adars".

Rabbi Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald (1889-1955), Kol Bo Al Aveilut, Jerusalem-New York, 1973, p. 395.

Rabbi Aaron Felder, Yesodei Smochos, revised edition, New York, 1976, pp. 134, 139 note 16.


D) Observe the Yarhrzeit the First Year in Adar I and in Later Years in Adar II

This lone opinion was quoted by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) in the Bet Yosef to Tur Yoreh Deah, end of parag. 403, in the name of the Tashbatz (13th century) who was a pupil of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (it is not in our editions of the Tashbatz). Rabbi Yosef Karo suggests that his reason is that in the first year the mourner needs to count "twelve months" and not "one year", since the judgment of the wicked in Geihinnom is "twelve months" (see Mishnah Eduyot 2:10). In subsequent years, it depends on the disagreement between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir in Nedarim mentioned above and the Tashbatz ruled according to Rabbi Meir.

IV) Summary
In conclusion, since the custom of yahrzeit and mourner's kaddish arose hundreds of year after the Talmud, there is no clear consensus as to whether an Adar yahrzeit should be observed in Adar I or Adar II. Furthermore, there is not even a clear consensus among Ashkenazim or Sefaradim. Personally, I prefer the custom of Adar II. Since Purim is observed in Adar II, this is the month which most Jews today consider the "real" Adar. However, it is perfectly legitimate to observe a yahrzeit in Adar I following the many opinions and precedents found above. Finally, while I do not recommend observing a yahrzeit in both Adars, it is certainly understandable how this custom arose, given the lack of conclusive proof for the other two opinions.

D) Observe the Yarhrzeit the First Year in Adar I and in Later Years in Adar II

This lone opinion was quoted by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) in the Bet Yosef to Tur Yoreh Deah, end of parag. 403, in the name of the Tashbatz (13th century) who was a pupil of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (it is not in our editions of the Tashbatz). Rabbi Yosef Karo suggests that his reason is that in the first year the mourner needs to count "twelve months" and not "one year", since the judgment of the wicked in Geihinnom is "twelve months" (see Mishnah Eduyot 2:10). In subsequent years, it depends on the disagreement between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir in Nedarim mentioned above and the Tashbatz ruled according to Rabbi Meir.

IV) Summary
In conclusion, since the custom of yahrzeit and mourner's kaddish arose hundreds of year after the Talmud, there is no clear consensus as to whether an Adar yahrzeit should be observed in Adar I or Adar II. Furthermore, there is not even a clear consensus among Ashkenazim or Sefaradim. Personally, I prefer the custom of Adar II. Since Purim is observed in Adar II, this is the month which most Jews today consider the "real" Adar. However, it is perfectly legitimate to observe a yahrzeit in Adar I following the many opinions and precedents found above. Finally, while I do not recommend observing a yahrzeit in both Adars, it is certainly understandable how this custom arose, given the lack of conclusive proof for the other two opinions.


David Golinkin
Jerusalem
25 Adar I 5771

Notes

1. See David Golinkin, Perek Yom Tov Shel Rosh Hashanah etc., Ph.D. dissertation, JTS, 1988, pp. 51-60; Ben Zion Wacholder and David Weisberg, Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971), pp. 227-242.

2. See the literature which I listed in The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa, Jerusalem, 2001, p. 124, note 1 (Hebrew); David de Sola Pool, The Old Aramaic Prayer the Kaddish, New York, 1909; Leon Wieseltier, Kaddish, New York, 1998; Yehudit Weiss, Tarbitz 78/4 (2009), pp. 521-554 and the literature in note 28.

Contact them at:

schechter@ehlconsulting.com

Why: "See"?

The Problem with Betzalel

The Problem that we want to look at is why Moshe says to the Children of Israel "See" in the same way that HaShem told him "See". While Moshe had something/someone to see... the C of I did not. What were they supposed to see or look at? Hmmm...

This week’s Parshat contains a Pasuk that needs some explaining, Vayomer Moshe el B’nei Yisrael, R’u kara YHVH b’Shem. What we find here is that we need to do more than to read the original Hebrew - or read (a) translation of that into English. This is not something new in Torah. This is something that we encounter all too often. But this particular Parshat offers an opportunity into insightful understanding in a manner somewhat different that many phrases or verses that we encounter.

This week’s Parshat we are introduced to a man - really just a lad of thirteen years - who is called by name by G-d to perform a particular function. As you read, study, learn from this reading, remember that this is unique in the Torah (as we shall see).

Here we have the Children of Yisrael bringing the materials that Moshe had requisitioned for the building of the Mishkan and they are informed of HaShem’s choice of Master Architect of His selection. “Moses said to the C of I, ‘See HaShem has proclaimed by name, Betzalel....’.” [Stone Ed. Chumash Shemot 35: 30 pp521] “R’u, Kara YHVH b’Shem; Betzalel ben Uri ben Hur l’Match Yehudah.”

So what’s the problem here? [There Are, At Least, Two Problems] To begin with there are problems with Torah not having any vowels or punctuation as aids to understanding. For that we rely mainly on ‘trope’ which did not come into being until sometime between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. Before that there was the Oral Tradition. Hebrew also has a different syntax that we are familiar with in English, but that is only a minor obstacle. The ‘prose’ that we find in Torah, like that of most ancient Middle East writing, is in what is referred to as binary. meaning that a sentence can be isolated into two main concepts or ideas.

Example:
B’resheet Bara Elokim
Et haShamayim v’Et ha’Aretz
“In the beginning HaShem... created” what?
The Heavens and the Earth.”

So we read the Pasuk as;
Vayomer Moshe el B;nei Yisrael, R’u Kara YHVH b’Shem
Betzalel ben Uri ben Hur.....

But here we have our first problem. The word “b’Shem” means that we need to question the phrasing [as: “...R’u Kara YHVH,” followed by: “b’Shem Betzalel...”] but we do not need to look into this aspect of the problems in the prose right now.

So far this is only preliminary to and for our discussion. The second problem that we encounter is the direction that I would like you to consider for now.

Name. Shem. Names certainly are important (for us). Your name is who you are. Do you get upset if someone uses a ‘wrong’ name in addressing you? Forgets your name? Misspells your name? Of course. And most certainly if that someone is someone that you have an especial relationship with and with whom you feel and attachment.

LiKro Shem means to give a name by ‘function’. That means it is a name with which you identify, or a name with which you have a relationship. [Do you have a ‘pet name’ for your SO - NO! Don’t tell us! - just answer; Yes or No.] How about when we read; “...Eloh*i Avraham, Eloh*i Yitzchak ve’Eloh*i Ya’akov.” Here we see that HaShem has, indeed, a very (if I can add the word ‘very’) special relationship with these very special men. [This could certainly lead us into another and ‘very’ different discussion about the application of this concept into modern day inclusion of four special women - but we can save that for another time!]

Nu? Why not: Eloh*i Moshe? Certainly HaShem had a relationship with Moshe unlike any other person in the Torah. Perhaps closer than with Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya’akov. But we find only one person in the Torah referred to as Ish ha’Elokim - a man of G-d. Moshe.

The difference is that Avraham (as well as Yitzchak and Ya’akov) called out to HaShem. But it was HaShem who called-out to Moshe! There is certainly a difference there. Who is calling out to whom? Who is instituting the relationship? Who wants and needs this special relationship? When Avraham called out ‘in the name of G-d’ he (Avraham) was tying his destiny to G-d. Moshe, we are taught, did not institute this relationship and, indeed, tried, like Jonah, to escape it.

Now, let’s go back to our text for this Parshat. G-d chose Betzalel for the building of the Mishkan. He informed Moshe when He said, “See I have chosen Betzalel...” and, Moshe in turn, told the Children (in free explanatory translation prose) See, Hashem, has chosen, by name, Betzalel.” I have identified Myself with Moshe, so too, the Pasuk reads, “I have identified Myself with someone” (and who is that someone?) See! “It is Betzalel, ben Uri ben Hur l’Mateh Yehudah”.

This is not about Betzalel so much, as what we can learn if we take the time to try to understand just what (any given) verse can teach us. It is not about a thirteen year old who ‘knew the secrets of the Hebrew Alef-Beit... or had the skill to create the Aron and the Menorah” - it is about the Torah and what it can tell us.

Shalom

I rely here on the works of Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom of the Yeshiva of Los Angeles for many of these concepts.
And the Stone Edition of the Chumash for the actual wordings and translations of this Parshat.
Other sources are also reflected in the Rabbi’s 1998 text as well as the commentators in the ArtScroll Chumash.

Best Weapon

Mashiach’s Greatest Weapon

Mashiach’s main weapon is prayer. All Mashiach’s conquests... will come through the power prayer and, as Reb Noson says, prayer is the essential weapon of each Jew.

The attachment that each Jew has to HaShem is through prayer and it is through that self same prayer attachment that the Jew acquires mastery and control over his desires. __[Rebbe Nachman] And the very essence of our life-force is by way of prayer.

There are three kinds, or types, of prayer. There is the prayer of David, as you find it in Psalm 86. There is the prayer of Moshe, as you find it in Psalm 90. And there is the prayer of the - Common Man, - which, again, you find it in Psalm 102. Don’t believe me. Go look it up. The Schottenstein Edition of Tehillim is an excellent choice of not only finding these Psalms in the original Hebrew and the interlinear direct English translation (without appealing to the ‘Masses’ by use of KJV outdated sweet poetic verse) along with explanatory footnotes.

Of these three Psalms, we are told that the Psalm, the Prayer, of the Common Man is by far the most powerful for here we find the prayer of the broken heart. A pauper stands before G-d, his maker, and cries; “Why me?” “Why do I have to suffer?” When the spiritual pauper cries out, that prayer goes directly to the ear of G-d. He hears the earnest prayer of the Common Man. How often have we been told that HaShem seems to have a Great Love for the ‘common’; after all Shabbat is the most ‘common’ of the Holidays that we observe. Fifty-two times every year we have the opportunity to enjoy the Greatest of Holiday’s - Shabbos! We have also hear the comment made; “G-d must really love the poor (Common) man - He made so many of them!”

Now we come to a different thought on Prayer. Or an elaboration on Prayer: “Faith, Prayer, Miracles, and the Holy Land... are but one concept!” Nu? How’s that? The idea is that when we pray, we are expressing an element of our faith or why would we be involved in prayer at all? So, therefore, Prayer increases faith and gradually we become (a little more) intimate in our feelings for our Creator and, guess what!, this leads to our observation of and awareness of miracles. It follows then that by prayer we ‘attain’ a mastery over the elements because our prayers are directed to HaShem and He is the Master of All, Rebono Shel Olam! And finally, these miracles and prayers are conceptually associated with and related to the Holy Land (why else would it be called the “Holy Land”?) for it is there they reveal the Kingdom of Heaven.

All this said, we come to understand the Power of Prayer, along with its associates and associations, but we have not come to the central question. This is not uncommon because the Shabbos Torah Study Group likes to dance. We are, it seems, always dancing around the fringe of any given topic which seems to provide an emotional wall for us. We don’t seem to want to reach out and become involved in the essential core of a topic. Let’s relax. Take a Deep Breath and ask:

What is Prayer?

Some fifty years ago (give or take) a Comic from “Second City” and a graduate in Philosophy from the University of Chicago; Severn Darden, presented his ‘paper’ to the inmates of the Second City as commented as follows:
“Now, thought.” “For centuries philosophers have told us that thought cannot be seen, it cannot be heard, cannot be felt, smelled, cannot be tasted.” [the same we say about Prayer] “It is not in the key of G - or F. And it is not blue - nor is it mauve. It is not a pot of geraniums. It is not a white donkey against a blue sky. Or a blue donkey against a white sky. Nor does it have aspirations to become archbishop. It is not a little girl singing an old song. Thought is not a saffron-robed monk in the snow. In other words, philosophers can tell you millions of things that thought isn’t, and they can’t tell you what it is! And this bugs them!”
Now, Severn having had his say, we can also say what we know what Prayer is not. Who would venture to say what Prayer is?

---

We are instructed on When to Pray, How to Pray, Where to Pray, and often What to Pray... but: What is Prayer? Is it a collective of all the above? What is the meaning of “to Pray”? We are told that we need to pray with concentration - with kavanah... with strength... and we are told to never let shame stop you from prayer.

We have a story that comes to us from the final days of Rosh HaShannah 5571 when Rebbe Nachman was deathly ill and he asked his grandson to pray for him.
“G-d! G-d!” “Let my grandfather be well!”
The Rebbe said; “This is how to pray. Simply! What other way is there?”

So, is prayer anything other than saying exactly what is in your heart? Do we think that we can do anything other than that when we address G-d? Do we have the chutzpah to think that we know something that G-d does not know? Don’t we pray to do just what Sigmund Freud said the ‘patient’ needed to do - to express what we know in out heart in a manner that our head understands? Perhaps, I suggest, that is what Prayer is. Or not.

.