Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/
Showing posts with label Mattos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mattos. Show all posts

Friday, July 20, 2012

Matos, Bamidbar 31:4. Shevet Levi's Military Service Exemption

This was originally posted in 2011.  I incorporate here the comments, and the response by Dr. Nachum Stone.


The Tribe of Levi did not fight in the Jewish wars.  This is obvious in numerous pesukim in the Torah, such as the many censuses which state explicitly that Shevet Levi was not counted because they were not Yotzei Tzava.  Additionally, whenever war is described in Yehoshua and Shoftim, all the other tribes are mentioned, but never Shevet Levi, not in Milchemes Mitzva/divine imperative war, not in Milchemes Reshus/politically motivated war, and not in Milchemes Amalek/the war against Amalek.

This fundamental rule is crystallized in the Rambam's words at the end of Shmita ve'Yovel:
ולמה לא זכה לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל ובביזתה עם אחיו? מפני שהובדל לעבוד את י"י לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים, שנאמר יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל. לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם. לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל, ולא נוחלין, ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן. אלא הם חיל השם שנאמר ברך י"י חילו. והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם שנאמר אני חלקך ונחלתך.   ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני י"י לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את י"י והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלהים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם, הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים, ויהיה י"י חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים. ויזכה לו בעה"ז דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים ללוים. הרי דוד ע"ה אומר י"י מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי:

So it's not only Shevet Levi.  This exemption includes all who take upon themselves lives exclusively dedicated to study and religious service.

From this Rambam, all we know is that people who are exclusively dedicated to learning Torah are exempt from conscription.  But what of people who work, but are Talmidei Chachamim?  For that, we look to the Rambam in 6 Talmud Torah 10:


תלמידי חכמים אינם יוצאין בעצמן לעשות עם כל הקהל בבנין וחפירה של מדינה וכיוצא בהן כדי שלא יתבזו בפני עמי הארץ. ואין גובין מהן לבנין החומה ותיקון השערים ושכר השומרים וכיוצא בהן ולא לתשורת המלך. ואין מחייבים אותן ליתן המס בין מס שהוא קצוב על בני העיר בין מס שהוא קצוב על כל איש ואיש שנאמר גם כי יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם ויחלו מעט ממשא מלך ושרים. וכן אם היתה סחורה לתלמיד חכם מניחים אותו למכור תחלה ואין מניחים אחד מבני השוק למכור עד שימכור הוא. וכן אם היה לו דין והיה עומד בכלל בעלי דינים הרבה מקדימין אותו ומושיבין אותו:

It appears that the concept of "Shevet Levi" applies both to those that are dedicated to exclusive Torah study and also to the Talmidei Chachamim (a contextually sensitive term whose meaning changes according to the time and place, as evident in various applications which I don't feel like looking up now.)


So it is clear that Shevet Levi did not go to war, not Milchemes Mitzva, not Milchemes Reshus, and not Milchemes Amaleik.  What did they do?  They learned and davenned.  As the Gemara in Makkos 10a says, א"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהילים קכב) עומדות היו רגלינו בשעריך ירושלם? מי גרם לרגלינו שיעמדו במלחמה - שערי ירושלם שהיו עוסקים בתורה .  But there was one and only one exception:  The war with Midian, as described in our parsha.  Rashi in 31:4 says לכל מטות ישראל: לרבות שבט לוי:.  This is based on Rashi's girsa in the Sifri here (although the Gaon has the Sifri saying the opposite.)   Rashi's Sifri is stating that Levi did not join the battle in other wars, but the war against Midian was the exception.

Another odd thing about this War is that only here are we introduced to the idea of having dedicated davenners for each soldier.  What happened in the earlier war with Sichon and Og?

Of course, the two singularities explain each other.

In all other wars, Shevet Levi had the job of davenning for Klal Yisrael, and there was no need to dedicate a mispallel for each soldier.  In the war of Midian, on the other hand, Shevet Levi was on the battlefield, just as all the other Shevatim were.  If so, there was no Shevet- there was no eidah- that was completely and exclusively dedicated to tefilla and Torah.  So davka in this war was there a requirement of having Anshei Ma'amad.

One more question: Why was the War of Midian different from all other wars?  Why were the Leviim told to join the war on the battlefield?
The Rogotchover says that this was not a Milchemes Mitzva and it was not a Milchemes Reshus.  It did not have the dinim of Milchama at all.  It was, as he explains here, an action of revenge.  He says it was נקמה, not מלחמה.  It was an infliction of נקמת השם במדין.  He says there are many halachic differences between the two.  Two examples: here there was not din of יפת תואר, and there was no rule of only surrounding the enemy on three but not four sides.

In any case, I look forward for someone to explain to me why the idea of military exemption for Talmidei Yeshivos elicits such anger from other Frum Jews.  I'm not talking about Tel Avivians, who, beginning at around the same age that Dati children are being taught Torah tziva lanu Moshe. are taught to abhor Chareidim.  I'm curious about Frum Jews who hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.  Of course, the system is abused, and batlanim and shkotzim and black marketers take advantage of it.  But as far as I can tell, the people who disparage the Chareidim for draft avoidance do so wholesale, not retail, and feel that even yeshiva bachurim who are sincere and serious masmidim ought to be in the army.

Since it's the Three Weeks, and, as I've said, we're fated to be at each other's throats anyway, please feel free to heap invective upon me.  Catharsis is good for you.

By the way: Just as the Eim Habanim Smeicha is endlessly cited in the DL community, here's someone with sterling credentials that says pshat in the Rambam like me:  Rav Tikotzinsky, writing for Rav Herzog.  (An epitaph for Rav Tikotzinsky is here.)  You really don't need rayos that the Rambam means what he says, but there it is anyway.  See also the Ambuha D'Sifri vol II page 518, or here, and the Pnei Meivin in Sanhedrin 20b, here.

Rabbi Yonoson Rosenblum mentioned this issue in an article some time ago.  The full article is located here, and I quote the most relevant passage:

The resentment of those who serve three years in the army – often in circumstances of great danger – towards those who do not serve, is understandable from their point of view. Yet the chareidi world will never agree to dismantle the hundreds of yeshivos built from the ashes over the last fifty years and send our 18-year-olds into the army. If the price of an improved public image is the destruction of the world of Torah, it is a price that cannot be paid. We also have our world view, and know that without the protection of Torah learning Israel cannot defend itself.

The chareidi rejection of army service for 18-year-olds (the traditional draft age) has both a positive and a negative dimension. The positive is the insistence on the incomparable value of Torah learning in Hashem’s eyes. The Yeshiva world rejects the assertion that yeshiva students do not contribute to the national defense. On the contrary, yeshiva students are told repeatedly that their learning is the greatest protection of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisroel. Though it is true that a radical division of labor exists in Israeli society, it is not just between those who serve in the army and those who don’t, but more fundamentally between the 10-15% who are shomer mitzvos and those who are not.


Even at Mercaz HaRav, long viewed as the flagship yeshiva of the National Religious world, boys are strongly encouraged to push off army service in favor of full-time learning during the crucial years prior to marriage, and for several years thereafter.


The negative objection to army service derives from the use of the Israeli army as an instrument of socialization. Chareidim have no desire to have their children socialized to norms antithetical to the Torah and in a spiritually threatening environment. Israel, for instance, has long been the only non-revolutionary society to draft women. The recent push to integrate women into combat units has caused many even in the national religious world to reconsider the propriety of army service.


Nor can we control the irrational aspects of the hatred. A certain antipathy to the Torah and those who learn it is built into the Creation. Where does the name Sinai come from? Chazal ask. They answer: From there sina (hatred) came into the world (Shabbos 89b).
(end quote)

Here's an abstract of some fellow's master thesis at an American college.  Found here.
The haredim in Israel are an ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious group who uphold the most conservative of Jewish laws. Instead of serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as all other Israelis do, the haredim are exempted from the IDF's policy of universal conscription. This thesis proposes three hypotheses to determine why Israel's haredim do not serve in the IDF. First, the haredim do not serve in the IDF because they do not want to; second, the haredim do not serve because they hold pacifistic political opinions; and third, the haredim do not serve because Jewish religious tradition forbids military service. To test these hypotheses, data were gathered by conducting a literature review and studying Israeli newspapers, official Israeli Government statistics, and unofficial public opinion surveys. Accordingly, a close examination of both the haredi worldview and the cultural characteristics of Israel's haredi communities suggests that the haredim do not want to serve in the IDF for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, a survey of haredi political opinions indicates that the majority of haredim exhibit a hawkish and aggressive political orientation. Finally, an analysis of individual haredi voices reveals that haredi yeshiva students consider their Torah studies to be an integral component to Israel's wartime activities. Contrary to the expectations of this thesis, haredi resistance to military service is not defined by an aversion to war or a commitment to peace, and it therefore cannot serve as a model for advocates of conflict resolution to emulate.  

And finally, reporting from Yediot Achronot..........


Comments that came in last year:
Anonymous said...



Okay, I'll try to explain to you the Orthodox resentment as best I can. But firstly, let me just say that I don't think Tel avivians are being taught to hate Chareidim. I think they're being taught to value earning a living. And they look down in those who don't share those values like the Chareidim look down on those who don't share their values. But now to the army issue- I think part of it is simply a numbers issue- if 5% of people were designated "super-learners" and were exempt from the Army- I think a significant amount of the Orthodox opposition would disappear- but it's not the case- with very few exceptions Charedim don't go to the army-period. It's not a select elite- in your words, it's 'wholesale', not 'retail'.Not every Chareidi is a talmud chacham. So it's not a learning Torah issue at all- it's a priority and value issue- it's just not important enough for them to do. And that's the problem. The Dati Leumi know that they are picking up the slack. And thank G-d that they do. Can you imagine what a Chillel Hashem it would be if no shomer torah umitzvos people were in the Army? But that's exactly what the Chareidim seem to want.
Imagine the scene at a dati leumi shiva house for a soldier killed in battle. Imagine it's your child. I'd imagine the last person you'd want making a shiva call is someone who feels that your child is an appropriate sacrifice but not their child.
Not to mention, I'm sure Shevet Levi had a deep appreciation of what the soldiers who did fight were doing. Can you say the same about the fellows in Bnei Brak? Where are the gemachs in Meah Shearim to send pizza and cakes to the soldiers? When was the last misheberach for chayalim in a Chareidi shul?


Daniel said...



Anonymous- If the greater Tel Aviv education is anything like the classes I have at Open University in Ramat Aviv then they are definitely taught (implicitly obviously) to abhor chareidim. Teachers and students alike find no qualms with a nice snide jab whenever the opportunity presents itself (although to be fair that group seems to like snide jabs at alot of other things as well) and I've gotten into more than one or two arguments with instructors who casually tell over very vitriolic rhetoric.

I'd love to see hundreds of thousands of the chareidim joining the army and education system and watch the establishment run in terror from the new ideological changes and influences that such an event would portend. Then you'd find them complaining of too many chareidim in the army who could potentially become a fifth column, with their priorities of Daas Torah and the like. On the whole, they complain because they want to complain and hate, not because they really are interested in having the chareidim join and be a mutual and contributing partner in a joint project called "the State of Israel". The shame is that the chareidim don't call their bluff and take them up on their offer. These are my impressions from the limited exposure I've had. I could always be wrong.


great unknown said...



The last lines of Anonymous's missive open up a can of worms that bothers me also. Where are the tefillot in the chareidi yeshivot for the soldiers. In fact, by what authority were the yeshivot mevatail the tefilla lishlom hamedinah, which is at least a d'rabbanan, and possibly midivrei kabbala?

In my shul, I modified the tefillot for the USA and Medinat Yisroel to exclude the enemies of Yiddishkeit, but we certainly said them.


Anonymous said...



"עיקר ההפרות - לרעת החיילים הדתיים"
"בשנת 2005 מוניתי לראשות מנהלת השילוב הראוי. רצנו במשך שלושה חודשים, יום ולילה, לניסוח המסקנות ולהטמעה שלהן בצבא, ואני יכול לומר בוודאות כי עיקר ההפרות שלהן היום הוא לרעת החיילים הדתיים. רונצקי מונה

כמה דוגמאות להחלטות "מתריסות", כמו שירת ההמנון דווקא על ידי חיילת בטקס בקורס קצינים, למרות שרוב חניכיו דתיים, או מינוי קצינת קשר בגדוד לוחם. "מג"ד כזה אמר לי במפורש: 'יש לי בעיה שהיא איתי ועם עוד שמונה חיילים בפעילות בנגמ"ש במשך כמה ימים. זה לא לעניין. זה פוגע ברמה המבצעית שלי".

לדברי הרב הצבאי לשעבר לשעבר, "מי שמבקש בחינה נוספת של הדברים - בשמחה. שיגיע ליחידות האלה גם הוא ואז יהיה לו ייצוג ונוכל לדון בהכול. זה שוק חופשי".


Chaim B. said...



I wish I had time to write a full response.

>>>Yet the chareidi world will never agree to dismantle the hundreds of yeshivos built from the ashes... If the price of an improved public image is the destruction of the world of Torah, it is a price that cannot be paid.

You have got to be kidding me. It's all or nothing -- either full time learning for everyone, no exceptions, or it's the complete "destruction of the world of Torah". Life must be so easy when everything is black and white, either/or. Hesder, part time learning programs, Torah and... anything -- all worthless.

It's also don't think the charedim perceive their choice as one between competing positive values, i.e. the State and Army are important, but Torah is more important and that is my contribution. I think their attitude is that the State/Army is not a positive value at all. R' Elchanan, the Brisker Rav, were extreme anti-Zionists -- they are the heroes of the yeshiva world, are they not? How can anyone raised on R' Elchanan's mamamarim think supporting Jewish nationalism in any way is a good idea?

I have a 17 year old. Maybe 1 in 20 in his class have the potential to live up to that description of sheivet levi in the Rambam. Do you think in Israel teens are so radically different? What % truly deserve a draft exemption - 10%? 20%? Yet, the chareidi hashkafa has defined the execption as the norm, flipping the system on its head.
Enough of my rant. I should have waited until I was in a better mood to comment.




Dr. Nachum's post on the subject:


In the course of his vort on the unique circumstances of Milchemet Midyan, K’vod Baal Achsanya, HaRav HaGaon B, asked why is it that “Frum Jews [who] hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.”
                I would like to try to explain on a few levels. Firstly, no one I have ever met hates the Chareidim for anything. A much more accurate description would be resentment.
                It should be noted that all draft-dodgers are looked down-upon in Israeli society. Citizens protest if non-soldiers are hired for entertainment. Most job applications inquire of one’s military service. It’s just part of a society whose existence is so fragile.
                HaRav B seems to want to include modern Chareidi draft-avoiders in Rambam’s military exemption. [This is not the place to debate that point, but it is not universally accepted that Rambam exempts ANYONE from a Milchemet Mitzvah. V’AKMAL ] I have never heard any of the yeshiva students make such a claim, but to do so  would be ridiculous. Can any contemporary Talmid Yeshiva claim to “פרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם”?  These are the same Talmidim who whine when their stipends are 2 weeks late? Who think that all businesses are somehow “obligated” to give them a special discount? Who demand equal funding as army-veteran university students? Are any of them on that level?
                Even if we were to grant that the Rambam Levite exemption exists, it certainly is not obligatory upon anyone to exempt himself. Imagine if these “Klei Kodesh” were in the army. Would it not change the nature of the army to a Machaneh  Kadosh  ? How would motivation change, how would morale change? How would the self-image of these Bnei Yeshiva change? The army already has special yeshivishe units. Perhaps they are not perfect, but if they were more heavily populated, they would function better too!
                The original agreement between the Chazon Ish and PM Ben Gurion was intended to free-up a few hundred superior scholars to replenish the rabbinic cadre after the holocaust. Now, the Torato Umanuto exemption has become an almost mandatory burden on all who would call themselves Chareidi. They are pariahs if they don’t “choose” the exemption. So the system is abused, and the newspapers duly report the sophisticated massive fraud. Fictitious students get government stipends to learn in largely virtual yeshivot. Perhaps the Chilul Hashem drives some of the disgust ?
                Are all the Chareidim being stigmatized because of the abuse of the few? Certainly. On the other hand how many of the Talmidei Yeshivot are true matmidim whose time can’t be sacrificed for communal defense? So the 95% who abuse the system give all the others a bad name!

                This leads us to the heart of the problem. The future Talmidei Yeshivot are indoctrinated from a young age, that they are the true defenders of Israel. Without their precious learning we would lose all our wars!  It’s hard to fault the kids; the ideology is axiomatic for them. So, not only do they not serve. Not only do they not respect or thank those who serve (and die…) but they hold themselves superior.  I think we’re very close to an answer to HaRav B’s question.
     Another point raised was “Shevet Levi had the job of davening for Klal Yisrael.”  I’m sure they did.  Unfortunately, these modern-day self-appointed Leviim have neglected that part of their job. The contemporary non-participants would rather stomp out of shule than daven for the soldiers, even the dead ones. They won’t use a siddur that includes a prayer for our soldiers [really, I’ve seen them check]. I had one guy leave the ammud as shatz one Shabbat [and then the building] when asked to say the mishbarach for the soldiers- in the middle of a war! Yes, in America, there’s more of a chance that the Chareidim will pray for the soldiers, there’s less of a chance that the youth might be tempted to be one. Yet still, those shules that do daven for the soldiers are few.
There’s a strange paradox here.  On the one hand, the individual Talmid Yeshiva can’t be faulted for doing what absolutely everyone around him is doing, what he has been trained to do since birth.  It would be quite radical for him to do otherwise.  Indeed, the few charedim who do join the army probably are trying to get out of the charedi system anyway.  On the other hand, many in the younger charedi leadership have told me that they know that what they are doing is probably wrong, definitely causing friction, and unlikely to last in the long-term.  But they see themselves powerless to change anything; the “street” won’t let them.  So the “street” doesn’t bear personal responsibility, but is responsible for the perpetuation of an intolerable situation that guarantees animosity.  
                We should also bear in mind something very important psychologically- who else doesn’t serve? The Arabs. Who else claims to hate the state and wishes for it to disappear- ibid

Simplistic? Yes. But herds think simplistically.

                To close, I too, would like to quote our parsha: האחיכם יבאו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה?!

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Matos, Bamidbar 31:4. Shevet Levi's Military Service Exemption

The Tribe of Levi did not fight in the Jewish wars.  This is obvious in numerous pesukim in the Torah, such as the many censuses which state explicitly that Shevet Levi was not counted because they were not Yotzei Tzava.  Additionally, whenever war is described in Yehoshua and Shoftim, all the other tribes are mentioned, but never Shevet Levi, not in Milchemes Mitzva/divine imperative war, not in Milchemes Reshus/politically motivated war, and not in Milchemes Amalek/the war against Amalek.

This fundamental rule is crystallized in the Rambam's words at the end of Shmita ve'Yovel:
ולמה לא זכה לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל ובביזתה עם אחיו? מפני שהובדל לעבוד את י"י לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים, שנאמר יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל. לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם. לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל, ולא נוחלין, ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן. אלא הם חיל השם שנאמר ברך י"י חילו. והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם שנאמר אני חלקך ונחלתך.   ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני י"י לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את י"י והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלהים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם, הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים, ויהיה י"י חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים. ויזכה לו בעה"ז דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים ללוים. הרי דוד ע"ה אומר י"י מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי:

So it's not only Shevet Levi.  This exemption includes all who take upon themselves lives exclusively dedicated to study and religious service.

From this Rambam, all we know is that people who are exclusively dedicated to learning Torah are exempt from conscription.  But what of people who work, but are Talmidei Chachamim?  For that, we look to the Rambam in 6 Talmud Torah 10:


תלמידי חכמים אינם יוצאין בעצמן לעשות עם כל הקהל בבנין וחפירה של מדינה וכיוצא בהן כדי שלא יתבזו בפני עמי הארץ. ואין גובין מהן לבנין החומה ותיקון השערים ושכר השומרים וכיוצא בהן ולא לתשורת המלך. ואין מחייבים אותן ליתן המס בין מס שהוא קצוב על בני העיר בין מס שהוא קצוב על כל איש ואיש שנאמר גם כי יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם ויחלו מעט ממשא מלך ושרים. וכן אם היתה סחורה לתלמיד חכם מניחים אותו למכור תחלה ואין מניחים אחד מבני השוק למכור עד שימכור הוא. וכן אם היה לו דין והיה עומד בכלל בעלי דינים הרבה מקדימין אותו ומושיבין אותו:

It appears that the concept of "Shevet Levi" applies both to those that are dedicated to exclusive Torah study and also to the Talmidei Chachamim (a contextually sensitive term whose meaning changes according to the time and place, as evident in various applications which I don't feel like looking up now.)


So it is clear that Shevet Levi did not go to war, not Milchemes Mitzva, not Milchemes Reshus, and not Milchemes Amaleik.  What did they do?  They learned and davenned.  As the Gemara in Makkos 10a says, א"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהילים קכב) עומדות היו רגלינו בשעריך ירושלם? מי גרם לרגלינו שיעמדו במלחמה - שערי ירושלם שהיו עוסקים בתורה .  But there was one and only one exception:  The war with Midian, as described in our parsha.  Rashi in 31:4 says לכל מטות ישראל: לרבות שבט לוי:.  This is based on Rashi's girsa in the Sifri here (although the Gaon has the Sifri saying the opposite.)   Rashi's Sifri is stating that Levi did not join the battle in other wars, but the war against Midian was the exception.



Another odd thing about this War is that only here are we introduced to the idea of having dedicated davenners for each soldier.  What happened in the earlier war with Sichon and Og?


Of course, the two singularities explain each other.


In all other wars, Shevet Levi had the job of davenning for Klal Yisrael, and there was no need to dedicate a mispallel for each soldier.  In the war of Midian, on the other hand, Shevet Levi was physically invested, just as all the other Shevatim were.  If so, there was no Shevet- there was no eidah- that was completely and exclusively dedicated to tefilla and Torah.  So davka in this war was there a requirement of having Anshei Ma'amad.


One more question: Why was the War of Midian different from all other wars?  Why were the Leviim told to join the war on the battlefield?
The Rogotchover says that this was not a Milchemes Mitzva and it was not a Milchemes Reshus.  It did not have the dinim of Milchama at all.  It was, as he explains here, an action of revenge.  He says it was נקמה, not מלחמה.  It was an infliction of נקמת השם במדין.  He says there are many halachic differences between the two.  Two examples: here there was not din of יפת תואר, and there was no rule of only surrounding the enemy on three but not four sides.

In any case, I look forward for someone to explain to me why the idea of military exemption for Talmidei Yeshivos elicits such anger from other Frum Jews.  I'm not talking about Tel Avivians, who, beginning at around the same age that Dati children are being taught Torah tziva lanu Moshe. are taught to abhor Chareidim.  I'm curious about Frum Jews who hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.  Of course, the system is abused, and batlanim and shkotzim and black marketers take advantage of it.  But as far as I can tell, the people who disparage the Chareidim for draft avoidance do so wholesale, not retail, and feel that even yeshiva bachurim who are sincere and serious masmidim ought to be in the army.

Since it's the Three Weeks, and, as I've said, we're fated to be at each other's throats anyway, please feel free to heap invective upon me.  Catharsis is good for you.

By the way: Just as the Eim Habanim Smeicha is endlessly cited in the DL community, here's someone with sterling credentials that says pshat in the Rambam like me:  Rav Tikotzinsky, writing for Rav Herzog.  (An epitaph for Rav Tikotzinsky is here.)  You really don't need rayos that the Rambam means what he says, but there it is anyway.  See also the Ambuha D'Sifri vol II page 518, or here, and the Pnei Meivin in Sanhedrin 20b, here.

Rabbi Yonoson Rosenblum mentioned this issue in an article some time ago.  The full article is located here, and I quote the most relevant passage:

The resentment of those who serve three years in the army – often in circumstances of great danger – towards those who do not serve, is understandable from their point of view. Yet the chareidi world will never agree to dismantle the hundreds of yeshivos built from the ashes over the last fifty years and send our 18-year-olds into the army. If the price of an improved public image is the destruction of the world of Torah, it is a price that cannot be paid. We also have our world view, and know that without the protection of Torah learning Israel cannot defend itself.

The chareidi rejection of army service for 18-year-olds (the traditional draft age) has both a positive and a negative dimension. The positive is the insistence on the incomparable value of Torah learning in Hashem’s eyes. The Yeshiva world rejects the assertion that yeshiva students do not contribute to the national defense. On the contrary, yeshiva students are told repeatedly that their learning is the greatest protection of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisroel. Though it is true that a radical division of labor exists in Israeli society, it is not just between those who serve in the army and those who don’t, but more fundamentally between the 10-15% who are shomer mitzvos and those who are not.


Even at Mercaz HaRav, long viewed as the flagship yeshiva of the National Religious world, boys are strongly encouraged to push off army service in favor of full-time learning during the crucial years prior to marriage, and for several years thereafter.


The negative objection to army service derives from the use of the Israeli army as an instrument of socialization. Chareidim have no desire to have their children socialized to norms antithetical to the Torah and in a spiritually threatening environment. Israel, for instance, has long been the only non-revolutionary society to draft women. The recent push to integrate women into combat units has caused many even in the national religious world to reconsider the propriety of army service.


Nor can we control the irrational aspects of the hatred. A certain antipathy to the Torah and those who learn it is built into the Creation. Where does the name Sinai come from? Chazal ask. They answer: From there sina (hatred) came into the world (Shabbos 89b).
(end quote)


Here's an abstract of some fellow's master thesis at an American college.  Found here.
The haredim in Israel are an ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious group who uphold the most conservative of Jewish laws. Instead of serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as all other Israelis do, the haredim are exempted from the IDF's policy of universal conscription. This thesis proposes three hypotheses to determine why Israel's haredim do not serve in the IDF. First, the haredim do not serve in the IDF because they do not want to; second, the haredim do not serve because they hold pacifistic political opinions; and third, the haredim do not serve because Jewish religious tradition forbids military service. To test these hypotheses, data were gathered by conducting a literature review and studying Israeli newspapers, official Israeli Government statistics, and unofficial public opinion surveys. Accordingly, a close examination of both the haredi worldview and the cultural characteristics of Israel's haredi communities suggests that the haredim do not want to serve in the IDF for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, a survey of haredi political opinions indicates that the majority of haredim exhibit a hawkish and aggressive political orientation. Finally, an analysis of individual haredi voices reveals that haredi yeshiva students consider their Torah studies to be an integral component to Israel's wartime activities. Contrary to the expectations of this thesis, haredi resistance to military service is not defined by an aversion to war or a commitment to peace, and it therefore cannot serve as a model for advocates of conflict resolution to emulate.  


And finally, reporting from Yediot Achronot..........
Activists protest haredi draft dodging - Israel News, Ynetnews


Monday, July 18, 2011

Matos, Bamidbar 31:4. Elef LaMatteh. Direct Responsibility for a Soldier

When Operation Cast Lead was being waged, the Tanchuma in this week's parsha became widely known.  The Tanchuma here is on passuk 31:4, in Siman 3.  It's also in the Medrash Rabba Bamidbar 23:2- or is it 22:3.  The Tanchuma in Siman 3 on the passuk אלף למטה אלף למטה לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא says the following:

 אלף למטה אלף למטה. יש אומרים, אלפים מכל שבט ושבט שלח. ויש אומרים, שלשת אלפים מכל שבט ושבט. שנים עשר אלף חלוצי צבא, ושנים עשר אלף לשמור את הכלים, ועליהם הוא אומר, שניך כעדר הקצובות וגו'. ושנים עשר אלף לתפלה. ומנין. שכך כתיב, אלף למטה אלף למטה, הרי שני אלפים. וימסרו מאלפי ישראל. מהו וימסרו. שהם נמסרין זוגות זה לזה.

When describing the conscription for the war with Midian, the Torah says that each tribe will provide one thousand soldiers, and the Torah repeats the words:  Elef Lamatteh, elef lamatteh.  The Medrash explains the repetition (and the word וימסרו) to mean that besides the thousand soldiers conscripted from each sheivet, an additional two thousand people were separated from each sheivet.  Each soldier had two people assigned to him.  These were one for support, like providing food and transportation, and one to daven and learn Torah as a merit to keep his soldier safe.


Rav Elyashiv shlit"a (דברי אגדה p.321) brings this Medrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 22:3) and says that this requirement of tefilla, having one person davenning for the safety and success of each soldier, was for a battle that was declared explicitly by Hashem and so was predestined to be successful.   Additionally, we add the leadership of Pinchas, the call of the chaztotzros and the presence of the Aron Hakodesh and the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.  Also, we can also assume that the Dor Dei’ah as a whole, all the people who davenned every day during the war as they always davenned, knew how to daven for the success of the war and said tehillim for safety and success.  Despite all that siyata dishmaya, Moshe earmarked for each and every soldier a meilitz yosher.  One can only imagine that in our time, writes Rav Elyashiv, we should have 10 people davening and learning (Torah magna umatzla, Sotah 21a,) for the safety of every single soldier.

See also Makkos 10a:
א"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהילים קכב) עומדות היו רגלינו בשעריך ירושלם מי גרם לרגלינו שיעמדו במלחמה שערי ירושלם שהיו עוסקים בתורה 
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Dovid Hamelech attributed victory in war to the Jews in Jerusalem who supported the troops with their Torah study.  By whose merit do we remain standing after battle?  In the merit of those who are in Jerusalem studying Torah.

During that war, the Arutz 7 News Organization printed this article about this project, and quoted the Bostoner Rebbe, and yibadlu lechaim Rav Simcha Kook and Reb Chaim Kanievsky as strongly supportive.

קריאה: להתפלל להצלחת חיילי צה"ל

רבה של רחובות, הרב שמחה הכהן קוק, והאדמו"ר מבוסטון, הרב לוי יצחק הורוביץ, יצאו היום בקריאה לציבור לשאת תפילה בעד חיילי צה"ל הנלחמים בעזה.
פרסום ראשון: 05/01/09, 19:17
אליה שילה

הרב הראשי של רחובות, הרב שמחה הכהן קוק, והאדמו"ר מבוסטון, הרב לוי יצחק הורוביץ, יצאו היום בקריאה לציבור לשאת תפילה בעד חיילי צה"ל הנלחמים בעזה.

במקביל קראו הרבנים לכל חייל החפץ שיתפללו בעדו להתקשר לטלפון 02-581-1911, ולמסור את שמו ואת שם אמו, אין צורך בשמות המשפחה.

"ולעת כזאת חובתנו לחוש את אחדות כלל ישראל בלב ובנפש להרבות בתפילה ובכל העניינים, כי עת צרה היא ליעקב וכו' ובעהשי"ת ממנה ייוושע. באנו לעורר, לבקש, ולהוסיף עניין של זיכוי הרבים ביותר", כותבים הרבנים.

"תורתנו הקדושה מעידה כי במלחמת מדין נצטוו להיחלץ "אלף למטה אלף למטה". ואיתא במדרש רבה ובילקוט שמעוני ש"וימסרו" היינו עוד אלף למטה. פירושו שהיו נמסרין זוגות זוגות, כדי שיהיו מתפללים איש על רעהו. ואכן במלחמת מדין נאמר "ולא נפקד ממנו איש". ובודאי העובדה שניצלו כולם הייתה בגלל תפילת כלל ישראל", הוסיפו הרבנים.

הרבנים מציינים כי דבר זה הובא לפני מרן הגאון רבי חיים קניבסקי שליט"א, הרב שמח בדבר, והוסיף ואמר שכך גם נהג דוד המלך ע"ה שכל אחד שיצא להילחם, הכינו יהודי נוסף, שתפקידו היה, להתפלל עבור היוצא, ויש א"כ הסכמת דוד המלך ע"ה לתפילות אלו.

בנוסף קוראים הרבנים לכל אחד המצוי בגלל המלחמה במצוקה או בחרדה, במקלט ובכל אתר, לפנות למספר הנ"ל וגם שמו יועבר לאותם אלו שקיבלו על עצמם להוסיף בתפילה ובתלמוד תורה עבור המבקש, "ובעזהשי"ת נזכה מן השמים גם אנו לנאמר "ולא נפקד ממנו איש".
"ובזה אנו קוראים גם לכל מי שרוצה לקיים דברי חכמים ולהוסיף בתורה ותפילה, להצטרף ולהיכנס לפיתקא של תפילות, להתקשר למספר הנ"ל ולקבל שם של חייל או אחר לכוון את תוספות תורתו ותפלתו לזכות חבירו", מוסיפים הרבנים וחותמים, "גם נשים צדקניות יכולות לקבל על עצמן להתפלל עבור חברה השרויה במצוקה עקב המלחמה"

The organization that arranged these shidduchim was called, of course, Elef Lamatteh.  Here is their website.

 Although this idea became well known in '09, my sister, Rebbitzen Faskowitz of Queens, who is married to Rabbi Moshe Faskowitz of the Torah Center of Hillcrest, wrote an article that was printed in the Jewish Press, suggesting this idea during the 2006 war in Lebanon, that people should have the name of a specific soldier for whom to be mispallel for success and safety.  It's a lot more effective when you're being mispallel and learning for a specific person with a name that you know, especially when he is putting himself in harm's way to protect you.  The least you can do is daven and learn to protect him.

Baruch Hashem, there's no hot war going on.  But soldiers are still being conscripted and soldiers are still endangered, and they're doing their job to protect the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael.  It is still a good idea to have the name of a specific soldier in mind.  Since individuals cannot do this, and the Elef Lamateh organization is not currently in business, I would suggest that shuls figure out how many mispallelim they have, men and women, and get an equal number of names from a contact in Israel, who will circulate a form on Facebook or something like that in which soldiers who consent to the arrangement can submit their names, and then assign a soldier to each and every single adult in the shul.  Keep track of your soldier!  If you want to send him a salami or her a box of cookies, that would be fine, too, but don't let that get in the way of your real job- protecting him or her with your Tefilla and Torah.


Update:
I recently became aware of a Sicha attributed to Harav Weintraub in which he shares with us a strikingly different perspective.  I think that you can see that his primary concern is that one might develop a sense of parity or privity with people who hate the Torah and the Halacha.  On that basis, he makes a policy decision, as you will see, and policy decisions are not always pretty.  I found it on the Life in Israel blog.  You will have to click on each picture to make it comfortable to read. Maybe 'comfortable' is not the right word.








Thursday, July 8, 2010

Mattos, Bamidbar 30:16: Causing Others to Sin. And The Converse; A Salute to Lubavitch PR

וְאִם-הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ וְנָשָׂא אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ
And if he will erase/revoke her oath after hearing it, he will bear her sin.
The Sifri, brought by Rashi, explains that a husband has the right to revoke his wife's oaths, but only if he does not validate them first.  Once he validated her oath, any subsequent revocation is ineffective, and the oath stands.  The passuk is talking about the following case:  A husband had, unbeknownst to his wife, validated her oath.  He later told her that he revokes her oath.  Trusting her husband, she blithely transgressed her oath.  In this case, the husband bears the sin of transgressing an oath.  Rashi's words (from the Sifrei) are
אחרי שמעו: אחרי ששמע וקיים, שאמר אפשי בו, וחזר והפר לה אפילו בו ביום
After having heard them: After he heard and upheld [them], by saying,“I approve of it” and then he (spuriously and duplicitously) retracted and revoked it, even on that very day. 

ונשא את עונה: הוא נכנס תחתיה. למדנו מכאן שהגורם תקלה לחבירו הוא נכנס תחתיו לכל עונשין
He shall bear her iniquity: He takes her place. We learn from here that if someone causes his fellow to stumble, he bears his punishments in his place. 


We are familiar with the halacha of Lifnei Iveir, that we are not to place a stumbling block in the path of a person, that we are fobidden to enable a person to commit an aveira. Our passuk, however, is no mere reiteration of Lifnei Iveir. The consequence of Lifnei Iveir is that the transgressor of Lifnei Iveir is punished for his transgression.  (He doesn’t get actual malkos for Lifnei Iveir, because it’s too general of a prohibition, but he is guilty of a malkos-level sin—it’s a chiyuv malkos without actual malkos.) The consequence of our passuk is that the villain- in addition to the chiyuv malkos- gets whatever the innocent person would have gotten had he/she done the sin intentionally.   Here, where the punishment of transgressing an oath is far more serious than that of a regular biblical prohibition, the husband suffers the extremely serious punishment of transgressing an oath.  If you're machshil a person on a lav, you have two lavim: Lifnei Iver and the lav the other was oiver.  A person that's machshil on chayvei krisos gets the lav of Lifnei Iver and is also chayav kareis.

Why is this law stated specifically in the context of the laws of oaths?  If this is a universal rule, it should have been stated generically, as was Lifnei Iveir- a michshol, any stumbling block.  What is the connection to nedarim?

The first thing that comes to mind is the unique status the husband has here.  While in dinim of issur and hetter a solitary witness is trusted, this only true where the doubt is whether an object is muttar or assur.  But if is'chazik issura, where the issur existed and the question is whether the issur had been removed, a solitary witness is not trusted.  Why, then, can the wife trust her husband?  Why doesn't he need proof that he had not validated her neder before he was meifir?  After all, it was ischazik issura!  And don't tell me that when he is meifir it's retroactive, because first of all, that doesn't take off the ischazik right now, and secondly, only the Rambam holds that it's retroactive by a husband's hafara.  The answer is that it is Beyado: he had, at one point, the power in his hands to validate or revoke the neder.  Beyado gives him greater legal credibility, like by niddah. 

But more than that:  The fact that the Torah gives him the right to revoke not only implies that his word can be trusted.  The Torah is specifically telling the wife that she should trust him.

So, it seems to me that the Sifrei's rule has limited application.  Merely trusting an eid echad does not necessarily transfer liability from actor to inducer.  If the eid echad is lying, then the actor was wrong in trusting him, and it is a shogeg.  The inducer would transgress lifnei iver and nothing more.  Only here, where the Torah explicitly says that the wife should trust her husband, would the punishment for her acts be transferred to her husband.  This is even stronger than two witnesses (see Noda Be'Yehuda YD II 96); here, the Torah gives him ba'alus and ne'emanus on her nedarim and says she should trust him when he says he was meifir.

The Rambam in 10 Kilayim 1 says that a person who dresses another in a garment that contains Shatnez gets Malkos; not because of lifnei iveir, which is too broad a lahv, but for the actual lahv of Shatnez.  The Nosei Keilim say that the Rambam learned Lo silbash=Lo salbish where the wearer is shogeg.  But the Oneg Yomtov YD 96 says that the Rambam is basing his rule on the concept of Shliach lidvar aveira.  The Oneg Yomtov then deals with issues of "vechi zeh chotei ve'zeh mischayeiv," from Kiddushin 43, and the Shach in CM 348:6 that paskens not like Tosfos Bava Kamma 79 who holds that by a shliach shogeg, yeish shliach lidvar aveira.) But with our derech in the Sifrei, we can say that the Rambam was working with the Chiddush of Nedarim; where you are the cause of the aveira beshogeg- not just that you were machshil, you were mamash the cause, like the difference between grama and garmi, although this is not really a garmi- you take the place of the victim.  The Torah told the woman she should trust her husband; if he is machshil her, he is being malbish her the kilayim, and he stands in her place.  (This is not only mine.  I've seen it in several achronim, though I think I might be saying it a little better.)

With this, we understand why this halacha was stated in the parsha of Nedarim.  The parsha of Nedarim teaches us a continuum of liability.  Where the husband revoked the wife's neder, and she didn't know that the neder was no longer operative, and she transgressed what she thought was a live neder, the Torah says "ve'Hashem yislach lah," that she needs slicha for doing what she thought was assur, even if it actually was muttar.  On the other end of the spectrum, if a woman was tricked into thinking that what she was doing was muttar, but it was actually assur, she is considered blameless and her husband bears the sin as if he had done it be'meizid.

I just saw the Chasam Sofer on the parsha, who, I am happy to say, makes several of my points.  He begins by saying that if this is a general rule, why is it stated davka in the parsha of nedarim.  He answers with the Rambam that the Ran brings in Nedarim 15a (wrongly cited as 14 in my Chasam Sofer).  The Ran DH Halcha Asura brings the Rambam in 10 Nedarim 12 that if Reuven assers his object to Shimon, and then Reuven gives the object to Shimon to eat, Reuven is over Bal Yacheil.  The Ran, and everyone else, argues with the Rambam (See Kli Chemda, this week's parsha, toward the end of the first #8, p. 259, DH Ubechidusheinu).  But the point is that according to the Rambam, the noder is over on Bal Yacheil even if he gave the food to the mudar and the mudar ate it.  And, he says, from the fact that a husband can be sho'el on his hakama, we see that hakama is a kind of neder, as if , in a manner of speaking, the husband made his wife's neder.  So, he says, since the husband who is me'kayeim is called the noder, if he gives it to her to eat, he's over on ba'al yachel.  Strangely, though, the Chasam Sofer ends by saying that this would be true even if she knew he was mekayeim.  If that's true, then he's not saying pshat in the Sifrei, because the Sifrei is talking about a case where the wife didn't know he was mekayeim.

And, thank you Eli, I looked at the Kli Chemda #5 (p 276) on this passuk.  1.  He brings the Ramban here that there are two chiddushim in the Sifrei: A. that the woman is not only pattur, she's not even a shogeges: She's like an anusa.  B. That the husband is like a person who made a neder and transgressed it.  2. He brings the Rambam in Kilayim that I brought above, and another Rambam that a person that is metamei an unwitting Kohen is chayav malkos for his tumah.  3. He is mechavein to the Oneg Yomtov (he didn't see the Oneg Yomtov, obviously) about Shliach lidvar aveira, and 4. ends up saying that the Rambam's rule applies to all aveiros that are inherently sins, as opposed to sins that have a component of intent.  You have to see it inside.

So, Chaim B argued that to so drastically limit Rashi/Sifrei to specific cases undermines the whole point of the mussar haskeil.  I agree with Chaim, and I say that pashut pshat in Rashi is that this is a broad concept.  After all, the lashon is "hagorem takala lechaveiro," not "hamadir" lechaveiro. .  How broad, though, is debatable.  Even in Rashi, certainly in the Rambam, this is not a yesod in kol hatorah kulah.



Having spoken about the result of causing others to sin, here's a video from Lubavitch Cape Town.  Their work is to bring people to Yiddishkeit.  My father zatzal told me that after World War II, many Jews were trapped in the Soviet Union.  If a person needed a bris millah, or kosher meat, or a kesuva, there was one option, and only one: find a Lubavitcher.   As far as the Aguda, Mizrachi, Satmar, and Hebrew Union College were involved, you would remain an Arel eating neveilos in the house with a woman you weren't married to.  I am not criticizing those groups, chalila.  Organizational Groups are only representatives of the many individuals, and they were busy surviving and building a foundation of Torah life after the war.  But the fact remains that Lubavitch took on both jobs and handled them well.  Only Lubavitch.  Whether you like their theology or not, you have to salute their unquenchable enthusiasm and mesirus nefesh, and the myriad chasadim they have done for so many abandoned Jews.  It seems to me that if you kill an animal because of takala vekalon, then kal vachomer you're chayav to be makir tov for such gemillus chasadim.




Background to the video:  here and here.

Friday, July 17, 2009

B'nos Midyan and Banos in General: A Guest Post (annotated)



While we are waiting for the "certain extravagantly talented scholar" to show up, perhaps I (editor's note: the writer, from whom I solicited this post while I try to regain my balance, is in fact that "extravagantly talented scholar") can contribute some random thoughts (editor's note: our guest writer is being modest, as will soon become evident.)
While I had originally wanted to focus on the complex issue of precisely why the בנות מדין were executed, regardless of whether they had actually participated in illicit relations, I decided that perhaps this is not a topic appropriate for internet exposure at this time. For those who are curious, or perhaps are involved in a situation where it is נוגע להלכה , some sources are רמב"ם פי"ב אסו"ב ה"י, כלי יקר and the חתם סופר on the פרשה/ There is also an extensive discussion in אג"מ אבה"ע חלק א' סי' ל"ח.

Actually, and again I don't propose to discuss this on the internet, the חקירה in the אג"מ (also mentioned in several places in the מנ"ח) may be the reason the פקודי החיל were unsure as to where, how, and whom to execute. This would be an answer to the question in the משך חכמה as to precisely what their (mis)calculation was.

However, there is one aspect of this episode which has practical ramifications in many of our lives.

At the end of או"ח רכ"ה is the הלכה
הרואה אילנות טובות ובריות נאות אפילו עכו"ם...אומר בא"י אמ"ה שככה לו בעולמו
One who sees beautiful trees and beautiful creatures-- even an idol worshiper-- says the following blessing: Blessed art Thou God, King of the Universe, "She'kacha Lo be'olamo," Who has such in His world.

Now בריות נאות immediately, and unfortunately, brings to [my] mind not images of a graceful gazelle, nor of a beautiful flower, but rather, of members of the opposite gender. (editor's note: obviously, this natural preference proves that aesthetic pleasure is not just an appreciation of symmetry or perfect health and functionality, because those traits are equally evident in a good horse or a good car.) In fact, between the מ"ב and the ביאור הלכה, it seems clear that the חפץ חיים has this in mind, albeit with great reservations.

On the other hand, the ערוך השולחן is clear:
ואף שאין להסתכל באשה וכו' זהו דרך הסתכלות הרבה אבל ראייה בעלמא הא בעל כרחה רואה ולית לן בה



This is based on the מעשים of רבן גמליאל and רבי עקיבא in עבודה זרה כ. Although there a ברכה in not mentioned explicitly, the (same/similar) episode is mentioned in the ירושלמי הרואה הלכה א' and there the נוסך is ובירך עליה. This is probably why the דברי חמודות , ברכות הרואה סי' י"ב ס"ק ל"ד , brings the ירושלמי rather than the בבלי.

(editor's note: I recently mentioned this bracha to my shiur. The following day, two members of the shiur independently came over and told me that they had no trouble getting to Mei'ah brachos the day before.)

However, in contradistinction to the ערוך השולחן, the מ"ב in the שער הציון quotes the
חיי אדם (ס"ג א') as saying the the minhag today is not to make most ברכות הראייה/ The מ"ב suggests that this is because the ברכה requires "...נאות ביותר...ומי יכול לדקדק..."
אני הקטן
respectfully disagree, and claim to able to be מדקדק sufficiently and with great dedication and deliberation. However, this is where the problem truly begins, and where the aforementioned reservations of the מ"ב may stem from.

Regarding the קרבן of the פקודי החיל, רש"י refers to שבת ס"ד. , where the פקודי החיל tell משה רבינו, אם מידי עבירה יצאנו מידי הרהור לא יצאנו"." If seeing the בריאה נאה of the human female persuasion engenders הרהור, then we come to the issue of אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ. And if not, then perhaps there is indeed a lack of נאות ביותר. I am certain that the members of this audience include great פרושים who have numbed themselves to the blandishments of this יצר הרע , but then they are lacking the factor explicit in the לבוש
כמו שהוא העניין בבריות טובות שיש לו הנאה לרואה ומברך על הנאתו...".
"...just as the idea is with beautiful creatures, that the observer has pleasure in seeing them and he makes a blessing on his enjoyment."

How does one safely skate the line between הנאה and הרהור? Even in a situation of אונס, such as which the גמרא states occured with רבן גמליאל and רבי עקיבא, it seems that הרהור is a problem. (editor's note: The Gemara there says that RSBG and RA, upon seeing beautiful women, made this bracha. The Gemara asks "But it is forbidden to gaze upon women because it generates within a man lustful thoughts, and lustful thoughts- regarding a women with whom you are not married- is forbidden! The Gemara answers that they only looked at these women when they, or the women, turned a corner, and so their gaze inadvertantly rested upon these women for a moment.) Similarly, the מלחמת מדין certainly qualified as an אונס and nevertheless a כפרה was required.

In the שעור דעת "קרבנות" (חלק ב' צ'), the מהרי"ל בלאך deals with this episode and this point. He notes the greatness of רבן גמליאל and רבי עקיבא who didn't eradicate the admiration of the beauty, but rather, instead of focusing on the object, immediately redirected their emotions to Hashem, the creator of this beauty. Indeed, on a separate point, this is the only way to avoid the problem of לא תחנם, which according to many poskim is a דאורייתא. This is explicit in both the ירושלמי and the Bavli, . ואכמ"ל.

It seems, לעניות דעתי, that anyone who cannot meet this criterion should probably follow the חיי אדם and משנה ברורה: don't make the ברכה.

Incidentally, this is also an explanation of why יעקב was saying קריאת שמע when he was reunited with יוסף: he took the overwhelming emotion of joy he was feeling and refocused it into his relationship with the Ribbono Shel Olam.

בדרך צחות, there is another problem. In several places, חז"ל mention that one of the consequences of the חורבנות is that Jewish women are no longer as attractive as their counterparts outside of the religion. For example, in איכא רבתי , the מדרש relates that one זונה forgave her coworker every insult except that she said she looked Jewish. [פרק א' פסוק י"א].

This would probably result in שככה לו בעולמו being recited primarily upon seeing non-Jewish women, which would be an insult to Jewish women. Note that the two episodes in the גמרא focus on encounters of the non-Jewish kind. If the point was just that the ברכה applied to non-Jews and women, a single case would have been sufficient, as is found in the ירושלמי.

And lest you think this is not a serious problem halachically, consider the מהרש"א עבודה זרה נ"ה. ח"א ד"ה כלום He posits that the קנאה of פנחס was both for the issue of בעל פעור, and for the fact that the בני ישראל were being מזנה with בנות מואב הפחותים"/" I.e., he killed זמרי because he insulted Jewish femininity by shacking up with a non-Jewish lowlife (rather than with a nice Jewish woman????!). This is what הבועל ארמית קנאים פוגעים בו s about!

This is not just aggadic דרוש. In the אגרות משה mentioned above, ר' משה invokes this פשט in his analysis of why קנאים פוגעים בו does not continue after the זנות is terminated.

If so, one must be very leery of doing anything that insults Jewish women, both from a halachic and from an actuarial perspective. As long as the expression "שיין וי א שיקסע" has currency, it would be appropriate to refrain from reciting the ברכה of שככה לו בעולמו .

Then of course there is the story that everybody claims is absolutely true and happened in his Yeshiva when he was there. It seems that a bochur noticed an attractive young lady at a חתונה and went over to her with the line, "When I saw you, I immediately made the ברכה of שככה לו בעולמו." She looked him up and down with total disdain and responded, "And when I saw you, I made ברוך משנה הבריות."

In any case, de gustibus non est disputandum, or על קול מראה וריח אין להתווכח בלע"ז .

The following picture was from an article on creatures that "nature" blessed with an extra measure of ugly, and yet I find the subject rather touching. This is a blobfish, found in deep waters near Australia and New Zealand. For some reason, I look at it and think of an alter Yid. That nose! Fish don't have noses!!! It MUST be a גלגול.









This entry is a hack: the owner of the site is not responsible for its contents; the poster is generally not responsible.



(editor's notes:

1. There is a machlokes whether one makes "shekacha lo be'olamo on something that was created contrary to Halacha, such as a mamzer or a hybrid. The She'eilos Ya'avetz 1:63 says you do, just as you would make a birkas haneh'enin if you eat a fruit from a kila'ei ilanos tree, but others argue. See Halacha Ravachas 265:2.



2. A book was published in In 2007called “Only a Promise of Happiness”, by Alexander Nehamas, professor of philosophy at Princeton. He talks about the evolution of the philosophical approach to beauty, beginning with Plato, who, in Phaedrus, describes how the sight of a beautiful (girl) could arouse a state of emotional exaltation and rapture, causing the viewer to forsake all else. Over time, Plato argued, the desire to posses a particular beautiful individual could lead to a “love of all the beauty of the world” and ultimately to a “longing for goodness and truth.”



As Michael J. Lewis said in his review in the Wall Street Journal on April 14-15, 07, “Plato’s association of beauty with both carnal experience and moral enlightenment is alien to modern sensibilities. These days we can imagine beauty leading to ungovernable rapture but not moral goodness. The modern aesthetic encounter, as Mr. Nehamas describes it, is a morally neutral affair, divested of ethical content.”




Chazal, however, were more 'evolved' than either Plato or Professor Nehamas. Chazal teach us that the examined life requires that aesthetic encounters be invested with spiritual content.
)



3. Thank you, guest poster, for three things. For your interesting analysis of the bracha on human beauty; for providing an example of something you would make Meshaneh Habriyos on; and for not providing an example for She'kacha lo be'olamo. Although I would have suggested this naughty example of feminine pulchritude:





)