Monday, February 18, 2013

Torah Codes in megillat Esther

The megillah begins:
א  וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ:  הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ--שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה, מְדִינָה.1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus--this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces--
ב  בַּיָּמִים, הָהֵם--כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, עַל כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה.2 that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the castle,


Note the words I put in bolded red. In pasuk 1, "HaMolech" is written chaser. In pasuk 2, "Malchuto" is written malei vav. Here is what Minchas Shai has to say:

"1) HaMolech: is chaser vav.
2) Al Kisei Malchuto: In Midrash Rabbati, it is written consonantally מלכתו [J: with three dots under the khaf]. To explain, pronounce it melachto. [J: that he sat upon his production]. And this is as stated later, that he desired to sit upon the throne of Shlomo and they did not allow him. They said to him, any king who is not kosdmokartor (Greek kosmo-krator, lord of the world) in the word, to explain a ruler in the entire world, may not sit upon it. He arose and fashioned for himself a throne in its pattern. This is what is stated, al kisei malchuto, but melachto is written. End quote. And also bishnat shalosh lemolcho, they darshen it as a language of melacha."

End quote of Minchas Shai.

The text of Esther Rabba in question:


This strongly implies that the author of Midrash Ester Rabbati had before him the word malchuto written chaser vav. One could say, as Minchas Shai sometimes does, that the midrash means that we should read it "as if" it were written malei. But I don't think this is so. Rabbi Kohen, citing Rabbi Azarya, actually had the word chaser.

What does this matter? Well, despite being a fascinating derasha in its own right, it also possibly changes the number of letters in Megillat Esther, from 12,111 to 12,110.

See Minchas Shai for other instances where the full or deficient spelling is in question, which would further change the letter count of the Megillah.

Why does this matter? For the Torah codes, of course!

Here is one such Torah code, made by Rabbi Weissmandl, starting from the word esater in Bereshit:

יד  הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֹתִי הַיּוֹם, מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, וּמִפָּנֶיךָ, אֶסָּתֵר; וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד, בָּאָרֶץ, וְהָיָה כָל-מֹצְאִי, יַהַרְגֵנִי.14 Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land; and from Thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; and it will come to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me.'



An example concerning Megillas Esther


Perhaps even more amazingly, given that Rabbi Weissmandl was operating without benefit of a computer, it is known that he made a number of findings concerning Megillas Esther using skip distances of 12,111 letters, the exact number of letters in Megillas Esther. I was able to reconstruct one of these using a computer. If one starts with the first regular mem (as opposed to "final mem") in Bereishis 4:14, where the name Esther (vocalized differently) appears for the only time in the Torah, and counts at intervals of 12,111 letters, one finds spelled out the phrase "Megillas Esther."

-- Doron Witztum, Jewish Action, March, 1998

NOTE: While the article may give the impression there is a single 8 letter ELS with skip 12,111, there is only a four letter ELS with that skip (and a plain text occurrence of the name Esther).


I've seen this put forth in an accidentally slightly misleading way, that what was spelled out was Megillat Esther, rather than the rather short four letter "Megillat". E.g.:
Rabbi Weissmandl - a great Hungararian scholar and holocaust survivor - made a number of findings concerning Megillat Esther using skip distances of 12,111 letters - the exact number of letters in Megillat Esther. If one starts with the first regular mem (as opposed to the "final mem" ) in Bereishis 4:14, where the name Esther (vocalized differently) appears for the only time in the Torah, and count at intervals of 12,111 letters, one finds spelled out the phrase "Megillat Esther." Coincidence? I think not.
This was not the blogger's fault. She was echoing the article which gave the false impression that there was a single 8 letter ELS with skip 12,111 ("Megillat Esther") while really there was only a 4 letter ELS with skip 12,111 ("Megillat").

That it is four letters rather than the malei-spelled five letter מגילת is OK, given that in the few times the word is spelled in Tanach, it is chaser. Though I would have expected malei, and a five letter ELS would have made it less likely for the word to come about by mere chance.

There is another Torah code for Mordechai from Rav Weissmandl, IIRC, with a 12111 (I think) skip based on the words Mor Deror, which Chazal use as a remez to Mordechai in the Torah. And there is another, with Esther spelled out at skips of 12,111 from the beginning of Torah.

Here is the story, though with a slightly different number (12,196), such that I don't know which one is the right one for the number of letters in the Megillah.:
First-hand testimony from Rabbi Yaakov-Mordechai Greenwald:
Since the 1980's the phenomenon of Torah Codes has become both famous and controversial. I, personally, enjoyed the merit of having an association with Rabbi Michoel-Dov Weissmandl, the Torah sage from Hungary known as "the Father of Torah Codes." You should know that all his work was done in his head, without computers - he was truly a genius.
Once, in the 1950's, I visited him at His Mt. Kisco NY community in the month of Adar, a short time before Purim. He asked me, "Did I ever tell you how many letters there are in Megilat Esther?"
"No," I replied; "I have no idea."
"Well, I know," he continued. "I counted! There are 12,196 letters in it altogether."
"That's incredible," I responded. "But what do we do with this information? Is there significance to this number?"
He smiled. "Bring me a Chumash ["Five Books of Moses" in the original Hebrew]," he said. I brought one to him, whereupon he told me:
"Starting from the first instance of the letter alef (the third letter in the first word of the Torah - ed.), if you count an interval equal to the number of letters in Megilat Esther--12,196--you arrive at a letter samech. If you continue another 12,196 letters you get to a letter tof; and if you keep going for another 12,196 you land on a letter reish. And, of course, alef-samech-tof-reish spells Esther! Is this not amazing?"
"It certainly is," I answered enthusiastically. And then I added with a grin, "but is there a connection to Mordechai too? Otherwise, he may feel bad."
He looked crestfallen. "I don't know. Yet. Try me again next year."
The next Adar I made sure to visit Rabbi Weissmandl again. "What about Mordechai?" I asked.
"I also found a hint to Mordechai," he announced. "Our sages pointed out that there is a hint to Mordechai in the Torah, where the verse stares, 'You shall take the finest fragrances: 'mor dror…' [myrrh]."
['Mor dror' has the same first two syllables as 'Mordechai,' and its Aramaic translation by Onkeles, 'mira dichya,' has the same consonants in the same order as 'Mordechai.' The verse is Exodus 30:23, which is in the Torah portion that in most years is read in the week in which Purim occurs! (Similarly, in that same Talmudic passage the sages identified a hint to Esther in Deuteronomy 31:18 and to Haman in Genesis 3:11.) -ed.]
He continued: "Now, if from the letter mem in mor dror in that verse you count forward the number of letters in the Megilah, you come to a reish. And if you keep counting successively 12,196 letters you will get a dalet and then a chofand then a yud - spelling out Mordechai! This is truly even more amazing."
The story there continues with a young woman, who was a brilliant computer scientist and mathematician, being persuaded by otherwise improbability of the Torah codes, and becoming religious as a result. And therefore, implicitly, so should you!

These Torah codes are in fact rather neat. And maybe they reflect Divine intent. Maybe. It becomes more problematic when people try using them to predict, or to make claims about reality, under the cover of Divine proclamation.

But despite these Torah code being rather neat, I don't know that I find this necessarily compelling as proof of Judaism and Torah. People don't realize it, but we humans often have a poor intuition about probability. For example, the birthday problem. What do you think is the probability that, in a group of 57 people, two share the same birthday? What about in a group of 23 people?

So too, the Torah Codes may seem compelling, and some mathematicians may even have given an explanation of how they indeed are. But other (frum) mathematicians have made counterarguments. My faith does not live or die by these Torah codes, and I think that is a good thing.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Some fun sources on the megillah

1. Yeshua Gedolah on Megillas Esther, by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz.

2. Gishmei Bracha and Torah Temimah on Megillas Esther, by R' Baruch HaLevi Epstein.

3. Meshech Chochma on Megillah.

4. Ibn Ezra with supercommentary Mechokekei Yehuda on Megillah.

5. Minchas Shai on the Megillah.

6. Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite on the megillah, for which you would need this djvu browser plugin. Some really wild stuff, I think, especially for a Karaite... I'm wondering if it is Purim Torah. Maybe not.

posts so far for parashat Tetzaveh


2012
1. Tetzaveh sources -- expanded and improved.

2. The zarka and segolta on מַעֲשֵׂה חָרַשׁ אֶבֶן -- Shadal writes that one would expect it to be different, based on Rashi. One should put חָרַשׁ אֶבֶן together as a single phrase.

3. The trup symbol of psik in וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה | אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל --  to hint that it was not from the money of the Israelites, but rather that clouds brought it from Gan Eden. This according to Birkas Avraham.

4. The trup on לְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו -- How shall we make sense of Rashi's comment on the tevir? Shadal makes up newtrup and makes it simpler.

5. YUTorah on parashat Tetzaveh.

6. Tzav in Tetzaveh -- Why does Rashi only analyze the word tzav in parashat Tzav, but not in parashat Tetzaveh? So asks the Siftei Chachamim. I think the answer is that Rashi only repeats midrash in this, rather than innovates, and Torat Kohanim is only on sefer Vayikra.


2011

  1. Tetzaveh sources, further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. Hakeves echad -- a missing heh for some Rishonim! Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Moshe haKohen, and Radak are missing a heh in hakeves ha-echadi,in parashat Tetzaveh!
    .
  3. Arrange the lamps, or estimate the lamps I don't think Ibn Ezra is actually endorsing Yefet ben Ali's novel theory.
    .
  4. YU Torah on parashat Tetzaveh.

2010
  1. Tetzaveh sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
    .
  2. What makes a gadol? Comparing a list of traits listed in an Emes veEmunah post with a midrash about required traits. What of broad secular knowledge?
    .
  3. What was bothering Ibn CaspiContinuing the conversation on a post in Mishpatim. How Rashbam differing from Chazal is not the same as Rashi differing from Chazal. And considering how Ibn Caspi onegrof would potentially argue with the conclusions of Chazal.
    .
  4. Is nature incapable of making squares and right angles? Considering a position of Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch.
    .
  5. When you cause to ascend the lamps -- What is bothering Rashi? He explains בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ in a particular way, but is inconsistent elsewhere in explaining לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד. Meanwhile the derasha is not initially on Behaalotecha. I consider Gur Aryeh, and then differ, and explain my own take on the matter.

2009
  • Tetzaveh sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
2008
  • Remove me Na -- also for Ki Tisa. How Moshe was removed from a sefer.
2006
2004
  • A Populist Midrash
    • Different approaches to atonement, progressing from the elite, to the common people, to the poor, to the poor unlearned. Interestingly, Torah learning is given as an option before prayer.
2003
  • The Purpose of the Tzitz
    • is "bearing the iniquity of the holy things." What does this mean? What iniquity? Three traditional answers: Rashi, that iniquity which belongs to the korbanot (e.g. tamei) but not which belongs to the owners (taking it out of designated areas); Tg. Yonatan, the iniquity of promising to bring a korban but not following up; Rashbam, recalling the korbanot so that the Jews' sins will be forgiven for them. Then, my suggestion: the "iniquity" of a mere mortal intruding in this holy place, such that he must be announced by the tinkling of bells and designated at "Holy to Hashem" to justify his presence.
To be continued...

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Is daber exclusively strong, harsh language?

It is a general running assumption that daber / vayedaber is strong, harsh language, while vayomer is soft language. This finds purchase, for example, in Makos daf 10b-11a:
א"ר חמא בר חנינא מפני מה נאמרה פרשת רוצחים 
בלשון עזה דכתיב (יהושע כ, א) וידבר ה' אל יהושע לאמר דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר תנו לכם את ערי המקלט אשר דברתי אליכם וגו' מפני שהן של תורה 
למימרא דכל דיבור לשון קשה אין כדכתיב (בראשית מב, ל) דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות והתניא (מלאכי ג, טז) נדברו אין נדברו אלא לשון נחת וכן הוא אומר (תהלים מז, ד) ידבר עמים תחתינו דבר לחוד ידבר לחוד: 

In English:
(a) (Rav Chama bar Chanina): The Parshah of Arei Miklat was said to Yehoshua in a harsh language ("*Va'Ydaber* Hash-m...", in the rest of Yehoshua it says "Va'Yomer Hash-m") because it is a Mitzvah of the Torah.
1. Question: Does this imply that va'Ydaber is a harsh language?
2. Answer: Yes - "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos".
3. Question (Beraisa): "Nidberu" (those who fear Hash-m spoke with each other) - this is a gentle language, "Yadber Amim Tachteinu".
4. Answer: Daber (or va'Ydaber) is harsh, Yadber (or Nidberu) is soft.
Thus, R' Chama bar Chanina makes a statement, contrasting the single usage of daber with the overwhelming usage of amira in sefer Yehoshua. The setama degemara takes this as evidence that the word daber, all by itself, implies harsh language, and asks based on a counter-example. And the setama degemara resolves the question by distinguishing between the two languages of daber.

I would imagine that one could resolve it otherwise, by saying that when there is a deliberate contrast and reason to assume harshness, one could read in harshness. But in other instances, follow what the derasha implies. And especially in midrash aggadda, don't expect such systematic consistency, within the meaning of a single word.

I saw an intersting midrash cited by the Baal HaTurim at the beginning of Teruma, on the first pasuk:
1. "The Lord spoke to Moses saying: א. וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. "Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering. ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי:


The Baal HaTurim writes:
Here, he takes daber as a language of piyus, implying conciliation. His prooftext is none of the above, but rather daber al lev Yerushalayim. And he cites a similar midrash, from Rabbi Avahu.

Make of it what you will.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

YUTorah on parshas Terumah





Audio Shiurim on Terumah
Articles on Teruma
Parsha Sheets on Teruma
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Teruma
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Teruma
Kollel and Midreshet Yom Rishon banner

Recordings from the Program on February 10, 2013
New This Week












Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's Tefillin

A week or so ago, I picked up a wonderful book from the local seforim store. It is called Yahadus, and is a curriculum for learning Yahadus, in a rather nice format. Check out this PDF sample of one of their lessons, on Kiddush Hashem. You can find out more, and purchase it, at their website. I also saw it the other day at the YU Seforim Sale in the children's section for about $10 less than their listed price, so maybe check it out there.


It follows the order of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and presents units all all 613 Mitzvos. Such that volume 1 (for grade 4) is Sefer Madda and Ahava, volume 2 (for grade 5) is Zmanim, Nashim, Kedusha and Haflaah. Volume 3 (for grade 6) is due to come out shoftly after Pesach.

My third-grade son has greatly enjoyed these books, and I would highly recommend them.

Anyway, on page 78 of volume 2, in the section on Shevisas Yom Tov, they tell a story of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's tefillin. To paraphrase, here is what happened.

A certain Jew came to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's town and, for an unspecified reason, without permission, decided to open up Rav Yosanan Eibeshitz's tefillin. He found the boxes to be empty! Since Chazal say awful things about those who never wear tefillin in their lives, he took Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz to bet din.

In bet din, Rav Eibeshitz asked him just when he examined the tefillin. The fellow replied that it had been on chol hamoed. Rav Eibeshitz then explained that his personal minhag was not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, but that in the town he currently resided, the minhag was to wear it. If he overtly refrained from wearing it, then people might feel compelled to follow his minhag. Therefore, specifically on chol hamoed, he removed the parchment and wore the empty tefillin.

I find this story fascinating, on a number of levels. Not that I am entirely convinced that the story is true, for reasons I'll explain below in item 3.

1) First, why should a random Jew pick on Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz like that? It is almost like a tzitzis-check that some Rebbes in Jewish day-schools do. While talking to one of their young charges, they pat him affectionately on the back, to see if he is wearing tzitzis. Why would someone tefillin-check a Torah-great like Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza'l? And what was the thought process to suspect this -- that is, why would someone go to the trouble of actually donning tefillin yet remove the parchments inside?

The answer is that R' Eibeshitz was accused by Rav Yaakov Emden of being a secret follower of the deceased Shabbatai Tzvi, and a believer in the perversion of true kabbalah, following Sabbatean kabbalah as formulated by Shabtai Tzvi's prophet, Nathan of Gaza.

Part of the beliefs of these closet Sabbateans was that it was a positive thing to outwardly appear to keep all the mitzvot but to surreptitiously violate all of them. Because in the messianic era, the mitzvos were abrogated. Not mattir assurim (who releases the bound) but mattir issurim (who permits the forbidden). Thus, a closet Sabbatean would indeed outwardly wear tefillin but secretly remove the parchment so as not to fulfill the mitzvah and to be secretly one of the poshei yisrael begufan, those in Israel who sin with their bodies.

2) Second, I find the defense offered by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz almost as damning as the actual absence of the parshiyot inside the tefillin.

For there is an overt meaning to the words, that he was trying to be non-imposing of his own personal minhag / accepted halacha on the community.

But there is a plausible secondary meaning. Recall that Sabbatean kabbalists held that it was a positive thing to secretly violate the commandments. This was because the mitzvot have a metaphysical impact on Creation and on the Divine. This is, however, time-bound. In the generations past, it was positive to do mitzvos. But in the present, in the messianic era, it was negative and damaging to do mitzvos.

The Talmud is somewhat unclear on whether one should wear tefillin on chol hamoed. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, while it was a matter of Tannaitic dispute, the conclusion is that it is not zman tefillin and is prohibited. Shabbos is already an os, a sign, and we don't need a secondary os. But does this halachic conclusion apply to chol hamoed as well. This was a dispute of Rishonim.

And then, in the late 13th century, the Zohar was revealed, and took sides in this machlokes. It declared that whoever wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayav misa, as if liable to the death penalty. This naturally had a profound effect on kabbalists, as well as many non-kabbalists. After all, now we have Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna, taking a stand on a matter which was left unclear in the Talmud. Even so, many communities stuck with their nigleh (revealed-Torah) based halachic practice, and still wore tefillin on chol hamoed. They should not change their practice just because the kabbalists act otherwise.

Now think about the hidden message. For profound kabbalistic reasons, what the community at large is doing, and which they think is quite positive -- wearing tefillin on chol hamoed -- is actually quite negative. And those who are privy to this mystical secret are not proselytizing to the masses to change their practice. But secretly, they might act in accordance with this profound kabbalistic reason and not don tefillin. And the reason that not putting it on is negative has to do with the timing. At any other day, a weekday, it would be a mitzvah. But now donning tefillin is really a great aveira.

To spell out the parallel, wearing tefillin in general, or doing any mitzvah, in general, is now secretly, for kabbalistic reasons, a very negative thing. It used to be good, but given the timing, of the messianic era, it is actually quite negative.

In other words, the defense could serve well as a pro-Sabbatean argument.

3) Thirdly, here is why I have my doubts that the story even occurred. (Which then would make the story stand as an metaphorical defense of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in the other charges.)

The story of the empty tefillin has obvious parallels to a story that actually did happen. I heard this from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and I hope I get the details right.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a kabbalist, and he wrote kameyot, amulets, for people in need. One possibly suspicious aspect of this amulet-writing was that he made people swear that they would not ever open the amulets and examine the contents. (One could imagine that he specified this requirement to protect their sanctity; or to protect against false charges based on misinterpretation; or because they contained heretical Sabbatean kabbalistic ideas.)

However, he wrote an amulet for an ill woman, and the amulet was not effective. She died, and her husband gave over the amulet to Rav Yaakov Emden to examine. Rav Yaakov Emden published a copy of the amulet in a sefer and, being a kabbalist himself, analyzed the amulet. He demonstrated references to Shabtai Tzvi.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's published response was that this was a misreading of the amulet. Was Rav Emden asserted was a tav, for instance, was really a chet. They look similar, you see, so it is easy to understand his mistake.

Then, Dr. Shnayer Leiman came across a bit of evidence. It was a reproduction of the amulet, with all the details as described by Rav Yaakov Emden. It was notarized by a French court, and signed by two students of Rav Yonanan Eibeshitz, who declared reluctantly that indeed, this was what the amulet looked like.

Given that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was to challenge the reproduced text, but to admit (as is fairly clear to those who can understand this stuff) that if the text were as Rav Emden said, it would be Sabbatean, the obvious conclusion is that, indeed, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a closet Sabbatean.

But anyway, we have ample documentation for the amulet story, where a Jew opened it up, made a discovery, and there was a rejoinder by R' Eibeshitz which put him in the clear. The opened tefillin just seems like a duplicate of the story, with some details changed.

Friday, February 08, 2013

Update on the KGH Eruv


This seems like the same message as earlier, to assume the eruv will be down after time X.

From Rav Marcus…

As per the KGH Eruv hotline, although the eruv is currently up and functional, one may not carry tomorrow due to the likelihood that the storm will bring down critical wires.
Consequently:
1.  Carry your talis to shul tonight or wear it tomorrow while walking to shul and back;
2. If you have lunch plans tomorrow that necessitate carrying or wheeling a stroller, please make alternate arrangements;
3. Do not carry any house keys with you tomorrow.  

I regret the inconvenience this inevitably will cause many of you; bear in mind that this one weekend of inconvenience certainly pales in comparison to the luxury we enjoy every other Shabbos of the year.

KGH Eruv down for Shabbos after 11PM; Shoveling snow on Shabbos

Via email:
Please note the  following: 
The Kew Gardens  Hill Eruv should not be used after 11 PM tonight. 
The Kew Gardens Eruv is down.

Good Shabbos!
Also via email, from a rabbi in KGH:
The coming snow storm carries with it numerous challenges to our safety, our schedules and our Halakhic observances.  To help navigate through this rough patch, here are a few ideas and resources:

1. Make sure to check up on people you know who might need an errand run or their well being insured.  Even if they just need to feel less isolated, your call will be a great Mitzvah.

2. Be aware that the Raffle Drawing scheduled for Motzaei Shabbat is being postponed due to the weather.  We will let you know of the rescheduled date as soon as a decision has been reached.

3. Know that the Mayor has issued a Weather Advisory concerning the storm.  It is attached to this note, with our thanks to QJCC Exec Cynthia Zalisky.
(Be aware, as well that Sunday afternoon the QJCC is having a Legislative Town Hall Meeting at New York Hospital of Queens. It will be particularly hard for them to draw a crowd under the circumstances.)

4. I am also attaching the guidelines for Hurricanes and power outages prepared by Rabbi Kenneth Brander of YU with the counsel of Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Hopefully circumstances will not be so severe as to require their application, but it's good to be prepared. You do not need to assume that the Eruv is down.  We will be trying to stay on top of the Eruv situation.

5. Snow Removal

For those who have a little time, here is a link to a ten minute shiur by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on Snow and its removal on Shabbat

If you have a little more time, here is a link to a 20 piece on the topic by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky 

These pieces provide a nice overview of the issues dealt with by poskim in dealing with snow removal.  

However, I must disagree with them in one important point: Both Rabbis maintain that falling in fluffy, powdery snow is not a major safety issue.  I don't think that such a blanket statement can be made (pun intended.)  If you feel that there is a safety concern of people falling and getting hurt in the snow on your property, sidewalk, etc, the bottom line is that shoveling IS PERMITTED.  You will hear Rabbi Hershel Schachter say so in the middle of this longer shiur: (at approx 29:30 into the shiur.)

Because there are issues of excess exertion (tircha yeseira) and weekday activity (uvda d'chol) that may be entailed, you will find various poskim recommending, if possible, to have a non-Jew clear the snow, or to use a broom rather than a shovel, etc.  But these arrangements may not be feasible for most people, and so it is important to know that halakha is that shoveling is permissible for safety.

Salting is also permissible.  Some recommend that the lower layer of snow that  has become ice, should not be broken and shoveled, but may be salted and melted.

Shabbat Protocols in Case of a Hurricane or Other Disasters


See also this article here, explaining the halachic basis of these protocols. This is a customizable document, so Rabbis can fill in the blanks.

SHABBAT PROTOCOLS IN CASE OF A HURRICANE OR OTHER DISASTERS

Developed by Rabbi Kenneth Brander with profound thanks to Rabbi Hershel Schachter for his guidance. 
If a hurricane occurs on Shabbat or Yom Tov, stay home.  In the case of Shabbat, we will lain two parshiyot next week.

If there is no electricity on Shabbat or Yom Tov but storm is over.  If  safe...
  • Minyan only during daylight hours
  • Shacharit    _____am.
  • Mincha will be held at ______.
  • Parshat _________ will be read next week for those unable to attend shul this week.
  • If there is electricity, services will be held as regularly scheduled.
Assume no Eruv
  • Carrying permitted for life/limb threatening situations.
  • Carrying permitted for individuals who need medical attention without which a person's functionality is compromised, even for a bed-ridden headache. In this case carrying should be done, if possible, in an irregular fashion (i.e. carrying medicine in one’s belt or shoe).
  • Carrying permitted to allow a baby, infirm senior, someone with psychological challenges,  or a child/adult traumatized by the event to function without compromise. In this case, carrying should be done, if possible, in an irregular fashion.
Use of Candles, Glowsticks & Flashlights
  • Light yahrzeit or hurricane candles before Shabbat and place them in designated locations.
  • Be careful about using candles in an area that might cause a fire.
  • Hang/place lit flashlights with fresh batteries in key locations before Shabbat.
  • It is recommended to use LED flashlights over incandescent flashlights because they will last longer.
  • Glowsticks, if possible, they should be opened before Shabbat.
  • A point of consideration: Open glow sticks prior to Shabbat and then freeze them. This decelerates the chemical reaction allowing them to last longer (when removed from the freezer).
  • In a state of darkness and there are no prepared glow sticks, it would certainly be permitted to ask a Gentile to crack the glow stick and, when that option is not available, a Jew him/herself would be permitted to do so to insure that no trauma nor any other physical danger adversely affect any individual.
If Flashlight/Candle goes out:
  • When necessary (to take care of children, to eat etc...) and there is no other light, a Gentile can relight or change batteries.
  • If not having the light may create a life threatening situation, one may do so oneself.
Moving a Flashlight is permitted.
Moving Candles is permitted in the following situations:
  • For any medical concerns no matter how slight.
  • For the comfort and welfare of seniors and children under eight (or above eight years old when child is traumatized by the event).
Television or Radio
  • TV or radio should be left on in a side room.
  • The TV or radio should only be used to listen to the news
  • Channel should not be changed.
  • Volume on radio (if dials are not digital) may be adjusted on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Better to keep it on low for it preserves the battery and only raise volume if necessary.

Questions:          Call Rabbi ____________ at phone number ___________________

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin