Did Rav Moshe Feinstein read newspapers?

Recently, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi posted the following on Facebook, presumably copied and pasted from this Revach post:

Rav Moshe Feinstein reading a newspaper.
Brought to my attention by
Mississippi Fred MacDowell.

The Steipler once sent a shaliach to Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding an important issue which the Steipler wanted Rav Moshe to become involved in. The shaliach discussed the issue with R' Moshe and told him all the details. When he was finished, he pulled out a Hamodia newspaper, explaining that this newspaper happens to have an article about the inyan. Rav Moshe declined to take the newspaper, saying that he had already heard the details so there is no need for him to see the article. The shaliach persisted, explaining that it was possible that he missed one or two important details. 

Rav Moshe responded, "I have not held a newspaper in my hands for seventy years. As soon as I read a newspaper, I will no longer be qualified to pasken because my mind will not be one hundred percent Da'as Torah."

This is an interesting story. It puts forth the idea that Gedolim have daas Torah, seemingly defined here as an oracular quality in which their pronouncements reflect the Divine Will, and that this daas Torah could be spoiled by paying attention to secular sources of information such as newspapers. We are perhaps meant to deduce that we should not read newspapers either, that we should respect Gedolim more than sources of secular knowledge, and should be impressed with deliberate ignorance of the world, because that is more likely to lead to an accurate, Torah-sourced, answer. The idea is that secular influences are a pernicious, corrupting force, and one should avoid it at all costs.

It is strange that the shaliach could discuss the details with Rav Moshe orally, and this didn't spoil Rav Moshe's daas Torah. Even though the shaliach had read HaModia. Or that, had the shaliach written down the details in the newspaper, then reading those same details from the shaliach but in newsprint would have spoiled Rav Moshe's daas Torah, such that he would not be qualified to pasken.

Besides the picture above, which shows Rav Moshe Feinstein holding a newspaper in his hands, and even (lo aleinu!) reading it, there are other reasons to believe that the story is bogus:

1) Rabbi Moshe Tendler has stated (see here, which excerpted from a Mevaser article here) that this claim about his father in law (Rav Moshe Feinstein) is in all the books, but that he and a thousand talmidim can testify that it is false, and further, that Rav Moshe's teshuvot benefited from this window to the world:

My shver was uniquely sensitive to society. Despite what they write in all the books about him, my shver never failed to read the Yiddish newspaper – either the Tog in the early years or the Morgn-Zhurnal later on – cover-to-cover every single day. People publish that he would walk down the street and avert his eyes when he passed by newspaper stands. There are a thousand talmidim of his who will testify, “I bought the paper and handed it to him in the lunchroom in the yeshivah,” but it does not make a difference for some people – they do not want to hear that. Even when he was not well and the doctor insisted that he must lie down to sleep for an hour, he would go home, put on a bathrobe, and smuggle a newspaper into the bedroom so that his wife would not see it. He sat there reading the whole time, rather than sleeping. I used to ask him, “Why do you read this chazeray (junk)?” He would respond to me, “Dos iz mayn vinde” – this is my window [to the world]. He understood society and his piskei Halachah show that. He used to say, “People think that because I’m aware of society, I became a meikel (lenient decisor). What do they want me to do – paskn incorrectly? I’m not a meikel – I paskn the way it has to be. The Halachah takes into account societal factors.” This willingness to be exposed to society made his teshuvos more meaningful and more acceptable.

2) Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rav Moshe's son, says something which falsifies the part of the story in which Rav Moshe asserts daas Torah as the basis for his authority and thus as a necessary qualification for a posek:

Rav Dovid Feinstein (personal communication): In response to the question of whether his father ever justified his halachic decisions Rav Feinstein told me the following, “I never heard my father claim that his authority was from Daas Torah. He always insisted that the authority of his rulings was because they involved correct reasoning.”

3) On that Facebook thread, someone (a named person) writes:

Did it occur to you to confirm this? Cause i just confimed with Reb Moshes family that its false.

Rav Aharon Kotler vs. Yaakov Avinu

In this week's parsha, Vayishlach, when Yaakov Avinu faces mortal danger, he prioritizes his family. Thus:

2. And he placed the maidservants and their children first and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and her Joseph last.		ב. וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַשְּׁפָחוֹת וְאֶת יַלְדֵיהֶן רִאשֹׁנָה וְאֶת לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ אַחֲרֹנִים וְאֶת רָחֵל וְאֶת יוֹסֵף אַחֲרֹנִים:
and Leah and her children after: The further back the more beloved. — [from Gen. Rabbah 78:8]		ואת לאה וילדיה אחרונים: אחרון אחרון חביב:
3. And he went ahead of them and prostrated himself to the ground seven times, until he came close to his brother.		ג. וְהוּא עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים עַד גִּשְׁתּוֹ עַד אָחִיו:
went ahead of them: He said, “If that scoundrel comes to fight, let him fight with me first.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 78:8]		עבר לפניהם: אמר אם יבא אותו רשע להלחם, ילחם בי תחילה:

He did not say: "I am a great talmid chacham, who learned in yeshiva Shem veEiver. Better that I flee and live to learn another day. Too bad for my family, who must serve as cannon fodder."

Rav Aharon Kotler, zt’l

I don't know if this was intended, or if the story was true, but an article in the Five Towns Jewish Times seems to put forth different priorities as exemplary:

“Rav Aharon Kotler had also dropped to the floor and I found myself right next to him. I saw him in a state of agitation. The gadol hador was spread out on the floor, the Torah itself was on the ground. And then I heard a low voice, the low, distinct voice of Rav Aharon. He too realized that with bombs falling indiscriminately one after the other his life was in grave danger. What, however, did Rav Aharon do? I heard him talking, talking to Hashem. Listen to what the Gaon Hador said!” The words that I heard next have remained etched in my memory to this very day.

“What did I hear Rav Aharon whisper?! I heard him begging Hashem, beseeching Him with every fiber of his being—‘Please Ribono Shel Olam, lomer doch leben! Ich vil noch lernen dayn heiligeh Torah—Please let me live! I still want to learn Your Holy Torah!’

“He did not think about his family, his Rebbetzin, his children and grandchildren; he did not think about his beloved yeshiva, he did not think about anything other than beseeching Hashem in what he thought might be his last moment on this earth, begging, ‘Ribono Shel Olam, lomer doch leben! Ich vil noch lernen dayn heiligeh Torah!’”

I don't know if his family was present at the wedding. I am going to assume not. But regardless, I don't know that this level of uncaring for the welfare of one's family, with learning Torah as the only focus, is truly something to be celebrated. A similar message was unfortunately being put forth after the passing of Rav Elyashiv, where we were breathlessly told how he didn't give a darn about his family, in hundreds of different ways, but only valued Torah study. Torah is a tremendous gift, but it is so because it is Hashem's teaching of how to conduct ourselves in a caring and moral way in this world. If one really does not think about one's family, then I wonder at the value of said Torah learning.

Regardless, I would have interpreted this as bargaining for more time, based on the zechuyot he knew he had, and would not read such a potentially negative message into his actions.

Adnei HaSadeh and Earth Mouse in parashat Bereishit

Summary: According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, one can make a diyuk in two pesukim in parashat Bereishit to refer to the creation of the adnei hasadeh and the earth-mouse. The adnei hasadeh is a humanoid creature connected by an umbilical cord to the ground, and the earth mouth is one that is in the process of spontaneously generating, and so is still half made of earth.

Post: Thus, in the first perek of sefer Bereishit:

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

כה. וַיַּעַשׂ אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֵת כָּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱ־לֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:

Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes in Taama de-Kra:

"אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ -- and by the cattle {beheimah} it is not written 'the cattle of the earth'. Perhaps this is a hint with this that there is a beast {chaya} which is connected to the earth, as we learn in the Mishnah in the eighth perek of Kelaim, adnei hasadeh is a chaya, see there. And based on this, one can say that this which is written אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, as well as וְאֵת כָּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, and by the רֶמֶשׂ  is not written eretz, as is written on the very next pasuk, 

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

כו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

Perhaps it comes to hint that there is a creeping thing which is made from the earth, as we learn in a Mishna in Chullin (126b), about a mouse which is half flesh earth and half earth, and therefore it states רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, creeping thing of the ground."

Of course, neither of these two creatures exist. Chazal indeed thought that they existed, and there may have good reason to believe that they existed. But it is different for people to believe in their existence nowadays, and to innovate new derashot to describe their existence. (I won't rehash the arguments pro and con here.)

Of course, to each his own. How to approach the existence or non-existence of these creatures is a dispute between rationalists and non-rationalists, as well as between chareidim and more Modern Orthodox.

See also a discussion of adnei hasadeh here, with claims as to its existence. Also, related, another drasha from Rav Kanievsky, אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה of lerabbos mermaids.

Torah on the Moon

Summary: Must we fetch it from there? Did Chazal think we could travel to the moon?


Post: In Nitzavim, we encounter the following pasuk and Rashi.

12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יב. לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
		לא בשמים היא: שאלו היתה בשמים היית צריך לעלות אחריה וללומדה:

13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

יג. וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲבָר לָנוּ אֶל עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:

In Taama deKra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky cites the gemara in Eruvin 55a, or else just the Rashi who cites it.

והיינו דאמר אבדימי בר חמא בר דוסא מאי דכתיב (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא ולא מעבר לים היא לא בשמים היא שאם בשמים היא אתה צריך לעלות אחריה ואם מעבר לים היא אתה צריך לעבור אחריה

Or, in English:

This is in harmony with the following statement of R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Dosa: What is the significance of the text: It is not in heaven, [that thou shouldst say: ‘who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us’], neither is it beyond the sea [that thou shouldst sat, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us’]? ‘It is not in heaven’, for if it were in heaven you should have gone up after it; and if it were ‘beyond the sea’, you should have gone over the sea after it.

Then, he writes:

"From here is implied that men are able to ascend to the moon and the stars. And this is called shamayim, as is written (in Devarim 4:19,  וּפֶן תִּשָּׂא עֵינֶיךָ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְרָאִיתָ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת הַיָּרֵחַ וְאֶת הַכּוֹכָבִים כֹּל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם, 'And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven.' "

Rav Kanievsky also writes there another explanation. After citing the pasuk and Eruvin, that if it were in heaven you should have gone up after it; and if it were ‘beyond the sea’, you should have gone over the sea after it, he writes:

"And the Chazon Ish {?} said that this was via the Divine Name, as Rashi explains in Chagiga 14b, that four entered the pardes, meaning that they ascended to shamayim via the Divine Name. And across the sea, via ships. 


And it is difficult, for it is stated in Bava Metzia 94a, 

AND WHATEVER CAN BE FULFILLED EVENTUALLY etc. R. Tabla said in Rab's name: This is the view of R. Judah b. Tema. But the Sages say: Even if it is impossible to fulfil it eventually, and one stipulates it at the beginning, the stipulation is valid. For it has been taught: [If one says,] Here is thy divorce, on condition that thou ascendest to Heaven or descendest to the deep, on condition that thou swallowest a hundred cubit cane or crossest the great sea on foot; if the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is valid, but not otherwise.¹³  R. Judah b. Tema said: In such a case it is a [valid] divorce. R. Judah b. Tema stated a general rule: That which can never be fulfilled, and he [the husband] stipulates it at the beginning, it is only to repel her,¹⁴  and is valid.

which is a condition which is impossible to fulfill. (And there is what to answer.)


Further, there is so say that they can ask prophets and they can inform us what they are saying in Heaven regarding this or that halacha. Therefore it informs us that the Torah was given on earth, and that which they rule in the bet din below, this is what they are ruling in Heaven, as is stated in Bava Metzia 59b."

Thus, it either refers to outer space or to the spiritual heavens, and both need to be places one can physically or indirectly access. He could have referred to the Yerushalmi which has Alexander the Great ascend on high via griffin. Though the Yerushalmi does not give the explicit details we want, that Alexander met an angel in Heaven after ascending in this manner. For that, we need to know the non-Jewish accounts.

I don't know that in this gemara, Chazal (or specifically R' Avdimi bar Chama bar Dosa) expected that people would be able to ascend, either to the moon, or to the place of the angels, as a real expectation of what was possible. (Indeed, perhaps the aish up there in the sky would burn anything up; or perhaps the moon was entirely insubstantial, such that we would not expect to be able to land on the moon.)

The concern might have been more homiletic. In the pesukim, Moshe is telling the people that it is NOT in the heavens or over the sea, such that one could say objection of 'who shall ascend? Who will cross'. These can be treated as rhetorical questions in this counterfactual scenario. They would have objected that it is impossible, or just too difficult, to accomplish this, and so we have an excuse to not learn of the commandments and fulfill them. But one cannot lay out those objections, for Moshe has already brought the commandments to the people, such that it is in their mouths and in their hearts to fulfill it.

What R' Avdimi bar Chama bar Dosa does is take the rhetorical questions / objections and assume that, given such a scenario, it would be incumbent upon people to do this. For Hashem's commandments are so dear, and important. They would need to ask who would fetch them, even from Heaven or across the Sea. This highlights for us just how dear the mitzvos and words of Torah are, such that we must take extraordinary measures to learn and preserve them in our mouths and minds -- the mnemonic signs discussed immediately previous in the gemara in Eruvin. If so, within this homiletic message, this might be just for dramatic effect. One would need to take such extreme, indeed, impossible, measures, to ascend all the way to heaven. Even if it indeed deemed impossible by Chazal, it is an extreme statement that then has its dramatic and therefore homiletic effect.

Related to all of this, I have heard some people claim that in Tanach, and perhaps as understood by Chazal as well, the Shamayim and Rakia is a physical place -- the sky and the firmament, and that this physical Shamayim is understood as the abode of the angels. We clearly make this distinction nowadays. But in the Greek story about Alexander, it seems that there was no such distinction. Perhaps we can also point to young Abayei in Berachot 48a:

Rav Nachman said: A child who knows whom we bless counts for a zimun. Abayei and Rava were sitting before Rabba. Rabba asked: "Whom do we bless?" They said: "Rachmana" (Hashem, in Aramaic). "Where does He live?" Rava pointed to the roof. Abayei went outside and pointed to the sky. Rabba said: "Both of you will be rabbis."

This is against the Rambam, most probably. But perhaps Chazal disagreed with the Rambam, and felt that Hashem could be located in a specific place / abode. And, that that was the sky, shamayim, and not just a homonym.

Thou shalt not sleep with the fishes

Summary: Considering a derasha from Rav Chaim Kanievsky. Plus my own tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the pasuk.

Post: In Taama deKra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky takes careful note of the language within one pasuk:

21. Cursed be he who lies with any animal. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'

כא. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:

"אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה -- this requires consideration, why is the word כל necessary, and it would not have been sufficient to write עִם בְּהֵמָה. And there is to say that it comes to include the dolphinin {=mermaids}, which are half human and half fish, who bear and raise from {J: rather than 'like' humans}. (See Bechorot 8a, and Rashi and Tosafot.) That even so, one who has intercourse with them is liable for bestiality, for its law is like that of an animal and not like a human."

While this particular derasha was never said by Chazal, but rather seems to be introduced by an Acharon, namely R' Kanievsky, it follows the pattern of other derashot, of כל to include, and to include something you might not have expected, for some reason.

Alas, she is Biblically forbidden.

The gemara in Bechorot 8a reads (starting on the previous amud):

ת"ר דג טמא משריץ דג טהור מטיל ביצים כל המוליד מניק וכל המטיל ביצים מלקט חוץ מעטלף שאף על פי שמטיל ביצים מניק הדולפנין פרין ורבין כבני אדם מאי דולפנין אמר רב יהודה בני ימא

(I actually discuss the first part of this brayta, about the atalef / bat, at great length in this other post.) The end of the brayta, and the comment by Rav Yehuda, read:

Dolphins are fruitful and multiply by coupling with human beings. What are dolphins? — Said Rab Judah: Humans of the sea {=bnei yama}.

The gemara is slightly unclear and ambiguous, so we can turn to Rashi, who says:

ה"ג הדולפנין פרים ורבים מבני אדם - שאם בא אדם עליהם מתעברות הימנו:

בני ימא - דגים יש בים שחציין צורת אדם וחציין צורת דג ובלע"ז שריינ"א:

Rashi changes the girsa from פרין ורבין כבני אדם, like humans, into מבני אדם, with human beings. I would not have been so swift to change the girsa. Given the beginning of the brayta, which speaks of the methods of procreating for different species, and how birds in general lay eggs and nurse, it might have made a good deal of sense to point out that dolphins (rather than mermaids) give birth to live young, as opposed to fish which in general lay eggs. But instead, with the emended girsa, they procreate with humans. This may be a human / fish hybrid. Indeed, in the next comment, on bnei yama, he writes that they are 'fish which are half in human form and half in fish form, and in laaz they are called sirens {another name for mermaids}.'

Tosafot reinforces this emendation from Rashi by appealing to the Tosefta on Bechorot, which also has מבני:

הדולפנין פרין ורבין מבני אדם. כן גירסת הקונטרס וכן מוכח בתוספתא [פ"א] יולדין ומגדלין מבני אדם:

However, in our Tosefta, it does not say this at all. Rather:

הדולפינין מולידין ומגדלין כאדם.  דג טמא משריץ דג טהור מטיל ביצים.  קרבי דגים ועובר אין נאכלין אלא מן המומחה העוף נאכל במסורת נאמן צייד לומר עוף זה טהור.

(It is interesting that this particular gemara (Bechorot 8a) came up to resolve it. On the same page is cited another pasuk with ארור and בהמה, and כל, but it is a curse to the snake to be more cursed than all animals. It is one I might have paid attention to after a Bar Ilan or Snunit search for these search terms.)

Regardless of whether Rashi and Tosafot are right about the gemara, mermaids do not exist. So I would not be too hasty innovating a derasha on the basis of the Torah excluding them. Besides, is a dag really considered a beheimah?

The more obvious derasha, though one that does not really work out, is as follows:
אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה -- only if he slept with every animal. But if he only slept with a few animals, or a few species, he would not be אָרוּר.

Of course, the only one who did that was Adam haRishon. From the second perek of Bereishit:

23. And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."		כג. וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת:
This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]		זאת הפעם: מלמד שבא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה ולא נתקררה דעתו בהם עד שבא על חוה:

Though this was before mattan Torah, and with Hashem's OK, so he would not have been cursed for it.

Clasping one's hands together

Shirat Devorah reposts a halacha discussion from Rabbi Eli Mansour. He is a Sephardic rabbi, and so it might more reflect practices of Sefardim -- though plenty of Ashkenazim hold by this as well. Here is the post:

by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour

The Zohar Ha’kadosh, in Vayikra (p. 24), writes that when a harsh judgment is issued against a person, Heaven forbid, his fingers will unwittingly begin moving, and the fingers of his two hands will become interlocked.  As interlocking hands is a sign of harsh judgment, it is improper for a person to intentionally hold his hands in this position.  The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Pinhas (18), cites this Halacha in the name of the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572).  This is mentioned in other sources, as well, including the Sefer Ha’hasidim (by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha’hasid, Germany, d. 1217) and the Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939).  Thus, while it is permissible to place one hand on top of the other, one should not interlock the fingers of the two hands.

The Ben Ish Hai goes even further, writing that one should never place his hands behind his back, and should rather keep them in front of him at all times.  Indeed, there are different kinds of spiritual powers associated with the positioning of one’s hands and fingers, as Rabbenu Bahya discusses at length.

The Sefer Hazechira mentions that those who are accustomed to interlocking their fingers run the risk of experiencing extreme anxiety, Heaven forbid.

There are many warnings of this kind that we hear as children, and many people are unable to distinguish between those that stem from folklore and superstition, and those which have a clear basis in Jewish tradition.  When it comes to interlocking fingers, this is a well-documented warning that originates already from the Zohar and the teachings of the Arizal.

Summary: According to Kabbalistic tradition, one should not merge his hands together such that the fingers of the two hands interlock.  According to some sources, one should also refrain from placing his hands behind his back.

Click here to listen [length 2:42]

Devorah researched more into this, and so has more, in the comment section. See there.

Rav Elyashiv, clasping his hands together

Now, not everyone worries for this kabbalistically-rooted practice. See the image to the right, of Rav Elyashiv clasping his hands together, with interlocking fingers. (And see here for a discussion about it. At least one person there appears to believe that the image has been PhotoShopped, because it is impossible that Rav Elyashiv would do such a thing!)

Let us start, perhaps, with the contrary gemara. Kabbalistic sources might say this, but Talmudic sources strongly suggest otherwise. The gemara in Shabbat 10a reads as follows:

רבא בר רב הונא רמי פוזמקי ומצלי אמר הכון לקראת וגו' רבא שדי גלימיה ופכר ידיה ומצלי אמר כעבדא קמיה מריה אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא כי איכא צערא בעלמא שדי גלימיה ופכר ידיה ומצלי אמר כעבדא קמי מריה כי איכא שלמא . לביש ומתכסי ומתעטף ומצלי אמר הכון לקראת אלהיך ישראל

Or, in English:

Raba son of R. Huna put on stockings and prayed, quoting, 'prepare to meet etc.' Raba removed his cloak,⁶  clasped his hands and prayed, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' R. Ashi said: I saw R. Kahana, when there was trouble in the world, removing his cloak, clasp his hands, and pray, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' When there was peace, he would put it on, cover and enfold himself and pray, quoting, 'Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.'⁷

Rashi defines פכר ידיה as clasping of hands with fingers intertwined:

פכר ידיה - חובק ידיו באצבעותיו מרצי"ר (טריציי"ר: לשלב (מלה במלה: לקלוע)) בלע"ז כאדם המצטער מאימת רבו:

What, then, of the Zohar? Well, where Zohar contradicts the gemara, we should follow the gemara. But in fact, the Zohar does not prohibit clasping together the hands. The Zohar, on Vayikra (24a), reads as follows:

411. When Judgment is made complete and rests on man, it is concluded and the fingers are placed five against five, right within the left, as an indication that everybody agreed on that Judgment. Then his hands are straightened; TO WIT, THE FINGERS ARE INTERLACED, which shows that it was done without the man's intention and without his meaning to do so. It is therefore written, "Your right hand, Hashem, is glorious in power: Your right hand Hashem, has dashed the enemy in pieces" (Shemot 15:6), WHICH MEANS that left was included within the right and Judgment is complete. Then everything is resolved. Therefore, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wishes that everything be set, it is written, "Hashem has sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength. Surely I will no more give your corn to be food for your enemies..." (Yeshayah 62:8).

That is, clasping the fingers of each hand together does not cause the bad judgement. Rather, when there is bad judgement, the hands will subconsciously clasp together in this manner. This is the difference between saying that one blinks one's eyes when someone throws sand in it, versus saying that blinking one's eyes causes people to throw sand in it. There is, then, no contradiction between the Zohar and the gemara.

Next, in chronological order, is the Sefer HaChassidim, by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha’hasid, Germany, d. 1217. This is that it is improper to place one's hands in this position. There are a number of such novelties in the sefer haChassidim and in the Tzavaah of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid. They are not obligatory, but pious individuals may adopt them.

But this is not the only instance in which something in the sefer ha-Chassidim contradicts an explicit gemara and practice of the Tannaim and Amoraim. The Noda be-Yehuda notes such contradictions. For instance:

1. The sefer Chassidim says one should not marry one's niece. The gemara, meanwhile, recommends it.
2. The sefer Chassidim says one should not marry someone with the same name as his parent. The Noda Be-Yehuda gives examples of Amoraim who did precisely this. (For example, Rami had a father-in-law named Rami.)
3. This, then, is the third such instance -- clasping the hands.

And he has various teirutzim, such as that it was only intended for direct descendants of Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Chassid. In general, though, not to follow these various innovations in the sefer Chassidim, which are motivated by kabbalah.

The Kaf HaChaim and the Ben Ish Chai obviously hold differently, and they are allowed to. But that does not mean that it is binding on everyone. This is a dispute as to the boundaries of halacha and kabbalah. Even if the Arizal maintains this. We don't follow, or have to follow, every kabbalistic hanhaga of the Arizal. (Well, I suppose one can debate who "we" are. Chassidim might incorporate more kabbalistic practices than Misnagdim.)

Devorah, in the comment section, also cited from this Revach post, about the Aruch HaShulchan:

The Aruch HaShulchan brings L'Halacha (OC 91:7) that in times of Za'am or raging tzorus, one should daven with his hands clasped together and his fingers interlocking. However says the Aruch HaShulchan in times of peace you should not do so because it causes Din Shamayim to be brought down on you.

I would surmise, before looking at it inside, that this distinction comes directly from the gemara in Shabbos listed above, with the two different practices, in times of tza'ara vs. in times of shalama, of Rav Kahana. In the former, he would remove his cloak and clasp his hands together. In the latter, he would enwrap himself in the tallis. Note that Rava did not make any such distinction. My guess is that someone was bothered by the contradiction of the kabbalistic practice and the explicit gemara to the contrary, and seized upon Rav Kahana's differing practice as a way of harmonizing the two sources. (Looking further, it seems that this is what the Taz says.) Note that the gemara is not, on the level of a simple reading, distinguishing between clasping and not clasping as bringing down judgement to the world. Rather, it has to do with removing one's cloak or enfolding oneself in it. In times of trouble, he would strip himself of the cloak, to make himself more like a servant, and assume the pose of a beseeching servant. In times of peace, there was no need for it, so he wrapped himself in his cloak, for better focus. And the pose was presumably not needed, rather than being a bad and counter-productive idea.

Looking now at the Aruch Hashulchan, I see that he mentions that Rava made no such distinction. Still, he does state what is stated above:

סימן צא סעיף ז

וכתבו רבותינו בעלי השולחן ערוך בסעיף ו:

דרך החכמים ותלמידיהם שלא יתפללו אלא כשהם עטופים. ובעת הזעם יש לחבק הידים בשעת התפילה כעבדא קמי מאריה. ובעת שלום יש להתקשט בבגדים נאים להתפלל.

עד כאן לשונו, וכבר כתבנו מזה. ו"חיבוק ידים" הוא שחובק אצבעות ידיו זה בשל זה, כאדם ששובר אצבעותיו כשמצטער. ויש מהחכמים שהיו עושים כן גם בעת שלום (רבא בשבת י א). ומכל מקום יש ליזהר שלא לחבוק אצבעותיו בעת שלום, כי בזה מוריד דין על עצמו. אלא יניח ידיו זו על זו כפותין (הגר"ז).

ואין טבעי בני אדם שוים בזה. ויש שקשה עליהם להתפלל באופן זה, אלא מניחים הידים על הסטענדע"ר או על הדף הדבוק בכותל. ואין כלל קבוע בזה, וכל אחד יעשה כפי מה שמוטב לו להתפלל באופן זה. ולא יתפלל בבתי ידים (האנטשו"ך).

There are other halachic sources I haven't mentioned. This is one instance in which kabbalah has made significant inroads into halacha, especially in terms of hand position during davening.

Personally, I would not consider it problematic to be clasping my hands together as a comfortable hand position or nervous habit. Even during prayer, clasping them together in this matter does not seem problematic to me, for the reasons I described above. Still, I would avoid certain types of hand clasping in prayer, due to its adoption within Christian prayer.

Note: I wrote this up last week. Today, just before publishing, I noticed Daat Torah posted about it. He has video of REav Elyashiv.

Was Baba Elazar a con-artist?

Baba Elazar advising someone,
 surrounded by wealth

I am not going to address this question head-on, at least initially. I would prefer to start with a story, which happened to some close family friends of mine, a few years back.

The family was a couple, with a single daughter in her late 20's. They were concerned about the daughter's marriage prospects, and when this 'renowned' kabbalist from Eretz Yisrael came to Kew Gardens Hills, and was hosted at one of their friend's homes, they (husband, wife, and daughter) joined the throng of people to have an audience with the kabbalist.

He asked a bit about the situation and then declared that the problem was either that they had done construction, and had blocked off a window, or else that the daughter's name was spiritually problematic. He could fix the name for them. It was only $500 for the renaming, plus an additional $300 for meditating on the proper new name to give. The wife of the couple did not fall for this, saying that there was nothing wrong with the name, and that they were not going to change the name.

After a bit of cajoling which did not work, he rolled out his second package. A better deal, perhaps. Instead of a total of $800, it would only be $500 dollars. For that sum, he would arrange to have a group of talmidei chachamim pray for some number of days for the daughter at the kever of Shimon Hatzadik. But, he added, with this package, he could not guarantee success. The wife: If we are going to shell out $500, it should be for a guaranteed success. And she was not willing to pay the money. The kabbalist then tried to undermine the wife and introduce discord between husband and wife, saying to the husband, 'are you going to listen to her?' He asked the wife (in the presence of the daughter), "Do you hate your daughter? If you don't do this, then she will never get married.'  (I think there was also the explicit statement, or allusion, to the presence of a curse which could be removed via this mechanism.)

The husband eventually wrote a $500 check, not because he believed it, but because he was worried about the placebo effect, the psychological effect it would have on the daughter. And who knows? It might even have a positive psychological effect. They regretted this, shortly thereafter, and canceled the check. But other friends of theirs fell for the scam, and paid the $800 for a name change.

They called a prominent rabbi in Kew Gardens Hills and told him this story. (He will remain anonymous.) They asked him what steps the rabbonim of the neighborhood could take to stop these con-artists from operating in the neighborhood. His reply was that, indeed, these are con-artists, but he did not want to step in. He had done so in a case several years back, publicly coming out against a kabbalist con-artist, and was visited shortly thereafter by a group of burly thugs who threatened to break his kneecaps. These are not just con-artists, but thugs.

What did this teach me? First, that there are these con-artists coming from Eretz Yisrael and preying on the innocent and trusting folk in New York. Second, that the rabbis are not stepping up to the plate, for whatever reason, and one should not take their shetika as hodaah.

Now what about Baba Elazar, who was recently murdered by Rabbi Asher Dahan? (Read the link.) Was Baba Elazar a con-artist, or the real deal?

On the one hand, he was the grandson of Baba Sali. On the other hand, he visited New York and charged for his consultations. In 2011, his assets were estimated at $80 million dollars. So what? People are allowed to have, and accumulate money. But the details mentioned in this Haaretz article I found telling:

Ellowich first heard about Abuhatzeira in 2004 through a friend, Chezkel Roth. "I didn't know a thing about him except that his grandfather was the Baba Sali," Ellowich said.

The rabbi told Ellowich that to receive the desired blessing, he would have to bring him $100,000 within five days. "You have to believe in me," Ellowich quoted the rabbi as saying. "I'm a great righteous person and I promise you your daughter will have children and grandchildren. Her luck will change. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Don't tell anyone, just bring the money."

"I don't know how he does it, but I felt I had met an angel, or God Himself," Ellowich said. "I don't know how he hypnotized me. He probably makes a million dollars a day with that magic."

Ellowich said he borrowed money from friends, one of whom demanded $7,000 in interest. "Then I came to him with the check and he said: 'You're late, but I'll do it for you anyway.' With the check in his hand, he stood up with this hood over his face where you see only his lips, and said in a loud voice in Hebrew: 'I say to you, as you are standing here, that I, Rabbi Elazar Abuhatzeira, in the presence of Hezkel Roth and Menachem Ellowich and God, attest in the name of God that your daughter will be healed and will have children. You have nothing to worry about, it's in my hands now.'"

Shortly after the blessing, his daughter met a young ultra-Orthodox man. "When they got married, Rabbi Abuhatzeira sent a message through his sexton that the miracle would take six months," Ellowich said. But the months passed and nothing happened.

It gets worse, with asking for more money, and the implications of a curse. And this was just one person. There are others who corroborate, with similar stories. They sound quite similar to what the fake kabbalist, one of many kabbalist con-men, did to my friends.

Am I going to trust the anti-chareidi, anti-religious, HaAretz? Look, I don't trust them for spin. But they are referring to a known, named person, whose story rings true, and who has documentation. And they did not just make up all these other people.

Furthermore,

In 2009, a 47-year-old man was indicted for going to the rabbi's house with a knife and threatening to kill him. That man said he was angry because the rabbi made him a medical promise that hadn't come true.

That same year, a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York began investigating Abuhatzeira on suspicion of defrauding dozens of people who sought his advice by demanding money in exchange for promises that they or their loved ones would recover from a terminal illness or have children.

Where there is smoke, there is often fire. He was indeed finally done in by someone who was upset at his marital advice. And a prosecutor has access to real, dozens of people. This does not strike me as something completely baseless. It sounds like he was a con-man.

This is perhaps a slight criticism of the rabbis who did not step in. Why didn't the rabbonim of the community step him from defrauding their constituents? Why didn't the rabbis in Eretz Yisrael monitor such a public situation and condemn such behavior?

In terms of the latter, I have my suspicions. It would be against "Achdut" for an Ashkenazi to condemn. He was inspiring thousands of the superstitious / quasi-religious, so it is a positive influence. He is the grandson of the Baba Sali, so how could one say he is doing wrong? He has many miraculous-seeming stories, and conducts himself like the Baba Sali. If one sets about debunking him and showing how he pulls off his successes, wouldn't we shatter people's emunah. For how could we expect them to draw the distinction between this fraud and the Baba Sali? Or, they did not know of the allegations, because they did not read secular papers. Or, if the secular papers reported it, we will assume that it is false, because they have an agenda against the religious. Or these rabbis are paragons of honesty, heard the stories of his miraculous successes, did not see how an unscrupulous person could manage this, and so determined that he was for real.

There are all sorts of possible reasons they did not speak up while he was alive. But I would not take the rabbis' silence as proof that Baba Elazar was for real, especially when up against dozens of people with similar stories, credible enough for a NY prosecutor to set up a case against him, such that he wisely chose not to come to the US this year.

What of the fact that they eulogized him? For instance (as someone noted in a comment on a previous post):

Rav Shteinman: http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76756

Rav Moshe Tzadka:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76795

Rav Amar:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76766

Tzanzer Rebbe:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76763

His brother, R' David Abuhatzeira: http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76758

And, Rav Ovadia Yosef cried when he heard the news.

It is a good question. One possible answer is the saying, אחרי מות קדושים אמור. This is a sequence of parshiyot in the Torah, and taken together refer to the fact that often, after someone's death, everyone says that he is a tzaddik.

Do I find this list impressive? Not really. Rav Shteinman, for instance, did not know who Schwecky is, when Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak came to him to get him to ban him. What is a Schwecky?! Before paskening on credit cards, people had to explain to him how credit cards work. So was he up on what the secular press was saying about a specific rabbi?

As to the others, I don't know. But a similar reason could exist as to why they eulogized him as to why they did not speak up when he was alive. Unless I know that they made their own investigations, interviewing the dozens of people who accused Baba Elazar, and concluded that the allegations were false, I see no reason see their hespedim as evidence that Baba Elazar was innocent, and that the many accusers are the no-goodniks.

I want to speak a bit about toelet, but I think I have enough at this point to respond to a representative comment objecting in a previous post:

Dear Reb Josh

I am very surprised on the tone of your comments knowing that you usually approach things with a critical Torah analysis.

Please do not judge a Rav and Tzaddik from some lawsuit from a party who has self interest

How do we know that he is a tzaddik? Yes, this is from some lawsuit, but that person had given a donation check to Baba Elazar, or there would be no lawsuit. He has self-interest? Yes, to win the lawsuit because he thinks Baba Elazar wronged him. It is amazing how only one side is seen, and the other side is dismissed.

Meanwhile, it is not just the one party. It is dozens of people (that means at least 24) who tell similar stories of being ripped off by Baba Elazar. And these stories were credible enough for a New York prosecutor to open up an investigation, and enough for Baba Elazar to avoid traveling to the US this year.

And meanwhile, Baba Elazar has $80 million in assets.

Why make the assumption that this is NOT being approached in a similar spirit of critical analysis? (See a criticism of kabbalistic charlatans, including various unspecified Babas, by Rabbi Yaakov Hillel. And see this blogpost by Mekubal.)

The commenter continues:

take into consideration that you are speaking about the son,grandson and descendant of some of the greatest Tzaddikim.

So am I and so are you. Are we not descended from Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov? Wasn't Moshe grandson a priest for Avoda Zara? Look, I certainly am not going to malign Baba Sali. But that does not mean that a descendant cannot know a good racket / opportunity where he sees it, and take advantage of it.

Take into consideration the thousands of testimonies by Jews from every sector of this man's greatness

I do take this into consideration. I assume that these thousands of testimonies are true. Here is how it works. I call up 10,000 people on the phone and tell them stock X will go up, and 10,000 other people that stock X will go down. Stock X goes up, so I discard 10,000 people I told the wrong information to. Then, I call up the first 10,000 people. To 5000 I tell them stock Y will go up; to 5000 I tell that stock Y will go down. Stock Y goes down. Stock Y goes down. I then call the 5000 people and ask them for money for my stock advice. And since I have given accurate advice in the past, they are all willing.

There are other factors. There is regression towards the mean, where situations can improve simply on average. And people tend to focus on successes and ignore the failures. And one can be ambiguous, or can take several tries (and money) before something works. Or one can blame the victims for the failure, saying that they didn't do random thing Z right. And recall that it is typically only those who believe it worked who will breath

This is how non-Jewish con-men work, and how some Jewish con-men work as well.

So I do take into consideration those thousands of Jews from every sector.

take into consideration what the greatest Rabbi's of our generation have to say about his awesome holiness knowing him first hand.

I do take it into consideration, but I don't find this persuasive enough, given what I have written above.

For further examples of even Gedolim erring in matters such as this:

Rabbi Lipa Yisraelzon, grandson of Rav Elyashiv, affirmed before the students, as one who has accompanied Rabbi Tropper on his Israel trip, on the warm connections he has merited in the homes of Gedolei Yisroel.

So, on his trip, Rabbi Tropper came to the homes of Gedolei Yisroel. Aside from the Halachic questions that he placed before Gedolei Yisroel, he received their blessings for his holy work.

This was after the sex scandal. And recall Rabbi Elior Chen?

You may remember that leading haredi rabbis – including haredi leader Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, haredi number two Aryeh Leib Shteinman, and Chaim Kanievesky – wrote a letter endorsing Chen, calling him a talmud chacham and insisting on his innocence – despite the reams of evidence and eyewitness testimony against him, and despite the fact that one of his tiny victims lies in a persistive vegetative state to this day with little hope for recovery.

What is the point of writing all this, though? There are issues of lashon hara about the dead, just as there are about the living. (See here; though it being widespread public knowledge, mitigates it.)

Well, I am just sickened by the response of the frum world in this case. We don't have our heads on straight. Some yeshiva bachurim smuggle ecstasy into Japan and are caught, and the lesson is not 'don't smuggle', and 'respect dina demalchusa', but rather that we are all guilty because we are not tznius enough, and that Japan is an evil country who was punished by the tsunami.

So a con-man victimizes gullible and trusting religious people for years, as the rabbis stand idly by. Some victims are angry enough to even try to kill the con-man. Finally, an advisee actually does kill him, reportedly upset at his advice. (Though Asher Dahan is presumably also insane, as we may surmise from his killing someone and claiming that he is the gilgul of Pinchas.) Could it be that the thing we should learn from this is that one should not be a con-man, cheating desperate people out of their hand earned money, and often money they cannot afford? Or perhaps that we as a community should not stand by as these con-men operate. Or, we could learn from the act of murder itself, which was indeed reprehensible, even if Baba Elazar was a con-man. Collectively, it would be good to work on bein adam lachaveiro, as Rav Shteinman said.

But how are people viewing it? Well, they are assuming that the con-man was a tzaddik. Indeed, a lamed-vav-nik. Or that he was mashiach ben Yosef, such that his death was extremely meaningful. The apocalypse is surely upon us! Or that it is the fault of Jewish musicians, like Mordechai Ben David and Shwecky. Or that there was a gzeira on the tzibur, and he saved us, dying for our sins. They would not be drawing such broad conclusions had it been some other Jewish con-man who was murdered by a fellow Jew. By painting a likely con-artist as a tzadik yesod olam, they pave the way to being motzi laaz on Jewish singers, or on klal Yisrael in general.

Meanwhile, many con-men continue to visit and prey on suspecting Jews, as the rabbis, and the general populace, stand by.

Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu's support for Nir ben Artzi

While many prominent rabbanim have spoken out against Nir Ben Artzi, one who has given him some measure of support is Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu.

As Rabbi Glazerson said over in his name,

R' Shmuel Eliyahu said that there's no prohibition in listening to a psychic who is telling people to do Teshuva.

He is, of course, entitled to his position. But I am not sure how to really parse this statement. Does he think that the psychic is real, and psychics in general are real, and so long as it does not turn people towards idolatry or other sins, it is not Biblically prohibited as chukas Emori, or tamim tihyeh im Hashem Elokecha, or being a navi sheker? Or does he believe that the psychic is not real, but that is irrelevant, because the ends justify the means? My impression from this one quote is that it is closer to the latter.

Considering the first possibility, some people will not like my saying this, but someone can be a great scholar and rabbi and yet be plagued by superstitious beliefs. I don't know the scholarly level of Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, but I am willing to grant him that status. But on the other hand, he is part of an extremely superstitious culture. Let me give you an example.

As the Guardian reports:

Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits).

We would (hopefully) laugh at this. No, they have not been invoking djinns, and if they were, it would be to no effect. But this is something taken seriously in Iran, in the general culture. And when people believe such superstitious nonsense in the general culture, then even really smart Jewish people may very well take it as the metzius, and work from there. So that a rabbi, even a great rabbi, believes in superstitious nonsense, does not mean that there is substance to the nonsense.

Considering the second possibility, I am reminded of what a fellow blogger told me about a visit from Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak, with his false apocalyptic threats as a mechanism of moving people to teshuva. He spoke in shul, and while it was not this fellows cup of tea, it was something that resonated well with the Sephardic audience.

I find this distasteful and an improper approach. But for the sake of argument, let us grant this position legitimacy. The quote again was:

R' Shmuel Eliyahu said that there's no prohibition in listening to a psychic who is telling people to do Teshuva.

What Rav Shmuel Eliyahu might not realize is that this is not the only thing this psychic has been telling people. That is why many of the aforementioned rabbanim were concerned. Thus, from the Maariv article:

"In those years, accompanied Ben Artzi quite a few allegations that he messed up marriages with his observations and advice to couples, to the extent of even open a divorce case. Rav Aviner wrote: "To those women who came to get advice, he sometimes emphasized with authority the faults in their husbands as a result, produced dislike and distance in the relationship between the couple. And: "He announced to peacefully-living-together couples that they do not match from heaven and thus disturbed their shalom bayis." Furthermore, he "made matches including very young girls. And an older single girl, he informed that according to the root of her soul she can not get married."

It is not all positive, as Rabbi Eliyahu seems to think. And there are also real casualties in telling people, as Nir does, that the end is near, such that they must move immediately and frantically to Eretz Yisrael. This is not just 'teshuva'. I will cite one story, but I have heard others as well:

Leah said:
I have been so burnt out from all this predictions ,I believed everything specially the warning that we must leave America before Rosh chodesh Sivan, I even Made Aliyah My family suffered greately from culture shock lack of parnassa I depleted all my savings, came back to the states, My family is super messed up: academically ,issues w/ depression,anxiety,and the person who encouraged all of this hardly ever blogs or even says that the presumably Moshiach past away.You are the only one who is very cautious about all these "PREDICTIONS' I wish I WOULDNOT HAVE BEEN SO NAIVE and saved my family and I so much heartache. 

I wonder what Rav Eliyahu would say when confronted with such instances of harm from listening to a psychic who is telling people to do teshuva.

Further, there have been other times in the past where rabbis, even Gedolim, approved of things for the sake of kiruv, and it has led to worse. I am thinking of the haskamos for facilitated communication for autistics. Reading these letters of approval, it seems that it is really only for the sake of kiruv, but should not, for example, be used for setting policy or halacha. Yet they have long since crossed that line, and are somewhat akin to a cult, or a separate sect.