MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: I was approached by a friend who was surprised to see your column using an expression that comes straight out of another religion’s writings. Is that permitted? A: We will omit the specific expression, as we will explain later. In truth, I was unaware of the expression’s source. While I have had a lot of exposure to American culture, I am quite ignorant regarding other prevalent religions and do not plan to study them to avoid any such problem. Yet, the question remains: may one knowingly use terms from their texts or lore in a context that is not religious in nature? The Torah forbids us to copy CHUKOT HAGOYIM (gentile practices) (Shulchan Aruch, YD 178:1). It is hard to delineate the extent of this halacha, but let us mention some guidelines. One should not perform a strange or problematic gentile practice, which would indicate that he is doing so to copy them or makes it apparent that the practice is related to the service of their religion (Rama, ad loc.). Logical practices of society are permitted, even if they originate from non-Jewish elements, especially if they are not geared specifically toward the non-Jews (see Igrot Moshe YD I, 81). [Ed. note: Classic example of this is medical personel wearing white coats.] The use of idioms and phrases is a logical practice. However, perhaps the origin in the context of a different religion, not general society, is a problem. A parallel case that is discussed by poskim is using a secular date that is associated with a central event of a different religion. Most poskim permit using these dates,which even appear sporadically in rabbinic literature without incident. The issue was raised prominently by Hungarian poskim at the height of the struggle against the Reform movement. The Maharam Shick (Shut, YD 171) strongly opposed the innovation of writing the gentile date on a tombstone. He considered it a violationof the prohibition to cause others to utter the name of gods of others by extending it to people thinking about other religions’ beliefs, as he felt the date would do. Tzitz Eliezer (VIII, 8) argues that using a date of gentile origin per se is not a problem, even according to the Maharam Shick. Rather the initials that follow, which indicate its religious context, are the issue. The same date in a “pareve” context is not a problem. After all, the Maharam Shick identifies the problem as what one is led to think about, not the practice itself, as it is regarding regular CHUKOT HAGOYIM. Thus, context is crucial. Admittedly, the Tzitz Eliezer (and Yabia Omer III, YD 9 who takes a different approach) while permitting use of the secular date, stresses to do so only when there is a specific need. One should realize that even if a phrase’s source is the sacred books of a certain religion, if its use as a phrase or idiom freely crosses religious lines, it does not represent that religion. One can prove this from our own religious texts, l’havdil elef havdalot. One should not write three words from the Torah without underlining the scroll. Yet, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 284:2) allows doing so if the words are used as an idiom, not as a reference to the ideas as found in the Torah. Also, one can recite phrases from the Torah in a non-Torah context before reciting BIRKAT HATORAH (Mishna Berura 47:4). Similarly, phrases that emanate from other religions should be able to be removed from their context and status. Let us summarize. One can be respected for avoiding non-Jewish cultural associations in strict adherence to the spirit of the laws of CHUKOT HAGOYIM. Yet, many of us legitimately value the advantages of integration, to the extent permitted by halacha, in the general society of our origin, which has strong roots in other religions. At least when using society’s standard phrases does not conjure up thoughts of the tenets and texts of other religions, it is permitted. We purposely left out examples. Why should we cause the power of suggestion to make people self-conscious about common phrases that good Jews use without giving a second thoughtto their origin? Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel [2] Candle by Day [3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively) From where did the dove bring the olive leaf? Rabbi Levi son of Kahana says from Eretz Yisrael; Rabbi Levi says from the Mount of Olives. For the Land of Israel was not flooded in the deluge. - Midrash Rabba Following are comments of my saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov which elucidate the Midrash: [4] Wisdom and Wit “Imagine”, he said, “that you know a person who comes to shul only on Yom Kippur. While you would deplore his actions the rest of the year, you still need to acknowledge the fact that at least on Yom Kippur that person comes to shul, and for that reason alone he is praiseworthy. Now, every Jew who lives in Eretz Yisrael is not only in shul each day of the year, but is in fact living in the Palace of the king - Eretz Yisrael - 365 days a year. Surely such a person is praiseworthy for that alone.” “The world is so evil that it is impossible to live in it”, said a man to R’ Wolf of Strikov. Shmuel Himelstein has written a wonderful series for ArtScroll: Words of Wisdom, Words of Wit; A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit; and "Wisdom and Wit" — available at your local Jewish bookstore (or should be). [5] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum - FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il And yet No'ach drank just a bit too much and he became drunk. In the portion of Bereshit we are warned against eating out of proportion, in the story of No'ach we should learn to be careful about how much we drink (Daat Mikra). Hashem tells us that wine on one hand "gladdens the heart of man" (T'hilim 104:15) but He warns "It is not for Kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say, Where is strong drink? Lest he drink and forget the decree, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted" (Mishlei 31:4-7). We must be careful around wine. A bit about wine... Making a good wine involves taking a great grape, growing it in the right soil, ushering it through the fermentation process, aging it in the right way, and releasing it at just the right time. There are hundreds of types of wine in the world, each with its own flavors and styles. Red, white and sparkling wines are themost popular, and are also known as light wines, because they only contain approximately 10-14% alcohol. The aperitif (appetizer wine) and dessert wine contain 14-20% alcohol, and are fortified to make them richer and sweeter. The main rule to remember about pairing wine with food is that there are no rules: you should drink the wines you like with the foods you like. That being said, there are some basic guidelines that can help you maximize your enjoyment of wine-food pairing. Generally speaking, the types of wine that go well with fish, chicken, turkey and Chinese food are white wines (which can be very dry to sweet and should be served chilled). Red wines (usually dry) go well with red meats such as beef, roasts, lamb, duck, veal, pastas and sausages. However, this rule is not absolute. For example some white wines might go very well with red meat. Conversely,a particular red wine could be the perfect compliment to your fish cuisine. Rosé wines (also called "pink wines") can be served with almost any dish, but go best with fish, salads, cold cuts, and curries. Sparkling wines can be served at any meal with any course but are best as an aperitif or with certain entrees. They are usually saved for special occasions such as a banquet, formal dinner or wedding. They can be white, red or rosé. Generalizations are simply guidelines developed by professionals within the wine community. Feel free to experiment with different types of wine and food combinations and such things as matching the weight and texture of the food to the weight and texture of the wine, balancing the intensity of flavors in the food and the wine, balancing the tastes of the food to the wine, matching flavors of the food and wine or counterpointing the flavors. And the toast we all make when taking up a cup of wine "L'CHAYIM - to life" has been proven by some researchers to be true. Regular consumption of up to 1-2 drinks (dry red is recommended for this) a day reduces the risk of heart disease. Too much alcohol on the other hand as we see from this week's portion is not advisable. [6] A little Torah reading point... [7] Parsha Points to Ponder - NO'ACH 2) Why does G-D promise No'ach and his sons that animals will fear them (9:2) if that promise was already made to Adam in Parshat Beraishit (see 1:28)? 3) How can the rainbow, a predictable natural phenomenon, serve as the sign of the covenant between G-d and man that we will not experience another flood? THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 1) Rav Dovid Feinstein suggests an answer based on a Gemara regarding the two goats in the Yom Kippur service. The Torah specifically mentions that there were two goats (see Vayikra 16:5) despite this being obvious from the rest of the command to teach us that they must be exactly alike. No'ach's sons turned out quite different from one another. Shem emulated No'ach while Yafet and Cham were influenced negatively by the environment around them to different degrees. The Torah, by emphasizing that there were three sons, is revealing to us that when they were born, they were equals and each had the same spiritual potential. This teaches that no one is born with more or less of an ability to fight this battle and if a person is on guard like Shem, the possibility does exist to fight off the negative influences of the secular culture. 2) The Kli Yakar points to the fact that after the flood G-D permitted people to eat animal meat. As a result, there could be legitimate concern that while animals might have feared man to some degree based on the earlier blessing, they would not willingly submit themselves to be slaughtered to be eaten. Thus, G-D repeats this promise in stronger terms thereby reassuring No'ach and his sons that they would be able to eat the animals. 3) While many of the primary commentators do try to reconcile these two ideas, R' Yehonatan Eibeschutz understands that the Torah is not referring to the regular rainbow which we experience but, rather, to a techelet/blue-colored rainbow. This unique type of rainbow serves as a sign of G-d's covenant because of the similarity between the words TECHEILET and KELAYA which means destruction. Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman, who teaches at Reishit Yerushalayim, Tiferet, and Machon Maayan in Beit Shemesh and RBS and is the author of "DISCOVER: Answers for Teenagers (and adults) to Questions about the Jewish Faith",just re-published by Feldheim, ppp@israelcenter.co.il [8] Torah from Nature [9] Torah KidBits by Yaffa Ganz (©2006) popular author of Jewish children's books, creator of Savta Simcha and other delightful characters. Wow! How many people do you know who are righteous and perfect and who walk with G-d? Not many, I bet. But there are people like that and not just famous rabbis either. The Torah doesn't call No'ach a rabbi or a wise man. So why was he a tzadik and why did he deserve to be saved from the Flood? Well, first of all, we can learn something about No'ach from his name. No'ach comes from the Hebrew word NACH. It means comfort, rest, to be still. The words NACHAT (satisfaction), MENUCHA (rest), and NECHAMA (consolation) all come from the word NACH. It is related to the word CHEIN - pleasant, gracious, agreeable. And indeed, the Midrash tells us that NO'ACH MATZA CHEYN - he found favor with the people of the world and with G-d. He invented the plow and other agricultural tools, and when he was born, the land began to produce better fruits. No'ach was indeed a source of blessing and NACHAT - satisfaction - for the world. No'ach was also TAMIM - perfect and complete. When G-d commanded, No'ach obeyed. He didn't argue, or question, or complain. He did whatever he was told to do, even when he didn't understand. Noach was also a quiet man. The only time we hear him speak is when he blesses his sons after the Flood. For 120 long years before the Flood, while his neighbors laughed and made fun of him for building the ark, he never complained. And even when the Flood began, he had no rest. The Ark was no vacation cruise! No'ach became a full time zoo-keeper. Can you imagine looking after thousands of animals for an entire year? How long did you ever look after just one dog or goldfish or parakeet before you gave up and left the job for your mom? It was a dirty, difficult, thankless job but No'ach never once said: It's not my turn to feed the snakes today. I fed them yesterday - and the day before! Can't someone else do it today? He did whatever he was told to do. And he did the best job he possibly could. Perhaps that's why Noach was both a tzadik and tamim. Because he worked hard and never complained. Because he was always pleasant and gracious and agreeable. The biggest tzadikim are often the quietest, simplest people around. The ones who trust Hashem. The ones who will always help. The ones who work hard and don't ask to be repaid. How many tzadikim do you know? [10] V'tein Tal U'matar Livracha If you remember that you forgot T&M in the Shacharit Amida, for example, anytime during the morning (not just right after the Amida or when you are still davening), then you have to "stand" another Amida. And if it is in the middle of the afternoon that you remember your omission, then you say a second Mincha Amida as TASHLUMIN for Shacharit (as if you didn't say it in the first place). If you catch your omission when you are still in the Amida, then it depends, as follows: This is preferred to repeating one or more brachot, because this too is a good spot for requests (as we know from the other things that are inserted into Sh'ma Koleinu). If you pass the point of insertion in Sh'ma Koleinu, but haven't said G-d's name in the end of the bracha, then say T&M and continue with KI ATA SHOMEI'A... If you finish Sh'ma Koleinu but haven't said the word R'TZEI yet, you can say V'tein Tal U'matar Livracha after SHOMEI'A T'FILA and before R'TZEI. Since you have not begun R'TZEI, it is still considered being in the "brachot of request" section of the Amida, and T&M fits. Once you say the word R'TZEI (and you haven't asked for T&M yet), you must go back to BAREICH ALEINU (not just SH'MA KOLEINU) and say the Amida straight from there. Although this involves repeated brachot you have already said, this is what must be done. This rule applies from R'TZEI until you finish the Amida. That point is either when you finish YI'HU L'RATZON IMREI FI V'HEGYON LIBI L'FANECHA, HASHEM TZURI V'GO'ALI. or when you begin taking your first step back. If it is only then that you realize that you have not said T&M, then you must say the Amida all over again. One should be impressed by the fact that 19 brachot are declared invalid when one omits T&M. After all, the person said "Give a blessing". That's not so bad. Is it? Halacha tells us that without T&M, it is like asking for the opposite of a bracha. And that must be remedied. Cases of doubt as to whether T&M was said or not; cases of visitors and students in Israel; cases of Jews in the Southern Hemisphere -- are complex issues that cannot be dealt with in the space we have. Consult a Rav for guidance. [11] Divrei Menachem On the face of it, the ideal appears very worthwhile: to reach the skies, to reach closer to G-d. Here is a united front wherein, "the whole earth was of one language and of common purpose". Is that not the most noble of goals? With Hashem's promise never again to destroy the world still fresh in their minds and the Holy Tongue on all their lips (Rashi), this people seemed poised for greatness. Yet the consequences of this plan belied this honorable view of a saintly people. The Akeidat Yitzchak explains that from a Kabbalastic perspective, had the tower been built, the unity between Hashem and His creation would have been disrupted. Thus, measure for measure, the people's unity was destroyed and their predilection materialized. It appears then that the search for unity can be deceiving. It is neither the search nor the acquisition of unity per se that counts. What really matters is that having attained this elusive goal, what will then be achieved? Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat No'ach Homepage]
|
