Scope: This article is humbly aimed at the entire observant Jewish world: including the religious leadership, talmidei chachamim, talmidei chaverim and “the rest of” Am Yisrael.
——————————————————————-
In my humble assessment, there is a “web of 8 factors” that is now disrupting our ability to accurately understand, apply and disseminate Jewish Law – in terms of what is permitted and forbidden. This is having a harmful effect on Jewish continuity, and needs to be taken more seriously. This “web of 8 factors” will be addressed below in detail. The bad news is that many “Observant” Jews are oblivious to the effects of these ensnaring factors, and the interference it sometimes has on the accurate purveyance of Torath Moshe. Unfortunately, some of our righteous Jewish scholars and teachers have also unknowingly fallen prey to this “web of 8 factors.” I suspect that a few might even be shocked after being shown these corruptions.1 From a thousand feet up, this lack of correct understanding and dissemination, which many times translates into a lack of perceived moral clarity, is hurting our people. Besides being fodder for some minim and apicorsim, the ramifications of “non-authentic” dogmatic transmission is also hurting our efforts at Jewish continuity and Qiruv. Come on folks. Our kids want the original stuff, and can smell when something is off. We need to do better. The good news is that this can all be corrected.
Many Jews have instinctively sensed this condition for years, but have not known what to do about it – without being estranged from the community. This lack of guidance leaves many “regular but scholarly Jews” in a state of dazed bewilderment. Unfortunately, the only thing left for them to do is to pick a Rabbi “to hold by” – without understanding the legal implications and liabilities that are still incumbent upon them to fulfill. But what can be done to ease their souls? After all, only qualified scholars can study and understand these issues… right? (To be addressed later).
RaMb’M Raised Red Flag On This Very Issue
On the leadership side, most of our Rabbis and Teachers are moving along with the purest of intentions2. Unfortunately, many box themselves (and their followers) into corners, by forcing themselves to rely upon a roughly-woven mesh of later-day legal precedents and opinions – which have been drastically altered over time. What other choice do they have – is the common explanation. This phenomenon is described further as one of the 8 factors below. Unfortunately, this diminishes the ability to understand and demonstrate the legal issues involved – to their flocks. And while no one would dare deny the greatness and need for strong Rabbonim, the ability to identify and understand the sources is not what it used to be – for anyone. And while no one wants to directly question the leaders of our generation in this respect (by presenting them with a dirty laundry list of corrupted practices), RaMb”M raised a red flag on this very issue – over 800 years ago – when the scholarship was undeniably much higher! In my humble assessment, we really need to replay this warning again, before this generation gets swallowed up (Heaven forbid) in the WEB OF 8 FACTORS.
——————————————————-
Question: But before you start this article, why is it really so important to know what is prohibited and what it forbidden in the first place?
Answer: Well, according to RaMb”M, the ultimate tranquility of earth (and the world to come) depends upon it! So yes, it is really important to get these things right.
RaMb”M answers: “I believe that no one should stroll through the garden of Jewish mysticism unless his belly is filled with bread and meat, by which I mean knowledge of what is prohibited and permitted and similar issues relating to the other commandments. Even though these matters were called ‘minor’ by the sages (who said that Ma’aseh Bereshith & Merqavah is a major matter and the halachic discussions of Abaye and Rava are relatively minor matters), it is still appropriate to master the latter first, since they provide basic mental tranquility to an individual. They are a gift of God to promote social tranquility on earth so that we may inherit the world to come.” (RAMBAM – Maimonides)
To Avoid The Web of 8 Factors – You First Have To Know What They Are:
In quick summary, the following factors have contributed to our current inability to accurately understand and purvey the requirements of Halakha:
Factor #1) The current refusal by (~ half) of our leadership to admit that all “legislation” that came after Rav Ashi & Ravina’s court is still non-authoritative – even though the exact opposite perception has been (and is still being) perpetuated and popularized to the masses – by many of our “leaders”. My source for this statement is over 40 years of direct observation.3
Factor #2) The ever-increasing level of pilpul & some chidushim (new understandings) – that take unjustified liberties in unnecessarily reinterpreting, coloring or even adding to (or diminishing from) the law. More often than not, these well-intentioned additions wind up causing the exact opposite result that is trying to be accomplished in the first place.4
This is a great sorrow for me – because most of the time – a more detailed (and systemic) analysis of the Mishneh Torah shows these are not real problems in the first place at all – and can be debunked with logic and accurate texts of the Mishneh Torah!
Factor #3) The inability of many of today’s teachers and students to admit that they are not qualified (without intensive study of the Mishneh Torah) to correctly deduce the “fully settled” legal issues that were agreed upon by the last legitimate Sanhedrin (and last court of Rav Ashe and Ravinah). Besides the effects of the long exile, the most basic prerequisite for Talmudic understanding of the Oral Law requires a complete and total mastery of the entire Talmud Bavli AND all of the associated, accompanying works required for its elucidation – in a way that completely, contextually, systemically and fully grasps all of these sources together – in an interconnected way. And over here, we are merely speaking about this as a prerequisite for the possibility of being able to correctly learn or teach Talmud – in order to deduce the LAW (which is a really bad idea). The RaMb”M explains why people in his own society were not fully capable of deducing these things – and EVEN MORE SO does this apply to our own times. If in his own times, people were not qualified, how can anyone seriously think they are somehow more-qualified than people that were much closer in time, place and accuracy to the original source materials?
Regarding the ability to learn, my Rav haMuvhaq writes:
“Those who just learn Bavli – without all the earlier and basic Israeli texts (Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekhiltot, Sifra, Sifrey, and Yerushalmi) are simply FOOLING themselves (in terms of understanding it). Bavli was written in the context of the earlier works – just as it was written in the context of the TN”K. They often bring [only] short phrases, referring to the whole of the matter in the earlier work, whether TN”K or Israeli works, and they MEAN the whole matter in its whole context — not just these words taken out of context. Thus, almost no one today has any idea what they are reading in the Bavli, as they jump into the Bavli without the foundations. It is like studying integral calculus without learning arithmetic, algebra, and trig.”
However; all that being said, we should still aspire to learn the texts of the Oral Law. But how so? In this article, we are merely arguing the reason(s) how we should or should not learn or rely upon the actual books of Talmud Bavli and associated works (to deduce the law) – and what should be the priority. In terms of law, the priority is to learn & rely upon Mishneh Torah as our legal filter – for the many reasons listed in this article. About the Mishneh Torah, RaMb”M wrote: “Thus, I have called this work the [Complete] Restatement of the [Oral] Law (Mishneh Torah), for a person reads the Written Torah first and then reads this work, and knows from it the entire Oral Law, without needing to read any other book between them.”
Regarding the need for Talmudic study (and related works), one can click here for more information. Heaven forbid you think we are dissing Talmudic study!
Factor #4) Subjective & strong cultural loyalties, lineages and / or political motives still keep people from objectively examining the accuracy of the traditions they have been handed & continue to transmit. When we are sure, why would correcting them be an affront to our ancestors. 5
Factor #5) Many times, mystical influence is been allowed to trump existing law, when there is no legitimate legal authority to change the law that came from the last legitimate Sanhedrin, which preserved the legacy of Beit Hillel.
Factor #6) Lack of quality study time and commitment. If your not studying at a fixed time, your not learning properly! Stop kidding yourself.
Factor #7) Low study skill levels. For example: an inability or lack of desire to use an “Even HaShushan” dictionary. Another example relates to the lack of a proper Rav or Moreh to learn from in a way that incorporates Hebrew and participation.
Factor #8) Previous censorship of Jewish manuscripts – that continues to have profound effects on our critical manuscripts (even תלמוד בבלי) – to this day. For most, this is a hard pill to swallow. There is definitely a ‘lack of access’ to pristinely preserved texts. Although not a major factor, it still plays a role. One famous example can be seen in the terms used to describe the definitions of Gevil (for Sifrei Torah), Qlaf (for Tefillin) and Duchsustos (for Mezuzoth). Some versions distort the meaning of these terms, through the obvious copyist errors. 6
To make matters worse, these problems have been around for hundreds of years now. Without going into all the problems mentioned by RAMBAM (even in his own times), what is a descent truth-seeking Jew or Ben Noach supposed to do today, in order to know the requirements of the law?
———————————
Below, we explain why the Mishneh Torah is this only extant reliable source we currently have, and how it can unite our people.
I just had an interesting conversation with one of my cousins. We met at a pool party today, and were making friendly chatter; we’re not very alike – he’s more yeshivish, and while he’s a nice enough guy, I don’t find him to be very open minded about anything. We were catching up on each other’s lives, and he asked me what I’m up to. I tell him that I’m trying to get semicha and that I’m almost finished with college, after which I’m trying to get into a doctorate program in Psychology.
Once Psychology comes up, he starts asking me all sorts of questions about what I’m planning to do with my degree once I’m done. I inform him that God willing I am going to work within the Jewish community. He snorts in derision. “Come on, how many frum people go to psychologists?” he asks me.
I reply that while there are a lot more people than he probably thinks, there’s still more who can benefit from having someone to talk to, and how Judaism places emphasis on having someone to confide in. He waves me off: “Yeah, but you’re probably learning all sorts of kefirah and apikorsus (heresy and blasphemy) anyway.” I patiently try to explain to him that while I do encounter blatant instances of concepts and beliefs that are incompatible with Judaism, I tend to let those things slide, because they are not important. For all intents and purposes, I assure him, I am trying to learn the techniques that can be utilized in therapy and in determining how to respond and identify certain emotional issues. But the core understanding of what makes a human being tick, I hope to get from Torah sources.
He looks at me, confused. What do I mean?
I try to explain that my insights into human nature is not coming from the secular sources, but rather from classic and contemporary Jewish sources.
“Which sources?” he wants to know.
Alei Shur, Chovot HaLevavot, the writings of the RamBaN, etc. I list off a few more works to make sure he understands.
“Mussar?”
Yes, Mussar, chassidus, Chumash. All of the above.
He shakes his head: “But mussar doesn’t work!” he protests.
I look him in the eye and gently tell him “I can tell by your response that you’ve never learned mussar properly. If you had, you wouldn’t be so shocked.”
“But mussar is hard!” he insists.
Of course it’s hard – in the sense that it takes a tremendous amount of intellectual honesty, bravery, and effort to implement and maintain the strategies toward refinement that the tzaddikim have prescribed. And therapy is also hard and time consuming, and involves similar ideas. A synthesis of the two isn’t so far fetched, after all.
The conversation came to an end at that point; I think I left him in a daze…
San Diego International Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2006. Abstract:
Of the various movements that have surfaced in American legal theory in recent decades, law and economics has emerged as perhaps the most influential, leading some to characterize it as the dominant contemporary mode of analysis among American legal scholars. In this essay, Levine considers law and economics in the context of a comparative discussion of another prominent intellectual legal movement, the Brisker method of Talmudic analysis, which originated in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century and quickly developed into a leading method of theoretical study of Jewish law. The Brisker method takes its name from the city of Brisk, home to the movements founder, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik. Reb Chaim developed a highly original model that quickly emerged as the predominant form of theoretical study of Jewish law, featuring an emphasis on precise definition and categorization of legal concepts. For the purposes of this Essay, it may be helpful and appropriate to associate law and economics with the theories of the Chicago school and to focus on the approach and contributions of its leading academic proponent, Richard Posner. According to Posner, economics is defined as the science of rational choice in the world–our world–in which resources are limited in relation to human wants. Thus, economic analysis of law provides a broad conceptual framework for the application of the principles of economics in the context of legal issues. Levine aims to examine some of the common elements that have contributed to the success of these intellectual movements. Toward that end, the Essay compares the founding principles of the movements, exploring similarities in their essential characteristics.
A basic economic premise holds that when the price of something rises, people seek to economize on its use. They seek substitutes for that which has risen in price. Recent years have seen proposals for an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Some states and localities, such as Seattle, have already legislated a minimum wage of $15 an hour.
Nobody should be surprised that fast-food companies such as Wendy’s, Panera Bread, McDonald’s and others are seeking substitutes for employees who are becoming costlier. One substitute that has emerged for cashiers is automated kiosks where, instead of having a person take your order, you select your meal and pay for it using a machine. Robots are also seen as an alternative to a $15-an-hour minimum wage. In fact, employee costs are much higher than an hourly wage suggests. For every employee paid $15 an hour, a company spends an additional $10 an hour on non-wage benefits, such as medical insurance, Social Security, workers’ compensation and other taxes. That means the minimum hourly cost of hiring such an employee is close to $25.
The vision that higher mandated wages (that exceed productivity) produce no employment effects is what economists call a zero-elasticity view of the world — one in which there is no response to price changes. It assumes that customers are insensitive to higher product prices and investors are insensitive to a company’s profits. There is little evidence that people are insensitive to price changes, whether they be changes in taxes, gas prices, food prices, labor prices or any other price. The issue is not whether people change their behavior when relative prices rise or fall; it is always how soon and how great the change will be. Thus, with minimum wage increases, it is not an issue of whether firms will economize on labor but an issue of how much they will economize and who will bear the burden of that economizing.
Fast-food restaurants must respond to higher prices because they have two sets of ruthless people to deal with. We can see that with a hypothetical example. Imagine that faced with higher employee costs, Burger King automates and, as a result of finding cheaper ways to do things, it can sell its hamburgers for $3. Its competitor McDonald’s does not automate and keeps the same number of employees in the face of higher wages, maybe to be nice andcaring. McDonald’s might try to forestall declining profits by attempting to recover higher labor costs by raising product prices — say, charging $5 for a hamburger. However, consumers are not insensitive to higher prices. They would seek cheaper substitutes, thereby patronizing Burger King. The bottom line is that in the wake of higher minimum wages, surviving companies will be those that find ways to economize on labor usage.
There is another ruthless set of people. They are investors. If customers were to flock to Burger King, McDonald’s profits would fall. What is your guess as to what investors would do? My guess is they would sell shares in McDonald’s. An even more dismal picture for McDonald’s would be the specter of corporate takeover attempts. Somebody would see that money could be made by bringing McDonald’s to its senses.
The saddest aspect of the minimum wage story is the damage it does to human beings. The current hourly wage for a fast-food restaurant cashier is $7.25 to $9 per hour. That produces a yearly salary of $15,000 to $20,000, plus fringes. That’s no great shakes, but it is honest work and a start in life. It might be the very best some people could do. Enter the arrogance and callousness of the elite. Their vision of what a person should earn, expressed by higher minimum wages, destroys people’s best alternative without offering a superior one in its place. Maybe the elite believe that welfare, unemployment compensation and possibly engaging in illegal activities are a superior alternative to earning an honest and respectable living on a cashier’s salary. That is a despicable vision.
באדיבות שי צ’רקה, מתוך “לצאת מהקווים – מעבר לקו 2”
הסתיו עבר, הגשם חלף הלך לו, הניצנים נראו בארץ ותחת כל אתר רענן מופיע שירות לציבור – מכירת חמץ וירטואלית. ובכל בית כנסת – דף של רב הקהילה, למכירת חמץ מאורגנת. ועכשיו גם בפייסבוק: מכירת חמץ בחינם (כך בדיוק).
דומה שמכל מצוות החג, “מצוות מכירת החמץ” קיבלה מעמד בכיר בשנים האחרונות. עזבו אתכם מביעור חמץ. היום רק מוכרים. השיא הוא כמובן במכירת כל החמץ של המדינה לאחמד או מוסטפא או ג’ורג’.
כמה עולה החמץ שלכם? האם קיבלתם פעם שקל עבור המכירה? האם בא פעם הגוי ותבע את אשר קנה? הוא בכלל יודע איפה אתם גרים ואיפה החמץ שלו? בקיצור: על מי אתם עובדים בדיוק?
עכשיו יבואו החכמולוגים ויסבירו שזה לא משנה שזו פיקציה, מכיון שככה התורה ציוותה, כולל הפיקציות. היא ציוותה על איסור חמץ שיהיה שייך “רשמית” לאדם, ולא אכפת לה שהחמץ יהיה אצלך אם עשית איזו מכירה, עקומה ככל שתהיה, של החמץ.
אבל אם ככה בכלל לא ברור מה הרעיון של איסור “לא יראה ולא ימצא”, אם תכל’ס אין שום בעיה לחתום על איזה מסמך פיקטיבי והכול יהיה טוב ויפה. תאמרו: יש הרבה פיקציות ביהדות? זה מצג שווא. יש מעט מאוד פיקציות, וכמעט כולן מתייחסות לאיסורים של חכמים ולא של התורה, וגם שם הרבה פעמים לקחו את זה רחוק מדי היום. כך למשל נושא הפרוזבול המפורסם, שלהסבר הרמב”ם עוקר רק מצוה מדרבנן (וגם כך זה מקרה מיוחד וקיצוני, ולא נאריך בו כאן). כך גם נושא העירוב, שגם הוא חל רק על ענייני דרבנן, והורחב היום הרבה מעבר לפרופורציות המקוריות שלו (אני בטוח שחז”ל היו מתעלפים אם היו שומעים שהיום מתירים לטלטל בכל ירושלים בגלל איזה חוט שמקיף את העיר. אבל זה נושא לפוסט אחר).
ובאמת, העיגון של הפיקציה הזו במקורות הוא די קלוש (את עיקרי הדברים שלהלן למדתי משיעוריו של מורי הרב שמואל טל).
עניין המכירה נזכר לראשונה בתוספתא (פסחים ב,יב-יג), שבה נאמר:
ישראל וגוי שהיו באין בספינה וחמץ ביד ישראל, הרי זה מוכרו לנכרי ונותנו (=או נותנו) במתנה, וחוזר ולוקח ממנו לאחר הפסח, ובלבד שיתננו לו במתנה גמורה. רשאי ישראל שיאמר לנכרי: “עד שאתה לוקח במנה קח במאתיים, שמא אצטרך ואבוא ואקח ממך אחר הפסח” (דהיינו: קנה ממני בכמות גדולה יותר ממה שתכננת, כי יש סיכוי שאקנה ממך בחזרה אחרי הפסח. ויש פירושים אחרים).
במילים אחרות, מה שהותר זה רק מתנה גמורה ומוחלטת, וגם זה במצבים קיצוניים: כשהוא נמצא בספינה וצריך שיהיה לו חמץ אחרי הפסח, או במקרה שממילא הגוי קונה ממנו חמץ, ואז אפשר להגיד לו שיקנה יותר, כי יש סיכוי שהיהודי יקנה ממנו אחר הפסח.
אפשר לראות שהפרוצדורה הזו הגיונית. מדובר במכירה גמורה לכל דבר ועניין, ללא תנאי.
וכך פסק הרמב”ם (מתוך משנה תורה המדויק והמנוקד [עורך משנה: אני], הלכות חמץ ומצה ד, ו-ז):
וגאונים וראשונים רבים גרסו בתוספתא, או פירשו כך, “ובלבד שלא יערים” (תוספתא כפשוטה עמ’ 495-496), ואמרו במפורש שהכוונה היא שלא יעשה זאת כל שנה. כן כתב רב עמרם גאון (אוצה”ג פסחים סי’ מח):
וישראל שמכר חמצו לגוי או שנתנו לו במתנה גמורה, אם משך גוי אֹתוֹ (דהיינו, עשה קניין ממשי ולקחו לרשותו), ואין שם הערמה, ואינו רגיל לעשות כן בשאר שנים אלא מורע (=מאורע) הוא – מותר לישראל לחזור וליקח ממנו אחר הפסח מן הגוי.
ואפשר לראות אצל עוד ראשונים את ההדגשה הזו במכירה, שהדבר חייב להיות רק במכירה גמורה, שהגוי בפועל לוקח אליו את החמץ, וזה חד-פעמי וללא הערמה ו”קריצה”.
רק במאות השנים האחרונות, החל כרסום זוחל בדין הפשוט הזה, בעקבות לחצים כלכליים של מבשלות הבירה וכדומה, ובכל דור נוספו עוד ועוד הקלות – התחילו לוותר על הדרישה להוציא את החמץ מחוץ לבית, לאחר מכן ויתרו גם על ההקפדה שיהיה חדר מיוחד שבו יהיה החמץ, וגם את עניין התשלום הפכו לפיקציה (הגוי משלם פרוטה, ושאר התשלום נחשב כהלוואה עד אחרי הפסח, אבל אז החמץ חוזר אז הוא לא צריך לשלם). אחר כך כבר לא היה צריך שהגוי ידע מה הוא קונה, אלא מוכרים באופן כללי את החמץ, ועוד ועוד. והיום מגדילים אנשים לעשות, ומוכרים את החמץ הבלוע בכלים (!). כיצד הגוי יוכל לממש את הקניין הזה בדיוק, אפילו באופן תיאורטי?
ומה הבעיה? שהיום אנשים מסתמכים על הפרוצדורה המפוקפקת הזו כנוסחת קסם הפותרת את כל הבעיות. אפשר לאחסן פיתות או בצק במקפיא ורק למכור, והופס במוצאי החג כבר אפשר לעשות מופלטות למימונה. יש ספק כלשהו אם משהו חמץ או לא? מה הבעיה – תמכור. זו התשובה הרגילה בשו”תים האינטרנטיים למיניהם.
ראו את האבסורד: אנשים כל כך מקפידים ומדקדקים בדיני פסח, וכידוע נהגו ישראל להחמיר בפסח עוד יותר מבשאר ימות השנה, בכל מיני ספק-ספקות של חימוץ, וכבר שמן שעשוי מקטניות לא מתבטל בשישים, ואסור לאכול במבה וחומוס, שלא לדבר על “שרויה” – אבל מכירת חמץ, שכולם יודעים שהיא פיקטיבית, ושלפי המקורות נראה שמי שמסתמך עליה סביר שימצא את עצמו עובר על איסורי תורה – על זה אין פוצה פה ומצפצף.
בקיצור, אני פונה את הלב שלכם: עזבו את מכירת החמץ. אל תמכרו אותו. בערו אותו. זה לא כזה קשה.
————— הרחבות ותשובות להערות (יתעדכן בעז”ה ככל שאקבל יותר תגובות):
לא רק לפי רב עמרם גאון והרמב”ם, אלא גם לפי השו”ע והאחרונים, המכירה המתקיימת היום אינה תקפה. הט”ז למשל כתב שאם הוא לא מייחד את החמץ בחדר ומוסר לגוי את המפתח, הוא עובר בבל יראה ובל ימצא.
יש לדעת שאפשר שאם מוכרים את החמץ, הביטול לא חל עליו (שהרי אתה לא רוצה לבטל אותו. אתה מכרת אותו. והוא לא שלך בכלל. כך פסק החתם סופר ועוד). לכן כל אלה שמוכרים את החמץ שיש להם ספק לגביו או שקשה להם לנקות אותו, כמו זה שבטוסטר וכדומה, יכול להיות שדווקא המכירה מכניסה אותם לבעיה הלכתית של “בל יראה”.
מה עושים עם חמץ של “ליתר ביטחון”? מבערים עד מקום שהיד מגעת. מנקים את הטוסטר וכולי, ובסוף מבטלים בלב את החמץ שנותר. זה מה שחז”ל אמרו: “בודק עד מקום שידו מגעת, והשאר מבטלו בלבו ודיו”. הם לא אמרו “והשאר מוכרו לגוי”!
מה עם חמץ שלאחר הפסח בחנויות? זה כבר פחות חמור כי זה רק איסור דרבנן של חמץ לאחר הפסח, אבל גם איסור דרבנן הוא איסור. אז בודקים ומקפידים לקנות רק מה שנאפה לאחר הפסח. אבל: “חמץ נוקשה”, שלא היה במצב אכילה בפסח, כמו פסטות, אין צורך להקפיד עליו (לפי הרב טל).
מה יעשו בתי העסק הגדולים? אם הם רוצים באמת לקיים את הפסח כהלכתו, הם יכולים להיערך ולמכור את החמץ מבעוד מועד. ואולי בשבילם אפשר לעשות מכירה אמיתית מיוחדת, שתהיה בה ממשות.
