Toward Originalist Observance of Pesach

Pesah Matters – Mekori Perspectives – Part II: Coverings, Cucumbers and Gebrokts

In this post, I want to highlight some of the inane measures taken by some, invented in the name of avoiding hamess on Pesah, that one might encounter. Newcomers to Judaism, such as geriym and ba`aley teshuvah, are often thrown off by such weird practices and often – in an honest attempt to understand the intention of the Torah – invent myths about the supposed nature of hamess based on them. More than this, many of these contrived “chumros” blur the lines of the halakhah and actually lead to some people violating actual prohibitions because of the misunderstanding caused by such “customs.” As it says in the Gemara, “כל המוסיף גורע – kol ha-mosiyf gorea` – everyone who adds [to the law in actuality] detracts [from it]” (b.Sanhedriyn 29a).

Much the nonsense comes from a directive – quoted in the name of the Arizal – that one should be careful to respect every “chumrah” of Pesah, no matter how strained the concern may be. Another one has the Arizal promising that anyone who is careful with even the slightest amount of hamess on Pesah is guaranteed not to sin for the entire year (Mishnah Berurah, Be’er Heitev 447:1). First of all, no one knows if he ever said such things, they may be completely fanciful. Second, even if he did say them, I am sure that even he would not have countenanced some of the ridiculous practices that have cropped up today. Third, if the Arizal did say these things he had no halakhic authority to do so. Halakhah comes from Hazal as explained by their direct expositors, and from nowhere else. Ironically, many of the “chumros” invented for Pesah cannot be attributed to modernity, so one has to wonder, if Hazal took no issue with them, how is it that anyone else should?

Foil, Foil Everywhere

Perhaps the most well-known para-halakhic practice in preparation for Pesah – which has already become a major parody within the Jewish world – is the covering of all kitchen surfaces with aluminum foil. Counters, stovetops, cupboards, sinks, and yes, even the refrigerator door handle – everything is obsessively covered before Pesah by many Jews. So widely-practiced is covering by foil that when I lived in Israel, they actually included rolls of aluminum foil in the Ma’oth Hittiyn care packages. So now public charity is being used to buy foil! When the Gemara in Masekheth Pesahim (see chapter 10, `Arvey Pesahim) takes great pains to discuss exactly how much wine should be given to each`aniy in order to fulfill the misswah of the arba`ah kosoth (since there is a shittah that says one can fulfill it with only two full cups instead of four), why would we then spend hundreds and possibly thousands of public dollars on something that has no basis at all in halakhah? Kol ha-mosiyf gorea` (כל המוסיף גורע) indeed.

You will be happy to know that there is absolutely no need according to halakhah to cover anything with either aluminum foil or parchment paper. Not your sink, not your cupboards, not your counters, not your stove, and no, not your refrigerator door handle. What is required is that you clean your home of visible hamess, giving special attention to any significant pieces in the same room that may be able to be combined to form the bulk of a Suri or “Egori” olive (ke-zayith, cf. m.Keliym 17:8). Further required is that all cooking and food preparation utensils be either set aside or undergo a kashering process (I will discuss hakhsharath keliym in the next post). What is strongly recommended, however, is that you thoroughly clean the exposed surfaces of your kitchen (no need to pull out the refrigerator), using a bleach-based cleaning solution. The bleach solution will nullify any traces of hamess that might possibly be found by rendering them inedible. Since you do not cook or set food – especially hot food – directly on your counters or the shelves of your fridge they do not require kashering, let alone covering.

To give you an idea of just how sane the actual laws of kashering are for dishes and surfaces, check out this brief summary based on the rulings of Rav Yitzchak Abadi of Jerusalem.

Confusing Cucumbers

Probably the most inane para-halakhic and superstitious “custom” that I have heard of in regard to avoiding hamess on Pesah is the refusal to eat cucumbers by Chabadniks because – and I quote – “its seeds look like grains of wheat.” This is insane. Do these same people avoid eating kosher sushi because it looks just like real crab? Certainly not. What are they afraid of? Confusing cucumber seeds and wheat berries? If someone thinks that this could happen, they quite frankly need to take anxiety medication and discuss their irrational fears with a professional. I think it is obvious to any reasonable, thinking person that this is ludicrous – aside from being completely without basis in the halakhah. I mean, do they forget that beautiful little piece of Gemara in Pesahim about Rav Huna’s seder plate? He put rice on it! Obviously, Hazal were not at all concerned about the “appearance” of qitniyoth confusing us into eating wheat and barley (cf. b.Pesahim114b).

Another incarnation of this is requiring that all fruits and vegetables be peeled prior to consumption on Pesah because there might be “traces of chametz” in the peels. Don’t taken in by this and do not be fooled into thinking that those who do such things are on a “higher level” of dedication. Comparing one level of foolishness to another only serves the purposes of fools. The fact is that Hazal are the bearers of the mesorah and in many cases they are the architects of it. They knew what hamess was and how to effectively avoid it on Pesah. They transmitted those things faithfully to us in their talmudh and so there is no need for later innovations that are obsessive and usually based on some kabbalistic consideration foreign to Hazal in the first place.

Now, this is not to say that there isn’t the concept of being unusually careful in an effort to completely avoid hamess on Pesah – there certainly is (and I plan to discuss this in the next post on kashering). But those considerations are already built into the halakhah itself. And it is not as if the mekori approach guarantees that in all things it will be “easier” than the mainstream practice. Although this is generally the case, it is not always the case. One who truly seeks to fulfill the Divine will is open to the truth whatever it may be, whether easy or difficult. May HaShem grant us the ability to perform every misswah, great or small, with a full heart.

No KLP Kneidlach? It Gebrokts My Heart

Gebrokt is a Yiddish word meaning “broken” and refers to massah that has been soaked in water or some other liquid. Dishes that were made with such massah are called “gebrokts” because the massoth are generally broken into small pieces or ground prior to cooking or baking with them. The Hebrew term for such dishes is massah sheruyah meaning “soaked massah.” The Hasidic practice is to avoid allowing any liquid, especially water, to come in contact with massah during Pesah. The reason? They are afraid that even their massoth may be hamess. The explanation goes the that there may be some small amount of flour that went through the baking process that never truly mixed with water to become dough. Putting that massah into water would expose that bit of flour to water and it could thereby become hamess. This is absolutely ludicrous. This is the reason for all of the products made from potato flour that show up on Pesah. However, I am waiting for some “rebbe” to announce that potatoes may actually be one of the five grains and are therefore forbidden be consumed (this is a joke, of course, but I think my intent is clear). Even still, with all the fuss over the supposed wheat-like appearance of cucumber seeds, you would think that they would avoid potato flour because it looks very similar to…oh, possibly… FLOUR.

The practice of avoiding gebrokts and worrying that massah, although prepared according to strict standards of shemirah, may actually be hamess is a thoroughly Hasidic invention. Although there were those, even before Hasidism, who had the practice of not eating massah sheruyah on the night of the seder – such as the Ra’avan (cf. Ra’avan, Pesahim162a) – their concern had nothing to do with avoiding hamess (or they would have avoided in throughout the hagh), rather it was to preserve the strong taste of massah in the mouth, something that is lost when it is soaked in water. Even after the emergence of the Hasidic movement, there were those – such as Rav Hayyim Volozhiner – who maintained the practice of not eating gebrokts during the seder because of the Rambam, who says that massah eaten during the seder should be “lehem oni – poor man’s bread” and should be free of salt, spices, eggs, fruit juice, olive oil, etc. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhoth Hamess Umassah 5:20). The irrational fear that duly guarded massoth could actually be hamess historically arose from the Hasidic movement alone. Their attempts to co-opt earlier sources to justify their nonsense is strained at best.

There are some Hasidic-Haredi groups that refuse to eat massah at all during Pesah because of the fear that it may actually be “chametz.” Only because it is a misswah de-oraytha do they consent to eat a small amount during the seder. This fear should illustrate well the concern in Hazal that “אין לדבר סוף – ein le-davar sof – there is no end to the matter.” In other words, there has to be a limit to what we consider a reasonable and likely concern (hashash) because if there isn’t insanity ensues. This reasoning is brought in m.Pesahim 1:2 and codified by the Rambam in Hilkhoth Hamess Umassah 2:7 about checking the home for hamess. It is brought in m.Yoma 1:1 with regard to keeping a new wife in reserve for the kohen gadhol on Yom HaKippuriym since it is a Torah requirement that he be married. Hazal instruct that it is enough to have one woman prepared to marry the kohen should something happen to his current wife during the night – if it should enter our minds to arrange for still another in case something happened to both the wife and the back-up, they say that you would then have to worry about the back-up of the back-up as well and אין לדבר סוף – ein le-davar sof. Since entering into an impossible and endless regress is never the requirement of the Torah or the halakhah, such unlikely concerns may be dismissed. This reasoning is stated throughout the Gemara as well, and it is nearly always mentioned as a limit to the word hashash, meaning worry or suspicion. Hazal thereby teach us that it is right and good to have concerns about the misswoth of the Torah, but that there must be reasonable limits to such concern – and it is they who held the authority to set the boundaries for such things.

This also happens to be why I personally believe that when the Rambam states that hamess cannot be nullified “even [in a ratio of] one in several thousand” that he is referring to actual, quantifiable, reasonably present hamess – not invisible hamess that is conjured up through the powers of unlimited hashash (cf. Hilkhoth Ma’akhaloth Assuroth 15:10-11). But this is for another time.

Best,

YB

From Fortodoxy [defunct].

Why Was Jewish Sovereignty Reconstituted by Renegade Jews?

Why Did Secular Jews Found the State of Israel? Interview with Rabbi David Bar-Hayim

TUESDAY, 08 MARCH 2016 18:57
This question is an important one since understanding the answer can help us to move forward as a nation.

Hear the answer in the following video interview with Machon Shilo’s Rabbi David Bar-Hayim:

 

In English:

:בעברית

From Machon Shilohere.

האם גם הקהילה החרדית חייבת לחזור בתשובה?

בני בני בני ● החזרה בתשובה לשומרי תורה

http://www.files.org.il/BRPortalStorage/a/2/42/39/57-3dJNsFKYXd.jpg

מפתח:

(א)        ביאור ענין החופשים ותיקונם         עמוד 3

(ב)        יש כאן דברים להוסיף      עמוד 4

(ג)        עוד הוספה         עמוד 5

(ד)        כעת נבאר ענין החופשים של זמנינו            עמוד 7

(ה)       סיכום     עמוד 15

(ו)         עכשיו יתבאר איך יהא תיקון ותשובה להחופשים     עמוד 16

(ז)        ביאור ת”ח מחדשי התרים רחוקים             עמוד 16

(ח)       חיוב מודה על האמת        עמוד 17

(ט)       קהילה אחת שחוזרת בתשובה מביא הגאולה          עמוד 17

(י)         תיקון חטא הישנים מתקנים ממילא החדשים           עמוד 18

(יא)       טעם למה ארץ ישראל נכבשה ע”י החופשים            עמוד 18

(יב)       מקור בתורה על יסוד של גילוי העון           עמוד 19

(יג)       עוד בענין מכירת חמץ ותיקון עירובין          עמוד 20

(יד)       ביאור הנהגת שלמה המלך ע”ה ותיקונו      עמוד 20

המשך לקרוא

מאתר בריתי יצחק – הרב יצחק ברנדכאן.

Refuting Vayoel Moshe, Point by Point

A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”

A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”

הרב מרדכי ציון, ‘עלה נעלה: מענה לספר ויואל משה, תשובות מפי הרה”ג שלמה אבינר שליט”א’, בית אל תשע”ב, 278 עמודים

By Ezra Brand

The opinion of R’ Yoel Teitelbaum, better known as the Satmar Rebbe, opposing the State of Israel has recently received a resurgence of interest. With the shifting to the right of the Orthodox Jewish world in general, as well as attempts by some Israeli politicians to end Chareidi draft exemptions in particular, many Chareidim are now feeling sympathetic to the Satmar opinion. In any discussion online about Israel drafting Chareidim or cutting funding to yeshivas, there will always be one person commenting on the prescience of the Satmar Rebbe. I have heard that some people are using the Kahanist slogan in regard to this: “הרבי מסאטמאר צדק” (“The Satmar Rebbe was right”)! Therefore, the appearance of a book intended as a response to the Satmar opinion is timely[1].

Alo Na’aleh is a response to the Satmar Rebbe’s book, Vayo’el Moshe. To be more precise, it is a response to the first of the three parts of Vayo’el Moshe, which is titled “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevu’ot”. Alo Na’aleh is written by R’ Mordechai Tzion, in consultation with his Rebbe, R’ Shlomo Aviner[2]. It is published by Sifriyat Chava (ספריית חוה), the publishing house based in Beit El that publishes R’ Shlomo Aviner’s books. Vayo’el Moshewas published in 1961[3]. Although it might seem strange to write a response to a book so long after the book was originally published, the times seem to call for it.

There have been other attempted rebuttals to Vayo’el Moshe (including by R’ Aviner himself, see further), but Alo Na’aleh is probably the most comprehensive (though it is only on the “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” part of Vayo’el Moshe). It is the most comprehensive both in the sheer amount of sources quoted, and in terms of the fact that every point made by Vayo’el Moshe is discussed and disputed (including the reason given by R’ Yoel for the title of his book!). Much of the earlier literature that responds to Vayo’el Moshe is quoted byAlo Na’aleh, but no bibliography is provided. I will therefore provide one here (including works not mentioned in Alo Na’aleh).

הרב חיים שרגא פייביל פראנק, בירור הלכה במעלת ומצות ישובה של ארץ ישראל : תולדות זאב, ירושלים      תשכ”ד (ומילואים ב’המעין’, טבת תשכ”ה)

הרב מרדכי עטייה, סוד השבועה, ירושלים תשכ”ה

הרב מנחם מנדל כשר, התקופה הגדולה, ירושלים תשכ”ט

הרב רפאל קצנלנבויגן, ‘לא מרד אלא השבת גזילה לבעליו’, שערים, כ’ בסיון תשכ”ט

הרב משה מונק, ‘שלושת השבועות’, שערים, ד’ בתמוז תשכ”ט

הרב שמואל הכהן וינגרטן, השבעתי אתכם, ירושלים תשל”ו

הרב חיים צימרמן, ‘בענין שלש שבועות’, תורה לישראל, ירושלים תשל”ח (available here)

מחבר אונונימי, פוקח עוורים, ירושלים תשמ”ד[4] (available here)

הרב שלמה אבינר, ‘שלא יעלו בחומה’, הלכות משיח לרמב”ם, ירושלים תשס”ג

הרב יעקב זיסברג, ‘נפש עדה’, נחלת יעקב, ב, הרב ברכה תשס”ה

הנותן ליעף כח: כ”ח קושיות על ויואל משה, הוצאת בני הישיבות (בעילום שם המחבר)

הרב אברהם ווייס, מחנה החרדי, גליון 341

חוברת “בעית זמננו” (א:ד)

The beginning of the introduction is fascinating. It attempts to find an ultimately uncomfortable middle ground between attacking the Satmar Rebbe for his harsh anti-Zionism, and respecting him for his greatness in Torah. The introduction begins by bringing a Radvaz (Shu”t 4:187), which says that it is prohibited to degrade a talmid chacham, even if that talmid chacham is “making a mistake in the foundations of the religion” (במקור: תלמיד חכם הטועה בעיונו בדבר מעיקרי הדת)[5]. While the author states clearly that despite their differences of opinion he will still respect the Satmar Rebbe, there is a silent polemic against the Satmar Rebbe’s famously harsh attacks against his opponents.

The rest of the introduction of the book is gossipy. A string of juicy stories are told, portraying the negative attitude of various people toward Vayo’el Moshe. The book then gets down to business, responding to Vayo’el Moshe point by point.

Alo Na’aleh indeed lives up to its aspiration of pointing out the many (apparent) mistakes in “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” of Vayo’el Moshe. The author even demonstrates that the Satmar Rebbe made some historical mistakes. For example, in the introduction of Vayo’el Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe explains why all the poskim didn’t bring the Three Oaths in their halacha seforim: “This issue of the awakening of a movement to transgress these oaths, we have not found from the days of Ben Koziba until the time of the Rambam, which is about a thousand years, and so too from the time of the Rambam until the days of Shabsai Tzvi, and so too, from after the time of Shabsai Tzvi until now in these generations. Therefore the poskim in all these generations did not see any need to explain this issue in their times.” Alo Na’aleh correctly points out (pg. 15) that there were many other attempts by Jews to rebel against non-Jew in the time period discussed by the Satmar Rebbe.

However, true to form, Alo Na’aleh attempts to defend the Satmar Rebbe. Before discussing a particularly egregious misreading of a source in Vayo’el Moshe, Alo Na’aleh(pg. 172-3) claims that the misreadings of the sources exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe don’t stem from actual mistakes by the Satmar Rebbe. Rather, the Satmar Rebbe was convinced that Zionism was a terrible calamity, and was willing to twist sources in order to convince people that it is wrong. In other words, the ends justify the means. Alo Na’aleh finds a source permitting such tactics in the well-known Gemara in Pesachim 112a, where it says that הרוצה ליחנק היתלה באילן גדול, explained by Rashi there to mean that one is permitted to falsely quote his Rebbe if he knows the halacha to be true, and he won’t be listened to otherwise. However, Alo Na’aleh limits this heter to polemical works such asVayo’el Moshe.

While Alo Na’aleh does identify mistakes exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe, it has many flaws itself. It is often long-winded, bringing paragraphs from pro-Zionist authors having nothing to do with the issue at hand. In addition, there is a lack of consistency in the writing style, as entire articles, or pieces of articles, are brought down verbatim in the main body of the text, without any kind of indentation or other helpful citation. Besides for ruining the literary consistency, it can take an effort to know when the quotation ends. It is for these two reasons that Alo Na’aleh runs to a long 278 pages.

Another issue is the lack of clear organization in Alo Na’aleh.  Often, the text will give one response to Vayo’el Moshe, move on to a different response, then return to the first response without any warning. This can make it difficult to follow.

A good amount of research has gone into Alo Na’aleh, and the responses to the Satmar Rebbe are the most comprehensive to date. But it is a work marked by flaws: technical errors, a propensity to go off on tangents, and a lack of clarity in its argumentation. A respectable effort that falls short of its promise[6].

 

* I would like to thank Eliezer Brodt for reviewing this post, and my father for editing it.

[1] Although the Satmar Rebbe (meaning R’ Yoel, as opposed to his father)  wasn’t the first to attack Zionism based on (pseudo-) halachic sources, he was the one to have the biggest impact. For a short scholarly discussion of the Samar Rebbe’s opposition to Zionism (focusing on his interpretation of the Three Oaths), see יצחק קראוס, שלש השבועות כיסוד למשנתו האנטי-צונית של ר’ יואל טייטלבאום, עבודת גמר לתואר מוסמך בפילוסופיה יהודית, האוניברסיטה העיברית בבלטימור, תש”נ. A general history of discussion of the Three Oaths is given by Mordechai Breur: מרדכי ברויאר, ‘הדיון בשלוש השבועות בדורות האחרונים’, גאולה ומדינה, ירושלים תשל”ט, עמ’ 49- 57. For a history of Eastern European Chareidi opposition to Zionism, see יוסף שלמון, ‘תגובת החרדים במזרח אירופה לציונות מדינית’, הציונות ומתנגדיה בעם היהודי, ירושלים תש”נ, עמ’ 51- 73.

[2] R’ Tzion seems to claim at the end of his introduction (pg. 14) that the book basically consists of his writing down the responses of R’ Aviner; however, from R’ Aviner’s haskamah it is clear that the R’ Tzion had a much substantial part in the writing of the book.

[3] Shalmon (ibid., footnote 1), says that that was a second edition. I am not sure when the first edition was published, and what the difference was between the first and second editions.

[4] This book claims that a large part of Vayo’el Moshe was forged!

[5] The Radvaz proves this from the famous Gemara in Sanhedrin 99a, where R’ Hillel says that Mashiach will never come, since there was only a one-time chance in the time of Chizkiyahu Hamelech. R’ Yosef there responds to this statement of R’ Hillel by saying, “Hashem should forgive him” (שרי ליה מריה), and does not degrade him. As to whether R’ Hillel’s statement makes him a heretic, see Marc Shapiro’s Limits of Orthodox Theology. R’ Tzion on page 10 quotes a responsum from R’ Yehuda Hertzel Henkin, a grandson of R’ Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, that Chazal even refrained from degrading the famous heretic Elisha ben Avuyah (Shu”t B’nei Banim 2:34). With respect to R’ Henkin, I find this attitude of respect to one’s enemies he attributes to Chazal does not  fit in with hundreds of examples throughout the generations of Torah leaders’ harshness to enemies and heretics. Even Elisha ben Avuyah was branded “Acher” (“The Other”) by Chazal, which is not the most respectful title.

[6] The most comprehensive discussion if the Three Oaths that is also well organized is נפש עדה in נחלת יעקב, mentioned earlier in the bibliography.

From Seforim, here.

How the Haggada Was Compiled

Who Wrote the Haggada?

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

The authorship of the Pesach hagadda is a subject which is both intriguing and mysterious, with no clear answers. In fact, it is a book which has evolved from its original form over time, and continues to do so. Indeed, one will readily notice that there are a multitude of different editions of the modern day haggada available, each of which often include a variety of supplementary readings. The name of the haggada derives from the Torah which commands us “And you shall tell (v’higgadeta) your children on that day”.[1]

The haggada, as was the case concerning the siddur, and even the Tanach itself, were projects initiated by the Anshei Knesset Hagedola, the members of the “Great Assembly” who were the first to compile and canonize many of the texts that we have today. The haggada, however, was only started during this era but it was not completed until much later. For example, it is evident that the “chad gadya” poem which is sung at the conclusion of the seder only found its way into the haggada at a much later time. This is becausechad gadya is written in Aramaic which was the vernacular of the Jews of Babylon.  Indeed, it is worth noting that one is required to read the haggada in a language which one understands.[2] Some suggest thatchad gadya was written by Rabbi Eliezer Rokeach.[3] Even though chad gadya is not among the original or even the halachically required readings of the seder, we are taught that one who intentionally omits it “deserves to be excommunicated”.[4] On the other hand, the famous and beloved “ma nishtana” reading which is generally reserved for the children is clearly of older origin, as it is taken directly from the Mishna.[5] In contrast to “chad gadya“, it is likely that “adir bimlucha“, originated in the Land of Israel.[6]

Similarly, the section of the haggada which mentions the rabbis who stayed awake all night in Bnei Brak discussing the Exodus from Egypt is cited in the works of the Tosfot.[7] We know that the “avadim hayinu” section was written by Rabbi Elazar Hagadol.[8] The closing passage of “chasal siddur pesach” was added to the haggada by Rabbi Yosef Tur-Elam.[9] The Maharil seems to be the first authority to cite the poem “vayehi b’chatzi halayla“.

There are a number of other haggadic pieces such as “kamaa ma’alot tovot“, “vayered mitzrayim“, “Rabban Gamliel” and “nishmat” which can be traced to the Talmudic era.[10] We know that Rashi’s haggada included the “dayeinu“, a poem which was likely introduced by Rav Saadia Gaon.[11]

It is interesting to note that in theory one can fulfill the mitzva of reading the “haggada” by merely focusing on those passages which discuss the symbolic meaning of the Pesach offering, the Matza, and the Marror. Nevertheless, to properly fulfill the mitzva of teaching the story of the Exodus from Egypt one should certainly read the entire haggada. The first known printed haggada as we have it today was printed in 1485 in Venice, Italy.


[1] Shemot 13:5

[2] Rema O.C. 473:6, Rivevot Ephraim 1:302:2

[3] 1160 CE -1238 CE

[4] Chaim Shaal 1:28

[5] Pesachim 116a

[6] Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana 4

[7] Ketubot 105a

[8] Mechilta;Bo, approximately 195 CE

[9] Died 1040 CE

[10] Yoma 74b, Pesachim 118b, Pesachim 109a, Tosefta Sukka 3,

[11] 882 CE – 942 CE

From Torah Musings, here.